Journal of Population Economics

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 173–194 | Cite as

Endogenous division rules as a family constitution: strategic altruistic transfers and sibling competition

Original Paper

Abstract

Based on the notions of parental altruism, sibling competition, and family constitution, we present a self-enforcing model where heterogeneous children have economic incentives to supply family-specific merit goods (e.g., companionship) to their parents for securing inheritable wealth and the altruistic parents decide on division rules according to an optimizing behavior. In our analysis of intergenerational cooperation and intragenerational competition, the altruistic parents care about the efficiency of the children-provided merit goods and the equity of the children’s incomes. For an optimal allocation of wealth, the parents strategically partition it into two pools: one to be distributed equally whereas the other unequally according to their children’s supply of merit goods. We look at motivation of the parents in allocating their wealth to the two different pools. The analysis of endogenous division rules has implications for the compatibility between equal postmortem transfers and unequal inter vivos gifts, both of which are consistent with parental altruism.

Keywords

Parental altruism Endogenous division rules Sibling competition Family constitution 

JEL Classifications

D1 D6 C7 

References

  1. Baik KH, Lee S (2000) Two-stage rent-seeking contests with carryovers. Public Choice 103:285–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barro R (1974) Are government bond net worth? J Polit Econ 82:1092–1117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becker GS (1974) A theory of social interactions. J Polit Econ 82:1063–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Becker GS (1981) A treatise on the family. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Becker GS, Tomes N (1979) An equilibrium theory of the distribution of income and intergenerational mobility. J Polit Econ 87:1153–1189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Behrman JR (1997) Intrahousehold distribution and the family. In: Rosenzweig M R, Stark O (eds) Handbook of population and family economics. North-HollandGoogle Scholar
  7. Bernheim BD (1991) How strong are bequest motives? Evidence based on estimates of the demand for life insurance and annuities. J Polit Econ 99:899–927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bernheim BD, Shleifer A, Summers L (1985) The strategic bequest motive. J Polit Econ 93:1045–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bernheim BD, Severinov S (2003) Bequests as signals: an explanation for the equal division puzzle. J Polit Econ 111:733–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buchanan JM (1983) Rent seeking, noncompensated transfers, and laws of succession. J Law Econ 26:71–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chang Y-M (2007) Transfers and bequests: a portfolio analysis in a Nash game. Ann Financ 3:277–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chang Y-M (2009) Strategic altruistic transfers and rent seeking within the family. J Popul Econ 22:1081–1098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chang Y-M (2012) Strategic altruistic transfers, redistributive fiscal policies, and family bonds: a micro-economic analysis. J Popul Econ 25:1481–1502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chang Y-M, Weisman DL (2005) Sibling rivalry and strategic parental transfers. South Econ J 71:821–836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cigno A (1993) Intergenerational transfers without altruism: family, market and state. Eur J Polit Econ 9:505–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cigno A (2006a) A constitutional theory of the family. J Popul Econ 19:259–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cigno A (2006b) The political economy of intergenerational cooperation. In: Kolm SC, Ythier JM (eds) Handbook of the economics of giving, altruism and reciprocity. North-HollandGoogle Scholar
  18. Cox D (1987) Motives for private income transfers. J Polit Econ 95:508–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cox D (2003) Private transfers within the family: mothers, fathers, sons and daughters. In: Munnell AH, Sundén A (eds) Death and dollars: the role of gifts and bequests in America. The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, pp 167–197Google Scholar
  20. Dunn TA, Phillips JW (1997) The timing and division of parental transfers to children. Econ Lett 54:135–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Faith RL, Goff BL, Tollison RD (2008) Bequests, sibling rivalry, and rent seeking. Public choice 136:397–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Farmer A, Horowitz AW (2010) Mobility, information, and bequest: the “other side” of the equal division puzzle. J Popul Econ 23:121–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Joulfaian D (2005) Choosing between gifts and bequests: how taxes affect the timing of wealth transfers. NBER Working Papers No. 11025, National Bureau of Economic ResearchGoogle Scholar
  24. Kohli M, Künemund H (2003) Intergenerational transfers in the family: what motivates giving? In: Bengtson VL, Lowenstein A (eds) Global aging and challenges to families. Aldine de Gruyter, New York, pp 123–142Google Scholar
  25. Konrad KA, Harald A, Nemund K, Lommerud KE, Robledo JR (2002) Geography of the family. Am Econ Rev 92:981–998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kotlikoff LJ, Morris JN (1989) How much care do the aged receive from their children? In: Wise DA (ed) The economics of aging. University of Chicago, Chicago, pp 149–172Google Scholar
  27. Lee S (1995) Endogenous sharing rules in collective-group rent-seeking. Public Choice 85:31–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Light A, McGarry K (2004) Why parents play favorites: explanations for unequal bequests. Am Econ Rev 94:1669–1681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lundholm M, Ohlsson H (2000) Post mortem reputation, compensatory gifts and equal bequests. Econ Lett 68:165–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Margolis H (1984) Selfishness, altruism and rationality. University of Chicago, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  31. Masson A, Pestieau P (1997) Bequests motives and models of inheritance: a survey of the literature. In: Erreygers G, Vandevelde T (eds) Is inheritance legitimate? Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 54–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McGarry K (1999) Inter vivos transfers and intended bequests. J Public Econ 73:321–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Menchik PL (1980) Primogeniture, equal sharing, and the U.S. distribution of wealth. Q J Econ 94:299–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Menchik PL (1988) Unequal estate division: is it altruism, reverse bequests, or simply noise? In: Kessler D, Masson A (eds) Modelling the accumulation and distribution of wealth. Oxford University, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Menchik PL, David MH (1983) Income distribution, lifetime savings, and bequests. Ame Econ Rev 73:672–690Google Scholar
  36. Nitzan S (1994) Modelling rent-seeking contests. Eur J Polit Econ 10:41–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Noh SJ (1999) A general equilibrium model of two group conflict with endogenous intra-group sharing rules. Public Choice 98:251–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shorrocks AF (1979) On the structure of inter-generational transfers between families. Economica 46:415–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stark O (1998) Equal bequests and parental altruism: compatibility or orthogonality? Econ Lett 60:167–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stark O, Zhang J (2002) Counter-compensatory inter-vivos transfers and parental altruism: compatibility or orthogonality? J Econ Behav Organ 47:19–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tomes N (1981) The family, inheritance and the intergenerational transmission of inequality. J Poli Econ 89:928–958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wilhelm MO (1996) Bequest behavior and the effects of heirs’ earnings: testing the altruistic model of bequests. Am Econ Rev 86:874–892Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsKansas State UniversityManhattanUSA
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsColgate UniversityHamiltonUSA

Personalised recommendations