Articol Mihaela Hagarus

7/23/2019 Articol Mihaela Hagarus

1/16

Revista de Asisten Social, anul XIII, 4/2014, 1-15 1www.swreview.ro

Intergenerational Solidarity in Co-

Residential Living ArrangementsMihaela Hrgu*

Abstract. We investigatedifferent forms of intergenerational solidarity betweenparents and their adult children, with a focus on situations when parents and theiradult children live together in the same house. Co-residence is a form of functionalsolidarity (providing a living space), and a form of structural solidarity in the sametime (a context that facilitates other intergenerational exchanges). Adopting the adultchilds perspective, we first study different forms of co-residential livingarrangements (the child has never left parental home, the child had left and laterreturned, and the parents have moved with the adult child in his/her home), and findthat adult children benefit from this form of functional solidarity more often thanelderly parents. Second, we study forms of upward and downward support that takeplace in co-residential living arrangements, such as personal care, emotionalsupport, help with household tasks and childcare, and factors that may influencethem. We adopt a theoretical model that accounts for adult childs and parentsopportunity and needs structures, as well as for family structure. We find thatparents old age and inability to perform daily activities trigger personal care fromchildren, but except this case, parents are the ones who offer support to co-residentchildren, mainly in form of help with the household tasks and childcare, responding toadult childrens needs: time demandingjobs or the absence of the spouse.

Keywords: intergenerational solidarity, types of support, co-residence, Generationsand Gender Survey

IntroductionRomanians place a much more important role on the family than on the society for the

support of the vulnerable categories. Around 90% of people consider that is mainlyfamilys responsibility to care for (pre-)school children, while two thirds consider thatcaring for elderly is also its responsibility, according to the report of the Generations and

Gender Survey (2007). The report from the Population Policy Acceptance survey (2006)also shows a strong reliance of Romanians on familys support, both downward (from

parents to children) and upward (from children to parents). This holds for grandparents

taking care for grandchildren, for parents offering financial help to their adult children or

even for parents adapting their own lives to help their children, if they need it. Similarly,

adult children should take responsibility for care of elderly parents when they are in needor even to take the parents to live with them when they cant take care of themselves.

In connection with the strong intergenerational relations, the issue of co-residence is

brought into discussion, i.e. adults living together with their parents. This living

arrangement is considered a form of support in itself: providing a living space, or a contextthat facilitates other intergenerational exchanges. Co-residence is a form of

intergenerational support mainly for young people, who remain longer in the parental

home, until they find the resources to move to an independent dwelling. According to areport on youth in Europe (Eurostat 2009), high proportions of youngsters aged 15-30 in

Romania quote constraints as the main reason to remain longer in the parental home: 40%

* Babe-Bolyai University, Centre for Population Studies, 68 Avram Iancu st., 0264-599613, E-mail:[email protected]


2/16

Mihaela Hrgu/Intergenerational Solidarity in Co-Residential Living Arrangements2

generally cannot afford to move out, 37% answer that there are not enough affordablehousing available. Population Policy Acceptance (2006) report show that in the Eastern

European transition states people consider financial assistance and an improvement in the

housing situation as more important policy desired measures than family-work

reconciliation-orientated measures. On behalf of the elderly, co-residence has been shown

to be a very important mechanism of social protection, with an important povertyalleviation role (Lyberaki and Tinios 2005).

In the present paper we investigate the intergenerational co-residence as a form of

support (providing a living space) and as a context that facilitates intergenerational

exchanges. We adopt the adult childrens perspective and investigate the forms of co -residence (who moved with whom) and the forms of intergenerational support exchanged

in such living arrangements. We also analyse the factors that predict the giving or

receiving of different types of support, in terms of childrens and parents needs andopportunities, as well as family structure.

Forms of intergenerational solidarity and factors that influence itIntergenerational solidarity between children and parents refers to the intergenerationalcohesion after children reach adulthood and establish careers and families of their own(Bengston and Roberts, 1991, 896). The model elaborated further contains six dimensions

of intergenerational solidarity, five of which refer to behavioural, affective and cognitive

orientation of parents and children toward one another, while the sixth refers to theopportunities for family interactions, as presented in the following table:

Table 1.Dimensions of intergenerational solidarity

Dimensions Characteristics

Associational

solidarity

Frequency and patterns of interaction in various types of activities in

which family members engage

Affectual solidarityType and degree of positive sentiments held about family members, andthe degree of reciprocity of these sentiments

Consensual solidarityDegree of agreement on values, attitudes and beliefs among familymembers

Functional solidarity Degree of helping and exchange of resources

Normative solidarityStrength of commitment to performance of familial roles and to meetingfamilial obligations (familialism)

Structural solidarityOpportunity structure for intergenerational relationships, reflected innumber, type and proximity of family members

Source: Bengston and Roberts 1991, 857

These dimensions have been extensively used in empirical research of intergenerational

relations, in varying combinations or separately. Szydlik (2008) discuss three dimensions

of solidarity: associational (common activities), affectual (emotional attitudes such as the

emotional closeness of the relation), and functional (support and the giving and taking ofmoney, time and space).

Beyond the taxonomy of intergenerational solidarity, authors proposed different

theoretical models, with the goal of explaining more or less pronounced intergenerational

solidarity. Szydlik (2008) proposed a model with four conditional factors for solidarity,

namely opportunity, need, family and contextual-cultural structures, with three levels ofanalysis: individual, family and society. Intergenerational relations involve the parent and

the child, both with opportunities and need structure; this relationship is embedded in a

family and in a societal context. Opportunity structures refer to opportunities or resources


3/16

Revista de Asisten Social, anul XIII, 4/2014 3

for intergenerational solidarity, such as residential proximity of family members,

occupational status (availability of time to offer support), economic status (availability of

financial resources). Needs structures indicate the need for intergenerational solidarity,which can be a result of health, financial or emotional problems. At the family level, the

history of events (such as divorce) may shape the intergenerational solidarity, as well as

the family composition (the number of siblings) or family norms. Cultural-contextualstructures refer to the societal conditions within which intergenerational relations take

place, such as economic and tax system, welfare state, the labour and housing market.

Albertini, Kholi and Vogel (2007) proposed a theoretical model that distinguishes

between three sets of factors affecting intergenerational solidarity: structural, institutional,

cultural, each of them acting at micro level (family, dyads and individuals) and macro level(above family). At micro level, structural factors (opportunity structure for

intergenerational relations) refer to family and household composition, educational and

occupational status of children and parents, income and wealth status; institutional factors

refer to marriage/cohabitation arrangements and household division of labour; and cultural

factors refer to values, beliefs, attitudes and cultural practices of families, parents andchildren.

For cross-country comparisons of intergenerational solidarity, macro level factors must

be taken into account. Macro level structural factors include demographic structure of

family and households, labour force structure and income and wealth distribution. Fewerchildren may translate into lower levels of upward support, from children to parents, and in

high income countries adult children may outsource parental care. Macro level institutional

factors include legal obligations of intergenerational support, gift and inheritance taxationand family and social security policies. Intergenerational care is more prevalent in southern

and central European countries, where children are legally obligated to support parents in

need (Haberkern and Szydlik, 2010). It is more prevalent also in countries where the statetakes less responsibility towards its citizens (Isengard and Szydlik, 2012). Macro levelcultural factors include religious traditions, family and gender values, age and generation

values. Religion is one of the main sources of expressed moral obligations, since the

religious doctrines prescribe the appropriate behavior between parents and children,emphasizes helping behavior and inculcate collectivistic values that insist on helping those

in need (Gans, Silverstein, Lowerstein, 2009).

Co-residence

All three theoretical models presented (Bengtson and Roberts, 1991, Szydlik, 2008,

Albertini et al., 2007) emphasized the importance of the opportunity structure for

intergenerational transfers, referring to it as structural intergenerational solidarity, withgeographic proximity of parents and children as a key element. Intergenerational co-

residence, i.e. parents and adult children living in the same household, can be seen as

structural intergenerational solidarity in its ultimate form (Dykstra, van den Broek,

Muresan, Haragus, Haragus, Abramowska-Kmon, Kotowska, 2013). Sharing the samehousehold offers more opportunities for support that any other living arrangement. Besides

facilitating intergenerational exchanges, co-residence is a form of functional solidarity on

its own: the living space is the resource that is exchanged by parents and children (Ogg and

Renaut 2006, Brandt, Haberkern and Szydlik 2009, Isengard and Szydlik 2012, Dykstra etal. 2013). Co-residence is seen even as the main form of intergenerational support in

Southern Europe (Albertini, Kohli and Vogel, 2007, Jappens and Van Bavel, 2012).


4/16


Co-residence as a form of functional solidari ty

When authors approach intergenerational co-residence in eastern Europe and try to offer an

explanation for higher proportions of shared households compared with western Europe,

they refer to two elements: a historical pattern of family formation with high incidence of

extended/multigenerational households (De Jong Gierveld, De Valk and Blommesteijn,

2002, De Jong Gierveld, Dykstra and Schenk, 2012), on the one hand, and the housingsituation (availability and affordability) on the other hand (De Jong Gierveld, De Valk and

Blommesteijn, 2002, Robila, 2004, De Jong Gierveld, Dykstra and Schenk, 2012).

Scholars who took a closer look at the household and family contexts in the Balkans

show, in terms of traditional household formation patterns, that the neolocal system, based

on nuclear and stem families, was dominant in Romanian territories (Kaser 1996, 2009).Kaser (2009, 256) considers that the system worked like a stem family, though with

equally partible inheritance, which means that at the time of marriage the sons received

their equal shares of land, and left the parents house in order to established separateresidences. The youngest (rarely the oldest) son remained with his parents.

During the communist regime in Romania it was the states concern to ensure thehousing stock, which was the states property. Organised in this way, the system ofdwelling allocation during that period encouraged neolocal residential patterns for the

young people (Castiglioni, Hrgu, Faludi, Hrgu, unpublished manuscript).

The change of the political regime in 1989 brought new challenges for young people

wanting to establish an independent household. As one of the first measures in 1990 inRomania, the housing stock was sold to the population, so the great majority of Romanians

became owners. Not only the rhythm of construction of new dwellings, but also the share

of constructions from public funds sharply decreased in the post-communist period. Atpresent, the public funded housing stock accounts for 2% of all housing (Dan, 2009). This

was doubled by the sharp decrease in the purchasing power of population during the

transition period and a spectacular increase in housing prices, leading to a housing crisis

(Dan, 1996, 2009). The youth was especially negatively affected. Although programs ofhousing constructions for youth have been developed, their results go far behind the needs

of population.

Given the housing situations and the difficulties for young people/couples to achieve an

independent dwelling, we expect to find for our data that the greatest share of adult

children in intergenerational co-residential living arrangements have always been living in

their parents' house and only a small proportion to be in the situation when they took their(frail) parents to live with them. In other words, adult children are the beneficiaries of this

form of functional solidarity.

Co-residence as structural solidari ty: intergenerational support in co-residential li ving

arrangements

Results of different studies from Europe and USA about intergenerational transfers show

that the direction of these transfers are mostly downward, from the older to the youngergenerations, both in case of financial transfers and social support, and more frequent and

more intense than those from children to parents (Kholi, 2004, Albertini et al., 2007).

Mulder and van der Meer (2009) link the support offered by parents to their adult children

with the stronger feelings of affection and obligation that parents have towards childrenthan the other way around.


5/16


Many studies focus on living arrangements of the elderly and approach co-residence

from their perspective, guided by the assumption that co-residence is a living arrangement

determined by their needs. In other words, co-residence is seen as a form of support for theelderly (Kalmijn, 2006, Ogg and Renaut, 2006). Treas and Cohen (2007) show that co-

residence reduces the loneliness of the elderly and it is also a strategy for them to cope

with poverty in late life, while Lyberaki and Tynios (2005) consider that co-residence withchildren is probably the oldest mechanism of social protection for old age.

Other studies show that co-residence is triggered mainly by adult children's needs: onlylooking at the share of adult children that have always lived with their parents vs. those

whose parents moved in with them one can see that co-residence is a response to adult

children's needs (Crimmins and Ingegneri, 1990). Beyond the fact that co-residence withparents is a form of functional support for the adult children (a place where to live), the

flow of support inside co-residential living arrangements is downwards, from parents to

children. Ward et al. (1992) show that parents performed a higher share of domestic tasks

than children in shared households and a higher amount of tasks than parents who did not

live with their adult children. Moreover, the number and share of household tasks did notdecrease substantially with the parents' age, indicating that parents remain rather providers

than receivers of support even in older ages. De Jong Gierveld and collaborators (2012)develop a typology of intergenerational support and find that in co-residential households

in eastern Europe (Russia, Bulgaria and Georgia) the most frequent type of support is a

high likelihood of practical help to both resident and non-resident children together with a

moderate likelihood of weekly get-togethers. This result make the authors to conclude thatit is clear that when older adults live with their adult children in the same household in

eastern Europe, they are more likely to be providers of support for their children than

receivers. They also found greater likelihoods for the elderly to be involved in downward

than in upward transfers for elderly not living together with their children, both in easternand western European countries (De Jong Gierveld et al., 2012).

Our approach of intergenerational co-residence starts from the assumption that adult

children are the beneficiaries of this structural solidarity. We study the flows of support

(functional solidarity) between adult children and their parents in situations of co-residence, from the adult children's perspective. We expect the downwards support, from

parents to children, to be offered more often than the upwards support, from children to

parents, for all types of intergenerational support taken into account (personal care,emotional and help with household tasks).

We also want to investigate what factors influence the functional solidarity in

intergenerational co-residential households. Adopting the theoretical model proposed bySzydlik (2008), we address factors at individual and family level: opportunity and need

structures of parents and adult children, as well as family structure.

Inside functional solidarity, help and care are seen as two different types of support.

Care is frequently a necessity, determined by the needs of the recipient (health problems,inability to perform daily basic activities), while help services are performed on a more

voluntary basis, more sporadically, when one has the opportunity (Brandt, Haberkern and

Szydlik, 2009). Care is usually provided by adult children to parents, when they are in poor

health, very old and/or without a partner alive. Having a partner alive is important toelderly persons especially for their emotional wellbeing: De Jong Gierveld, Dykstra and

Schenk (2012) show that living with adult children provides some protection againstloneliness, but not to the same degree as having a partner relationship.


6/16


Whether children provide support for their parents depend more on childrensopportunity structure, such as the time they have available, the cost for foregone

alternatives (high income, high level of education) (Brandt, Haberkern and Szydlik, 2009).

We expect the parents health problems and lack of a partner to increase the upward care,as well as emotional support, while no economic activity from behalf of the child to offer

enough time (opportunity) to provide more support for the parents than working children.We also expect higher educated adult children to provide less support to their co-resident

parents than lower educated ones.

Whether the adult child have never left the parental home or he/she left and later has

returned or the parents moved in with the child is an indicator of the childs need for aliving space. In the spirit of reciprocity, we might expect that adult children living in

parents house offer support to their parents in a greater extent than those who took parentsto live with them. On the other hand, elderly who moved in with their children are the mostin need for help and care, the move into the childs home being most probably triggered by

illness or inability to perform daily activities. We expect upward care to be more spread

when parent(s) and child live together in the childs home. Given the results of previousstudies about the flows of intergenerational support and the fact that parents who movedinto the childs home are most probably ill or very old, we expect the downward help to bemore prevalent when adult children and parents live together into the parents house.

As Szydlik (2008) argued in his model, individual factors are embedded in family

structures. When there are more siblings living in the same household with the parent, the

probability of upward help decreases, since it can be shared. Having their own childrenmay lower the level of support given to the parents, because they represent competing

obligations (Brandt, Haberkern and Szydlik, 2009). On the other hand, children of the adult

child may increase the need for support and therefore the help offered by elderly parents.

Gender differences in giving and receiving intergenerational help and care are also

documented in the literature: daughters help their parents more than sons, and elderlymothers receive more support than elderly fathers (Silverstein, Gans and Yang, 2006). The

quality of the relation may explain this, since the mother-daughter tie is stronger than other

parent-child relationship (Eggebeen, 2002), or the socialization of daughters to caregivingroles (Rossi and Rossi, 1990). The less support received by fathers may be linked to the

more peripheral involvement of fathers in family life (and even their disappearance

because of divorce and remarriage), which may hinder their opportunities for receivingintergenerational support in old age (Silverstein, Gans and Yang, 2006). In addition,

women live longer (alone) and make use of help and care more than men (Brandt,

Haberkern and Szydlik, 2009). In accordance with these results, we expect women to show

higher likelihood of upward and downward support, at the same time.

Researchers found that the level of support received from parents does not remainconstant across adulthood. Cooney and Uhlenberg (1992) found a decline over the life

course, with the most visible in the early 40s, but the decline is not linear, nor continuous.

The authors found that the decline in parental support cannot be explained by changes in

the child's involvement in work, school or family roles, while parental life coursecharacteristics have a more visible effect on age patterns of support. A more recent

research (Hartnett et al., 2012) identifies three mediators for the effect of child's age on

parent-to-child financial transfers: offspring need (fewer needs across the life course andconsequently request for less support), acquiring adult identity (role transitions across the

life course and specific norms associated) and proximity and affinity (decrease in


7/16


geographical proximity and emotional closeness over the child's life course). Hartnett and

collaborators (2012)agree that also a direct effect of age on support exists, related to age

norms. Moreover, as the offspring goes older, so does the parents and consequently theirpossibility to support their children decline, while their needs for support from children

increase and the balance of intergenerational support exchange may be reversed.

Nevertheless, the results of Albertini et al., 2007 on SHARE data do not support theassumption of a reversal of the direction of support with increasing age. Instead, they show

that the net downward flow goes from parents to their children across all age groups and

countries.

We expect that flows of downward support (from parents to children) to decrease in

intensity with the child's age, while the flows of upward support (from children to parents)to increase with child's age (and consequently parents' age), for all types of support taken

into consideration.

Data and method

We use for our investigation the Generations and Gender Survey data for Romania,

conducted in 2005, as part of the international Generations and Gender Programme. The

original sample consist of 11986 respondents (5977 men and 6009 women) aged 18-79

years.

The questionnaire comprised an extensive section about intergenerational relations and

the types of solidarity between parents and children (Vikat et al., 2007). The rich data ofthe GGS allow us to distinguish between several types of upward or downward

intergenerational support: personal care (regular help with personal care such as eating,

getting up, dressing, bathing, or using toilets), emotional support (talking about personalexperiences and feelings), help with household tasks (cooking, washing, cleaning etc.), and

help with childcare. Given the specific of intergenerational co-residence, which is in the

same time a form of functional and structural solidarity, and to the prevalence of this living

arrangement in Romania, we investigate the types of intergenerational exchange that takeplace when adult children and parents live together in the same home, adopting the adult

childs perspective. For the look at the co-residential situation of adult children we selectedfrom the original sample persons with at least one parent alive (for kin availability), whichleft us with 6674 respondents. For the investigation of the intergenerational support in co-

residential living arrangement, we selected only persons who live in the same household

with at least one parent. We have 1616 respondents left in the working sample.

We use binary logistic regression models to investigate how different characteristics of

adult children or of parents predict different types of support. This is a type of regressionused to identify the strength of independent factors on a dichotomist dependent variable

that represents the occurrence or non-occurrence of a particular behaviour (the exchange of

different intergenerational support, in our case). The logistic regression applies themaximum likelihood estimation and reflects the odds that the observed values of the

dependent variable to be predicted from the observed values of the independent variables.

All independent variables that we use are categorical. The results are given in the form of

relative odds ratios. The relative odds ratio for a predictor is the relative amount by whichthe chance that the event of interest to appear increases (relative odds ratio greater than 1)

or decreases (relative odds ratio smaller than 1) when the value of the predictor increases

by one unit. When we use categorical independent variables, we refer to a reference

category: an odds ratio greater than 1 means that the chance that the behaviour of interestto appear is greater than for the reference category of the respective variable. Similarly, an


8/16


odds ratio smaller than 1 means that the chance that the behaviour of interest to appear issmaller than for the reference category of that variable.

For choosing the independent variables we adopt the theoretical model proposed by

Szydlik (2008) and use indicators for opportunity, need and family structures. We consider

activity status (employed vs. non working) and education level (low, medium and high) of

the adult children as indicators of their opportunity structure, and the type of co-residenceas indicator of their needs structure. If they have never left parental home or left and later

have returned indicate they needed a living space. If they took the elderly parents to live

with them may indicate parents needs (for care, for companionship). We use other twoindicators for parents needs: whether they are limited in their ability to carry out normaleveryday activities because of a physical or mental health problem or a disability, and

whether they have a living partner. Marital status of the children and whether they have

their own children aged 0-14 in the household are indicators of family structure. We alsouse age and gender of the child.

ResultsDescriptive

In Romania, 24.2% of those with at least one parent alive share a household with their

parent(s). Of those co-residing with parents, the highest proportions are persons who havealways been living with their parents (Figure1). Comparing figures for adult children living

in parents' household (considering co-residence a support form for the young) with figures

for adult children whose parents moved in with them (considering co-residence a support

form for the elderly), one can say that co-residence is clearly a form of downwardfunctional solidarity, a response to adult children's needs.

Source: Generations and Gender Survey, authors calculations

Figure 1.Distribution of adult children by co-residential situation

A look at the characteristics of persons in different co-residential situations (Figure 2)

gives us more clues about this form of functional solidarity. Clearly, most persons that

have never left parental home are young, on the background of a prolonged stay in parentalhome. Scholars connect the longer stay in the parental home, specific to southern and

eastern European countries, with the high levels of unemployment and low wages for

young people, coupled with scarce opportunities for affordable housing (Aasve et al.,2007, Iacovou, 2001).


9/16


Most of the moves from parental homes to independent dwellings in Romania are

connected with the moment of marriage (Muresan, 2007, 2012) and consequently, highest

proportions of those that have never left parental home did not married (yet), for all agegroups. In case of the oldest respondents (aged 50 plus), 27.3% of them havent got

married during their life and still live with their parent(s). Married persons that still live

with their parents are the fewest, while divorced respondents have returned to theirparents home in the greatest proportions.

The situation of never having left parental home is specific for young and unmarriedpersons, the return into parental home is associated with the divorce, and taking the parents

into childrens home is associated with divorce and old age (of the child and consequentlyof the parent).


Figure 2.Distribution of adult children by co-residential situation, age group and marital

status

Now we look at different types of intergenerational support exchange that take place inhouseholds where adult children and their parents live together (Table 2).

Personal care is the least spread form of support, being triggered by the recipientsillness. Very few respondents (adult children) benefit from this form of support from their

parents; personal care is mainly a form of upward support. Adults offer emotional support

in a greater extent than personal care, but receive the same kind of support from theirparents more than they offer.

The adult childrens perspective allows us to see the parents involvement in thehousehold tasks and childcare. Most of the parents help their co-resident adult children

with daily meals preparation (65.7%) and with the dishes (59.2%). Considering the

parents help with any task, three quarters help their co-resident children with householdchores. Parents involvement in their grandchildrens care is less prevalent; (grand)parents

become a resource mainly when the children are ill and somebody must stay home withthem when parents are at work.


10/16


Table 2.Share of adult children giving and receiving support in co-residential households

Upward support (from adult children to parents)

Help with personal care 3.8%

Emotional support 15.5%

Downward support (from parents to adult children)

Help with personal care 0.6%

Emotional support 26%

Help with household tasksa:

Preparing daily meals 65.7%

Doing the dishes 59.2%

Shopping for food 48.7%

Vacuum-cleaning the house 35.0%1

Small repairs 39.0%

Paying bills, finance 51.4%

Organizing joint activities 23.5%

Any household task 74.4%

Help with childcare (when there is at least one child aged 0-14 years in thehousehold)a

Dressing 8.5%

Putting to bed 7.1%

Illness 11.2%

Leisure activities 8.0%

Homework preparations 1.3%

Transport 10.3%

Any childcare task 20.1%

Note: a Percentage of persons saying that mother or father always or usually performs this task.


Mul tivariate analysis

Now we turn our attention to the factors that influence the giving of intergenerationalsupport such as personal care, emotional support, help with the household tasks and

childcare (Table 3). We didnt construct a model for personal care from parents to childrenbecause only 11 respondents reported to have received this form of support.

As expected, personal care is a form of intergenerational support triggered by parentsneeds: old age (oldest respondents have the highest odds to offer this form ofintergenerational support, to their oldest parents), limited ability to carry out normal

everyday activities, absence of a living partner, and movement into the childs house.Caring for an old and ill parent needs time resources from behalf of the child: adult

children that do not work show the highest odds to offer personal care to their co-resident

parents.

Unlike the model for personal care, very few factors show statistical significant effectsin case of upward emotional support. Being a woman increase the chances to offer

emotional support, as well as medium education, compared with low educated persons.


11/16


Whether the respondents receive emotional support from their parents is influenced by

more factors: being a woman, having returned into parents house and medium educationincrease the chances, while higher age and having only the father alive decrease thechances of receiving. Return into parents home happens usually after a divorce or death of

the spouse, so the respondents need more emotional support. Gender, both of the child and

of the parents, plays an important role in the exchange of emotional support: womenreceive and also give more.

The younger the adult children, the higher the chances to receive help with householdchores. Compared with married persons, those not married have the highest chances to

receive help from their parents, but also divorced and widowed adult children have high

odds to be helped with domestic tasks. The common feature for them is the absence of aspouse that might contribute to the household chores. When only one (co-resident) parent

is alive, the chances of practical help received sharply decline, especially when only father

is alive. Women are those who provide practical help to their children. Respondents with

medium and higher education receive more help with the household chores than the low

educated ones, since they may have more time demanding jobs. The presence ofgrandchildren in the household reduces the grandparent involvement in the domesticchores.

Table 3.Results of logistic regression models for adult children offering support to or

receiving support from parents

Covariates

Frequency

Standardized coefficients (B)

Careupward Emotionalupward Emotionaldownward

Help with

householdtasks(downward)

Age group (adultchild)

Below 30 (ref) 887 1 1 1 1

30-39 404 1,62 1,04 0,61*** 0,38***

40-49 157 1,89 1,19 0,78 0,22***

50 plus 167 4,23** 0,99 0,46*** 0,12***

Marital status(adult child)

Never married 1072 1,11 0,94 0,90 10,28***

Divorced 96 0,92 0,82 0,76 7,97***

Widow 28 1,12 0,66 0,60 6,42***Married (ref) 419 1 1 1 1

Parents limitedability to performeveryday activities

Both limited 62 7,80*** 1,08 1,03 0,75

Mother limited 282 3,48*** 1,13 1,02 0,78

Father limited 112 12,87*** 0,77 0,96 0,70

None limited (ref) 1159 1 1 1 1

Parentsalive

Only mother alive 522 3,14** 1,13 0,88 0,63**

Only father alive 99 2,28 0,75 0,34*** 0,17***Both alive (ref) 994 1 1 1 1


12/16


Education (adult

child)

Low (ref) 452 1 1 1 1

Medium 1011 1,05 1,66*** 1,36** 1,90***

High 152 1,33 1,38 1,28 2,67***

Co-residencesituation

Never left (ref) 1317 1 1 1 1

Returned 195 1,01 1,33 1,48** 0,91

Took parents to live

with them103 2,82*** 0,83 1,08 0,87

Gender (adultchild)

Male 1083 0,64 0,61*** 0,54***

Female (ref) 532 1 1 1

Children aged 0-14in the household

No (ref) 1392 1 1 1 1

Yes 223 0,54 1,22 0,99 0,39***

Employment status(adult child)

Not working 633 2,21** 1,23 1,18 0,78

Employed (ref) 982 1 1 1 1

Cox & Snell R Square 0,079 0,018 0,05 0,367

Nagelkerke R Square 0,289 0,031 0,074 0,54

Note: *** for p< 0.01, ** for p


13/16


Education (adultchild)

Low (ref) 74 1

Medium 140 1,60

High 10 6,87**

Co-residencesituation

Never left (ref) 178 1

Returned29 1,63

Took parents to live withthem

17 3,67*

Employment status(adult child)

Not working 53 0,08***

Employed (ref) 171 1

Cox & Snell R Square 0,184

Nagelkerke R Square 0,291

Note: *** for p< 0.01, ** for p


14/16


Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a grant of the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research,CNCS-UEFISCDI, project number PN-II-ID-2011-3-0145.

Note

1 The mentioning of the vacuum cleaner in the text of the questionnaire item generated a high number of

missing values, due to the absence of the vacuum cleaner from many (mostly rural) households. We believethat the parents involvement in cleaning the house is actually higher than 35% (Hrgu 2010).

References

Aassve, A., Davia, M.A., Iacovou, M., Mazzuco, S. (2007). Does leaving home make you poor?Evidence from 13 European countries.European Journal of Population, 23, 3, 315-338.

Albertini, M., Kohli, M., Vogel, C. (2007). Intergenerational transfers of time and money inEuropean families: Common patterns different regimes? Journal of European SocialPolicy, 17, 4, 319-334.

Bengtson, V. L., Roberts, R.E.L. (1991). Intergenerational solidarity in aging families: An exampleof formal theory construction.Journal of Marriage and Family, 53, 4, 856-870.

Brandt, M., Haberkern, K., Szydlik, M. (2009). Intergenerational Help and Care in Europe.European Sociological Review, 25, 5, 585-601.

Castiglioni, M., Haragus, M., Faludi, C., Haragus, P.T. (unpublished manuscript). Does the familysystem in Romania follow the pattern of southern European countries?

Cooney, T., Uhlenberg, P. (1992). Support from Parents over the Life Course: The Adult Child'sPerspective.Social Forces, 71,1, 63-84.

Crimmins, E. M., Ingegneri, D. G. (1990). Interaction and living arrangements of older parents andtheir children.Research on Aging, 12, 3-35.

Dan, A. (1996). Aspecte ale politicii locuirii n Romnia i alte ri foste socialiste [Aspects ofHousing Policy in Romania and other former Socialist Countries]. Calitatea Vieii, 3-4,217-236.

Dan, A. (2009). Locuina i serviciile de locuire[Housing and related Services]. In Preda, M. (Ed),Riscuri si inechitati sociale in Romania(103-125). Iasi: Polirom.

De Jong Gierveld, J., De Valk, H., Blommesteijn, M. (2002). Living Arrangements of Older Personsand Family Support in More Developed Countries. Population Bulletin of the UnitedNations, 42-43, 193-217.

De Jong Gierveld, J., Dykstra, P.A., Schenk, N. (2012). Living arrangements, intergenerationalsupport types and older adult loneliness in Eastern and Western Europe. DemographicResearch, 27, 167-200.

Dykstra, P., van den Broek, T., Murean, C., Hrgu, M., Hrgu, P.-T., Abramowska-Kmon, A.,I. Kotowska (2013). State-of-the-art report Intergenerational linkages in families,FamiliesandSocieties Working Paper Series, 1/2013.

Eggebeen, D. (2002). Intergenerational exchange. In Ekerdt, D.J (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Aging, NewYork: Macmillan Reference USA.

European Comission (2006).Population Policy Acceptance Study The Viewpoint of Citizens andPolicy Actors Regarding the Management of Population Related Change. Brussels

Eurostat, 2009, Youth in Europe. A statistical portraithttp://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-78-09-920/EN/KS-78-09-920-EN.PDF

Gans, D., Silverstein M., Lowerstein A. (2009). Do religious children care more and provide more

care for older parents? A study of filial norms and behaviors across five nations.Journal ofcomparative family studies, 40, 2, 187-201.
http://anelis1.summon.serialssolutions.com.ux4ll8xu6v.useaccesscontrol.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwRV07CgJBDB2stREUSy-wML-dzdTi4gH0AJNkU27l_fHNImyZJrzAIx_IS5y7o-QpaIDGA_WEKwWj0EJunEVb2wRiu2btuCer-ewOy3pxn_n5fryG_zOAQQJVP_SrLVVM4GyUxlpBNS0-Sr9ZFRc1sAk29fnAqJBPzCNblpoKVSC4ulPrS-PrdxOX6Q1ALaUFqHqfkRmxaJxsFFPmKWHS-QH-DTMIhttp://anelis1.summon.serialssolutions.com.ux4ll8xu6v.useaccesscontrol.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwRV07CgJBDB2stREUSy-wML-dzdTi4gH0AJNkU27l_fHNImyZJrzAIx_IS5y7o-QpaIDGA_WEKwWj0EJunEVb2wRiu2btuCer-ewOy3pxn_n5fryG_zOAQQJVP_SrLVVM4GyUxlpBNS0-Sr9ZFRc1sAk29fnAqJBPzCNblpoKVSC4ulPrS-PrdxOX6Q1ALaUFqHqfkRmxaJxsFFPmKWHS-QH-DTMIhttp://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-78-09-920/EN/KS-78-09-920-EN.PDFhttp://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-78-09-920/EN/KS-78-09-920-EN.PDFhttp://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-78-09-920/EN/KS-78-09-920-EN.PDFhttp://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-78-09-920/EN/KS-78-09-920-EN.PDFhttp://anelis1.summon.serialssolutions.com.ux4ll8xu6v.useaccesscontrol.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwRV07CgJBDB2stREUSy-wML-dzdTi4gH0AJNkU27l_fHNImyZJrzAIx_IS5y7o-QpaIDGA_WEKwWj0EJunEVb2wRiu2btuCer-ewOy3pxn_n5fryG_zOAQQJVP_SrLVVM4GyUxlpBNS0-Sr9ZFRc1sAk29fnAqJBPzCNblpoKVSC4ulPrS-PrdxOX6Q1ALaUFqHqfkRmxaJxsFFPmKWHS-QH-DTMIhttp://anelis1.summon.serialssolutions.com.ux4ll8xu6v.useaccesscontrol.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwRV07CgJBDB2stREUSy-wML-dzdTi4gH0AJNkU27l_fHNImyZJrzAIx_IS5y7o-QpaIDGA_WEKwWj0EJunEVb2wRiu2btuCer-ewOy3pxn_n5fryG_zOAQQJVP_SrLVVM4GyUxlpBNS0-Sr9ZFRc1sAk29fnAqJBPzCNblpoKVSC4ulPrS-PrdxOX6Q1ALaUFqHqfkRmxaJxsFFPmKWHS-QH-DTMI


15/16


Haberkern, K., M. Szydlik (2010).State care provision, societal opinion and children's care of olderparents in 11 European countries.Ageing and Society,30, 2, 299-323.

Hank, K. (2007). Proximity and contact between older parents and their children. A Europeancomparison.Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 1, 159-173.

Hrgu, P.T. (2010).Folosirea timpului i distribuia sarcinilor domestice n familia din Romnia[Time Use and Distribution of Household Tasks in Romanian Family]. Cluj-Napoca: PUC.

Hartnett, C. S., Furstenberg, F.,Birditt, K. S., K.Fingerman (2012). Parental Support During YoungAdulthood: Why Does Assistance Decline With Age?Journal of Family Issues, 34, 7, 975-1007.

Heylen, L., Mortelmans, D., Hermans, M., Boudiny, K. (2012). The intermediate effect ofgeographic proximity on intergenerational support. A comparison of France and Bulgaria.Demographic Research, Special Collection, 27, 17, 455-486.

Iacovou, M. (2001). Leaving Home in the European Union. ISER Working Papers 2001-18.https://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/files/iser_working_papers/2001-18.pdf

Isengard, B., Szydlik, M. (2012). Living Apart (or) Together? Coresidence of Elderly Parents andTheir Adult Children in Europe.Research on Aging,34, 4, 449-474.

Jappens, M., Van Bavel, J. (2012). Regional family norms and child care by grandparents in

Europe.Demographic Research,27, 85-120.Kalmijn, M. (2006), A comparative perspective on intergenerational support: Responsiveness to

parental needs in individual and familialistic countries. Netspar, Discussion Papers 2006-005.

Kaser, K. (1996). Introduction: Household and family contexts in the Balkans. The History of theFamily, 1, 4, 375-386.

Kaser, K. (2009). The Stem Family in Eastern Europe: Cross-Cultural and Trans-TemporalPerspectives. In Fauve-Chamoux, Antoinette, E. Ochiai (Eds.), The Stem Family inEurasian Perspective. Peter Lang.

Kohli, M. (2004). Intergenerational transfers and inheritance: A comparative view. Annual Reviewof Gerontology and Geriatrics, 24, 1, 266-289.

Lyberaki, A., P. Tinios. (2005).Poverty and social exclusion: A new approach to an old issue.In A.Brsch-Supan, H. Brugiavini, H. Jrges, J. Mackenbach, J. Siegrist, G. Weber (eds.),Ageing and Retirement in Europe: First results from the Survey of Health, Ageing andRetirement in Europe (302-309). Mannheim: MEA.

Mulder, C. H., Van der Meer, M. J. (2009). Geographical distances and support from familymembers. Population, Space and Place, 15, 381-399.

Murean, C. (2007). Family and fertility in Romania pre- and post-transition: a life-tabledescription,MPIDR Working Paper 2007-018.

Murean, C. (2012). Schimbrile comportamentului familial n Romnia [Changes of FamilyConnected Behavior in Romania]. Cluj-Napoca: Presa Universitar Clujean.

Ogg, J., Renaut, S. (2006). The support of parents in old age by those born during 1945-1954: A

European perspective.Ageing and Society, 26, 723-743.Robila, M. (2004). Families in Eastern Europe: Context, Trends and Variations. In: Robila, M. (ed.).Families in Eastern Europe. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 1-14.

Silverstein, M., Gans, D., Yang, F.M. (2006). Filial Support to Aging Parents: The Role of Normsand Needs.Journal of Family Issues, 11, 1068-1084.

Szydlik, M. (2008). Intergenerational solidarity and conflict. Journal of Comparative FamilyStudies, 39, 97-114.

Treas, J., Cohen, P.N. (2007). Maternal coresidence and contact: evidence from cross-nationalsurveys. In Gauthier, A.H., Chu, C.Y., S. Tuljapurkar (Eds.), Allocating public and privateresources across generations (117-137). Dordrecht: Springer.

UNFPA (2007). Studiul Generaii i Gen. Raport valul I[Generations and Gender Survey. CountryReport wave I]. Fondul ONU pentru Populaie. Available atftp://ftp.unfpa.ro/unfpa/Raport_GGS.pdf
http://anelis1.summon.serialssolutions.com.ux4ll8xu6v.useaccesscontrol.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwRZ09DsIwDIUjZliQQIy9QKTmP5kRFQeAA9ixPXbq_YUbIXX3aPl9w3vPxkwqeaRroOCheoKtOqkOXASMnQBGQOzIrJ2P47RczYnXm_kur8_zbf_PAGwPLTuroLEbHrkG7DJLmQspmWAO3SujMEglhCypJSA3Ola6wkRjjyqxQWfv5gK7aXzdRriMHmbKSkeSe_DK9ZFSBaQi6JiDF9-4_gDhYTJ-http://anelis1.summon.serialssolutions.com.ux4ll8xu6v.useaccesscontrol.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwRZ09DsIwDIUjZliQQIy9QKTmP5kRFQeAA9ixPXbq_YUbIXX3aPl9w3vPxkwqeaRroOCheoKtOqkOXASMnQBGQOzIrJ2P47RczYnXm_kur8_zbf_PAGwPLTuroLEbHrkG7DJLmQspmWAO3SujMEglhCypJSA3Ola6wkRjjyqxQWfv5gK7aXzdRriMHmbKSkeSe_DK9ZFSBaQi6JiDF9-4_gDhYTJ-http://anelis1.summon.serialssolutions.com.ux4ll8xu6v.useaccesscontrol.com/search?s.dym=false&s.q=Author%3A%22Hartnett%2C+Caroline+Sten%22http://anelis1.summon.serialssolutions.com.ux4ll8xu6v.useaccesscontrol.com/search?s.dym=false&s.q=Author%3A%22Birditt%2C+Kira+S%22http://anelis1.summon.serialssolutions.com.ux4ll8xu6v.useaccesscontrol.com/search?s.dym=false&s.q=Author%3A%22Fingerman%2C+Karen+L%22http://anelis1.summon.serialssolutions.com.ux4ll8xu6v.useaccesscontrol.com/search?s.dym=false&s.q=Author%3A%22Fingerman%2C+Karen+L%22http://anelis1.summon.serialssolutions.com.ux4ll8xu6v.useaccesscontrol.com/search?s.dym=false&s.q=Author%3A%22Fingerman%2C+Karen+L%22http://anelis1.summon.serialssolutions.com.ux4ll8xu6v.useaccesscontrol.com/search?s.dym=false&s.q=Author%3A%22Fingerman%2C+Karen+L%22http://anelis1.summon.serialssolutions.com.ux4ll8xu6v.useaccesscontrol.com/search?s.dym=false&s.q=Author%3A%22Fingerman%2C+Karen+L%22http://anelis1.summon.serialssolutions.com.ux4ll8xu6v.useaccesscontrol.com/search?s.dym=false&s.q=Author%3A%22Birditt%2C+Kira+S%22http://anelis1.summon.serialssolutions.com.ux4ll8xu6v.useaccesscontrol.com/search?s.dym=false&s.q=Author%3A%22Hartnett%2C+Caroline+Sten%22http://anelis1.summon.serialssolutions.com.ux4ll8xu6v.useaccesscontrol.com/search?s.dym=false&s.q=Author%3A%22Hartnett%2C+Caroline+Sten%22http://anelis1.summon.serialssolutions.com.ux4ll8xu6v.useaccesscontrol.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwRZ09DsIwDIUjZliQQIy9QKTmP5kRFQeAA9ixPXbq_YUbIXX3aPl9w3vPxkwqeaRroOCheoKtOqkOXASMnQBGQOzIrJ2P47RczYnXm_kur8_zbf_PAGwPLTuroLEbHrkG7DJLmQspmWAO3SujMEglhCypJSA3Ola6wkRjjyqxQWfv5gK7aXzdRriMHmbKSkeSe_DK9ZFSBaQi6JiDF9-4_gDhYTJ-http://anelis1.summon.serialssolutions.com.ux4ll8xu6v.useaccesscontrol.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwRZ09DsIwDIUjZliQQIy9QKTmP5kRFQeAA9ixPXbq_YUbIXX3aPl9w3vPxkwqeaRroOCheoKtOqkOXASMnQBGQOzIrJ2P47RczYnXm_kur8_zbf_PAGwPLTuroLEbHrkG7DJLmQspmWAO3SujMEglhCypJSA3Ola6wkRjjyqxQWfv5gK7aXzdRriMHmbKSkeSe_DK9ZFSBaQi6JiDF9-4_gDhYTJ-


16/16

Titlu ..16

Vikat, A., Beets, G., Billari, F., Bhler, C., Corijn, M., Dsesquelles, A., Fokkema, T., MacDonald,A. L., Neyer, G., Pailh, A., Pinnelli, A., Solaz, A., Spder, Z. (2007). Generations andGender Survey (GGS): Towards a better understanding of relationships and processes inthe life course.Demographic Research, 17, 389-440.

Ward, R., Logan, J., Spitze, G. (1992). The influence of parent and child needs on coresidence inmiddle and later life.Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 209-221.

Date post:	15-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	mirela-mirela
View:	233 times
Download:	0 times

Articol Mihaela Hagarus

Documents