Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T00:42:12.400Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The role of European welfare states in intergenerational money transfers: a micro-level perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 August 2010

NIELS SCHENK ,
PEARL DYKSTRA  and
INEKE MAAS
NIELS SCHENK*
Affiliation:
Sociology, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
PEARL DYKSTRA
Affiliation:
Sociology, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
INEKE MAAS
Affiliation:
Sociology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
*
Address for correspondence: Niels Schenk, Sociology, Erasmus University, P.O. Box 1738, Rotterdam 3000 DR, The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article uses a comprehensive theoretical framework to explain why parents send money to particular children, and examines whether intergenerational solidarity is shaped by spending on various welfare domains or provisions as a percentage of gross domestic product. The theoretical model at the level of parents and children distinguishes parental resources and children's needs as the factors most likely to influence intergenerational money transfers. Differences in state spending on various welfare domains are then used to hypothesise in which countries children with specific needs are most likely to receive a transfer. For parents we hypothesise in which countries parents with specific available resources are most likely to send a transfer. We use data from the first wave of the Survey of Health and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) to analyse the influence of welfare-state provisions on the likelihood of intergenerational transfers in ten European countries. The results indicate that, in line with our expectations, the likelihood of a transfer being made is the outcome of an intricate resolution of the resources (ability) of the parents and the needs of a child. Rather large differences between countries in money transfers were found. The results suggest that, at least with reference to cross-generational money transfers, no consistent differences by welfare state regime were found.

Keywords

European welfare statesintergenerational transfersmoney transfers
Type
Research Article
Information
Ageing & Society , Volume 30 , Issue 8 , November 2010 , pp. 1315 - 1342
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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

Adukaite, J. 2009. Old welfare state theories and new welfare regimes in Eastern Europe: challenges and implications. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 42, 1, 23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albertini, M., Kohli, M. and Vogel, C. 2007. Intergenerational transfers of time and money in European families: common patterns, different regimes? Journal of European Social Policy, 17, 4, 319–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altonji, J. G., Hayashi, F. and Kotlikoff, L. J. 1997. Parental altruism and inter vivos transfers: theory and evidence. Journal of Political Economy, 105, 6, 1121–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Attias-Donfut, C., Ogg, J. and Wolff, F. 2005. European patterns of intergenerational financial and time transfers. European Journal of Ageing, 2, 3, 161–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Becker, G. S. 1974. A theory of social interactions. Journal of Political Economy, 82, 6, 1063–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, B. 2008. Financial transfers from living parents to adult children: who is helped and why? American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 67, 2, 207–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Börsch-Supan, A. and Jürges, H. 2005. The Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe: Methodology. Mannheim Research Institute for the Economics of Aging, Mannheim, Germany.Google Scholar
Cloïn, M. and Hermans, B. 2006. Onbetaalde arbeid en de combinatie van arbeid en zorg [Unpaid labour and the combination of work and care]. In Portegijs, W., Hermans, B. and Lalta, V. (eds), Emancipatiemonitor 2006 [Emancipation Monitor 2006]. Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau/Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, The Hague.Google Scholar
Cooney, T. M. and Uhlenberg, P. 1992. Support from parents over the life course: the adult child's perspective. Social Forces, 70, 5, 63–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, D. 1987. Motives for private income transfers. Journal of Political Economy, 95, 3, 508–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, D. 2003. Private transfers within the family: mothers, fathers, sons and daughters. In Munnell, A. H. and Sundén, A. (eds), Death and Dollars: The Role of Gifts and Bequests in America. Brookings Institute Press, Washington DC.Google Scholar
De Jong Gierveld, J. and Fokkema, T. 1998. Geographical differences in support networks of older adults. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 89, 3, 328–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dwyer, J. and Coward, R. T. 1991. A multivariate comparison of the involvement of adult sons versus daughters in the care of impaired parents. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 46, 5, S259–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eggebeen, D. and Hogan, D. 1990. Giving between generations in American families. Human Nature, 1, 3, 211–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Esping-Andersen, G. 1990. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Polity, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G. 1999. Social Foundations of Postindustrial Economies. Oxford University Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etzoni, A. 1993. The Spirit of Community: Rights, Responsibilities, and the Communitarian Agenda. Crown, New York.Google Scholar
Eurostat 2008. Social Benefits per Head of Population by Function. Eurostat, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
Grundy, E. and Henretta, J. C. 2006. Between elderly parents and adult children: a new look at the intergenerational care provided by the family. Ageing & Society, 26, 5, 707–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, W. D. 1964. The genetical evolution of social behaviour (Part I). Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, 1, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, S. 2006. Mature societies: planning for our future selves. Daedalus, 135, 1, 20–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haskey, J. 1996. The proportion of married couples who divorce: past patterns and current prospects. Population Trends, 83, 25–36.Google Scholar
Kalmijn, M. 2007. Gender differences in the effects of divorce, widowhood and remarriage on intergenerational support: does marriage protect fathers? Social Forces, 85, 3, 1079–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalmijn, M. and Saraceno, C. 2008. A comparative perspective on intergenerational support. European Societies, 10, 3, 479–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kasza, G. J. 2002. The illusion of welfare. Journal of Social Policy, 31, 2, 271–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohli, M. 1999. Private and public transfers between generations: linking the family and the state. European Societies, 1, 1, 81–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohli, M. and Albertini, M. 2009. Childlessness and inter-generational transfers: what is at stake? Ageing & Society, 29, 8, 1173–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Künemund, H. 2008. Intergenerational relations within the family and the state. In Saraceno, C. (ed.), Families, Ageing and Social Policy. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, 105–22.Google Scholar
Künemund, H. and Rein, M. 1999. There is more to receiving than needing: theoretical arguments and empirical explorations of crowding in and crowding out. Ageing & Society, 19, 1, 93–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Litwak, E. and Kulis, S. 1987. Technology, proximity, and measures of kin support. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49, 3, 649–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGarry, K. 1999. Inter vivos transfers and intended bequests. Journal of Public Economics, 73, 3, 321–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Motel-Klingebiel, A., Tesch-Römer, C. and Von Kondratowitz, H. 2005. Welfare states do not crowd out the family: evidence for mixed responsibility from comparative analyses. Ageing & Society, 25, 6, 863–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reher, D. S. 1998. Family ties in Western Europe: persistent contrasts. Population and Development Review, 24, 2, 203–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reil-Held, A. 2006. Crowding out or crowding in? Public and private transfers in Germany. European Journal of Population/Revue Européenne De Démographie, 22, 3, 263–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenthal, C. J. 1985. Kinkeeping in the familial division of labor. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47, 4, 965–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenzweig, M. R. and Wolpin, K. I. 1993. Intergenerational support and the life-cycle incomes of young men and their parents: human capital investments, coresidence, and intergenerational financial transfers. Journal of Labor Economics, 11, 1, 84–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenzweig, M. R. and Wolpin, K. I. 1994. Parental and public transfers to young women and their children. American Economic Review, 84, 5, 1195–212.Google Scholar
Saraceno, C. (ed.)2008. Families, Ageing and Social Policy: Intergenerational Solidarity in European Welfare States. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saraceno, C., and Keck, W. 2008. The Institutional Framework of Intergenerational Family Obligations in Europe: A Conceptual and Methodological Overview. Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung, Berlin.Google Scholar
Schoeni, R. F. 1997. Private interhousehold transfers of money and time: new empirical evidence. Review of Income and Wealth, 43, 4, 423–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tesch-Römer, C. and von Kondratowitz, H. 2006. Comparative ageing research: a flourishing field in need of theoretical cultivation. European Journal of Ageing, 3, 3, 155–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tomassini, C., Glaser, K., Wolf, D. A., Broese van Groenou, M. I. and Grundy, E. 2004. Living arrangements among older people: an overview of trends in Europe and the USA. Population Trends, 115, 24–34.Google Scholar
Uhlenberg, P. 1993. Demographic change and kin relationships in later life. In Maddox, G. L. and Lawton, M. P. (eds), Annual Review of Gerontology and Geriatics. Springer Publishing Company, New York, 219–38.Google Scholar
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) 1997. International Standard Classification of Education 1997. Institute of Statistics, UNESCO, Montreal.Google Scholar
van Gaalen, R., Dykstra, P. and Flap, H. 2008. Intergenerational contact beyond the dyad: the role of the sibling network. European Journal of Ageing, 5, 1, 19–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walker, A. 1996. The New Generational Contract: Intergenerational Relations, Old Age, and Welfare. University College London Press, London.Google Scholar
Whyte, L. 1994. Growing up with single parents and stepparents: long-term effects on family solidarity. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 4, 935–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfe, A. 1989. Whose Keeper? Social Science and Moral Obligations. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.CrossRefGoogle Scholar