The separation between ‘cash’ and ‘care’ is deeply rooted in the structure and traditions of the British welfare state. Policies relating to cash have traditionally been concerned primarily with replacing or supplementing income from paid employment; cash payments have been delivered through the social security or income tax systems. Policies relating to care have generally focused on the provision of services, funded by the state and delivered by a range of statutory and voluntary agencies. This traditional division between cash and care was underpinned by assumptions about the responsibilities of families and the different roles of women and men within them; about patterns of authority and deference in relationships between professional providers and lay users of services; and about the underlying divisions of rights and responsibilities between the welfare state and citizens.

As many of the chapters in this book show, this traditional division between cash and care is no longer so marked and is beginning to break down. This is seen particularly clearly with the introduction of cash payments of different kinds as alternatives to the provision of services; and also in the increasing focus in social protection policies on combating social exclusion rather than simply replacing or supplementing a lack of income. To a considerable extent these changes reflect the increasing dominance of market arrangements both within welfare states and in the wider society in general. Moreover, they are not peculiar to Britain, as the contributions from Breda et al (Flanders, Belgium), Kreimer (Austria), Saunders (Australia) and Wærness (Norway) show. Although these countries represent very different traditions and welfare regimes, they have nevertheless experienced many similar trends.

Challenging assumptions about care work

The contributions in Part Two of this volume outlined some of the theoretical perspectives on care work. Feminism has challenged the traditional domestic gender division of labour that assigned primary responsibility for breadwinning to men and for caring and housework to women. As Lewis points out, increased female participation in the labour market, rising rates of divorce and relationship breakdown and the growth in lone parenthood have also all contributed to undermining the gendered assumptions and roles embodied in the traditional married male breadwinner family model of social policy.