Introduction

In comparative research, Austria has been classified as a strong breadwinner state (Lewis and Ostner, 1994; Duncan, 1995), among other reasons because of the low level of formal care services. Millar and Warman (1995) describe the Austrian care system as based on a nuclear family model. Bettio and Plantenga (2004) characterise Austria (and Germany) as a publicly facilitated private care system, with a large private informal care sector based on strong family obligations to provide care; within this the role of the state is to give financial support to the family. Thus, Austrian welfare policy is ‘service lean’ but very ‘transfer heavy’ (Esping-Andersen, 1996, p 67).

Consequently, informal care – mostly provided by women within the family – plays an important role. These informal caregivers have no or only limited access of their own to the social security system, and instead depend for the most part on a (male) breadwinner. However, there are increasing numbers of lone parents, and women living in poverty in Austria. These problems, together with debates about the crisis of the Austrian social security system, increasing demand for long-term care and the diminishing supply of informal family care, suggest that the breadwinner-oriented welfare state is no longer appropriate, particularly in the light of changing gender roles in the labour market and the family.

Since the early 1990s two important reforms have taken place: in 1993 the long-term care allowance was introduced and in 2002 a universal childcare allowance replaced the former parental leave benefit. Together with reforms in the social security system (such as the introduction in 1995 of pension credits for periods of childcare and leave entitlements to care for a terminally ill person introduced in 2002), it could be argued that the Austrian welfare state is beginning to assign a higher value to informal family care.

This chapter addresses two questions. First, the reforms described above are intended to improve the social security and income situations of informal family carers. Do they therefore represent a move towards ‘caregiving parity’ (Fraser, 1994) for informal carers? Second, the arguments in favour of these new payments for care have focused on their role in extending freedom of choice. Do informal carers and/or the people they care for actually experience greater freedom of choice now, compared to before the introduction of the cash benefits?