Skip to main content
Log in

Informal Caregivers and Life Satisfaction: Empirical Evidence from the Netherlands

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Happiness Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The evidence base on the causal relation between informal care and susbjective well-being is scarce and often methodologically limited. Most research to date, using simple cross-sectional estimations or fixed-effect models, fails to consider reverse causality and unobserved heterogeneity and, thus provides biased estimates. Using panel data from the Longitudinal Internet Studies for the Social Sciences for the Netherlands over the period 2009–2018, this paper investigates the causal relationship between the informal care provision and caregivers’ life satisfaction and compares Ordinary Least Square (OLS) with Arellano-Bond system Generalized-Method-of-Moments estimates. When controlling for endogeneity biases, namely unobserved heterogeneity, reverse causality and dynamic endogeneity, the caregiving effect increases by almost 300%, highlighting that OLS with fixed-effects produces a downward biased estimation. Overall, providing care has a negative effect on life satisfaction with female caregivers being the most impacted, especially when providing housekeeping and personal support to their partners.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Kristoffersen (2017, p. 846) referred to Ferrer-i Carbonell & Frijters (2004) and mentioned that « the assumption of cardinal comparability is often justified largely on the basis of statistical requirements, (…), rather than on reason». Thus, he followed the principle of simultaneous conjoint measurement to observe the response function's shape for subjective well-being indirectly. Using 11 waves from the HILDA survey, the author evaluated the association between life satisfaction and mental health (MH5). The results provide reasonable arguments in favour of ordinal and cardinal comparability.

  2. Due to data limitations, we do not observe the health of the care recipient.

  3. There are two GMM estimators. Firstly, the difference GMM, implemented by Arellano & Bond (1991), estimated one single difference equation where variables were first differentiated and instrumented by lagged variables. Secondly Arellano & Bover (1995) and Blundell & Bond (1998) developed a system GMM model in order to improve the efficiency of Arellano & Bond (1991)’s model, as lagged values were sometimes poor instruments for first differences. In this model the level equation was added to the difference equation, thus leading to additional instruments. Blundell et al. (2001) suggested a second rule-of-thumb to compare difference GMM with system GMM model efficiency. Following these authors, the autoregressive model should be initially estimated using pooled OLS and OLS with fixed-effect estimators. The pooled OLS estimate of the lagged outcome parameter should be considered as an upper-bound estimate while the one of the OLS with fixed-effects is the lower-bound estimate. A difference GMM estimate close or below the fixed-effect estimate suggests a downward bias and points to the use of the system GMM estimator (see Table B1, in Appendix for detailed results). According to Arellano & Bover (1995), the two-step GMM model provides more efficient and consistent estimates in the case of panel data than the one-step GMM model.

  4. See Tables 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 for detailed results.

  5. Standardized differences between raw and matched data are presented in Annexe D.

  6. Full estimates are given in Appendix, see Table 23.

References

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Kelsey O'Connor and Anthony Lepinteur for their advised comments. The authors are also grateful to Agnès Gramain, Thomas Barnay, Eric Bonsang, Martjin Burger, Conchita d’Ambrosio, Florence Jusot, Bertrand Koebel, Mathieu Lefebvre and Marie-Louise Leroux for their very helpful suggestions. Additionally, we are grateful to Miranda Aldham-Breary for her proofreading. The LISS panel data were collected by CentERdata (Tilburg University, The Netherlands) through its MESS project funded by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marie Blaise.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Data

Different modules from the LISS panel data were combined. The personality questionnaire from the LISS Core study contains information on subjective well-being, the questionnaire background incorporates socio-demographic information, the questionnaire on social integration and leisure includes information on informal care provision, the questionnaire on work and schooling contains information on working time, and the questionnaire on health contains questions on objective health. In order to ensure consistency in our merge we made sure that for each year the selected questionnaire was the closest of the month on which the questionnaire about personality was administered as life satisfaction is the outcome. Table 13 sums up this merge procedure (see Table 14).

Table 13 Merge procedure
Table 14 Detailed definitions of variables

Appendix 2: Rule-of-Thumb (Blundell et al., 2001)

 

OLS

Difference GMM

 

Pooled

Fixed effects

One step

Two step

L.life satisfaction

0.62***

0.08***

0.01

0.03

 

(0.02)

(0.02)

(0.03)

(0.03)

Informal

−0.03

−0.06**

−0.35**

−0.32**

 

(0.02)

(0.03)

(0.18)

(0.14)

Constant

2.47***

7.14***

  
 

(0.21)

(0.49)

  

Observations

9180

9180

7888

7888

Time-fixed effects

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Controls

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No. of instruments

  

197

197

AR1 (p-value)

  

0.00

0.00

AR2 (p-value)

  

0.24

0.26

Hansen-J (p-value)

  

0.35

0.35

  1. * p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01. Robust standard errors are in parentheses. In all Models, controls are included and treated as endogenous in Models (3) and (4) –except for time dummies, gender and age categories –.

Appendix 3: Detailed results

See Tables 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21

Table 15 OLS and two-step system GMM regressions
Table 16 The augmented regression test (Durbin-Wu-Hausman test)
Table 17 Relationship with the care recipient
Table 18 Intensive margin of care
Table 19 Intensive margin of care and spousal caregiving
Table 20 Type of care—Housekeeping
Table 21 Type of care—Personal care

, 22

Table 22 Type of care -support

and 23

Table 23 Alternative specifications – GMM regressions

Appendix 4 Matching postestimation test

 

Standardized Differences

 

Raw

Matched

Life satisfaction

−0.074

−0.011

Men

−0.317

−0.062

Occupation

  

Unemployed

0.047

0

Out of the labor force

0.281

−0.007

Age

  

15–24

−0.273

−0.002

25–34

−0.355

−0.004

35–44

0.041

0

45–54

0.178

0.004

65 and over

0.160

0.001

Children

−0.116

−0.019

  1. Postestimation test using the command-tebalance- after –nmatch-. Based on the first matching specification without exact match. Minimum matching request is one

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Blaise, M., Dillenseger, L. Informal Caregivers and Life Satisfaction: Empirical Evidence from the Netherlands. J Happiness Stud 24, 1883–1930 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-023-00663-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-023-00663-1

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation