SPECIAL ISSUE Cash for long‐term care: Policy debates, visions, and designs on the move Barbara Da Roit 1 | Blanche Le Bihan 2 1 Ca' Foscari University of Venice, Department of Philosophy and Cultural Heritage, Venice, Italy 2 Université de Rennes, Ecole des hautes études en santé publique and Research Centre Arènes (UMR 6051), Rennes, France Correspondence Barbara Da Roit, Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Dipartimento di Filosofia e Beni Culturali, Palazzo Malcanton‐Marcorà, Dorsoduro 3484/D, Venezia 30123, IT. Email: barbara.daroit@unive.it Abstract Cash‐for‐care (CfC) schemes have introduced a key trans- formation in long‐term care policies across Europe since the 1990s. The article explores the extent to which CfC pol- icies have changed over time and into which directions, the ways in which change (if any) has occurred and the forces underlying it. By combining the literature on institutional change with ideational approaches, the article focuses on policy theories and policy designs, on modes of change and factors pushing for change within the CfC policy, and in the long‐term care and neighbouring policy fields. In doing so, we aim to contribute to understanding institu- tional change and the transformation of an increasingly important sector of the welfare state. KEYWORDS cash‐for‐care, gradual institutional change, long‐term care 1 | INTRODUCTION The 1990s have been a crucial period of reforms in the field of long‐term care (LTC), one of the main transformations being the introduction of policies based on cash‐for‐care (CfC) schemes. These are cash benefits provided to people in need of care, which can be used to arrange one's own care either through the compensation of informal caregivers or through the purchase of professional/market services. CfC simultaneously involves the existence of a budget to be spent on an individual user and the user's choice on how to spend the budget. Other schemes that may involve either choice (among different services or different providers) or a personalized budget (on which, for instance, a professional exerts choice) would not qualify as CfC (see the introduction to this special issue). Therefore, schemes providing direct support to informal caregivers through cash benefits (e.g., the UK Carer's allowance and its Swedish equivalent) are not considered as CfC, but rather as interventions to support informal caregivers in the broader LCT policy field. Comparative research looking at CfC schemes across Europe has shown that CfC policies had many commonalities, at the time of their introduction, and to some extent not only represented a break with the past but also served Received: 2 October 2018 Revised: 28 February 2019 Accepted: 2 April 2019 DOI: 10.1111/spol.12506 Soc Policy Admin. 2019;1–18. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/spol 1