European Journal of Ageing

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 39–50 | Cite as

Gendered support to older parents: do welfare states matter?

  • Tina SchmidEmail author
  • Martina Brandt
  • Klaus Haberkern
Original Investigation


The aim of this study is to examine the association of welfare state policies and the gendered organisation of intergenerational support (instrumental help and personal care) to older parents. The study distinguishes between support to older parents provided at least weekly, i.e. time-intensive and often burdening support, and supplemental sporadic support. Three policy instruments were expected to be associated with daughters’ and sons’ support or gender inequality in intergenerational support respectively: (1) professional social services, (2) cash-for-care payments and (3) legal obligations to provide or co-finance care for parents. The analyses based on the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe showed that daughters provided somewhat more sporadic and much more intensive support than sons throughout Europe. While about half of all children who sporadically supported a parent were men, this applied to only one out of four children who provided intensive support. Logistic multilevel models revealed that legal obligations were positively associated with daughters’ likelihood of giving intensive support to parents but did not affect the likelihood of sons doing so. Legal obligations thus stimulate support in a gender-specific way. Both legal obligations and cash-for-care schemes were also accompanied by a more unequal distribution of involvement in intensive support at the expense of women. Social services, in contrast, were linked to a lower involvement of daughters in intensive support. In sum, the results suggest that welfare states can both preserve or reduce gender inequality in intergenerational support depending on specific arrangements.


Intergenerational support Older people Gender Gender inequality Welfare state European comparison SHARE 



This article uses data from SHARE release 2.3.1, as of 29 July 2010. The SHARE data collection has been primarily funded by the European Commission through the 5th framework programme (project QLK6-CT-2001-00360 in the thematic programme Quality of Life), through the 6th framework programme (projects SHARE-I3, RII-CT- 2006-062193, COMPARE, CIT5-CT-2005-028857, and SHARELIFE, CIT4-CT-2006-028812) and through the 7th framework programme (SHARE-PREP, 211909 and SHARE-LEAP, 227822). Additional funding from the U.S. National Institute on Aging (U01 AG09740-13S2, P01 AG005842, P01 AG08291, P30 AG12815, Y1-AG-4553-01 and OGHA 04-064, IAG BSR06-11, R21 AG025169) as well as from various national sources is gratefully acknowledged (see for a full list of funding institutions).


  1. Anttonen A, Sipilä J (1996) European social care services: is it possible to identify models? J Eur Soc Pol 6(2):87–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arber S, Ginn J (1991) Gender and later life. A sociological analysis of resources and constraints. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Arksey H, Glendinning C (2008) Combining work and care: carers decision-making in the context of competing policy pressures. Soc Policy Admin 42:1–18Google Scholar
  4. Berecki-Gisolf J, Lucke J, Hockey R, Dobson A (2008) Transitions into informal caregiving and out of paid employment of women in their 50s. Soc Sci Med 67:122–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bettio F, Plantenga J (2004) Comparing care regimes in Europe. Fem Econ 10(1):85–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blackmann T (2000) Defining responsibility for care: approaches to the care of older people in six European countries. Int J Soc Welf 9:181–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brandt M (2009) Hilfe zwischen Generationen. Ein europäischer Vergleich. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
  8. Brandt M, Haberkern K, Szydlik M (2009) Intergenerational help and care in Europe. Eur Sociol Rev 25(5):585–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Campbell LD, Martin-Matthews A (2003) The gendered nature of men’s filial care. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 58B(6):350–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chesley N, Poppie K (2009) Assisting parents and in-laws: gender, type of assistance, and couple’s employment. J Marriage Fam 71:247–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crespo L (2006) Caring for parents and employment status of European mid-life women. CEMFI Working PaperGoogle Scholar
  12. Daly M, Lewis J (2000) The concept of social care and the analysis of contemporary welfare states. Brit J Sociol 51:281–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Etters L, Goodall D, Harrison BE (2008) Caregiver burden among dementia patient caregivers: a review of the literature. J Am Acad Nurse Pract 20:423–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gerstel N, Gallagher SK (2001) Men’s caregiving. Gender and the contingent character of care. Gender Soc 15(2):197–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Haberkern K, Szydlik M (2010) State care provision, societal opinion and children’s care of older parents in 11 European countries. Ageing Soc 30(2):299–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Huber M, Rodrigues R, Hoffmann F, Gasior K, Marin B (2009) Facts and figures on long-term care. Europe and North America. European Centre for Social Welfare and Research, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  17. Igel C, Brandt M, Haberkern K, Szydlik M (2009) Specialization between family and state—intergenerational time transfers in Western Europe. J Comp Fam Stud 40(2):203–226Google Scholar
  18. Jacobzone S, Jenson J (2000) Care allowances for the frail elderly and their impact on women care-givers. OECD Labour Market and Social Policy Occasional Papers No. 41, OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  19. Kalmijn M, Saraceno M (2008) A comparative perspective on intergenerational support. Responsiveness to parental needs in individualistic and familialistic countries. Eur Soc 10:479–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Keck W (2008) The relationship between children and their frail elderly parents in different care regimes. In: Saraceno C (ed) Families, ageing and social policy: intergenerational solidarity in European welfare states. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 147–169Google Scholar
  21. Kerbo HR (2006) Social stratification and inequality. Class conflict in historical, comparative, and global perspective, 6th edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Korpi W (2000) Faces of inequality: gender, class, and patterns of inequalities in different types of welfare states. Soc Pol 7(2):127–191Google Scholar
  23. Lee GL, Dwyer JW, Coward RT (1993) Gender differences in parent care: demographic factors and same-gender preferences. J Gerontol 48:9–16Google Scholar
  24. Leitner S (2003) Varieties of familialism: the caring function of the family in comparative perspective. Eur Soc 5(4):353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lilly MB, Laporte A, Coyte PC (2007) Labor market work and home care’s unpaid caregivers: a systematic review of labor force participation rates, predictors of labor market withdrawal, and hours of work. Milbank Q 85(4):641–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mandel H, Shalev M (2009) How welfare states shape the gender pay gap: a theoretical and comparative analysis. Soc Forces 87:1873–1911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Martin-Matthews A, Campbell LD (1995) Gender roles, employment and informal care. In: Arber S, Ginn J (eds) Connecting gender and ageing: a sociological approach. Open University Press, Buckingham, pp 129–143Google Scholar
  28. Matthews SH, Rosner TT (1988) Shared filial responsibility: the family as the primary caregiver. J Marriage Fam 50(1):185–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mestheneos E, Triantafillou J (2005) Services for supporting family carers of elderly people in Europe. Characteristics, coverage and usage. The EUROFAMCARE Consortium, HamburgGoogle Scholar
  30. Miller B, Cafasso L (1992) Gender differences in caregiving: fact or artifact? Gerontologist 32:498–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Motel-Klingebiel A, Tesch-Römer C, von Kondratowitz HJ (2005) Welfare states do not crowd out the family: evidence for mixed responsibility from comparative analyses. Ageing Soc 25:863–882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2005) Long-term care for older people. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  33. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2010a) Social expenditure database. Accessed 10 Jan 2010
  34. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2010b) Annual labour force statistics. Accessed 10 Jan 2010
  35. Pfau-Effinger B (2005) Culture and welfare state policies: reflections on a complex interrelation. J Soc Pol 1:3–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pinquart M, Sörensen S (2006) Gender differences in caregiver stressors, social resources and health. An updated meta-analysis. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 61(1):P33–P45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Plantenga J, Remery C, Figueiredo H, Smith M (2009) Towards a European Union gender equality index. J Eur Soc Pol 19:19–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rabe-Hesketh S, Skrondal A (2005) Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using Stata. Stata Press, TexasGoogle Scholar
  39. Rabe-Hesketh S, Skrondal A, Pickles A (2004) GLLAMM manual. Berkeley Division of Biostatistics Working Paper Series. Working Paper 160Google Scholar
  40. Rossi A (1993) Intergenerational relations: gender, norms and behavior. In: Bengtson VL, Achenbaum AW (eds) The changing contract across generations. Walter de Gruyter, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Rossi AS, Rossi PH (1990) Of human bonding. Parent-child relations across the life course. A. de Gruyter, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. Rummery K (2009) A comparative discussion of the gendered implications of cash-for-care schemes: markets, independence and social citizenship in crisis? Soc Policy Admin 43:634–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sainsbury D (1999) Gender, policy regimes, and politics. In: Sainsburd D (ed) Gender and welfare state regimes. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 245–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Saraceno C, Keck W (2008) The institutional framework of intergenerational family obligations in Europe. A conceptual and methodological overview. Research Report. Accessed 20 May 2011
  45. Sarasa S (2008) Do welfare benefits affect women’s choices of adult care giving? Eur Sociol Rev 24:37–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sarkisian N, Gerstel N (2004) Explaining the gender gap in help to parents: the importance of employment. J Marriage Fam 66:431–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Savundranayagam MY, Montgomery RJV, Kosloski K (2011) A dimensional analysis of caregiver burden among spouses and adult children. Gerontologist 51(3):321–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schneekloth U, Leven I (2002) Hilfe- und Pflegebedürftige in Privathaushalten in Deutschland. Im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend. Infratest Sozialforschung, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  49. Snijders TA, Bosker RJ (2004) Multilevel analysis. An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling, repr edn. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  50. Spitze G, Logan JR (1989) Gender differences in family support: is there a payoff? Gerontolist 29(1):108–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Suitor J, Pillemer K (2006) Choosing daughters: exploring why mothers favor adult daughters over sons. Sociol Perspect 49(2):139–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Szydlik M (2008) Intergenerational solidarity and conflict. J Comp Fam Stud 39(1):97–11Google Scholar
  53. Timonen V, Convery J, Cahill S (2006) Care revolutions in the making? A comparison of cash for care programmes in four European countries. Ageing Soc 26:455–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ungerson C (2004) Whose empowerment and independence? A cross-national perspective on ‘cash for care’ schemes. Ageing Soc 24(2):189–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. van Oorschot W, Opielka M, Pfau-Effinger B (2008) Culture and welfare state. Values and social policy in comparative perspective. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  56. Walker AJ, Pratt CC, Eddy L (1995) Informal caregiving to aging family members: a critical review. Fam Relat 44(4):402–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Sociology, University of ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Munich Center for the Economics of Aging (MEA)MunichGermany

Personalised recommendations