Towards a critical geography of aging: Political economy,biopolitics,and care

Abstract

This paper integrates political economy, biopolitics, and care within the context of aging, proposing new directions for future research in these areas. It examines the impact of neoliberal policies on eldercare, the role of biopolitical governance in shaping aging populations, and the emotional labor involved in caregiving. The paper highlights the importance of interdisciplinary approaches and place-based policies to address the complex dynamics of aging, aiming to contribute to a critical geography of aging that encompasses political, economic, and emotional dimensions.

I Introduction

The geography of aging has emerged as a vital area of study, focusing on how spatial and social dimensions shape the experiences of older adults. Recent scholarship underscores the critical role of place in mediating access to resources, intergenerational relationships, and migration patterns (McQuaid et al., 2021; Skinner et al., 2015). However, existing research often neglects the broader socio-political structures that underpin aging experiences. A critical geography of aging addresses this gap by examining the intersections of power, inequality, and relational care, offering a more nuanced understanding of aging within contemporary societies.

This paper proposes a research agenda centered on three interrelated themes: political economy, biopolitics, and care. First, the political economy of aging examines the impact of neoliberal ideologies on eldercare, pensions, migration, and biopolitical governance, revealing significant socio-economic transformations and inequalities. Neoliberal principles of efficiency and competition have driven a global shift from state-funded eldercare to market-oriented systems, leading to privatization and financialization that reduce access and quality of care, as seen in Nordic countries transitioning from universal services to for-profit models (Hoppania et al., 2022; Szebehely, 2017). Second, biopolitical governance of aging focuses on policies and technologies that promote ideals like “successful aging” and “healthy aging,” which prioritize productivity and autonomy while marginalizing those unable to meet these standards (Higgs et al., 2009; Rowe and Kahn, 1997). The integration of AI and smart technologies in eldercare, described as “smart governmentality,” reflects attempts to optimize aging but raises ethical concerns about surveillance, privacy, and equity (Dammann et al., 2022; Frennert et al., 2021). Finally, research on care work and aging investigates the lived experiences of caregivers and care recipients, alongside the institutional and policy frameworks shaping these interactions. Care work remains undervalued, feminized, and racialized, with migrant women disproportionately employed in stigmatized roles, underscoring systemic inequalities in labor markets (Delabellacasa, 2012; Rodríguez-Rocha, 2021). Together, these themes emphasize the interconnectedness of economic, social, and ethical dimensions of aging, while exposing systemic inequalities and the complexities of aging-related policies and practices.

Following an overview of contemporary geographical research on population aging, the objectives of this paper are to propose a critical geography of aging by analyzing the effects of neoliberal policies on eldercare structures and quality, exploring the role of biopolitical governance in aging with a focus on population management and the implications of digital technologies, and investigating the emotional labor of caregivers and its impact on the caregiving environment and eldercare outcomes. The areas proposed in this research agenda—political economy, biopolitics, and care—are critical to understanding and addressing the profound challenges and inequalities faced by aging populations in contemporary societies. The political economy framework reveals how neoliberal policies, privatization, and financialization have transformed eldercare, pensions, and migration systems, often exacerbating disparities in access, quality, and affordability. Examining biopolitical governance sheds light on how policies, technologies, and norms, such as “successful aging,” shape societal expectations and marginalize those unable to conform to these ideals, raising ethical concerns about surveillance and autonomy. Finally, exploring care underscores the undervalued and feminized nature of caregiving labor, highlighting its emotional, relational, and systemic dimensions, as well as its centrality to maintaining social reproduction and well-being for older adults. Together, these areas provide a framework to understand the intersections of socio-economic structures, power dynamics, and lived experiences of aging, offering a foundation for developing more equitable, inclusive, and effective policies to support aging populations in diverse contexts.

II Geographical work on aging

1 The Spatiotemporal Characteristics of Population Aging

Research on the spatiotemporal characteristics of aging highlights how demographic shifts, spatial dynamics, and socio-economic factors are deeply interwoven in shaping the experiences of older adults. Early studies laid the foundation for understanding the spatial distribution of aging populations, emphasizing how urban-rural differences and regional variations influence access to services, health outcomes, and community life (Rohr-Zanker, 1989; Warnes and Law, 1984). Rural areas often have higher proportions of older adults due to historical demographic shifts and socio-economic factors, as seen in England, Wales, and Poland. These trends shape the need for targeted healthcare, infrastructure, and community services to address aging-related challenges (Walford and Kurek, 2008).The regional dimension of aging reveals that large-scale political and economic changes, such as those in post-Soviet states, directly affect demographic patterns and require nuanced policy responses (Gentile, 2007).

Geographic variation in older adults’ health outcomes is another critical area of focus. Research shows that factors like income inequality, land use, and education levels all correlate with health disparities among older adults, underscoring the need for targeted interventions that address these inequalities (Ng et al., 2020; Pongiglione and Sabater, 2016; Wu et al., 2016). For instance, disparities between urban and rural areas in countries like China and Australia reveal how access to healthcare and social services plays a central role in the well-being of older populations, with rural older adults often at a disadvantage (Astell-Burt and Feng, 2018; Wang and Stokes, 2020). These findings emphasize that aging is not just a demographic issue but one that is deeply embedded in broader spatial, social, and economic contexts.

Spatiotemporal characteristics are pivotal in geography, particularly in the geography of aging, where studies explore patterns of older adult populations, the interplay of aging with socioeconomic, policy, and environmental factors, and regional disparities in health outcomes influenced by income inequality and environmental conditions (Ng et al., 2020; Rohr-Zanker, 1989; Warnes and Law, 1984). Urban-rural aging differences underscore challenges in healthcare and community services in rural areas (Stockdale, 2006; Walford and Kurek, 2008). Migration studies highlight motivations such as access to facilities, family, and retirement, with return migration reflecting the influence of personal history and social ties (Lundholm, 2012; Stockdale and Catney, 2014). Theoretical frameworks like the mobility turn and intersectionality reveal the multi-scalar nature of aging and its role in fostering health and social connections (Sampaio, 2018; Schwanen et al., 2012). Research also emphasizes the spatial context in health and caregiving, linking social capital, creative activities, and walkable environments to improved well-being, stressing the need for place-based, interdisciplinary policies tailored to aging populations (Pollack & von dem Knesebeck, 2004; Rose and Lonsdale, 2016).

2 Migration and Mobility

Studies on older adults’ migration patterns reveal complex dynamics shaped by various factors such as life transitions, spatial contexts, and socio-political environments. Migration in later life is driven by diverse motivations, ranging from access to better services and proximity to family to personal milestones like retirement or widowhood. Understanding these dynamics requires attention to how different life stages and circumstances influence migration patterns, with younger segments of older adult populations often seeking proximity to family for support, while older segments of the aging population may rely more on public welfare services (Pettersson and Malmberg, 2009; Stockdale and Catney, 2014). In regions with unique socio-political histories, such as post-communist countries, migration behaviors are further complicated by historical legacies and evolving social structures (Pytel et al., 2020).

Return migration, particularly to places of birth, also illustrates the interplay between personal history, social ties, and economic considerations. Decisions to return are deeply embedded in individual life courses and familial networks, influencing not only the migrants themselves but also the communities they rejoin (Falkingham et al., 2012; Lundholm, 2012). Moreover, the migration of younger generations can have significant implications for the older adults left behind, affecting family dynamics, care arrangements, and social vulnerability (King et al., 2014; Liu, 2014).

Recent theoretical advancements, such as the “mobility turn” and intersectional approaches, have deepened our understanding of how aging and migration intersect. These frameworks emphasize the multi-scalar nature of migration and highlight how mobility influences older adults’ well-being, identity, and social networks (Ciobanu and Hunter, 2017; Sampaio, 2018). The emotional geography of older adults’ migration, particularly among lifestyle migrants, underscores the need to address both the practical and affective aspects of migration, acknowledging that spaces of relocation are not only sites of freedom but also of potential isolation and loneliness (Lulle and King, 2016; Sampaio, 2018). This nuanced view reveals how older individuals navigate changing environments and underscores the importance of place, autonomy, and social integration in shaping their migration experiences.

3 Health and Care-Related Themes

Research on health, healthcare, and caregiving within the geography of aging have been informed by humanistic, feminist, and critical geography perspectives and emphasize how spatial contexts significantly shape older adults’ well-being (Skinner et al., 2015). The role of localized health services and community resources emerges as crucial in addressing the specific needs of older populations. For instance, access to social opportunities and localized care directly impacts health outcomes, as shown by the relationship between oral health and community resources (Widener et al., 2012). Social capital plays a central role in older adults’ health, with strong networks and community engagement linked to better health outcomes and life satisfaction (Elgar et al., 2011; Pollack & von dem Knesebeck, 2004). However, disparities in social capital across geographic settings highlight issues of inclusivity, where some older populations, especially in rural areas, face greater risks of social exclusion and health disparities (Nummela et al., 2008).

Engaging in creative activities and living in walkable environments are essential for the well-being of older adults because they provide physical health advantages and foster opportunities to build and maintain a positive sense of identity. Engaging in arts-based activities can help older individuals connect with their past and foster a positive sense of self (Rose and Lonsdale, 2016). Similarly, walkable neighborhoods not only promote physical health but also enhance place-making by fostering a sense of belonging and facilitating daily social interactions (Lager et al., 2019). However, these benefits are not uniformly accessible; spatial and social trajectories can lead to exclusion for older adults with limited mobility or few social connections (Lager et al., 2019). Overall, the literature underscores that addressing older adults’ health requires a comprehensive approach that integrates health services, social capital, and age-friendly design. The interconnectedness of place, space, and social relations shapes the health and well-being of older adults, emphasizing the need for policies and interventions that consider these complexities to create inclusive and supportive environments.

4 Aging and the Built Environment Across Scales

The impact of the built environment on older adults’ health has attracted significant attention in recent research, particularly regarding the mediating roles of socioeconomic factors and social participation. The built environment encompasses various scales, including homes, neighborhoods, communities, cities, and natural environments. Urban-scale research highlights the critical role of public spaces, such as hospitals, museums, and community areas, in shaping the experiences and well-being of older adults. Bornat et al. (2011) show that the spatial design and arrangement of healthcare settings can significantly influence patient outcomes, emphasizing the need to consider how care environments are managed and experienced. Social interactions in public spaces also play a crucial role, with Cattell et al. (2008) finding that such interactions can reduce anxiety and foster community connectivity. However, Phillips et al. (2013) identify various obstacles commonly found in public spaces, such as poor signage and sensory overload that can heighten stress and isolation for older adults, highlighting the need for more accessible urban environments. Overall, these studies underscore the importance of designing urban environments that prioritize the physical, emotional, and social needs of aging populations.

Research at the community scale provides insights into how neighborhood characteristics and social interactions shape older adults’ health and well-being. Quantitative studies demonstrate that factors like walkability and socioeconomic status significantly influence both physical and mental health outcomes for older adults (Carson et al., 2023; Dujardin et al., 2014; Haseda et al., 2018; Jimenez et al., 2015; Loo et al., 2017). Qualitative research complements these findings by highlighting the importance of stability, social capital, and trust within neighborhoods, particularly for low-income or marginalized older adult populations (Garoon et al., 2016; Lager et al., 2013). Overall, while community environments play a critical role in promoting healthy aging, tailored interventions are necessary to meet the diverse needs of aging populations, emphasizing the significance of both social infrastructure and inclusive design.

Research on housing and home highlights the significant impact living environments have on older adults’ well-being, with a clear link between housing quality and mental health. Poor living conditions are consistently associated with higher rates of depression, showing how financial instability and inadequate housing can compound mental health challenges for older adults (Li and Zhou, 2020; Murata et al., 2008). Studies also underscore the importance of age-friendly housing design in enhancing quality of life and mitigating health disparities by providing stability and security (Costa-Font, 2008; Sun et al., 2018). Qualitative research adds depth by exploring how home is not merely a physical space but also an emotional and relational environment (Dyck et al., 2005; Walsh, 2018). Concepts of vulnerability, resilience, and relational ethics reveal the complexities of aging in rented spaces and the critical role of trust and care in shaping older adults’ experiences of home (Bates et al., 2019; Cloutier et al., 2015; Skinner et al., 2015). Overall, these studies highlight the need for policies that address both the physical and emotional dimensions of home, ensuring that housing is designed to support not just the physical health but also the social and psychological well-being of aging populations.

Research on the body within the geography of aging reveals how physical changes, social perceptions, and identities are intricately connected in shaping the experiences of older adults. As older adults’ bodies undergo changes, such as a decline in physical capabilities, societal perceptions often shift, leading to marginalization and ageism (Antoninetti and Garrett, 2012). Life transitions like retirement also reshape the spatial and social identities of the older adults, as past experiences and personal histories influence how individuals navigate post-retirement spaces and construct their identities in later life (Riley, 2012). The intersection of gender and aging is especially prominent in shaping how older adults engage with everyday practices and caregiving roles (Day and Hitchings, 2011; Tarrant, 2013). Overall, research on the body underscores that aging is a complex social process, deeply influenced by historical, spatial, and gendered contexts.

III Political economy of aging, biopolitics, and care

While existing research on the geography of aging provides valuable insights into the spatial and temporal dimensions of aging, it often overlooks the critical role of broader socio-political and economic structures in shaping these experiences. Aging is not merely a demographic or biological phenomenon but is deeply contextualized within the frameworks of political economy, biopolitics, and care. This gap necessitates a shift in the research agenda to critically examine how neoliberal ideologies, governance practices, and economic policies influence aging experiences, the provision of eldercare, and the everyday lives of older adults. By integrating these dimensions, future studies can move beyond isolated analyses of aging to explore the complex intersections between socio-political structures and the lived realities of aging populations

1 The political economy of aging

The political economy of aging is significantly influenced by government policies, corporate involvement, and institutionalization trends, which affect the operation of eldercare institutions, migration polices, pensions, and various forms of social welfare provision. Across different regions, there has been a noticeable shift from state-provided eldercare to more market-oriented systems, driven by neoliberal ideologies. In many countries, there has been a shift from universal, publicly provided services to systems that prioritize economic efficiency and competition, often leading to privatization and financialization of eldercare services (Hoppania et al., 2022). In Nordic countries, for example, the marketization of care has resulted in the de-universalization of eldercare, where publicly funded services are increasingly provided by for-profit entities. This shift aims to prioritize economic efficiency and competition to reduce costs, reflecting broader neoliberal ideologies (Anderson and Kvist, 2015). In Sweden, universal and publicly provided services have transitioned to a market-oriented system driven by a focus on economic efficiency and competition aimed at reducing costs (Szebehely, 2017).

The political economy of aging in China offers a case study that reflects these broader global trends. The country’s social welfare system has undergone significant transformations since the 1990s, transitioning from state-dominated welfare provision to a market-oriented approach. This transition includes the privatization of public services, the introduction of labor contract schemes, and a revamped pension and health insurance system, which have resulted in reduced state welfare coverage and increased reliance on market mechanisms (Leung and Xu, 2015). China’s eldercare industry has experienced tremendous growth since 2013, driven by significant laws and regulations aimed at developing and organizing the sector (Maags, 2022).

Privatization and financialization are key trends in the political economy of aging, significantly influencing the structure and quality of eldercare services and the working conditions for care workers. In Canada, for instance, the contracting out of care workers in nursing homes has worsened working conditions and led to the assetization of senior care facilities. This shift has prioritized the real estate value of care facilities over the quality of care provided (Ponder et al., 2020; Strauss, 2023). Similarly, eldercare services have seen increased privatization, with real estate companies and insurance firms playing significant roles in developing and managing eldercare facilities. These firms often target wealthy older adults with luxury continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs), creating a market for high-end commodified care options. The financialization of eldercare in the Nordic countries has also been notable. In these contexts, care has become a site of profit extraction and financial engineering, occurring within the broader context of shifting social welfare regimes from universally publicly funded systems to more market-oriented and financialized models (Hoppania et al., 2022). This shift aligns with neoliberal ideologies that promote individual responsibility and market-based solutions, although it often leads to increased inequalities and prioritization of corporate interests over the needs of the older adults (Anderson and Kvist, 2015).

In Australia, England, and Finland, there has been a move towards deinstitutionalization, resulting in a mixed economy of care that emphasizes personalized services. This shift to a mixed economy of care has altered the landscape of social care, leading to more personalized and user-centered approaches (Yeandle et al., 2012). However, this trend also brings challenges, such as ensuring the quality of care and addressing inequalities in access to services (Yeandle et al., 2012). Denmark exemplifies a unique approach within this trend. The privatization of the eldercare sector occurs through a voucher market without price competition, allowing users to choose between municipal and private providers. Strong unions in Denmark have reduced eldercare privatization (Foged and Aaskoven, 2016). Strong unions in Denmark, such as FOA, have reduced eldercare privatization by influencing service users through daily interactions and promoting public service quality, while also engaging in political advocacy to sway local policymakers. These efforts have successfully limited the penetration of private providers in Denmark’s voucher-based eldercare market. These examples highlight the complexities and varied impacts of deinstitutionalization and marketization in different contexts.

The privatization and financialization of eldercare reflect broader neoliberal trends that have similarly transformed pension systems. Both shifts from state-funded to market-based models have increased vulnerabilities and inequalities among aging populations. Hyde and Dixon (2009) argue that privatized pensions undermine the social safety net, noting that pension funds are often invested in sectors like fossil fuels and real estate, which contribute to environmental degradation. This financialization, justified by neoliberal ideologies of market efficiency, raises ethical concerns by profiting from industries that harm vulnerable populations. Raffer (2003) critiques privatization for prioritizing corporate profits over the financial security that public pensions once provided, exacerbating inequality by offering better services to wealthier individuals.

Neoliberal pension reforms have sparked significant populist resistance, particularly in response to policies that prioritize economic efficiency over social welfare. In France, protests against pension reforms—especially proposals to raise the retirement age—highlight discontent with the shift to market-driven systems. Critics argue that such reforms disproportionately harm lower-income workers, who cannot extend their working years due to the physical demands of their jobs or health issues. These tensions reflect a broader populist backlash against pension privatization (Blake and Garrouste, 2017; Blanchet, 2005). Belfrage (2007) provides a case study of Sweden, where the 1999 pension reform shifted from a social democratic model to a more market-driven approach, destabilizing the system by exposing retirees to market risks. Williamson and Williams (2005) describe how Notional Defined Contribution (NDC) systems, which blend market-based principles with state-managed pensions, disproportionately affect low-paid workers and women, exacerbating inequalities.

The financialization of pensions and the growing inequalities it creates highlight the broader socio-economic challenges posed by aging populations. In response to these pressures, migration has emerged as a potential solution to address labor shortages, rejuvenate workforces, and support social security systems, yet it remains a contested strategy due to populist resistance and racialized opposition. Migration has been framed as a key response to demographic aging, especially in countries like those in Western Europe and North America. Scholars have examined the role of migration in rejuvenating the workforce, mitigating the effects of demographic aging, and contributing to pension systems (Bastia et al., 2022; Ciobanu and Bolzman, 2021; Gesano and Strozza, 2011; Marois et al., 2020; Serban, 2012). However, the view that migration is a cost-effective solution to labor shortages clashes with populist anti-migration politics. Anti-immigrant sentiment often downplays the economic contributions of migrants, complicating the implementation of migration policies (Jakovljevic et al., 2018; Marois et al., 2020). Thus, racialized opposition to migration intersects with political debates about aging populations. Scott and Tegunimataka (2020) acknowledge that, while migration alleviates aging-related economic pressures, it also sparks fears related to cultural diversity and economic costs.

The political economy of aging highlights the significant influence of neoliberal policies on eldercare, pensions, and migration. Across various regions, the shift from state-funded to market-oriented eldercare systems reflects broader neoliberal ideologies prioritizing economic efficiency and competition. This transition has led to privatization, financialization, and deinstitutionalization, reshaping care structures and exacerbating inequalities in access and quality. Similarly, neoliberal pension reforms have moved retirement systems from collective state-based models to privatized, market-driven schemes, increasing retirees’ vulnerabilities and fostering populist resistance. Migration has also emerged as a proposed solution to aging-related demographic and labor challenges, yet it faces strong opposition rooted in populist and racialized politics.

2 Biopolitics and governance

The political economy of aging provides a critical lens for understanding how neoliberal ideologies shape eldercare systems, pension reforms, and migration policies, often exacerbating inequalities and vulnerabilities among older adults. However, these economic and institutional trends are deeply entwined with biopolitical governance, which extends beyond economic systems to managing the aging population through policies, technologies, and disciplinary practices. Exploring biopolitical governance reveals how aging is framed not only as a demographic and economic challenge but also as a site of power and control.

Population governance involves the techniques and procedures used by governments to manage populations. In the realm of aging, governmentality is evident in policies and practices that promote specific ideals of aging, such as autonomy, productivity, and health. The paradigm of “successful aging,” introduced by Rowe and Kahn (1997), emphasizes maintaining physical health, cognitive function, and active engagement in life. This paradigm has significantly influenced public policies and the framing of aging in many societies. Critics argue that the successful aging paradigm is inherently ageist and overlooks the realities of illness and dependency in old age (Higgs et al., 2009; Katz, 2001b). It promotes an idealized vision of aging that can marginalize those who do not or cannot meet these standards. Moreover, this paradigm has fueled the anti-aging industry, shifting the perception of the older adults from passive recipients of care to active consumers who must maintain their health and productivity.

The World Health Organization’s (WHO) definition of healthy aging aligns with the successful aging paradigm, focusing on functional ability and well-being rather than merely the absence of disease. This approach to aging is deeply intertwined with biopolitical governance, as it promotes autonomy and social participation as primary goals for older adults, with key indicators monitored by the government. Healthy aging is facilitated through a complex network of institutions, procedures, and technologies designed to optimize life and manage population dynamics (Foucault, 2007). These mechanisms of biopower aim to maximize the utility of individuals to the state, ensuring that they remain productive and healthy for as long as possible. This form of governance not only shapes the behavior and expectations of older adults but also dictates the standards of care and support they receive.

The intersection of biopolitical governance and disciplinary practices in aging is fundamentally spatial, operating across scales from the individual to the global. National policies aimed at managing aging populations intersect with localized practices in eldercare, urban design, and surveillance technologies. These spatial dimensions of governance reveal that aging is not only a biological process but also a political and social issue, shaped by both top-down policies and bottom-up localized actions.

When discussing aging in the context of biopolitics the focus should not be limited solely to the disciplinary power over the body or the regulatory control of populations. Such a narrow perspective risks reducing aging to a simplistic understanding and framing older adults merely as passive data points or objects of intervention, rather than recognizing them as active agents. Instead, it is crucial to also consider the social dimensions of aging, including caregiving networks, community support, and the emotional labor inherent in eldercare, which are equally significant.

In eldercare, caregivers play a crucial role in biopolitical management by not only performing physical tasks but also shaping the experience of aging, managing health, and regulating emotions. As Hardt and Negri (2005) explain, biopolitical production involves not just economic output but also the creation of subjectivity and social relationships, with caregivers producing both affective bonds and social connections that regulate the emotional and physical well-being of elderly individuals (Hardt and Negri, 2005). In eldercare, caregivers manage vulnerability and dependency through emotional engagement, which becomes a form of governance over the aging body (England, 2010). This emotional labor, often unpaid and undervalued, creates bonds between caregivers and recipients.

Eldercare serves as a critical site for understanding biopolitical governance, where emotional and physical labor are used to regulate and control aging bodies. Caregivers, particularly migrant women, are not only involved in nurturing but also in shaping the emotional and social dimensions of care, which are crucial for both self-governance and the management of elderly bodies. The power relations between caregivers and recipients, marked by both affection and exploitation, highlight the need for a more nuanced understanding of caregiving as biopolitical governance, with particular attention to the emotional and social dynamics at play.

AI technologies, including robotics and smart devices, are being increasingly integrated into eldercare systems as part of the larger digitalization of caregiving. These tools are seen as potential solutions to issues such as the growing demand for eldercare, labor shortages, and the desire to enhance the quality of life for older adults. Scholars emphasize that AI in eldercare offers benefits such as cognitive assistance, emotional support, and the enhancement of independence for elderly individuals (Coin and Dubljević, 2021; Ho, 2020). Technologies such as care robots and AR glasses equipped with facial recognition and text-to-speech capabilities are part of this movement, offering practical benefits like reducing caregiver workloads and improving care efficiency (Frennert et al., 2021; Zeng et al., 2021). These innovations are often framed within the context of “smart eldercare,” a crucial component of the broader smart city concept, which leverages digital tools to optimize urban living conditions (Yu, 2024b).

The use of AI and monitoring technologies in eldercare has profound implications for both care recipients and care workers. On the one hand, these technologies can relieve caregivers of certain duties, offering more time for direct, human-centric interactions. On the other hand, they introduce new challenges and ethical dilemmas. For instance, the deployment of surveillance and monitoring tools raises privacy concerns and the potential for depersonalization in caregiving (Coin and Dubljević, 2021; Ho, 2020). Care workers may also face new pressures as they adapt to these technologies, from training to troubleshooting, potentially adding stress and reducing job satisfaction (Woods and Kong, 2020).

For care recipients, the introduction of AI into caregiving are claimed to offer increased independence and the ability to remain in their homes for longer periods. However, this digitalization can blur the boundaries between public and private spheres, creating a “riskscape” in which surveillance practices challenge traditional notions of home as a safe, private space (Reid, 2021, 2022). There is also concern that over-reliance on AI might lead to emotional depersonalization, where human caregivers are replaced by robots that may be less capable of providing the nuanced emotional support that elderly individuals need (Johnston and Pratt, 2024; Pratt et al., 2023), and the potential reduction of meaningful social interactions (Ho, 2020). While technologies like care robots can provide assistance, they cannot fully replace the emotional and psychological support that comes from human caregivers.

Moreover, AI-based systems have the potential to reinforce existing biases, particularly in the context of access to technology. Not all elderly individuals have equal access to these smart technologies, leading to concerns about inequality in care provision (Coin and Dubljević, 2021). Public-private partnerships involved in implementing these technologies may prioritize cost-efficiency over ethical considerations, further exacerbating concerns about fairness and equity in care provision (Johnston and Pratt, 2024).

The advent of digital technologies has introduced new dimensions to the biopolitical governance of aging populations. Smart eldercare initiatives, which utilize technologies like sensors, monitoring devices, and AI, exemplify the concept of “smart governmentality” (Dammann et al., 2022). These technologies enable continuous surveillance and data collection, facilitating real-time monitoring and intervention in the lives of older adults. Smart governmentality extends Foucault’s idea of biopower by incorporating advanced technologies that not only monitor but also influence behaviors and decisions through predictive analytics and machine learning (Isin and Ruppert, 2020). Here, digital environments and infrastructures mediate interactions, behaviors, and governance (Anderson, 2012). Isin and Ruppert (2020) introduced the concept of sensory power, describing it as a mode of governance facilitated by digital technologies that gather and analyze real-time data to observe, categorize, and influence individuals and groups. This form of power functions dynamically through feedback systems, leveraging data to shape behaviors and decisions while complementing traditional power structures with a focus on immediacy and flexibility. The sensory power creates a new layer of governance, where digital tools mediate the relationship between the state and its citizens, particularly older adults. Through the adaptation of tools like contact tracing apps, digital surveillance has become a key element in managing the health and wellbeing of elderly individuals, ensuring that they are continuously monitored and integrated into healthcare systems. However, this also raises significant ethical concerns about privacy, autonomy, and the potential for over-surveillance of aging individuals as part of broader health governance strategies.

Ruppert and Isin’s framework of sensory power also sheds light on how technological surveillance operates differently across spatial scales, particularly in urban versus rural areas. In urban environments, where access to technology is widespread, smart eldercare systems are seamlessly integrated into everyday life. Cities with advanced digital infrastructure can implement large-scale health monitoring systems, creating “smart cities” that cater specifically to the needs of aging populations. These urban areas are better equipped to provide continuous oversight and care for elderly residents through the use of these technologies.

Smart eldercare systems are often presented as top-down solutions designed to monitor health and safety, thereby facilitating aging in place. However, this framing overlooks the dynamic and often contentious interaction between elderly individuals and these technologies. Far from being passive objects of biopolitical governance, aging individuals can actively engage with, resist, and even subvert the technologies imposed upon them (Yu, 2024a). This resistance is not always overt or explicit but can take the form of everyday practices of disengagement, modification, or non-use of certain technologies. Older adults may reject specific devices due to privacy concerns, discomfort with surveillance, or simply a preference for traditional care methods. In these instances, their agency challenges the assumption that smart governmentality can be seamlessly enacted through technological surveillance and intervention (Kong and Woods, 2018).

Moreover, Yu (2024a) suggests that the implementation of digital governance is not a one-way relationship from the state or technology developers to the older adults. Rather, older adults play a significant role in the co-production of the smart environmentality in their homes. Through feedback loops, adaptations, and even resistance to the prescribed use of technologies, they shape how these devices function within their daily lives. This process underscores the importance of recognizing aging individuals as co-producers of their care, alongside the state and private stakeholders. By acknowledging this agency, the simplistic view of the elderly as mere recipients of care is transcended. Instead, their political subjectivity and ability to negotiate the terms of their own governance through the use (or rejection) of smart technologies are highlighted. Thus, while biopolitical governance shapes the infrastructure of eldercare, it is through the agency of aging individuals that these technologies are continuously redefined and contested, making their role in the co-production of smart eldercare essential to understanding the complex dynamics of aging in the digital age.

3 Care

Tronto (2020) identifies care as a process that includes four phases: caring about (recognizing a need), taking care of (assuming responsibility for addressing the need), caregiving (performing the tasks required to meet the need), and care-receiving (evaluating the response and effectiveness of the care provided). This understanding frames care as both a practical and moral responsibility, emphasizing attentiveness, responsibility, competence, and responsiveness as its core ethical pillars. Care is not merely an individual act but a relational practice embedded in networks of dependency and mutuality (Neely and Lopez, 2022; Raghuram et al., 2009). It challenges neoliberal ideals of autonomy and independence, recognizing human vulnerability and the interdependence that defines social existence (Lawson, 2007). Care ethics strive to foster cooperation and trust over competition, reframing care as a shared social and ethical obligation.

Social reproduction provides a foundational lens for understanding how capitalism relies on care labor to maintain the labor force and reproduce capitalist social relations. Federici (2019) and Kofman (2014) highlight the critical role of care in social reproduction. Federici (2019) argues that care labor is indispensable for reproducing the workforce, not only by providing physical care but also by maintaining the social conditions necessary for workers to continue functioning within the capitalist system. Reproductive labor (such as childcare, eldercare, and domestic tasks) is seen as central to social reproduction because it produces and sustains the workforce required by capitalism, even though it is often excluded from formal measures of productivity. Federici’s analysis links reproductive labor directly to the continued functioning of capitalism—it is foundational for ensuring the reproduction of labor power.

Similarly, Kofman (2014) emphasizes the global dimension of care labor. She discusses the transfer of care work across borders, especially in migrant contexts, where women from less wealthy regions provide essential care work in wealthier countries. Kofman highlights the racialized and gendered nature of care labor, illustrating how migrant workers are integral to sustaining families and broader communities. Her work expands on the intersectionality of care labor, underscoring the need to understand its global movement as an essential part of social reproduction. Bakker (2007) expands on social reproduction theory by arguing that social reproduction is not confined to the household. Rather, it is a foundational element of capitalist economic systems. Bakker (2007) critiques traditional views that see social reproduction as a private or familial issue, arguing instead that it is a public economic issue, deeply embedded in the functioning of global capitalist relations.

A key debate in feminist Marxist theory is whether care work should be classified as productive labor in capitalist economies. Federici (2019) argues that care work, though unpaid, is essential for reproducing labor power and sustaining capitalism, making it foundational to capitalist systems. This aligns with social reproduction theory, which views care labor as critical to economic functioning. Vogel (2000), however, questions whether care work fits the Marxist definition of productive labor, as it does not directly generate surplus value or produce commodities. While both acknowledge care labor’s importance, they differ on whether it should be redefined as productive within traditional Marxist frameworks.

The political economy of care examines how capitalism relies on the undervaluation and feminization of care labor, often regarded as “dirty work” and emotional labor predominantly carried out by migrants and women of color. These intersecting narratives contribute to the systemic devaluation of care work.

Scholars like Katz (2001a) and Rodríguez-Rocha (2021) analyze how gendered and racialized dynamics shape care work, particularly in migrant and global contexts. Katz (2001a) critiques global capitalism, highlighting the critical yet undervalued role of feminized care labor in sustaining the global labor force. Through the concept of “vagabond capitalism,” she describes a mobile capitalist system reliant on invisible and uncompensated care work, often performed by migrant women, to reproduce labor and maintain economic systems. Rodríguez-Rocha (2021) advocates for a postcolonial and intersectional approach to social reproduction theory, emphasizing the undervaluation of feminized care labor, particularly in marginalized regions. She argues that this often-hidden work, predominantly performed by migrant women, is essential to global capitalism, perpetuating racialized and gendered subordination within economic systems. Bakker (2007) also critiques the market economy’s failure to value care labor, despite its critical role in reproducing labor power. She points out that the feminization of care labor is a key element in the political economy of care, and the gendered undervaluation of care work helps sustain capitalist structures. Bakker argues that care labor is often privatized and unpaid, placing the burden of reproduction on women, particularly in the form of unpaid domestic work.

Migrant labor plays a critical role in the global caregiving industry, especially in eldercare. Delabellacasa (2012) highlights that migrant workers, particularly women of color, are disproportionately employed in the most intimate caregiving roles, such as bathing and dressing. These workers often come from economically disadvantaged and racialized backgrounds and are relegated to the informal care sector, where their labor is undervalued and invisible. This global care economy, in which women from the Global South fill gaps in wealthier nations’ long-term care systems, reflects broader racial and gendered inequalities (Delabellacasa, 2012). Huppatz (2009) further explores how these workers, due to both their gender and ethnicity, are positioned at the bottom of the caregiving hierarchy, tasked with the most stigmatized and intimate work. Despite their crucial role, migrant workers face systemic underpayment and lack recognition for their labor, which remains gendered and racialized (McDowell, 2004). The intersection of gender and race is crucial to understanding caregiving labor. England and Dyck (2011) highlight that Black and Latina women, overrepresented in eldercare and home care, face dual marginalization. Their labor is devalued because of the feminization of caregiving and also due to racialized stereotypes that position them as “naturally” suited for caregiving, which leads to poor conditions, low wages, and emotional strain.

Care work, especially in eldercare, is often framed as a form of body work, involving intimate and stigmatized labor. Twigg (2000) argues that tasks like bathing, assisting with physical intimacy, and providing emotional support are embodied, requiring workers to navigate physical boundaries and emotional labor. These tasks are often stigmatized and undervalued, largely because they are perceived as natural extensions of women’s roles (Twigg, 2000). This stigmatization links care work to other forms of intimate labor, including sex work, which similarly involves bodily interaction but is criminalized and marginalized. Dyer (2008) draws attention to the embodied and emotional aspects of caregiving, noting similarities with sex work, which also involves physical proximity and intimacy. Both care work and sex work share elements of emotional labor and physical touch, yet care work is often overlooked as stigmatized labor, whereas sex work is explicitly criminalized or marginalized. Delabellacasa (2012) connects the racialized and feminized aspects of both care work and sex work, arguing that both forms of labor are marginalized, and are often performed by migrant women who are racialized and overrepresented in these sectors.

Emotional labor, defined as the process by which workers manage their emotions to fulfill the emotional requirements of their job, is a critical component of caregiving. In the context of eldercare, caregivers frequently engage in emotional labor to provide compassionate and empathetic care, creating a supportive environment for older adults (Hochschild, 1983). Caregivers in both institutional and home care settings often face significant emotional demands. They are required to display positive emotions, such as warmth and patience, even in challenging situations. This emotional regulation is essential for building trust and fostering a sense of security among care recipients. However, the continuous need to manage emotions can lead to emotional exhaustion and burnout, highlighting the importance of providing adequate support for caregivers (Milligan, 2005). In institutional settings, caregivers must navigate organizational expectations and personal interactions with residents. The emotional labor involved in caregiving extends beyond mere physical tasks to include creating a homelike atmosphere and attending to the emotional well-being of residents. This labor is crucial for maintaining residents’ dignity and quality of life (Peace and Holland, 2001).

Effective caregiving requires a deep understanding of the care receiver’s needs, preferences, and emotional states. This relational aspect of care is built on continuous interactions and emotional exchanges, forming the core of the caregiving experience (Katz, 2001a). In home care settings, the intimate nature of the caregiver-care receiver relationship can be both beneficial and challenging. On the one hand, it allows for personalized care tailored to the specific needs of the older adult. On the other hand, the close proximity and constant interaction can lead to emotional strain for both parties. Caregivers often become emotionally invested in the well-being of the care receiver, which can intensify feelings of responsibility and stress (Conradson, 2003). In community eldercare centers, the dynamics are slightly different. These centers provide a space where care is shared among multiple caregivers and care receivers, fostering a sense of community and mutual support. The emotional labor in this context involves not only managing individual relationships but also creating a cohesive and inclusive environment for all participants (Yu, 2022).

Emotional labor plays a pivotal role in the social construction of home, especially in the context of eldercare. The concept of home extends beyond a physical space to encompass feelings of comfort, security, and belonging. Caregivers contribute to this construction through their emotional engagement and efforts to create a nurturing environment (Cutchin, 2003). In institutional settings, the notion of home is often redefined by the caregivers’ ability to foster a homelike atmosphere. This involves personalizing spaces, maintaining routines that resemble home life, and building strong, empathetic relationships with residents. The emotional labor required to achieve this homeliness is substantial, as caregivers must continuously balance professional responsibilities with personal connections (Goffman, 2017).

Community eldercare centers further illustrate the social construction of home through collective emotional labor. These centers serve as extensions of the home, where older adults can engage in social activities and receive care in a supportive setting. The emotional labor performed by caregivers in these centers includes creating a welcoming atmosphere, facilitating social interactions, and providing emotional support, all of which contribute to the sense of home (Peace, 2015). In home care settings, caregivers work within the physical space of the older adult’s home, making the emotional labor particularly intimate and impactful. Here, the home is not only a place of residence but also a site of care and emotional exchange. Caregivers’ efforts to maintain the home environment, respect the autonomy of the care receiver, and provide emotional support are crucial in reinforcing the feeling of home (Rowles, 1993).

IV Conclusion

The geography of aging has shifted focus toward understanding the societal and spatial dynamics affecting older populations. It examines factors such as urban-rural disparities, migration patterns, and physical infrastructure’s influence on older individuals’ lives. Earlier research explored the spatial distribution of aging populations, regional trends, and their implications for healthcare and social services. Recent studies highlight how environmental and socioeconomic factors, including urban-rural differences, impact older adults’ health. Migration research has examined forms of mobility, social relationships, and well-being, while creative activities, walkability, and social capital have been recognized as vital for inclusion and health. Physical infrastructure, including housing and surrounding environments, plays a critical role in well-being, underscoring the need for inclusive, age-appropriate spaces. Nevertheless, there are still areas that need to be explored in terms of how larger socio-political and economic systems impact the way people experience aging. Studying aging within its socio-economic and political context is essential to fully understanding the intricate “aging nexus.” This approach requires analyzing how aging intersects with issues such as development, migration, urban segregation, and community participation. This suggests that further research is necessary to thoroughly examine the relationship between aging and political economy, biopolitics, and care.

While aging is widely studied across disciplines, this paper foregrounds the spatial dimensions of aging, revealing how geographical concepts—such as place attachment, spatial inequalities, and the interplay of global and local scales—uniquely shape the experiences of older adults. For instance, the political economy of aging highlights how neoliberal policies, including privatization and financialization, manifest unevenly across urban, rural, and regional contexts, reshaping care infrastructures and access to services. Similarly, biopolitical governance is inherently spatial, operating through technologies and policies that manage aging populations across scales, from the home to the global. Furthermore, care practices are deeply rooted in place, shaped by local cultural norms, caregiving environments, and resource distributions, underscoring the relational and spatial dynamics of care. By integrating these spatial insights, the proposed agenda positions geography as essential for understanding the complexities of aging and for contributing to interdisciplinary aging studies, particularly through place-based frameworks, multiscalar analyses, and spatial methodologies. This paper thus aims to fill a critical gap by articulating the unique contributions of geography to aging studies, offering new pathways for research that engage directly with the spatial and relational dimensions of aging as a lived and governed process.

Furthermore, the suggested study agenda on the political economy of aging, biopolitics, and care presents a thorough framework for comprehending the intricate processes of aging that go beyond conventional spatial studies. This agenda prioritizes the investigation of how neoliberal ideology, market-oriented policies, and governance mechanisms influence the experiences of older individuals. The political economy of aging emphasizes the worldwide shift towards privatization, financialization, and deinstitutionalization in the provision of care for older adults. This exposes notable disparities and a preference for economic efficiency above quality of care. When studying biopolitics, the research centers on the ways in which power is exerted over aging people using smart technologies and governance tactics that encourage ideas of self-governance and productivity. This often results in heightened surveillance and control. Furthermore, the examination of caregiving highlights the crucial significance of emotional labor, illustrating how caregivers manage intricate emotional requirements to establish nurturing environments for older individuals. The interactions among these variables highlights the need to reconsider aging not only as a demographic occurrence but also as a process intricately linked to socio-political, economic, and technical circumstances. The current research advocates for the use of interdisciplinary methods to tackle the ethical, social, and practical consequences of these developments. Ultimately, the objective of this research is to provide the depth of understanding necessary to formulate more comprehensive and fair policies for aging populations.