1 / 25

Introduction

Separation and intergenerational family obligations . Evidence from the Netherlands (and Flanders ). 8th meeting of the European Network for the Sociological and Demographic Studies of Divorce, Valencia – Spain 14-16 October 2010 Belinda Wijckmans & Jan Van Bavel

amalia
Download Presentation

Introduction

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Separation and intergenerationalfamilyobligations. Evidencefrom the Netherlands (and Flanders) 8th meeting of the EuropeanNetworkfor the Sociological and Demographic Studies of Divorce, Valencia – Spain 14-16 October 2010 Belinda Wijckmans & Jan Van Bavel Interface Demography

  2. Introduction • Processof ageing: • Family members important source of informal support • E.g. childcare by grandparents • E.g. care and support for ageing parents by their adult children • BUT rising divorce rates! • General assumption: divorce & repartnering weaken family ties => Less support by family => Demand on welfare state provisions rises • Most research has focused on actual and specific transfers between generations • BUT family solidarity is based on attitudes, norms, and values =>Reciprocity often not (legally) guaranteed =>In order to understand why some transfers happen and others don’t, it is important to know the underlying norms, values, and attitudes

  3. Main research questions • How are divorce and repartnering in either the parentoradultchildgenerationrelated to the adultchild’sfeelings of familyobligations - takinginto account currentparent-childrelationshipcharacteristics? • Does a change in partnership status have an effect on the adultchild’sfeelings of familyobligations? (preliminary)

  4. Data and methods • Netherlands’ Kinship Panel Study (NKPS) – first wave: largescalesurvey (N=8161) • Subsample: Adultswith at leastoneparent living indepently; parent has ever been married (N=5.088) • Focus onadultchild • OLS Regression: E(Family obligations) = β0 + β1Xi1 + β2Xi2 + β3Xi3

  5. Variables 1. Dependent variables Attitudes onfamilyobligations (filial & parental): explorative factor analysis • Filialobligations (α = .75) • Childrenshould look aftertheirsickparents • In oldage, parents must beable to live in withtheirchildren • Childrenwho live close to theirparentsshouldvisitthem at leastonce a week • Childrenshouldtakeunpaidleave to look aftertheirsickparents • Parental obligations (α = .79) • Parentsshould support theiradultchildreniftheyneedit • Parentsshould help theiradultchildrenfinanciallyiftheyneedit • Parentsshould provide lodging to theiradultchildreniftheyneedit

  6. Variables 2. Independent & control variables • Divorce and repartneringhistory of bothgenerations • Age & genderadultchild • Relationshipquality • Support exchanges • Ageparent = proxy forhealth status • Educational level adultchild • Employmentadultchild • Presence of siblings and children

  7. Results NKPS 1: gender

  8. Results NKPS 1: effect of age of respondent

  9. Results NKPS 1: respondent’sdivorce

  10. Results NKPS 1: parental divorce

  11. Main research questions • How are divorce and repartnering in either the parentoradultchildgenerationrelated to the adultchild’sfeelings of familyobligations – takinginto account currentparent-childrelationshipcharacteristics? • Does a change in partnership status have an effect on the adultchild’sfeelings of familyobligations? (preliminary)

  12. Longitudinalanalysis: data & sample • NKPS wave 1: 2002 – 2004 & wave 2: 2006 - 2007 • Subsample: neverdivorced/widowedadults in W1 (N=4.694) • Very few respondentslegallydivorcedbetween W1 & W2 => Married (1st) orcohabiting in W1 & separatedbetweenwaves

  13. Longitudinalanalysis: preliminaryresults (OLS) • Dependent variables: Δ(Family obligations) = FamOblT2 – FamOblT1 • Independent & control variables: • Age & gender • Change in partnership status • (Parent(s) deceasedbetweenwaves) • (First and/orsubsequentbirth(s))

  14. Longitudinalanalysis: preliminaryresults (OLS)

  15. Conclusions NKPS 1 & 2 • How are divorce and repartnering in either the parentoradultchildgenerationrelated to the adultchild’sfeelings of familyobligations – takinginto account currentparent-childrelationshipcharacteristics? • No evidence of loosening of familyties in adultchild’sfeelings of obligations: • Strongerfeelings of obligationsforrespondentswho ever experienced a divorce • In generalstrongerfeelings of obligationsforrespondentswhoexperienced parental divorce • Effects are tied to generation in whichdivorceoccurred

  16. Conclusions NKPS 1 & 2 • Does a change in partnership status have an effect on the adultchild’sfeelings of familyobligations? (preliminary) Resultsfor ‘divorcees’:  NS difference in change in feelings of familyobligationswithrespondentswho are still in samemarriage/relationship BUT  parameters remainpositive = NO evidence of negativedivorce effect!  furtherdetailed analyses neededusing LGM

  17. Limitations • Feelings of familyobligations ≠ behaviour! • General normativeexpectations (‘whatshouldbedone) vs. individualcircumstances (‘what I would do’) • Role of formal care • Direction – upwardordownward - of interpreting? • e.g. ifadultchild = parent • Causality?

  18. Appetizer: Flemish data – sample (pre-preliminaryresults) • Divorce in Flanders (DiF) – “first wave”: largescalesurvey • Subsample: • Adultswith at leastoneparent living indepently; parent has ever been married (N=2.416) • Focus on partner = adultchild

  19. Appetizer: Flemish data – variables • Dependent variables Attitudes onfamilyobligations (filial & parental): explorative factor analysis • Filialobligations (α = .74) • Childrenshouldtakeresponsibilityforcaringfortheirparentswhenparents are in need • Childrenshouldadjusttheirworking lives to the needs of theirparents • Childrenought to provide financial help fortheirparentswhentheirparents are havingfinancialdifficulties • Childrenshould have theirparents to live withthemwhenparentscannolonger look afterthemselves • Parental obligations (α = .56) • Grandparentsshould look aftertheirgrandchildrenif the parents are unable to do so • Parentsought to provide financial help fortheiradultchildrenwhentheirparents are havingfinancialdifficulties • Iftheiradultchildrenwere in need, parentsshouldadjusttheirown lives in order to help them

  20. Appetizer: Flemish data – variables • Independent & control variables • Age & genderadultchild • Partnership status adultchild • Partnership status parent(s)

  21. Appetizer: Flemish data - Pre-preliminaryresults (OLS)

  22. Appetizer: Flemish data - Pre-preliminaryresults (OLS)

  23. Appetizer: Flemish data - Pre-preliminaryresults (OLS) Data limitations!!!

  24. Thankyou! bwijckma@vub.ac.be

More Related