What’s wrong with money?

Caring and carers - Flickr user: Kai Hendry
Photo: Kai Hendry via Flickr

Care Services  Minister Paul Burstow’s latest idea for alleviating the deepening social care crisis is Hureai Kippu , or ‘caring relationship tickets’. This is a scheme which originated in Japan, whereby people volunteer to help older people who require care and support . In return they receive a credit which they can bank in anticipation of the day that they need care themselves, or they can transfer their credit to a relative so that they can obtain care.  In the UK we have for many years had a not dissimilar system of exchange called ‘money’. People make a contribution to society and in return receive ‘money’ which they can then put aside to buy care.

So what’s wrong with money? Well for a start local authorities don’t have much of it. The monetarisation of relationships can also be criticised for de-humanising relationships, and it can be seen as a sad condemnation of society that many people who need care never see anyone who is not paid to be there. On the other hand, cash payments that are supposed to turn people into empowered consumers of care services, are seen by many disabled people as the key to independence and choice.

In fact evidence from Japan indicates that Hureai Kippu works. Older people prefer to receive care from someone who is being paid with ‘care relationship tickets’ rather than someone who is being paid cash. And there is a growing body of literature on the benefits of alternative systems of exchange, such as time banking and Local Exchange Trading Systems. These alternative currencies can foster local relationships and, since everyone’s contribution is valued equally, promote equality.

The problem with the latter argument is that not everyone will be able to accumulate credits, or has children to do it for them. The success of such local schemes is likely to be based on the characteristics of the community – for example whether people have free time, whether they have strong roots in the area or are transient.

Hureai Kippu seems distinctive in that, in order to work, it has to be rolled out on a large scale, and people have to trust that their credits will still be valued by future generations. In a climate where people don’t trust the state to care for them in their old age, don’t trust insurance companies and don’t trust banks why should they trust in the value of ‘caring relationship tickets?’. It might also be the case that the success of timebanking schemes and LETS derives from the fact that they are usually small and that their character would change if they were developed on a much larger scale.

So Hureai Kippu might be worth trying out, but  as with the ‘Big Society’ the trouble is not so much the idea itself but the ambitious  claims being made for what it can achieve.

‘Caring Relationship tickets’ along with other big society ideas for encouraging small scale, neighbourhood and mutual support can make a significant contribution to changing people’s lives. But replacing social care services, or even mitigating the impact of cuts to services is another matter altogether. Social care services for older people are now concentrated on those with the greatest need. Family carers often have to develop skills comparable to those of specialised nurses in order to provide such care – it’s not a role for untrained volunteers.

One thought on “What’s wrong with money?”

  1. Great blog post – I think you hit the nail on the head. I wrote a similar blog post, but something struck me since then in discussions with the daughter of one of our customers, who said we had allowed her to return to her previous relationship with her father. When caring for a parent you can end up losing the parent – child interaction to the new, dominant carer – cared-for relationship.
    With taxes, national insurance and office overheads, your take-home pay as a home care worker would not cover an equal amount of care that you need to be provided for a relative, so typically people would do the caring for the relative themselves, with the loss of the relationship it has.
    A time-bank approach would have no income tax, national insurance, overheads etc, so, in the simplest sense, two people could each care for the other’s relative and therefore get the benefit of fully-paid care and the relationship they once had.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s