Transcript Rethinking intergenerational solidarity in ageing societies

Social networks
Martin Kohli
(European University Institute, Florence)
&
Harald Künemund
(University of Vechta)
ESF Forward Looks Workshop
Well-Being of the Elderly
(Lausanne, October 24, 2008)
Slide 1
European
University
Institute
Overview
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Concepts & policy questions
The structure of family networks
Benefits and costs of family networks
Trends in network evolution
Conclusions: Remaining gaps in knowledge
Slide 2
European
University
Institute
1. Concepts & policy questions
 Social networks are constituted by socially interacting units or
actors at different levels of aggregation
 Focus on social networks of elderly individuals
(structure, exchange, benefits, costs)
 Social connectedness: mutually exclusive concepts?
 activities
 networks
 social capital
 Kin and non-kin networks:
Hierarchical compensation vs. task specificity
Slide 3
European
University
Institute
Network benefits
 Social networks are crucial for the well-being of elderly
individuals…
 Buffering of life course risks
 Health
 Mortality
 …and the society at large
 Support
 Productive activities
 Social participation
 How can they be supported in turn?
Slide 4
European
University
Institute
2. The structure of family networks:
Marital status by age group
100 %
80 %
60 %
40 %
20 %
0%
50-59
60-69
70-79
> 79
50-59
Men
Married
60-69
70-79
> 79
Women
Never married
Divorced
Slide 5
Widowed
European
University
Institute
Number of living children by age group
100 %
80 %
60 %
40 %
20 %
0%
50-59
None
60-69
1 child
70-79
2 children
Slide 6
> 79
3 or more children
European
University
Institute
Proximity of nearest child by age group
100 %
80 %
60 %
40 %
20 %
0%
50-59
Household
60-69
House
70-79
<1 km
Slide 7
1-25 km
> 79
25-100 km
>100 km
European
University
Institute
Residential proximity by country
100 %
80 %
60 %
40 %
20 %
0%
DK
Household
SE
AT
House
DE
NL
<1 km
Slide 8
FR
CH
1-25 km
IT
ES
25-100 km
GR
>100 km
European
University
Institute
Co-residence with adult child by age and country
70 %
60 %
50 %
40 %
30 %
20 %
10 %
0%
All
< 60
60 - 70
Northern Europe
DK
SE
Central Europe
AT
FR
DE
Southern Europe
GR
IT
ES
Slide 9
> 70
NL
CH
European
University
Institute
3. Benefits and costs of family networks:
Transfers of money and time
70 %
60 %
50 %
40 %
30 %
20 %
10 %
0%
Financial transfers: Financial transfers:
received
given
Social support:
received
Northern Europe
DK
SE
Central Europe
AT
FR
DE
Southern Europe
GR
IT
ES
Slide 10
Social Support:
given
NL
CH
European
University
Institute
Balance of financial transfers and social support
by age group and country
8.000 €
6.000 €
4.000 €
2.000 €
0€
-2.000 €
-4.000 €
SE
50-59
DK
DE
60-69
NL
BE
FR
70-79
Slide 11
CH
AT
IT
ES
GR
IL
80+
European
University
Institute
Costs and burdens:
„Sandwich“ situations
100
Sandwich generation
+ care for parent
80
+ care for child
+ work
60
40
20
0
-44 5-49 0-54 5-59 0-64 5-69 0-74 5-79 0-85
8
7
7
6
6
5
5
4
40
Age group
Slide 12
European
University
Institute
Competing demands
“Soft” and “hard” sandwich situations
Consequences of being sandwiched have often been described
as being dramatic, but these situations seem to be very rare in
all western societies.
There is also no general deterioration of well-being simply
because of the additional existence of younger generations
within the family – these might be of help instead.
Increasing labour force participation of women will result in an
increase of “hard” sandwich constellations.
Slide 13
European
University
Institute
4. Trends in network evolution
a) changes in family demography (fertility, childlessness,
nuptiality, later marriage and parenthood, divorce and family
recomposition)
b) changes in norms and values (gender roles, labour market
participation, responsibility for care)
c) changing individual resources and capabilities (education,
health, wealth, experience with cultural diversity)
d) changes in opportunities for mobility (migration, portability of
social rights)
Slide 14
European
University
Institute
Risks for family networks
 Factors that may weaken the extent to which family networks
can be activated in times of need:
 Increasing geographical distance
 Increasing burden due to competing demands from parents,
children, and the labour market
 Fading norms of solidarity and responsibility
 Will non-kin social networks fill in the gap?
Slide 15
European
University
Institute
Public and private support
A basic assumption was that the development of the welfare
state would crowd out the private support within families.
However, welfare state provisions, far from crowding out family
support, enable the family in turn to provide intergenerational
support and transfers an improves the quality of releationships.
Reductions in welfare state spending are therefore likely to
result in less family solidarity.
Slide 16
European
University
Institute
Results
Co-residence among adult family generations has decreased
massively in all Western societies, but by extending the
boundaries of „togetherness“, the situation turns out to be very
different.
Findings on the frequency of contact, emotional closeness, and
the exchange of support confirm that adult generations in the
family, even in countries with weaker family traditions and larger
geographical distance, remain closely linked.
Networks have benefits and costs.
Slide 17
European
University
Institute
5. Conclusion:
Remaining gaps in knowledge
 Wider kinship networks, e.g., role of siblings or in-laws.
(demography, relevance in case of need)
 Special groups: childless, divorced (availability of
compensation)
 Kin and non-kin networks of elderly migrants, both for those
ageing abroad and those migrating after retirement (‘amenity
migration’)
 Gender differences in networks and exchange activities (e.g.,
incidence of caring men, appropriate supportive measures)
 Informal sociability and solidarity (incidence and reliability)
 Regional disparities in ageing and service provision)
Slide 18
European
University
Institute
Research needs
 Comparisons are needed among European societies, but also
with the other advanced societies that face similar challenges.
 Analyses of network patterns and network salience over the life
course are required to overcome the narrow focus on specific
life periods such as older age.
 Comparative longitudinal (panel) data needs to be expanded.
 Interactions between social actors and feedback patterns have
to be studied longitudinally.
 The impact of new communication technologies on the social
relations of the future elderly must be explored.
Slide 19
European
University
Institute
Titel
 Punkte
Slide 20
European
University
Institute
Ageing societies and family solidarity
• Intergenerational family solidarity is an important provider of welfare
• Insurance for children‘s life course risks (e.g., unemployment, divorce)
• Support for children‘s parenting
• Care for dependent elderly
• Families provide generational integration
• Proximity, contact, emotional ties
• Financial and instrumental linkages, equalization of disparities between
generations
• But are families still able to perform?
Slide 21
European
University
Institute
Limits of family solidarity
• Culture shift: Individualization
• Weaker family structure: Divorce, singlehood, childlessness
• Potential overload of the “sandwich generation” (especially
women)
• Dilemma between caring and later exit from the labor force
 Need for new arrangements between employment and care
Slide 22
European
University
Institute
Is family support „good“ support?
•
•
•
•
•
•
Family transfers are selective and may deepen social inequalities
Intergenerational family relations are „ambivalent“
Generations do not want to depend on each other
Families may be a source of conflict
Family carers may suffer from overload
Family care may constrain employment careers
• But closeness and support outweigh conflicts
• Families promote social and economic well-being and inclusion
 It pays to help the family support its members
Slide 23
European
University
Institute
Heterogeneity
•
•
•
•
•
•
Class
Regions, urban-rural
Ethnic/migrant families
Divorce, family recomposition
Monoparental families
Number of children, childlessness
Slide 24
European
University
Institute
Conclusions
• Intergenerational family solidarity is important for demographic
reproduction and social integration, and as an insurance system
for life course risks
• But this solidarity potential of the family is threatened by current
changes, and cannot be taken for granted any more
• Family support may be costly for those who give (especially
women), and lead to individual and policy dilemmas
• One dilemma is between family care work and employment (not
only for young parents but also for the young elderly)
 Generational mainstreaming:
• Systematic „generational check“ of all public policies
• Check not only for direct effects (on the primary target persons) but
also for indirect effects (on the other generations)
Slide 25
European
University
Institute