The Vulnerability and Injustices Faced by Young Carers in Developed Societies

Abstract

Around 2–8% of children and adolescents in developed societies are young carers, who provide care for ill, disabled, or addicted family members. This paper investigates the vulnerability and multidimensional injustices faced by young carers, drawing on empirical studies—both qualitative and quantitative—and social theory to reveal how young carers navigate their roles within the broader context of social inequality, highlighting the social structures and mechanisms that contribute to their marginalization and the detrimental consequences for their social inclusion, well-being, and personal development. The methodology of this article is a narrative analysis of relevant empirical research on young carers, combined with an analysis of this literature through a normative framework of social justice, which examines four dimensions of justice in order to highlight the vulnerability of young carers. (1) Firstly, young carers are often pushed into their situation because of economic and social constraints, which do not allow the family to find a different solution. Economic inequalities lead to and enforce caring obligations and have a cumulative negative effect on the young carer. Limited resources can be problematic for social inclusion, and when combined with caring obligations, they are corrosive. (2) Secondly, young carers are often victims of moral blackmail, which is that they are trapped in a situation where it would be morally wrong for them to act otherwise. Such moral blackmail can be carried out by those who are cared for, by the family and relatives or even by society, which could, but does not provide alternatives to young carers. (3) Thirdly, young carers are often manipulated to accept their caring obligations through distorted social norms and practices. Other than in the case of moral blackmail, such young carers do not care because they want to do the morally right thing and do have no alternatives available, but because they internalized that it would be normal for them to do so. Two concepts are useful to capture this aspect: adaptive preferences and indoctrination. (4) Fourthly, young people caring is often a form of exploitation, in that it takes unfair advantage of the young carer by receiving something from them, without giving an equivalent in return (and harming them in the process).

1. Introduction

In developed societies, the phenomenon of young carers—children and adolescents who provide care for ill, disabled, or addicted family members—presents a critical, yet often overlooked area of social injustice [1,2]. The vulnerability of young carers is exacerbated by broader social and economic structures that not only fail to support them adequately but also actively contribute to their marginalization. This paper seeks to explore the multidimensional injustices faced by young carers through a rigorous analysis of empirical studies and social theory, highlighting the social mechanisms that perpetuate their vulnerability and hinder their social inclusion, well-being, and personal development.

The methodology of this article is a narrative analysis of relevant empirical research on young carers, combined with an analysis of this literature through a normative framework of social justice, which examines four dimensions of justice in order to highlight the vulnerability of young carers. The selection of studies follows an extensive literature search in common databases (primarily Google Scholar) and is based on the principles of a narrative review. The studies were selected according to the following criteria: quality (ensured through peer review or clear methodological discussion and transparency) and relevance (a strong connection to the topic of young carers), with a clear focus on the Global North (including geographical distribution and various age groups). This led to the inclusion of mostly qualitative studies, but also some reviews, because they are of particular importance, as they provide an overview of the current state of research and condense and summarize key insights across multiple individual studies. Together the studies analyzed in this paper provide an exemplary representation of the research landscape and serve as the foundation for identifying and synthesizing key insights into the challenges of young carers, which were interpretated using a normative framework of social justice.

This paper identifies four injustices which young carers face: (1) Firstly, young carers are often pushed into their situation because often economic and social constraints, which do not allow the family to find a different solution. Economic inequalities lead to and enforce caring obligations and have a cumulative negative effect on the young carer. Limited resources can be problematic for social inclusion and combined with caring obligations they are corrosive. (2) Secondly, young carers are often victims of moral blackmail, which is that they are trapped in a situation where it would be morally wrong for them to act otherwise. Such moral blackmail can be carried out by those who are cared for, by the family and relatives or even by society, which could but does not provide alternatives to young carers. (3) Thirdly, young carers are often manipulated to accept their caring obligations through distorted social norms and practices. Other than in the case of moral blackmail, such young carers do not care because they want to do the morally right thing and do have no alternatives available, but because they internalized that it would be normal for them to do so. Two concepts are useful to capture this aspect: adaptive preferences and indoctrination. (4) Fourthly, young people caring is often a form of exploitation, in that it takes unfair advantage of the young carer by receiving something from them, without giving an equivalent in return (and harming them in the process).

It is crucial to complement these findings with a social–theoretical perspective that interrogates the underlying structures of injustice and inequality that shape their lives. By framing the issue as one of social justice, we move beyond mere observation to a critical analysis that questions the fairness of the distribution of care responsibilities and the systemic factors that contribute to the exploitation and marginalization of young carers.

2. Young Carers in High Developed Countries

Children and adolescents across the world and since the beginning of human history have been caring for other family members and relatives. So, the phenomenon is by no means new or limited to certain societies—what is new, however, is that the view of these caring children and young people has changed, and we need to reassess their situation. There are several interrelated reasons for this. Firstly, the understanding of what a child is and what a child should or may do has changed. If one subscribes to historical childhood research, the ideas about childhood that are widespread in Western countries today are relatively recent [3]. They are, therefore, historically and culturally relative, but not normatively arbitrary. The insight that childhood is a vulnerable phase of life and that children have special rights (and fewer duties) than adults is historically recent and not shared in all cultures, but it is ethically justifiable and morally sound [4,5,6]. Secondly, in recent decades, a welfare state has evolved in many highly developed countries, which has taken on many of the tasks formerly assigned to the family, including caring for young people’s needs in all possible areas of life (kindergarten, school, health care, etc.). This development and the governmentalization and socialization of social security and the provision of care for all who need it is also a moral progression and an expression of an expansion of justice that can be justified by different normative theories [7]. Third, empirical research on young carers is relatively young, but in the last two and a half decades it has brought to light more and more insights that make it possible to better understand what such a task means for children and adolescents and what problems are associated with it [1].

Against this background, it seems reasonable to pose the question of how the situation of young carers is to be assessed from the perspective of justice. This perspective thus focuses on society and the state (and its institutions) and not on the moral duties of single individuals. The term young carers must be defined more precisely for this purpose. We want to use it in such a way that it encompasses children and adolescents caring until their 18th birthday. Other age limits are also used in the literature, for example, the carer’s 25th birthday. We orientate ourselves on the common border between childhood and adulthood, which is the 18th birthday, even if we are aware that this border has a certain arbitrariness and a precise separation between children and adults is not possible [8,9,10]. Some adults have similar abilities to children, while some children have similar abilities to adults at a very early age. The question of how to define childhood and what normatively relevant characteristics children possess, however, only concerns us marginally here. The group of young carers is nevertheless extremely heterogeneous, as pre-school children are of course very different from adolescents. Then, we think it makes sense to use as broad a term as possible, but not too broad, of what should be understood here as care. In a certain sense, every child and every adolescent probably does care work and looks after other family members or relatives from time to time, provides comfort, brings soup to the sickbed or helps their father with shopping if he has a broken foot. Such activities are also essential for what we call family (or friendship). When we talk about young carers, however, we are talking about care and nursing in a quantitatively and qualitatively more extensive way. It is then about extensive and regular (unpaid) support for a family member with a (chronic) illness, disability, mental disorder, addiction or age-related weakness [1,2,11]. To what extent more detailed provisions are necessary for this definition (what does “extensive” or “regular” mean?) is not our concern to be clarified here. The activities that can fall under this definition, however, are diverse and include household activities (laundry washing, cleaning, cooking, shopping) as well as caring activities such as administering medication, helping with personal hygiene, dressing, and moving around or psychological support.

There are now relatively valid data on how many children and adolescents perform such regular and extensive caring activities for family members. The study conducted by Agnes Leu, Marianne Frech, Hannah Wepf, Joe Sempik, Stephen Joseph, Laura Helbling, Urs Moser, Saul Becker, and Corinna Jung aimed to identify the number of young carers in Switzerland [12]. An online survey was conducted among 4082 students aged 10–15, drawn from 230 schools. The study found that 7.7% of respondents, equating to an estimated 38,400 young carers in Switzerland, take on significant caregiving roles. When extrapolated to include children aged 9–16, the number rises to approximately 51,500. In their study, Stephen Joseph, Claire Kendall, Deirdre Toher, Joe Sempik, Jennifer Holland, and Saul Becker aimed to examine the prevalence and nature of young carers in England [13]. The research utilized a survey distributed to 925 students aged 11–15 across various regions in England. The findings revealed that approximately 7% of young people engage in a high level of caregiving activities, while 3% are involved in very high levels of care. The research found that a significant proportion of young carers are female. Specifically, 59% of the young carers surveyed identified as female, compared to 37% who identified as male. The study also highlights that female young carers tend to engage in more intensive caregiving activities, particularly in domestic and emotional care domains. In their study, Aurélie Untas, Eléonore Jarrige, Christel Vioulac, and Géraldine Dorard investigated the prevalence and characteristics of adolescent young carers in France [14], which found that 14.3% of these adolescents provided a high level of care to ill or disabled relatives, with the majority of these young carers being female. In their study, Sabine Metzing, Thomas Ostermann, Sibylle Robens, and Michael Galatsch aimed to determine the prevalence and characteristics of young carers in Germany through the KiFam study [15]. A total of 6.1% of the participants were regularly involved in caregiving activities at home, with a notable 64% of them being female. These young carers often took on a wide range of responsibilities, including household chores, mobility assistance, personal hygiene, and even intimate care.

The situation of young carers is often difficult, and we only aim to provide a brief insight into the problems and concerns that arise from this situation. Studies have shown that young carers often find their situation stressful—they worry about the person they care for, have less time for themselves and their social contacts, for school and extracurricular activities and neglect themselves [2,16,17]. Caring is often exhausting and a health burden for children and adolescents, they eat and sleep badly. In one study, 81% of young carers said they care about the health of the person they care for, 67% care about their own health, 58% care about the behavior of the person they care for, and 53% care about who will care for that person in the future [18]. Young carers are more likely to have psychological problems, including self-injury and suicidal thoughts. But not only is the situation at home a burden for young carers, but contact with other children, adolescents, and with adults, including social workers and public agencies, can create stress and can be tedious. In the study by Joseph and Kendall [13], young carers were found to suffer from poorer health and well-being compared to their peers. This includes a higher likelihood of depressive states, increased levels of worry, and more frequent absences from education due to their caregiving responsibilities. The study emphasizes that these negative outcomes are more prevalent among young carers, suggesting that the burden of caregiving at a young age can lead to significant long-term impacts on their mental health and educational achievements. The already cited study by Metzing confirms this and shows that young carers suffer from poorer health and decreased well-being as a result of the care responsibilities they take on [15]. The main reasons for this are stress and the psychological and physical strain caused by caregiving. The consequences for children and adolescents include social withdrawal or simply a lack of time and resources to participate in social activities, pursue their education, or focus on their personal development. These findings—on the burden and overburdening effects of care work on young carers—are consistently reported and confirmed in nearly all studies, including systematic reviews [19,20]. It is not only the psychological strain, such as stress, depression, anxiety, or emotional distress, that affects them, but also their physical health, which suffers due to sleep deprivation and sleep difficulties, pain (particularly musculoskeletal), headaches, neglect of health issues, and long-term physical consequences. These problems are influenced, among other factors, by how young the caregiving person is, how much time must be devoted to care work—some young carers spend more than 20 h per week on these tasks—and how close the relationship to the person in need of care is, particularly whether they live in the same household, which often means being available almost around the clock. Considering that adolescence is a formative phase that significantly influences further psychological and physical development, these insights are particularly important to consider.

Young carers also tend to hide and keep their caring activities secret, which makes it harder to help them. Aldridge discusses the challenges in identifying young carers, noting that many remain invisible to social services and other support systems [1]. Untas and colleagues also discuss the “hidden” nature of young carers, particularly in France, where identification is challenging due to inconsistent methods and societal reluctance to acknowledge the existence of young carers [14]. This invisibility is due to a combination of factors, including a lack of self-identification among young carers and insufficient recognition by professionals. Certainly, the nature of the problem that necessitates help and care plays a role in the development and perception from outside as well as gender roles and stereotypes influence how young carers are seen or perceive themselves. However, the role of a young carer should not only be seen from the perspective of stress and negative effects, as this can obscure the fact that (some) children and adolescents are quite capable of reflecting on their role and themselves and of perceiving their own capacity for action and agency [21,22,23]. Childhood and youth research increasingly recognizes children and adolescents as active agents in their own lives. This perspective is indeed double-edged, as it acknowledges that while children and adolescents are active participants, they are also vulnerable and should not be overwhelmed with responsibilities [24,25,26,27,28]. This duality is particularly central in research on young carers, where the balance between their agency and their need for protection is a key insight. For example, Margaret Gowen’s research highlights the active agency of young carers in England [29]. The study underscores how young carers are not just passive participants, but actively engage in decision-making processes regarding the care they provide. Their agency is demonstrated in how they manage their responsibilities, often developing strategies to balance their caregiving duties with their educational and social lives. In this sense, young carers should not only be conceptualized as helpless victims, but also as powerful subjects who can articulate their own wishes and ideas and who should be listened to. Still, they often are trapped in their situation and, as adolescents, they have a right to be protected from that.

3. Injustices Faced by Young Carers

Apart from the lack of sufficient social inclusion, the life of young carers is determined by further injustices, which we aim to explore here. We are concerned here with two interrelated but nevertheless distinguishable effects. On the one hand, social injustices lead to children and young people being pushed into the role of young carers, and they have to take on these tasks, although they are actually overtaxed or have other negative effects on their social inclusion or their well-being development. On the other hand, the adoption of caring activities by children and adolescents creates injustices in their lives. The phenomena discussed here are almost all to be understood that they stand in the background of the life situation of young carers—they do not have to occur but are often the case. They lead to young carers becoming or remaining trapped in their situation, and they have effects on the self-perception and development opportunities of young carers and thus also effects on how well they are included in society or how such inclusion is possible for them.

3.1. Economic and Social Inequalities

Firstly, young carers are often pushed into their situation because of economic and social constraints, which do not allow the family to find a different solution. Economic inequalities lead to and enforce caring obligations and have a cumulative negative effect on the young carer. Limited resources can be problematic for social inclusion and when combined with caring obligations, they are corrosive. A number of studies have shown that there is a connection between financial hardship and care work being taken over by children and young people [23,30]. The empirical results of a recent study, for example, show that young carers are disproportionately affected by stagnating levels of income in real terms and declining employment incomes, which have been generated in recent years by the financial crisis, economic downturn, and austerity measures [31]. In the study by Metzing et al., it is noted that a considerable portion of young carers reported their family’s financial situation as inadequate [15]. Specifically, more than 20% of young carers and “supporters” (a group involved in caregiving but not classified as young carers) described their family’s financial situation as “rather scarce,” compared to only 8.7% of non-carers who reported similar financial difficulties. This highlights a significant link between the socioeconomic status of a family and the likelihood of children becoming young carers. Similarly, in the study by Untas et al., the authors point out that adolescent young carers are more likely to live in single-parent households and households facing financial difficulties [14]. The compounded stress and responsibility placed on young carers from low-income families further exacerbates their mental health and social challenges. Through a qualitative analysis of interviews with young carers and their families, Helen Alexander reveals that young carers often bear a disproportionate share of caregiving duties due to the lack of external support, which deepens existing social and economic inequalities.

This economic pressure not only increases the need for caregiving within the family but also limits the resources available to support these young carers, thus placing additional burdens on their well-being and development. It also seems plausible and convincing that in families that cannot afford external care and support, children and young people are used as a substitute for such activities. Chronic diseases and disabilities are associated with a much higher risk of poverty in almost all welfare states. Financial resources are severely limited in the case of the reduced ability to work, since the state’s compensation payments are too low in almost all cases [32,33,34]. Of course, the welfare state provision is better than no security at all, it is just not sufficient to protect against poverty and social exclusion and, therefore, forces these families to look for other strategies to receive this care as cheaply as possible or even free of charge. Children and young people living in the home, but also other relatives, are an obvious solution. In addition, children and young people have a good sense of the family’s financial situation and know that external help is not affordable [18,35]. Even if it is burdensome for them, young carers know that there is actually no real alternative to caring for them, as the family’s resources are insufficient, and the welfare state does not provide sufficient support. This situation is therefore unfair because children and young people are brought into a situation on the basis of economic inequalities and poverty, which they cannot cope with and which has harmful consequences for them (including their education, health, and social inclusion) [6,35,36,37,38].

3.2. Moral Blackmail

Secondly, young carers are often victims of moral blackmail, in that they are trapped in a situation where it would be morally wrong for them to act otherwise. Such moral blackmail can be carried out by those who are cared for, by the family and relatives or even by society, which could but does not provide alternatives to young carers. Here, we use the somewhat broader definition of moral blackmail, as elaborated by Simon Keller [39], who also illuminates it specifically in the context of the family. Moral blackmail means changing a person’s situation so that it is wrong for them not to do what is asked of them; it is about getting them to do something by making the alternatives morally unacceptable. We think that the institution of young carers is often determined by such moral blackmail, so that through care and support they do the morally right thing, but have to do it because they cannot find an acceptable alternative. The situation here is quite complicated for all involved in the family. On the one hand, there are the children and young people who want to do the right thing—be there for their family members and support them. This is morally sound intuition, since families should be characterized by such mutual help and support. However, the relationship between parents and children is normatively more complex than that between parents [40,41]. Children are born into these family relationships and have (almost) no opportunities to leave them. They are also usually dependent on their parents, both emotionally and financially. In this sense, parent–child relationships are necessarily asymmetrical—an asymmetry that is significantly weakened in adult children, but can rarely be fully overcome—and children are particularly vulnerable to their parents [42,43]. On the other hand, parents who are chronically ill or disabled are themselves vulnerable and in a position of relative weakness and dependence. So, it is usually not they themselves who morally blackmail their children here, for example, by deliberately refusing possible help from outside in order to persuade their children to care for them. Of course, children and adolescents also care for other family members and relatives—but the case where children care for their parents is the most common. Moral blackmail is much more frequently—as Keller rightly suspects— carried out by the state or its institutions and policies, which on the one hand take advantage of special family relationships because they know that family members will step in. On the other hand, they design their policies in such a way that families in need receive too little support. Evidence for this can be found in such studies as by Guro Wisth Øydgard [44], which examines institutional discourses, such as moral and family obligation, shared care, and task-specific care, and shows that they significantly influence how informal carers perceive their responsibilities and interact with formal care systems. Informal carers often feel compelled to meet expectations set by public services, even when these expectations are not formally mandated. This dynamic creates a framework where informal carers are pressured to fill gaps in care that the formal system does not cover, leading to feelings of inadequacy and frustration.

The welfare state, therefore, does not fulfill its duty to care for sick and disabled or addicted people in families, and at least accepts that children and adolescents step in at their own expense. Of course, this applies especially to families who do not have sufficient networks or financial resources to find and pay for other external help. We have already mentioned this above. In the case of children and young people, such moral blackmail is even more problematic, as they have even fewer personal and social resources at their disposal to evade this blackmail and cannot pay anyone else to carry out their care tasks. An adult can also be blackmailed by the state to take care of their own parents, but sometimes they have other resources to take over this care—be it because there are financial resources to hire external carers or going to court to obtain appropriate care from the state. Adults can also, even if it is painful, get out of moral blackmail more easily and not comply with it than is possible for minor children in the same household. That is why the care sometimes also remains with the children and young people, because not only the welfare state withdraws, but also other adult relatives or friends do not want to or cannot step in and leave the children alone with their care obligation. This pushes young carers into a moral dilemma. This is shown, for example, in Boyle’s study, which touches on the ethical dilemmas faced by young carers, particularly, how they navigate their roles out of a sense of moral responsibility and love for their family members. The study emphasizes that while these carers often feel a deep moral obligation to care for their loved ones, this can lead to significant emotional and psychological burdens, as they struggle to balance their own needs with the demands placed on them by their caregiving roles. Geraldine Boyle explores the concept of moral resilience among young carers, focusing on how these individuals navigate the ethical and emotional challenges associated with their caregiving roles [45]. Young carers often develop a strong sense of moral responsibility and ethical duty towards the people they care for, driven by a combination of familial love and societal expectations. This moral framework helps them cope with the significant burdens they bear but also places them at risk of emotional exhaustion and stress and sometimes leads to internal conflicts and feelings of guilt if young carers perceive themselves as failing in their duties. Furthermore, Metzing’s study discusses how societal expectations about caregiving within the family can lead to young carers being under-identified and under-supported [15]. The norm that caregiving is a private family matter means that young carers often remain invisible to professionals and services that could provide help. This invisibility is compounded by the reluctance of some families to seek external assistance due to cultural or social stigmas.

3.3. Manipulation

Thirdly, young carers are often manipulated to accept their caring obligations through distorted social norms and practices. Other than in the case of moral blackmail, such young carers do not care because they want to do the morally right thing and do have no alternatives available, but because they internalized that they prefer to do that or because it would be normal for them to do so. Two concepts are useful to capture this aspect: adaptive preferences and indoctrination.

An adaptive preference arises when people actually devalue their favorite options because they are no longer available to them [46,47]. They then not only settle for a worse option, but have adapted their preferences in such a way that they feel that the worse option is the one they actually want. That is why adaptive preferences are so problematic for the people involved and for those who want to help them, as well as for the ethical assessment of a person’s situation. It is articulated by people in such a way that they really want what they want or really want what they have. In reality, however, they have only adapted their aspirations to the circumstances and to what they can have or already have. In a very broad sense, every person develops adaptive preferences during his or her life, thereby creating psychological relief and well-being for himself or herself. After all, it is better to be satisfied with less than one would have liked from time to time from the point of view of merely subjective well-being. Adaptive preferences are problematic above all if they occur in the context of strong injustices and oppressive or exploitative conditions and are formed there by the victims, who not only come to terms with their bad life situation, but also help to legitimize and stabilize it [48]. Adaptive preferences can occur in the context of young carers, even if, as far as we know, no empirical studies exist that explicitly apply this concept. The situation of young carers, however, is analogous and comparable to other situations that have been well researched, such as adaptive preferences of women in the context of global poverty, the female adoption of care work or child poverty [48,49,50,51,52]. Young carers can develop adaptive preferences as a response to different framework conditions: meaningful alternatives are not possible for them because there is no money, the welfare state or other relatives or friends cannot or do not want to offer help. The formation of an adaptive preference can thus be a subjective reaction to moral blackmail or economic constraints, but it can also follow other social norms and practices. For example, if the necessary care work within the family is mainly or exclusively imposed on the female family members, although male (sons, fathers, uncles) would also be available, then the female young carers regard their care roles as normal or even desired by themselves. Gowen discusses the ethical and moral pressures on young carers, particularly in the context of caring for a parent or sibling. The study highlights how young carers often internalize a sense of moral duty to provide care, which is compounded by societal expectations that reinforce these obligations. This internalization can lead to young carers feeling overwhelmed by the moral responsibility they feel towards their family members.

This brings us to the problem of indoctrination. Although adaptive preferences and indoctrination can be related—i.e., indoctrination can strengthen or facilitate the formation of adaptive preferences—they are separate phenomena [53]. Adaptive preferences can develop without being indoctrinated when young carers adapt to their situation and existing alternatives. Indoctrination, on the other hand, does not have to happen within the framework of deprived conditions, but can change and influence the formation of preferences and self-perception in all situations. Children and adolescents are particularly susceptible to indoctrination, indeed in a very broad sense, every education is a form of indoctrination, especially in the field of conveying worldviews, values, and convictions. The conviction that family members have a special obligation to care, which prevents them from accepting or seeking help from outside and to perceive their care work as morally binding, is in my view wrong and misguided. I have argued in some places in this paper that care and support are woven into the normative structure of family relationships and that it is morally right to assist and care for family members in need. However, it is wrong to twist and convey this normativity of family relationships within the framework of public or political discourses and institutions in such a way that it could follow that the assumption of excessive care by children and adolescents (but also by other adults, especially women) would be right. What would be right would be if, in cases where help and care are needed, the welfare state and its institutions help to such an extent that the relatives and, in particular, underage family members are sufficiently relieved. If within cultures—be it through their members or through organizations or even state institutions—a different picture is conveyed, one which presents it as correct, even as morally necessary, that care must be provided in the family and here also by children and adolescents or only by the female family members, indoctrination is practiced which can lead people into oppressive situations [54]. The idea that it would be morally right or even better for underage family members to provide care instead of external specialists puts these children and young people under pressure and can lead them to sacrifice themselves.

Stereotypes, social norms, practices, and institutional arrangements that promote a strikingly unequal distribution of care work between the sexes and make the persons concerned appear normal and right are an often observed phenomenon. Vivian Stamatopoulos [55] has shown in her research that there is a “young carers penalty,” which functions similarly to the “gendered care penalty.” When both penalties intersect, it is especially girls who suffer, as it is either expected of them or taken for granted that they perform care work, yet they receive little recognition and instead have to accept specific disadvantages. The young carers penalty is expressed in the fact that these children miss out on educational opportunities, cannot grow up in peace, are overwhelmed, or—as shown at the beginning of this paper—have to deal with numerous social, psychological, and physical disadvantages. The fact that it is social norms that draw young carers into their situations and exert pressure on them is confirmed by many other studies [1,56,57]. In particular, prevailing ideas that children should take care of their parents, that they are responsible for them when the state fails, or that help from outside should not be sought at all because it is the children’s responsibility—especially that of girls—lead to gendered disadvantages. These girls are pushed into roles in which they are expected to subordinate their own life plans to the care of others. The resulting injustice, namely, that these children and adolescents have fewer opportunities than their peers, is accepted. Often even by the young carers themselves, who adopt these roles as a coping mechanism and align their identity with being there for others [45]. Once again, it is especially girls who adopt the role of caregiver for themselves in the sense of an adaptive preference.

3.4. Exploitation

It would be too much to ask if we would try here to recapitulate the manifold discussion to the correct definition of exploitation. Rather, we are guided by the so-called vulnerability account [58,59], which states that exploitation occurs when someone exploits another person’s vulnerability or dependency to make profit. We think that this is the case with young carers, where there is not a person who exploits the care work of these children and adolescents, but a structural form of exploitation [60]. This is structural because, on the one hand, it is a structural problem, i.e., the fact that care work of children and young people is generated by the failure of welfare state institutions, carried on or at least accepted favorably, and because, on the other hand, it is a question of passing on costs that the general public would have to bear (by the welfare state) to a vulnerable and weak group. Gowen discusses how societal expectations and norms often lead to young carers being under-identified and under-supported [29]. The reluctance to acknowledge the full extent of children’s caregiving roles is influenced by norms that view caregiving as a natural extension of family responsibility, rather than a task requiring professional support or intervention. Another source to support this point is Anne Wihstutz’s research, which examines the concept of citizenship as it applies to young carers, challenging the traditional view of children as passive recipients of care, and also showing that the contribution of young carers is often not recognized [22]. She argues that young carers should be recognized as active citizens who contribute significantly to their families and communities through their caregiving roles. Wihstutz highlights how the moral and ethical responsibilities shouldered by young carers often lead to a sense of agency and empowerment, but also stresses the need for societal recognition and support to ensure these children are not marginalized. She calls for a reevaluation of social policies to include young carers as active participants in the care economy, recognizing their contributions and addressing their needs as citizens with rights and responsibilities.

The economic profit from the exploitation of the labor force of young carers is thus not collected by certain persons or companies, but benefits the state or its institutions (mediated by cost savings in the health and social system) and ultimately the majority of taxpayers. That care work is often exploitative, especially through the unequal distribution of burdens to the disadvantage of women, has already been convincingly argued elsewhere [61,62,63]. In understanding of unpaid care work by children and adolescents for family members as exploitative, it is therefore not necessary that they themselves perceive it as exploitation—often they see it much more as a work of love [64]. Akkan discusses the concept of “love’s labor” in caregiving, particularly how societal expectations of care as a labor of love disproportionately affect young female carers [56]. This concept implies that caregiving is driven by love and moral obligation rather than being recognized as work that deserves support and recognition. Akkan argues that this moral framing of caregiving places an additional burden on young carers, particularly girls, who are expected to provide care out of love and duty without considering the personal costs. But regardless of how the young carers view themselves, what counts is that free work is performed here, based on exploiting the weak position of these children and young people who have no opportunity to give up or outsource this work, and that the state and society are profiting from this.

4. The Structural Dimensions of Young Carers: Welfare State and Gender

This paper has so far said little about why young carers find themselves in their current situation—that is, which social mechanisms, structures, and institutions contribute to it. To understand this, it is useful to examine both the similarities and differences between societies in several respects. One important aspect involves differences in the organization, funding, and distribution of care and support within welfare states. In other words, what structures are in place to provide care, and why is care partially privatized, leading to situations in which young people must take on these responsibilities? The privatization of welfare state responsibilities and care services is not a new phenomenon [65,66]; it follows different paths depending on historically developed structures and the specific welfare state cultures that have emerged. Gøsta Esping-Andersen [67] famously distinguished between different welfare regimes: in the liberal Anglo-Saxon model, market logic and private provision dominate. Social benefits are limited and typically means-tested. The conservative Continental European model provides, in addition to basic security, benefits such as pensions or unemployment support tied to employment history and prior contributions to social insurance systems. Here, “conservative” refers to the preservation of living standards, with benefits allocated according to the equivalence principle—depending on the amount and duration of previous contributions. In the social-democratic Scandinavian model, the commodification of labor is largely reduced and compensated by state-guaranteed income replacement benefits. This is often referred to as a universal welfare state, characterized not only by monetary support but also by a dense network of social services, including active labor market policies and high-quality childcare.

Agnes Leu and Fabian Marc Pascal Berger [68] have developed an influential systematization and classification of awareness and policy responses, ranging from stages one to seven, which captures how countries perceive young carers and how they respond through public policy. The different levels assigned to countries reflect their specific political strategies and the type of support they offer to young carers [69]. In the United Kingdom, which is uniquely classified at level 2 (advanced), specific legal provisions, dedicated support programs, and a relatively broad engagement at both the political and institutional levels have been established to address the needs of young carers. This focus is the result of decades of research and country-specific policy interventions that go beyond general support and include concrete legal rights and national strategies. In contrast, countries like Sweden and Norway, despite having strong and inclusive welfare systems, are classified as “intermediate” in such studies. This is likely not due to a fundamentally lower level of provision, but rather to a different approach to the issue. In these traditional social-democratic welfare states, it is assumed that families in which a parent is ill or in need of care will automatically be supported by the state through comprehensive health and social services, thereby indirectly protecting the younger population from having to take on such responsibilities. As a result, young carers are less likely to be recognized as a distinct group in need of targeted political attention. Their specific needs are not addressed through dedicated legal norms or clearly defined support structures but are instead embedded in the broader context of child and family policy. This can, however, become problematic, especially during times when a well-developed welfare state comes under pressure—politically or economically—leading to the specific needs of young carers being overlooked, and thus, a blind spot can emerge.

Despite the differences between welfare states, the phenomenon of young carers highlights a common issue: the state fails to provide adequate care services, placing the burden on a particularly vulnerable group, children and adolescents, who are forced to compensate for this gap. Even increased awareness and the development of special policies in some countries do little to change this, as such policies tend to address symptoms rather than causes. A parallel can be drawn here with child poverty [6], which is similarly recognized by most welfare states, with specific programs in place to combat it, but is still unresolved. Yet as long as the structural causes of poverty within capitalism are not addressed, poverty will continue to be reproduced, and it will be accepted that the poverty experienced by adults—due to unemployment, poorly paid work, illness, or disability—is transferred to their children, who suffer as a result. The same applies to young carers: they are compensating for a system that allows people in need of care and support to go without professional help, either because it is unaffordable or inaccessible. This situation disproportionately affects socially marginalized and vulnerable populations.

In addition to welfare state organizations, cultural factors also play a key role, especially in relation to the gendered distribution of care work and why it is often girls who take on these responsibilities. These cultural factors, which normalize gender-based inequalities, are supported—but not necessarily determined—by the model of the welfare state. Throughout this article, it has been shown that it is primarily girls who take roles as young carers and they face particular demands in doing so. This highlights three aspects that are significant for both normative and social–theoretical analysis. First, it is not a coincidence that girls perform more care work as young carers. Rather, this reflects a division of labor that follows gender roles [70]. Girls and women are expected to take on more caregiving responsibilities. Girls and women are assigned to the domestic and familial sphere, while boys and men are not. Second, and this is especially relevant from a social justice perspective, this assignment is by no means natural—it is a social construct. It is not the case that girls or women are inherently better at caregiving, or that it aligns with their nature. Instead, we are dealing with social norms and expectations placed on girls and women, which, again in Pierre Bourdieu’s terms, are presented as doxa, meaning they appear and are accepted—by men and women—normal and natural [71]. In doing so, the social character of these expectations and the inequality they produce between girls and boys is naturalized and normalized. During the process of socialization, girls are shown and taught that it is normal for them to assume such roles, while boys are socialized differently [72,73]. Third, as this paper has demonstrated through numerous empirical findings, the fact that girls perform more caregiving work leads to a whole range of injustices. Care work, especially because it is viewed as feminine, is devalued in society and receives little recognition [61,74]. It is not considered economically valuable, even though it is crucial to both the labor market and the economy. The devaluation of care work, which is pervasive across all areas of society, also affects young carers—particularly because these activities are seen as feminine and are more frequently performed by girls. Girls who provide care for their families, tending to elderly and ill relatives, are thus among the primary victims of a patriarchal society that unjustly treats caregiving work performed by women and girls. From a normative perspective of social justice, one cannot be gender-blind, nor can one ignore the specific vulnerability of girls [75]—in this case, the vulnerability of having to perform care work more frequently, of having this seen as normal for girls, and of not receiving the recognition or economic valuation that such work deserves.

From this perspective as well, it would be valuable to more closely examine the responsibility of the welfare state toward young carers. However, such an analysis would go beyond the scope of this article, which is primarily driven by a social–ethical interest in understanding, empirically substantiating, and systematizing the vulnerabilities and injustices involved. How the welfare state should respond to these issues must be reserved for another paper. Clues for such an analysis can be found, among other things, in the political and philosophical literature that explores how justice for vulnerable and disadvantaged children and adolescents can be achieved and what this demands from the welfare state [36,76,77].

5. Conclusions

The issue of young carers in highly developed countries is multifaceted, encompassing both moral and social dimensions. Our analysis reveals that young carers often face significant burdens and injustices, which are amplified by economic and social inequalities, moral blackmail, manipulation, and structural exploitation. However, it is essential to acknowledge that these young individuals are not merely helpless victims; many exhibit substantial capacities for reflection and agency, capable of articulating their own desires and ideas. Nevertheless, it remains imperative to provide these young carers with better support to ensure they have equal opportunities for social inclusion and personal development [23]. Policymakers and society must reassess the structural conditions that compel children and adolescents to take on caregiving and ensure that they are not forced to assume excessive responsibilities due to insufficient state support or societal norms. Investing in robust social security systems and targeted assistance measures can help alleviate these structural injustices. Several questions and research fields emerge from our discussion. First, the long-term effects of caregiving responsibilities on the development of young carers need to be examined in more detail to better understand how the injustices highlighted in this paper unfold in different trajectories [78,79,80]. Second, cultural variations in the experiences and challenges faced by young carers need exploration, because the injustices of economic and social inequalities, moral blackmail, manipulation, and structural exploitation unfold differently in different contexts. Furthermore, the influence of gender and social stereotypes on the perception and distribution of caregiving tasks among adolescents warrants further investigation [56]. Identifying approaches to reduce these inequalities is crucial. The effectiveness of current support programs also needs thorough evaluation. It is essential to determine which programs work best and how they can be improved through qualitative and quantitative research. Lastly, the of the welfare state in addressing the caregiving needs of families without overburdening young people is a significant area of inquiry [57]. Understanding these areas underscores the complexity and urgency of the issue. Continuous and interdisciplinary research is essential to sustainably improve the situation of young carers and provide them with a fairer future. By focusing on these aspects, we can make significant strides in recognizing and supporting young carers, moving closer to a just society where children and adolescents can realize their full potential.