Journal of Population Economics

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 963–987 | Cite as

Giving to family versus giving to the community within and across generations

  • Partha Deb
  • Cagla Okten
  • Una Okonkwo OsiliEmail author
Original Paper


In this paper, we examine the impact of parental giving on the transfer behavior of adult children to family members and community institutions using unique data from the Indonesian Family Life Surveys. Our findings point to persistence of private transfer networks across generations. In particular, the community transfer decisions of adults living outside origin households are positively influenced by the origin household’s community giving. We also investigate the relationship between household transfers to family and community networks. We find that unobserved heterogeneity in giving to family members and community organizations is positively correlated, suggesting important complementarities between transfer networks.


Family transfers Community institutions Role model effect 

JEL Classification

O12 J13 D10 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alderman H, Paxson CH (1992) Do the poor insure? A synthesis of the literature on risk and consumption in developing countries. World Bank, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. Altonji JG, Hayashi F, Kotlikoff L (1997) Parental altruism and inter vivos transfers: theory and evidence. J Polit Econ 105(6):1121–1166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andreoni J (1990) Impure altruism and donations to public goods: a theory of warm-glow giving? Econ J 100(401):464–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andreoni J, Brown E, Rischall I (2003) Charitable giving by married couples: who decides and why does it matter? J Hum Resour 38(1):111–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arrondel L, Masson A (2001) Family transfers involving three generations. Scand J Econ 103(3):415–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Auten G, Sieg H, Clotfelter C (2002) Charitable giving, income and taxes: an analysis of panel data. Am Econ Rev 92(1):371–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Banfield EC (1958) The moral basis of a backward society. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Becker GS (1974) A theory of social interactions. J Polit Econ 82(6):1063–1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bhatt CR (2001) Quasi-random maximum simulated likelihood estimation of the mixed multinomial Logit model. Transp Res Part B Methodol 35:677–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bowen J (1986) On the political construction of tradition: Gotong Royong in Indonesia. J Asian Stud 45(3):545–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cameron L, Cobb-Clark D (2006) Do coresidency and financial transfers from the children reduce the need for elderly parents to work in developing countries? J Popul Econ. doi:10.1007/s00148-006-0105-8
  12. Chiteji NS, Stafford FP (1999) Portfolio choices of parents and their children as young adults: asset accumulation by African-American families. Am Econ Rev 89(2):377–380Google Scholar
  13. Clotfelter CT (ed) (1992) Who benefits from the non profit sector? The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  14. Cox D (1987) Motives for private income transfers. J Polit Econ 95(3):508–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cox D, Jimenez E (1990) Achieving social objectives through private transfers: a review. World Bank Res Obs 5(2):205–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cox D, Stark O (1998) Intergenerational transfers and the demonstration effect. Department of Economics Working Paper 329, Boston College, Chestnut HillGoogle Scholar
  17. Coleman J (1990) Foundations of social theory. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. Frankenberg E, Thomas D (2000) The Indonesia family life survey (IFLS): study design and results from waves 1 and 2. RAND, Santa Monica (DRU-2238/1-NIA/NICHD)Google Scholar
  19. Frankenberg E, Thomas D (2001) Women’s health and pregnancy outcomes: do services make a difference? Demography 38(2):253–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fukuyama F (1995) Trust. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Grawe ND, Mulligan CB (2002) Economic interpretations of intergenerational correlations. J Econ Perspect 16(3):45–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gouriéroux C, Monfort A (1996) Simulation based econometrics methods. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Jellal M, Wolff F (2000) Shaping intergenerational relationships: the demonstration effect. Econ Lett 68(3):255–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. LaFerrara E (2003) Kin groups and reciprocity: a model of credit transactions in Ghana. Am Econ Rev 93(5):1730–1751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lee L (1992) On efficiency of methods of simulated moments and maximum simulated likelihood estimation of discrete response models. Econom Theory 8(4):518–552Google Scholar
  26. McFadden D, Train K (2000) Mixed MNL models for discrete response. J Appl Econ 15(5):447–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Morduch J (1999) Between the state and the market: can informal insurance patch the safety. World Bank Res Obs 14(2):187–207Google Scholar
  28. Okten C, Osili UO (2002) Contributions in heterogeneous communities: evidence from Indonesia. J Popul Econ 17(4):603–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Putnam R (1993) Making democracy work: civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  30. Train K (2002) Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departments of Economics, Hunter College and the Graduate CenterCity University of New YorkNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsBilkent UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  3. 3.Department of EconomicsIndiana University-Purdue University at IndianapolisIndianapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations