Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T18:24:02.072Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Adult children stepping in? Long-term care reforms and trends in children's provision of household support to impaired parents in the Netherlands

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 August 2017

THIJS VAN DEN BROEK ,
PEARL A. DYKSTRA  and
ROMKE J. VAN DER VEEN
THIJS VAN DEN BROEK*
Affiliation:
ALPHA Research Unit, Department of Social Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, UK.
PEARL A. DYKSTRA
Affiliation:
Department of Public Administration and Sociology, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
ROMKE J. VAN DER VEEN
Affiliation:
Department of Public Administration and Sociology, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
*
Address for correspondence: Thijs van den Broek, London School of Economics and Political Science, ALPHA Research Unit, Department of Social Policy, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, UK E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent long-term care (LTC) reforms in the Netherlands are illustrative of those taking place in countries with a universalistic LTC model based on extensive provision of state-supported services. They entail a shift from de-familialisation, in which widely available state-supported LTC services relieve family members from the obligations to care for relatives in need, to supported familialism, in which family involvement in care-giving is fostered through support and recognition for families in keeping up their caring responsibilities. Using data from four waves of the Netherlands Kinship Panel Study (N = 2,197), we show that between 2002 and 2014 the predicted probability that adult children provide occasional household support to impaired parents rose substantially. Daughters more often provided household support to parents than did sons, but no increase in the gender gap over time was found. We could not attribute the increase in children's provision of household support to drops in the use of state-supported household services. The finding that more and more adult children are stepping in to help their ageing parents fits a more general trend in the Netherlands of increasing interactions in intergenerational families.

Keywords

long-term careintergenerational supportsubstitutionintergenerational solidarityNetherlandsuniversalism
Type
Article
Information
Ageing & Society , Volume 39 , Issue 1 , January 2019 , pp. 112 - 137
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alders, P., Comijs, H. C. and Deeg, D. J. H. 2017. Changes in admission to long-term care institutions in the Netherlands: comparing two cohorts over the period 1996–1999 and 2006–2009. European Journal of Ageing, 14, 2, 123–31.Google Scholar
Anttonen, A. and Sipilä, J. 1996. European social care services: is it possible to identify models? Journal of European Social Policy, 6, 2, 87–100.Google Scholar
Anxo, D. and Fagan, C. 2005. The family, the state, and now the market. The organisation of employment and working time in home care services for the elderly. In Bosch, G. (ed.), Working in the Service Sector: A Tale from Different Worlds. Routledge, New York, 133–64.Google Scholar
Berecki-Gisolf, J., Lucke, J., Hockey, R. and Dobson, A. 2008. Transitions into informal caregiving and out of paid employment of women in their 50s. Social Science and Medicine, 67, 1, 122–7.Google Scholar
Blomgren, J., Breeze, E., Koskinen, S. and Martikainen, P. 2012. Help from spouse and from children among older people with functional limitations: comparison of England and Finland. Ageing & Society, 32, 6, 905–33.Google Scholar
Bonsang, E. 2009. Does informal care from children to their elderly parents substitute for formal care in Europe? Journal of Health Economics, 28, 1, 143–54.Google Scholar
Brandt, M., Haberkern, K. and Szydlik, M. 2009. Intergenerational care and help in Europe. European Sociological Review, 25, 5, 581–601.Google Scholar
Brant, R. 1990. Assessing proportionality in the proportional odds model for logistic regression. Biometrics, 46, 4, 1171–8.Google Scholar
Carretero, S., Stewart, J. and Centeno, C. 2015. Information and communication technologies for informal carers and paid assistants: benefits from micro-, meso-, and macro-levels. European Journal of Ageing, 12, 4, 163–73.Google Scholar
Chappell, N. and Blandford, A. 1991. Informal and formal care: exploring the complementarity. Ageing & Society, 11, 3, 299–317.Google Scholar
CIZ 2012. CIZ indicatiewijzer. Toelichting op beleidsregels indicatiestelling AWBZ 2012 zoals vastgesteld door het ministerie van VWS [CIZ Indication Guide. Explanation of Indication Guidelines AWBZ as Determined by the Minsitry of Heath, Welfare and Sportl]. Centrum Indicatiestelling Zorg, Driebergen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Colombo, F. 2012. Typologies of public coverage for long-term care in OECD countries. In Costa-Font, J. and Courbage, C. (eds), Financing Long-term Care in Europe. Institutions, Markets and Models. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, UK, 17–40.Google Scholar
Companje, K.-P. 2015. Financing high medical risks in the Netherlands: healthcare, social insurance and political compromises. In Companje, K.-P. (ed.), Financing High Medical Risks. Discussions, Developments, Problems and Solutions on the Coverage of the Risk of Long-term Care in Norway, Germany and the Netherlands Since 1945 in European Perspective. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, 101–76.Google Scholar
Costa-Font, J., Gori, C. and Santana, S. 2012. Financing long-term care in Southwest Europe. In Costa-Font, J. and Courbage, C. (eds), Financing Long-term Care in Europe. Institutions, Markets and Models. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, UK, 170–86.Google Scholar
Da Roit, B. 2012. The Netherlands: the struggle between universalism and cost containment. Health and Social Care in the Community, 20, 3, 228–37.Google Scholar
Da Roit, B. 2013. Long-term care reforms in the Netherlands. In Ranci, C. and Pavolini, E. (eds), Reforms in Long-term Care Policies in Europe: Investigating Institutional Change and Social Impacts. Springer, New York, 97–115.Google Scholar
Da Roit, B. and Le Bihan, B. 2010. Similar and yet so different: cash-for-care in six European countries’ long-term care policies. Milbank Quarterly, 88, 3, 286–309.Google Scholar
Daatland, S. O. 2015. Sustainable care? Norwegian long-term care in a European perspective. In Companje, K.-P. (ed.), Financing High Medical Risks. Discussions, Developments, Problems and Solutions on the Coverage of the Risk of Long-term Care in Norway, Germany and the Netherlands Since 1945 in European Perspective. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, 43–62.Google Scholar
De Boer, A. 2017. Wie maakt het verschil? Sociale ongelijkheid in condities en consequenties van informele hulp [Who Makes the Difference? Social Inequality in Conditions and Consequences of Informal Help]. SCP Netherlands Institute for Social Research, The Hague.Google Scholar
De Boer, A. and De Klerk, M. 2013. Informele zorg in Nederland. Een literatuurstudie naar mantelzorg en vrijwilligerswerk in de zorg [Informal Care in the Netherlands. A Literature Review on Informal Care and Care Related Volunteering]. SCP Netherlands Institute for Social Research, The Hague.Google Scholar
De Klerk, M., Gilsing, R. and Timmermans, J. (eds) 2010. Op weg met de Wmo. Evaluatie van de Wet maatschappelijke ondersteuning 2007–2009 [On the Way with the Wmo. Evaluation of the Social Support Act 2007–2009]. SCP Netherlands Institute for Social Research, The Hague.Google Scholar
De Meijer, C., Bakx, P., Van Doorslaer, E. and Koopmanschap, M. 2015. Explaining declining rates of institutional LTC use in the Netherlands: a decomposition approach. Health Economics, 24, S1, 18–31.Google Scholar
Dijkhoff, T. 2014. The Dutch Social Support Act in the shadow of the decentralization dream. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 36, 3, 276–94.Google Scholar
Dykstra, P. A., Kalmijn., M., Knijn, T. C., Komter, A. E., Liefbroer, A. C. and Mulder, C. H. 2005. Codebook of the Netherlands Kinship Panel Study, a Multi-actor, Multi-method Panel Study on Solidarity in Family Relationships, Wave 1. Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute, The Hague.Google Scholar
Dykstra, P. A., Kalmijn., M., Knijn, T. C., Komter, A. E., Liefbroer, A. C. and Mulder, C. H. 2012. Codebook of the Netherlands Kinship Panel Study, a Multi-actor, Multi-method Panel Study on Solidarity in Family Relationships, Wave 2. Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute, The Hague.Google Scholar
Geurts, T., Van Tilburg, T., Poortman, A.-R. and Dykstra, P. A. 2015. Child care by grandparents: changes between 1992 and 2006. Ageing & Society, 35, 6, 1318–34.Google Scholar
Greene, V. L. 1983. Substitution between formally and informally provided care for the impaired elderly in the community. Medical Care, 21, 6, 609–19.Google Scholar
Grootegoed, E., Duyvendak, J. W. and Van Barneveld, E. 2015. What is customary about customary care? How Dutch welfare policy defines what citizens have to consider ‘normal’ care at home. Critical Social Policy, 35, 1, 110–31.Google Scholar
Haberkern, K., Schmid, T. and Szydlik, M. 2015. Gender differences in intergenerational care in European welfare states. Ageing & Society, 35, 2, 298–320.Google Scholar
Hogerbrugge, M. J., De Hoon, S., Dykstra, P. A., Komter, A. E., Liefbroer, A. C. and Mulder, C. H. 2015. Codebook of the Netherlands Kinship Panel Study, a Multi-actor, Multi-method Panel Study on Solidarity in Family Relationships, Wave 4. Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute, The Hague.Google Scholar
Jegermalm, M. and Jeppsson Grassman, E. 2012. Helpful citizens and caring families: patterns of informal help and caregiving in Sweden in a 17 year perspective. International Journal of Social Welfare, 21, 4, 422–32.Google Scholar
Johansson, L., Sundström, G. and Hassing, L. B. 2003. State provision down, offspring's up: the reverse substitution of old-age care in Sweden. Ageing & Society, 23, 3, 269–80.Google Scholar
Jörg, F., Boeije, H. R., Huijsman, R., De Weert, G. H. and Schrijvers, A. P. 2002. Objectivity in needs assessment practice: admission to a residential home. Health and Social Care in the Community, 10, 6, 445–56.Google Scholar
Kalmijn, M. and Saraceno, C. 2008. A comparative perspective on intergenerational support. European Societies, 10, 3, 479–508.Google Scholar
Karlsson, M., Iversen, T. and Øien, H. 2012. Scandinavian long-term care financing. In Costa-Font, J. and Courbage, C. (eds), Financing Long-term care in Europe. Institutions, Markets and Models. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, UK, 236–53.Google Scholar
Knijn, T. C. and Liefbroer, A. C. 2005. More than kind: instrumental support in families. In Dykstra, P. A., Kalmijn, M., Knijn, T. C. and Komter, A. E. (eds), Family Solidarity in the Netherlands. Dutch University Press, Amsterdam, 89–106.Google Scholar
Kohler, U., Karlson, K. B. and Holm, A. 2011. Comparing coefficients of nested nonlinear probability models. Stata Journal, 11, 3, 420–38.Google Scholar
Kröger, T. and Leinonen, A. 2012. Transformation by stealth: the retargeting of home care services in Finland. Health and Social Care in the Community, 20, 3, 319–27.Google Scholar
Kromhout, M., Feijten, P., Vonk, F., De Klerk, M., Marangos, A. M., Mensink, W., Den Draak, M. and De Boer, A. 2014. De Wmo in beweging. Evaluatie Wet maatschappelijke ondersteuning 2010–2012 [The Wmo on the Move. Evaluation Social Support Act 2010–2012]. SCP Netherlands Institute for Social Research, The Hague.Google Scholar
Larsson, K. 2006. Care needs and home-help services for older people in Sweden: does improved functioning account for the reduction in public care? Ageing & Society, 26, 3, 413–29.Google Scholar
Lister, R. 1994. ‘She has other duties’ – women, citizenship and social security. In Baldwin, S. and Falkingham, J. (eds), Social Security and Social Change: New Challenges to the Beveridge Model. Harvester Wheatsheaf, New York, 31–44.Google Scholar
Merz, E.-M., Dykstra, P. A., Hogerbrugge, M. J., Komter, A. E., Liefbroer, A. C. and Mulder, C. H. 2012. Codebook of the Netherlands Kinship Panel Study, a Multi-actor, Multi-method Panel Study on Solidarity in Family Relationships, Wave 3. Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute, The Hague.Google Scholar
Morée, M., Van der Zee, B. and Struijs, A. J. 2007. Formalisering van informele zorg. Over de rol van ‘gebruikelijke zorg’ bij toekenning van professionele zorg [Formalization of Informal Care. On the Role of ‘Usual Care’ in the Assessment of Eligibility for Professional Care]. CEG The Netherlands Centre for Ethics and Health, The Hague.Google Scholar
Mot, E. 2010. CPB Document No. 204: The Dutch System of Long-term Care. CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis, The Hague.Google Scholar
O'Connor, J. S. 1996. Citizenship, welfare state regimes and gender stratification. Current Sociology, 44, 2, 48–77.Google Scholar
Ogg, J. and Renaut, S. 2006. The support of parents in old age by those born during 1945–1954: a European perspective. Ageing & Society, 26, 5, 723–43.Google Scholar
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 2011. Help Wanted? Providing and Paying for Long-term Care. OECD Publishing, Paris.Google Scholar
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 2017 a. Long-term care resources and utilisation: Beds in nursing and residential care facilities. Retrieved from http://stats.oecd.org.Google Scholar
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 2017 b. Long-term care resources and utilisation: Long-term care recipients; LTC recipients at home. Retrieved from http://stats.oecd.org.Google Scholar
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 2017 c. Key short-term economic indicators: Harmonised unemployment rate. Retrieved from http://stats.oecd.org.Google Scholar
Österle, A. and Rothgang, H. 2010. Long-term care. In Castles, F. G., Leibfried, S., Lewis, J., Obinger, H. and Pierson, C. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Welfare State. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 378–90.Google Scholar
Pavalko, E. K. and Artis, J. E. 1997. Women's caregiving and paid work: causal relationships in late midlife. Journals of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 52B, 4, S170–9.Google Scholar
Pavolini, E. and Ranci, C. 2008. Restructuring the welfare state: reforms in long-term care in Western European countries. Journal of European Social Policy, 18, 3, 246–59.Google Scholar
Plaisier, I., Verbeek-Oudijk, D. and De Klerk, M. 2017. Developments in home-care use. Policy and changing community-based care use by independent community-dwelling adults in the Netherlands. Health Policy, 121, 1, 82–9.Google Scholar
Ranci, C. and Pavolini, E. 2015. Not all that glitters is gold: long-term care reforms in the last two decades in Europe. Journal of European Social Policy, 25, 3, 270–85.Google Scholar
Rostgaard, T. 2002. Caring for children and older people in Europe. A comparison of European policies and practice. Policy Studies, 23, 1, 51–68.Google Scholar
Rostgaard, T., Glendinning, C., Gori, C., Kröger, T., Österle, A., Szebehely, M., Theobald, H., Timonen, V. and Vabø, M. 2011. Livindhome – Living Independently at Home: Reforms in Home Care in 9 European Countries. SFI Danish National Centre for Social Research, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Saraceno, C. 2010. Social inequalities in facing old-age dependency: a bi-generational perspective. Journal of European Social Policy, 20, 1, 32–44.Google Scholar
Schenk, N., Dykstra, P. A., Maas, I. and Van Gaalen, R. 2014. Older adults’ networks and public care receipt: do partners and adult children substitute for unskilled public care. Ageing & Society, 34, 10, 1711–29.Google Scholar
Schmid, T., Brandt, M. and Haberkern, K. 2012. Gendered support to older parents: do welfare states matter? European Journal of Ageing, 9, 1, 39–50.Google Scholar
Schulz, E. 2010. The long-term care system for the elderly in Denmark. ENEPRI Research Report 73, Centre for European Policy Studies, Brussels.Google Scholar
Schut, F. T. and Van den Berg, B. 2010. Sustainability of comprehensive universal long-term care insurance in the Netherlands. Social Policy and Administration, 44, 4, 411–35.Google Scholar
Schwarz, G. 1978. Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics, 6, 2, 461–4.Google Scholar
Steel, D. 2008. Repeated cross-sectional design. In Lavrakas, P. J. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California, 715–6.Google Scholar
Swartz, K. 2013. Searching for a balance of responsibilities: OECD countries’ changing elderly assistance policies. Annual Review of Public Health, 34, 397–412.Google Scholar
Szebehely, M. and Trydegård, G.-B. 2012. Home care for older people in Sweden: a universal model in transition. Health and Social Care in the Community, 20, 3, 300–9.Google Scholar
Trydegård, G.-B. and Thorslund, M. 2010. One uniform welfare state or a multitude of welfare municipalities? The evolution of local variation in Swedish elder care. Social Policy and Administration, 44, 4, 495–511.Google Scholar
Ulmanen, P. 2013. Working daughters: a blind spot in Swedish eldercare policy. Social Politics, 20, 4, 65–87.Google Scholar
Ulmanen, P. and Szebehely, M. 2015. From the state to the family or to the market? Consequences of reduced residential eldercare in Sweden. International Journal of Social Welfare, 24, 1, 81–92.Google Scholar
Van den Broek, T. 2013. Formalization of informal care in the Netherlands: cost containment or gendered cost redistribution? International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics, 6, 2, 185–93.Google Scholar
Van den Broek, T. and Dykstra, P. A. 2016. Residential care and care to community-dwelling parents: out-selection, in-selection and diffusion of responsibility. Ageing & Society. Published online 26 May 2016, doi: 10.1017/S0144686X16000519.Google Scholar
Van den Broek, T., Dykstra, P. A. and Van der Veen, R. J. 2015. Care ideals in the Netherlands: shifts between 2002 and 2011. Canadian Journal on Aging/La revue canadienne du viellisement, 34, 3, 268–81.Google Scholar
Van der Pas, S., Van Tilburg, T. and Knipscheer, K. 2007. Changes in contact and support within intergenerational relationships in the Netherlands: a cohort and time-sequential perspective. Advances in Life Course Research, 12, 1, 243–74.Google Scholar
Van Hooren, F. and Becker, U. 2012. One welfare state, two care regimes. Understanding developments in child and elderly care policies in the Netherlands. Social Policy and Administration, 46, 1, 83–107.Google Scholar
Vlachantoni, A., Shaw, R. J., Evandrou, M. and Falkingham, J. 2015. The determinants of receiving social care in later life in England. Ageing & Society, 35, 2, 321–45.Google Scholar
Waerness, K. 1987. A feminist perspective on the new ideology of ‘community care’ for the elderly. Acta Sociologica, 30, 2, 133–50.Google Scholar
Walker, A. J., Pratt, C. C. and Eddy, L. 1995. Informal caregiving to aging family members: a critical review. Family Relations, 44, 4, 402–11.Google Scholar
White, H. 1980. A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica, 48, 4, 817–38.Google Scholar
Zickuhr, K. and Madden, M. 2012. Older Adults and Internet Use. For the First Time, Half of Adults Aged 65 and Older Are Online. Pew Research Center, Washington DC.Google Scholar