IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/kob/dpaper/dp2024-37.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Altruistic Care for the Elderly in Thailand: Does the Social Gender Norm on Altruistic Behavior Matter?

Author

Listed:
  • Minh Tam Bui

    (Faculty of Economics, Srinakharinwirot University, THAILAND)

  • Ivo Vlaev

    (Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, UK)

  • Katsushi Imai

    (Department of Economics, The University of Manchester, UK and Research Institute for Economics and Business Administration, Kobe University, JAPAN)

Abstract

Ageing society poses an increasing need for elderly care and the essential role of unpaid family care in developing countries where more care burdens are imposed on women. Literature on the driver of gender care gap is limited and its association with social gender norms is both understudied and hardly measured/quantified. Using time-use data in 2014-15 and Labor Force Survey data in 2013-15 from Thailand, we first construct an altruistic time ratio for the whole sample to measure the extent to which individuals spend time on unpaid activities for others than themselves. We found that significant gender gaps in providing eldercare are associated with gender differences in altruistic time ratio. To consider the non-random selection for the elderly care, we then estimate the Tobit model with propensity score matching (PSM) for both elderly carers and non-carers and found that the social gender norm, defined as the district-level gender difference in the modes of altruistic time ratio, explains why women are more burdened with elderly care than men. To examine the underlying mechanisms behind women's time burden, we estimate a simultaneous equation Tobit consisting of elderly care time, leisure time, and time for paid work. The results show that the social gender norm indirectly reduces elderly care time for women by significantly reducing leisure time and paid work time, while the direct effect is dominant for men. The trade-off between paid work time and elderly care time is similar for men and for women, while that between leisure time and elderly care time is greater for men. Associations between elderly care and altruism or peer pressure imply that behavioural changes with a focus on social norms and social policies inducing such changes are important to achieve more gender-equitable eldercare provision besides the state provision of long-term care.

Suggested Citation

  • Minh Tam Bui & Ivo Vlaev & Katsushi Imai, 2024. "Altruistic Care for the Elderly in Thailand: Does the Social Gender Norm on Altruistic Behavior Matter?," Discussion Paper Series DP2024-37, Research Institute for Economics & Business Administration, Kobe University.
    • Handle: RePEc:kob:dpaper:dp2024-37
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.rieb.kobe-u.ac.jp/academic/ra/dp/English/DP2024-37.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2024
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Maria Porter & Abi Adams, 2016. "For Love or Reward? Characterising Preferences for Giving to Parents in an Experimental Setting," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 126(598), pages 2424-2445, December.
    2. Dolan, P. & Hallsworth, M. & Halpern, D. & King, D. & Metcalfe, R. & Vlaev, I., 2012. "Influencing behaviour: The mindspace way," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 264-277.
    3. Linda Kamas & Anne Preston & Sandy Baum, 2008. "Altruism in individual and joint-giving decisions: What's gender got to do with it?," Feminist Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(3), pages 23-50.
    4. Tennille J. Checkovich & Steven Stern, 2002. "Shared Caregiving Responsibilities of Adult Siblings with Elderly Parents," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 37(3), pages 441-478.
    5. Courtin, Emilie & Jemiai, Nadia & Mossialos, Elias, 2014. "Mapping support policies for informal carers across the European Union," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 118(1), pages 84-94.
    6. Nancy Folbre & Julie A. Nelson, 2000. "For Love or Money--Or Both?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 14(4), pages 123-140, Fall.
    7. Maria Porter & Abi Adams, 2016. "For Love or Reward? Characterising Preferences for Giving to Parents in an Experimental Setting," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 126(598), pages 2424-2445.
    8. Heitmueller, Axel, 2007. "The chicken or the egg?: Endogeneity in labour market participation of informal carers in England," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 536-559, May.
    9. Jean Kimmel & Rachel Connelly, 2007. "Mothers’ Time Choices: Caregiving, Leisure, Home Production, and Paid Work," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 42(3).
    10. Phanwin Yokying & Maria S. Floro, 2020. "Parents’ labour force participation and children’s involvement in work activities: evidence from Thailand," Oxford Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(3), pages 287-303, July.
    11. Heckman, James J, 1993. "What Has Been Learned about Labor Supply in the Past Twenty Years?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(2), pages 116-121, May.
    12. Moti Michaeli & Daniel Spiro, 2017. "From Peer Pressure to Biased Norms," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 9(1), pages 152-216, February.
    13. Maria Floro & Anant Pichetpongsa, 2010. "Gender, Work Intensity, and Well-Being of Thai Home-Based Workers," Feminist Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(3), pages 5-44.
    14. Folbre, Nancy, 1986. "Hearts and spades: Paradigms of household economics," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 245-255, February.
    15. James Andreoni & John Miller, 2002. "Giving According to GARP: An Experimental Test of the Consistency of Preferences for Altruism," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(2), pages 737-753, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. repec:dpr:wpaper:1195 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Heufer, Jan & Hjertstrand, Per, 2019. "Homothetic preferences revealed," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 602-614.
    3. Keigo Inukai & Yuta Shimodaira & Kohei Shiozawa, 2022. "Revisiting CES utility functions for distributional preferences: Do people face the equality–efficiency trade-off?," ISER Discussion Paper 1195r, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University, revised Sep 2024.
    4. Eileen Tipoe & Abi Adams & Ian Crawford, 2022. "Revealed preference analysis and bounded rationality [Consume now or later? Time inconsistency, collective choice and revealed preference]," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 74(2), pages 313-332.
    5. Jara-Díaz, Sergio & Rosales-Salas, Jorge, 2017. "Beyond transport time: A review of time use modeling," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 209-230.
    6. Urwin, Sean & Lau, Yiu-Shing & Grande, Gunn & Sutton, Matt, 2021. "The extent and predictors of discrepancy between provider and recipient reports of informal caregiving," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 277(C).
    7. Müller, Daniel, 2019. "The anatomy of distributional preferences with group identity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 785-807.
    8. Mommaerts, Corina & Truskinovsky, Yulya, 2020. "The cyclicality of informal care," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    9. Bom, Judith & Stöckel, Jannis, 2021. "Is the grass greener on the other side? The health impact of providing informal care in the UK and the Netherlands," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 269(C).
    10. Norma B. Coe & Courtney Harold Van Houtven, 2009. "Caring for mom and neglecting yourself? The health effects of caring for an elderly parent," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(9), pages 991-1010, September.
    11. Ethan Ligon & Laura Schechter, 2020. "Structural Experimentation to Distinguish between Models of Risk Sharing with Frictions in Rural Paraguay," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 69(1), pages 1-50.
    12. Sam Cosaert & Veerle Hennebel, 2023. "Parental Childcare with Process Benefits," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 90(357), pages 339-371, January.
    13. Meghan M. Skira, 2015. "Dynamic Wage And Employment Effects Of Elder Parent Care," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 56(1), pages 63-93, February.
    14. David Casado-Marín & Pilar García-Gómez & Ángel López-Nicolás, 2011. "Informal care and labour force participation among middle-aged women in Spain," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 2(1), pages 1-29, March.
    15. Michelle Sovinsky & Steven Stern, 2016. "Dynamic modelling of long-term care decisions," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 463-488, June.
    16. David C. Grabowski & Edward C. Norton & Courtney H. Van Houtven, 2012. "Informal Care," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 30, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. Kuhn, Michael & Nuscheler, Robert, 2011. "Optimal public provision of nursing homes and the role of information," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 795-810, July.
    18. Mikhail Freer & Marco Castillo, 2021. "A General Revealed Preference Test for Quasilinear Preferences: Theory and Experiments," Papers 2111.01248, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2022.
    19. José Giménez-Nadal & Miriam Marcén & Raquel Ortega, 2012. "Substitution and Presence Effects of Children on Mothers’ Adult Care Time," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 2-10, March.
    20. Norton, E.C., 2016. "Health and Long-Term Care," Handbook of the Economics of Population Aging, in: Piggott, John & Woodland, Alan (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Population Aging, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 951-989, Elsevier.
    21. Carrino, L.; & Nafilyan, V.; & Avendaño Pabon, M.;, 2019. "Should I Care or Should I Work? The Impact of Working in Older Age on Caregiving," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 19/23, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Unpaid work; Time use; Elder care; Gender gaps; Altruism; Behavioral change;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D13 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Household Production and Intrahouse Allocation
    • D64 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Altruism; Philanthropy; Intergenerational Transfers
    • D9 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics
    • J14 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Economics of the Elderly; Economics of the Handicapped; Non-Labor Market Discrimination
    • J16 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Economics of Gender; Non-labor Discrimination
    • J22 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Time Allocation and Labor Supply

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:kob:dpaper:dp2024-37. 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: Office of Promoting Research Collaboration, Research Institute for Economics & Business Administration, Kobe University (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rikobjp.html .

    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.