IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/dem/demres/v27y2012i17.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The intermediate effect of geographic proximity on intergenerational support

Author

Listed:
  • Leen Heylen

    (Universiteit Antwerpen)

  • Dimitri Mortelmans

    (Universiteit Antwerpen)

  • Maarten Hermans

    (Universiteit Antwerpen)

  • Kim Boudiny

    (Universiteit Antwerpen)

Abstract

Background: The geographic proximity of parents and adult children is a key element of intergenerational solidarity. Many studies have identified geographical distance as an important determinant of intergenerational support: living nearby increases the amount of mutual support provided. It can, however, also be regarded as a dimension of intergenerational solidarity: the current degree of proximity is the result of past migration decisions made by both generations, in which present and future care demands potentially played a key role. Objective: We take this endogenous nature of geographical distance into account by examining the indirect effect of the determinants of the actual level of support through geographical distance. Both upward support (personal care provided to mother) and downward support (help with childcare received from mother) are considered. Methods: Path analyses are performed on data from the Generations and Gender Survey for France and Bulgaria using a general latent-variable modelling framework in multiple-group models. Results: In addition to strongly affecting the level of support provided and received, geographical distance itself is affected by several individual and family-related variables, which in turn have an indirect effect on the level of intergenerational support. The results suggest that proximity can be used as an adaptive strategy: e.g., working adult children in France receive more help with childcare because of their greater proximity to their mothers. Having a greater care need may have triggered this choice of residence. Similarly, single parents with no partner to rely on tend to live closer to their mothers, and therefore receive more help. Conclusions: Geographic proximity can be considered a latent form of solidarity that functions as a mediator between background factors and manifest, functional solidarity.

Suggested Citation

  • Leen Heylen & Dimitri Mortelmans & Maarten Hermans & Kim Boudiny, 2012. "The intermediate effect of geographic proximity on intergenerational support," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 27(17), pages 455-486.
    • Handle: RePEc:dem:demres:v:27:y:2012:i:17
    DOI: 10.4054/DemRes.2012.27.17
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol27/17/27-17.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.4054/DemRes.2012.27.17?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kai A. Konrad & Harald Künemund & Kjell Erik Lommerud & Julio R. Robledo, 2002. "Geography of the Family," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(4), pages 981-998, September.
    2. Jan M. Hoem & Dora Kostova & Aiva Jasilioniene & Cornelia Mureşan, 2009. "Traces of the Second Demographic Transition in Four Selected Countries in Central and Eastern Europe: Union Formation as a Demographic Manifestation," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 25(3), pages 239-255, August.
    3. Susan De Vos & Gary Sandefur, 2002. "Elderly Living Arrangements in Bulgaria, The Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, and Romania," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 18(1), pages 21-38, March.
    4. Annika Smits, 2010. "Moving close to parents and adult children in the Netherlands: the influence of support needs," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 22(31), pages 985-1014.
    5. Merril Silverstein, 1995. "Stability and change in temporal distance between the elderly and their children," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 32(1), pages 29-45, February.
    6. Agar Brugiavini & Tullio Jappelli & Guglielmo Weber, 2002. "The Survey on Health, Aging and Wealth," CSEF Working Papers 86, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy.
    7. Arnstein Aassve & Francesco C. Billari & Stefano Mazzuco & Fausta Ongaro, 2001. "Leaving Home Ain't Easy. A comparative longitudinal analysis of ECHP data," MPIDR Working Papers WP-2001-038, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.
    8. Larry Bumpass & R. Raley, 1995. "Redefining single-parent families: Cohabitation and changing family reality," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 32(1), pages 97-109, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Steele, Fiona & Zhang, Siliang & Grundy, Emily & Burchardt, Tania, 2024. "Longitudinal analysis of exchanges of support between parents and children in the UK," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 119908, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. Roberta Rutigliano, 2020. "Counting on Potential Grandparents? Adult Children’s Entry Into Parenthood Across European Countries," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 57(4), pages 1393-1414, August.
    3. HwaJung Choi & Robert Schoeni & Hongwei Xu & Adriana Reyes & Deena Thomas, 2021. "Proximity to mother over the life course in the United States: Overall patterns and racial differences," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 45(23), pages 769-806.
    4. Niina Metsä-Simola & Anna Baranowska-Rataj & Hanna M. Remes & Mine Kühn & Pekka Martikainen, 2021. "Support from grandparents and mothers’ depression around the time of separation," MPIDR Working Papers WP-2021-020, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.
    5. Bettina Hünteler & Clara H. Mulder, 2020. "Geographic Proximity to Parents, Intergenerational Support Exchange, and Migration Within Germany," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 36(5), pages 895-918, November.
    6. Eliza Lai-Yi Wong & Jennifer Mengwei Liao & Christopher Etherton-Beer & Loretta Baldassar & Gary Cheung & Claire Margaret Dale & Elisabeth Flo & Bettina Sandgathe Husebø & Roy Lay-Yee & Adele Millard , 2020. "Scoping Review: Intergenerational Resource Transfer and Possible Enabling Factors," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-22, October.
    7. Pearl A. Dykstra & Aafke Komter, 2012. "Generational interdependencies in families," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 27(18), pages 487-506.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Karsten Hank, 2005. "Spatial Proximity and Contacts between Elderly Parents and Their Adult Children: A European Comparison," MEA discussion paper series 05098, Munich Center for the Economics of Aging (MEA) at the Max Planck Institute for Social Law and Social Policy.
    2. Bettina Isengard & Ronny König & Marc Szydlik, 2018. "Money or space? Intergenerational transfers in a comparative perspective," Housing Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(2), pages 178-200, February.
    3. Suzanne Bianchi & Kathleen McGarry & Judith Seltzer, 2010. "Geographic Dispersion and the Well-Being of the Elderly," Working Papers wp234, University of Michigan, Michigan Retirement Research Center.
    4. admin, clsrn, 2011. "The Mom Effect: Family Proximity and the Labour Force Status of Women in Canada," CLSSRN working papers clsrn_admin-2011-30, Vancouver School of Economics, revised 28 Nov 2011.
    5. Helena Holmlund & Helmut Rainer & Thomas Siedler, 2013. "Meet the Parents? Family Size and the Geographic Proximity Between Adult Children and Older Mothers in Sweden," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 50(3), pages 903-931, June.
    6. Maria Iacovou & Alexandra J. Skew, 2011. "Household composition across the new Europe: Where do the new Member States fit in?," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 25(14), pages 465-490.
    7. Janice Compton, 2015. "Family proximity and the labor force status of women in Canada," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 323-358, June.
    8. Thomas Leopold & Ferdinand Geißler & Sebastian Pink, 2011. "How Far Do Children Move?: Spatial Distances after Leaving the Parental Home," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 368, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    9. Christelis, Dimitris & Dobrescu, Loretti I. & Motta, Alberto, 2020. "Early life conditions and financial risk-taking in older age," The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, Elsevier, vol. 17(C).
    10. Kristiina Huttunen & Jarle Møen & Kjell G. Salvanes, 2018. "Job Loss and Regional Mobility," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 36(2), pages 479-509.
    11. Anneke Exterkate & Robin L. Lumsdaine, 2011. "How Survey Design Affects Inference Regarding Health Perceptions and Outcomes," NBER Working Papers 17244, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. R. Haveman & B. Wolfe & K. Wilson & E. Peterson, "undated". "Do Teens Make Rational Choices? The Case of Teen Nonmarital Childbearing," Institute for Research on Poverty Discussion Papers 1137-97, University of Wisconsin Institute for Research on Poverty.
    13. Júlia Mikolai & Ann Berrington & Brienna Perelli-Harris, 2018. "The role of education in the intersection of partnership transitions and motherhood in Europe and the United States," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 39(27), pages 753-794.
    14. François-Charles Wolff & Claudine Attias-Donfut, 2007. "Les comportements de transferts intergénérationnels en Europe," Économie et Statistique, Programme National Persée, vol. 403(1), pages 117-141.
    15. Catherine Kenney, 2003. "Hardship In Married And Cohabiting Parent Households: Do Cohabiting Parents Underinvest In Household Public Goods?," Working Papers 956, Princeton University, School of Public and International Affairs, Center for Research on Child Wellbeing..
    16. Maria Chiuri & Daniela Del Boca, 2010. "Home-leaving decisions of daughters and sons," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 8(3), pages 393-408, September.
    17. Maruyama, Shiko, 2014. "Estimation of finite sequential games," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 178(2), pages 716-726.
    18. Laura Cavalli & Alessandro Bucciol & Paolo Pertile & Veronica Polin & Nicola Sartor & Alessandro Sommacal, 2012. "Modelling life-course decisions for the analysis of interpersonal and intrapersonal redistribution," Working Papers 25/2012, University of Verona, Department of Economics.
    19. Wolfe, Barbara & Wilson, Kathryn & Haveman, Robert, 2001. "The role of economic incentives in teenage nonmarital childbearing choices," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(3), pages 473-511, September.
    20. Emanuele Ciani & Claudio Deiana, 2018. "No free lunch, buddy: past housing transfers and informal care later in life," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 971-1001, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    geographical proximity; GGS; intergenerational solidarity;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J1 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:dem:demres:v:27:y:2012:i:17. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Editorial Office (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.demogr.mpg.de/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.