IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/oxford/v26y2010i4p691-712.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Family ties and the crowding out of long-term care insurance

Author

Listed:
  • Joan Costa-Font

Abstract

Insurance for long-term care (LTC) has developed only moderately compared to other areas of welfare, which has been explained variously as the result of market failures, public misconceptions of the risk of LTC needs, and intergenerational contracts. This paper offers a cultural explanation for the limited LTC insurance development in Europe. It argues that family ties, by enhancing informal care-giving duties, inhibit individuals' expected (public and private) insurance coverage. The empirical analysis of the paper exploits cross-country and sub-group variability of a representative database of European Union member states, containing records on LTC coverage and family structure. Drawing upon two measures of familistic culture or family ties, we find a negative association between family ties and expected coverage of LTC for different sub-samples. These results are robust to a set of checks for different definitions of family ties and controls, and for a sub-sample of first- and second-generation migrants. Policy implications suggest that widespread expansion of LTC coverage might need to accommodate existing familistic cultural norms to avoid insurance crowding out. Copyright 2010, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Joan Costa-Font, 2010. "Family ties and the crowding out of long-term care insurance," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 26(4), pages 691-712, Winter.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:oxford:v:26:y:2010:i:4:p:691-712
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/oxrep/grq040
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    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:oup:oxford:v:26:y:2010:i:4:p:691-712. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/oxrep .

    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.