In the introduction to this collection we highlighted the value of the ethics of care not only in enabling a critique of policy and practice, but as a way of transforming this. Here we offer further reflections drawing on the specific contributions made by chapter authors. The ethics of care is a way of thinking about politics, social practices and the everyday-life considerations of people in diverse circumstances. It provides a perspective that connects values – the things that ‘matter’ to people (Sayer, 2011), the practical help and support they need when times are hard, the relationships through which they feel recognised and valued and the political priorities that govern public decision making. We write this at a time when confidence in democratic systems is at a low ebb. People are frustrated at the apparent lack of political will to address concerns about inequality, adequate health services, fair and equal rights, decent employment rights and a living wage. Despite the fall-out from the 2008 financial crisis, the supremacy of market values remains largely unquestioned. Enduring inequalities and injustice reach beyond the local and national to the global. Disillusionment with the political establishment's willingness to confront injustice undermines confidence in democracy.

What can the ethics of care contribute in this situation? Care is part of everyone's everyday lives; the issues that care raises about how we live together, what we think is good or ‘right’, and how we take responsibility for the allocation of resources to meet basic human needs are enduring ones. Care is political. Questions about who cares for whom have long been recognised by feminists as political as well as personal issues. As demographic shifts and global mobility foreground questions of who cares for an ageing population, we confront the dangers of intergenerational conflict. This conflict, and the broader debates about ‘fairness’ and ‘deservedness’ in relation to welfare, are constructed within ‘common sense’ neoliberal assumptions about the limits within which public spending should be focused on ensuring well-being (Hall and O’Shea, 2013). While politicians appeal to ‘hard working families’ as the bedrock of society, Tronto (2013) asks how society can be organised to acknowledge and prioritise the caring relationships and responsibilities that people, often women, have in their lives, in a balance with work responsibilities.