Skip to main content
Log in

The uneven impact of women's retirement on their daughters' employment

  • Published:
Review of Economics of the Household Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper studies the impact of women’s retirement on their daughters’ employment. Using SHARE and self-collected historical data on legal retirement ages in 20 European countries, I find that women’s retirement leads to an increase in their daughters’ employment only in countries with limited family policies and strong family ties. This positive effect can be explained by increases in in-kind transfers to daughters and grandchild care following retirement.

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
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. I define full retirement age as the earliest age at which individuals can retire and receive full retirement benefits.

  2. Focusing on legal retirement ages rather than including all eligibility criteria is useful because: (i) it is a well-defined and comparable criterion across countries, (ii) it is the most widely used policy variable to cope with the demographic transition and the crisis, and (iii) it is the only retirement eligibility criteria that is not manipulable. For instance, individuals may work more years or choose a specific sector to become entitled to retirement benefits, but it is unlikely that they manage to report a different birth date.

  3. There is an additional wave available for 2009 but it is a special issue and questions are different from those in other waves.

  4. The Online Appendix is available at: https://www.dropbox.com/s/0bhu62gij222ytd/Online%20Appendix.pdf?dl=0

  5. In a report for the European Commission, Mills et al. (2014) state that: “When looking at the Mediterranean countries, where welfare state provisions are often lower than in other countries and need to be supplemented with relatively large support from kin networks (Kovacheva et al. 2011), it is surprising that prevalence rates of childcare by grandparents and other kin are not more prominent. Portugal, Greece, and Italy all have prevalence rates over 20 percent for childcare by grandparents for less than 30 h per week, but they still are markedly lower than for instance in the United Kingdom.” (page 30).

References

  • Aasve, A., Arpino, B., & Goisis, A. (2012). Grandparenting and mothers’ labour force participation: a comparative analysis using the Generations and Gender Survey. Demographic Research, 27(3), 53–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albertini, M., Kohli, M., & Vogel, C. (2007). Intergenerational transfers of time and money in European families: common patterns—different regimes? Journal of European Social Policy, 17, 319–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angrist, J. D., & Lavy, V. (1999). Using maimonides rule to estimate the effect of class size on scholastic achievement. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 533–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angrist, J., & Pischke, J.-S. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: an empiricistas companion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Aparicio-Fenoll, A., & Vidal-Fernandez, M. (2015). Working women and fertility: the role of grandmothers’ labor force participation. CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo, 61(1), 123–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arpino, B., Pronzato, C., & Tavares, L. (2014). The effect of grandparental support on mothers? labour market participation: an instrumental variable approach. European Journal of Population, 30, 369–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battistin, E., De Nadai, M., & Padula, M. (2015). Roadblocks on the road to grandma’s house: fertility consequences of delayed retirement, Queen Mary, University of London Working Paper No. 748.

  • Bertoni, M., & Brunello, G. (2017). Does delayed retirement affect youth employment? Evidence from Italian local labour markets. IZA Discussion Paper 10733.

  • Bettio, F., & Plantenga, J. (2004). Comparing care regimes in Europe. Feminist Economics, 10(1), 85–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bratti, M., Frattini, T., & Scervini, F. (2018). Grandparental availability for child care and maternal labor force participation: pension reform evidence from Italy, Journal of Population Economics, Springer; European Society for Population Economics, Vol. 31(4), PP. 1239–1277, October.

  • Campbell, D. (1969). Reforms and experiments. American Psychologist, 24, 409–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardia, E., & Ng, S. (2003). Intergenerational time transfers and childcare. Review of Economic Dynamics, 6(2), 431–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coe, N. B., & Zamarro, G. (2011). Retirement effects on health in Europe. Journal of Health Economics, 30.1, 77–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Compton, J., & Pollak, R. (2014). Family proximity, childcare, and women’s labor force attachment. Journal of Urban Economics, 79(C), 72–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Del Boca, D. (2002). The effect of child care and part time opportunities on participation and fertility fecisions in Italy. Journal of Population Economics, 15, 549–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Del Boca, D., Locatelli, M., & Vuri, D. (2005). Child care choices by Italian households. Review of Economics of the Household, 3, 453–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Gessa, G., & Grundy, E. (2016). The dynamics of paid and unpaid activities among people aged 50–69 in Denmark, France, Italy, and England. Research on Aging, 39(9), 1013–1038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dimova, R., & Wolff, F. (2011). Do downward private transfers enhance maternal labor supply? evidence from around Europe. Journal of Population Economics, 24(3), 911–933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esping-Andersen, G. (1999). Social foundations of postindustrial economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrera, M. (1996). The southern model of welfare in social Europe. Journal of European Social Policy, 6(1), 17–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flaquer, L. (2000). Family policy and welfare state in Southern Europe, Working Papers No. 185, Institut de Ciencies Politiques i Socials, Barcelona.

  • Gangl, M., & Ziefle, A. (2015). The making of a good woman: extended parental leave entitlements and mothers’ work commitment in Germany. American Journal of Sociology, 121, 511–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Moran, E., & Kuehn, Z. (2017). With strings attached: grandparent-provided child care and female labor market outcomes. Review of Economic Dynamics, 23, 80–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gauthier, A., & Smeeding, T. M. (2003). Time use at older ages: cross-national differences. Research on Aging, 25(3), 247–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gershuny, J., Harvey, A. S., & Merz, J. (2004). Editors’ Introduction. Electronic International Journal of Time Use Research, 1(1), I–II.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haberkern, K., Schmid, T., & Szydlik, M. (2015). Gender differences in intergenerational care in European welfare states. Ageing and Society, 35, 298–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hank, K., & Buber, I. (2009). Grandparents caring for their grandchildren: findings from the 2004 Survey of health, ageing and retirement in Europe. Journal of Family Issues, 30, 53–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hank, K., & Korbmacher, J. M. (2013). Parenthood and retirement. European Societies, 15(3), 446–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaumotte, F. (2003). Female Labour Force Participation: Past Trends and Main Determinants in OECD Countries, OECD Working Paper No. 376. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2344556.

  • Jurado, T., & Naldini, M. (2018). Child and Family Policy in Southern Europe. In: G. B. Eydal & T. Rostgaard (Eds), Handbook of Child and Family Policy, Edward Elgar Publisher, pp. 209–222.

  • Jurado, T., & Naldini, M. (1996). Is the South so Different? Italian and Spanish Families in Comparative Perspective. In: South European Society & Politics, Vol. 1, n. 3, Winter, London, Frank Cass, 1996, pp. 42–66.

  • Kalmijn, M., & Saraceno, C. (2008). A comparative perspective on intergenerational support. European Societies, 10, 479–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karamessini (2007). The Southern European Social Model: Changes and Continuities in Recent Decades, Discussion paper of the International Institute for Labour Studies. Geneva, ZDB-ID 2190413-3. Vol. 174.

  • Kohli, M. E., & Albertini, M. (2008). The family as a source of support for adult children’s own family projects: European varieties. In: C. Saraceno (Ed.), Families, ageing and social policies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2008 (pp. 38–58).

  • Kovacheva, S., Doorne-Huiskes, A., & Anttila, T. (2011). The Institutional context of the quality of life. In: M. Bäck-Wiklund, T. Van der Lippe, L. Den Dulk, & A. Van Doorne-Huiskes (Eds), Quality of life and work in Europe. Theory, practice, and policy. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Kremer, M. (2007). How welfare states care. culture, gender, and parenting in Europe. Utrecht: Amsterdam University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lei, X. (2006). Grandchild care, financial transfers and grandma’s labor market decisions. Unpublished manuscript, University of California-Los Angeles.

  • Leibfried, S. (1992). Towards a European welfare state? On integrating poverty regimes in the European Community. In: Ferge, Z. & Kolberg, J. E. (Eds.), Social policy in a changing Europe, Boulder: Westview Press.

  • Milligan, K., & David, A. W. (2012). Introduction and Summary. In: A. W. David (Ed.), Social Security Programs and Retirement around the World: Historical Trends in Mortality and Health, Employment, and Disability Insurance Participation and Reforms, National Bureau of Economic Research.

  • Mills, M., Präg, P., Tsang, F., Begall, K., Derbyshire, J., Kohle, L., et al. (2014). Use of childcare services in the EU member states and progress towards the Barcelona targets. Brussels: European Commission DG Justice.

  • Mingione, E. (2002). Labour market segmentation and informal work. In: H. Gibson (Ed.), Economic transformation, democratization and integration into the European Union. Southern Europe in Comparative Perspective, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave.

  • OECD. (2012). Closing the gender gap: act now. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Petmesidou, M. (1996). Social protection in Southern Europe: trends and prospects. Journal of Area Studies, 9, 95–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reher, D. S. (1998). Family ties in Western Europe: persistent contrasts. Population and Development Review, 24(2), 203–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rupert, P., & Zanella, G. (2018). Grandchildren and their grandparents’ labor supply. Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, 159(C), 89–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saraceno, C. (2000). Gendered policies: family obligations and social policies in Europe. In: T. Boje & A. Leira (Eds), Gender, Welfare State, and the Market. Towards a new division of labour. New York: Routledge.

  • Stock, J. H., & Yogo, M. (2005). Testing for weak instruments in linear IV regression. In: D. W. K. Andrews & J. H. Stock (Eds), Identification and inference for econometric models: essays in honor of Thomas Rothenberg (pp. 80–108). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Trifiletti, R. (1999). Southern European welfare regimes and the worsening position of women. Journal of European Social Policy, 9(1), 49–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Klaauw, W. (2003). Estimating the effect of financial aid offers on college enrollment: a regression discontinuity approach. International Economic Review, 43, 1249–1287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zamarro, G. (2011). Family Labor Participation and Child Care Decisions: The Role of Grannies. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WR833.html.

Download references

Acknowledgements

I thank Paola Giuliano, Esteban Jaimovich, Ignacio Monzón, Manuela Naldini, Mariacristina Rossi, Aleksey Tetenov and conference participants at the SPP 1764 Conference in Nuremberg, the SEHO conference in Paris and the Applied Lunch at Collegio Carlo Alberto for useful comments and suggestions. Financial support from the Joint Transnational Project "CIRCLE—Care and Income Redistributive Cycles in the Lives of Europeans" is gratefully acknowledged. I am grateful to Filippo Ascolani for excellent research assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ainoa Aparicio Fenoll.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares that she has 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 A: details on the characterization of low FB countries

In this section, I provide further details about the familialistic model present in low FB countries. According to Esping-Andersen (1999), the familialistic model is characterized by: (a) the centrality of the family as caregiver and as locus of solidarity and welfare provision; and (b) a male bread-winner bias in social and employment protection. Leibfried (1992), Petmesidou (1996) and Ferrera (1996) refer to the role of the family in developing strategies to protect and augment the welfare of members: (a) pooling income from different sources, (b) mobilizing clientelistic networks to get social benefits and access to public sector jobs, (c) securing and transferring home ownership, and (d) providing income and protection to unemployed members. Jurado and Naldini (1997) list a series of behavioral and attitudinal traits common to familialistic countries: (a) several generations living together in one household, (b) high degree of institutionalization of marriage, (c) low female employment rates, (d) high continuity of female employment patterns, (e) family-oriented attitudes, (f) high valuation of children, and (g) relations between generations seen more in terms of obligations. Reher (1998) focuses on two distinctive patterns present in all familialistic countries: young adults leave their parental home at marriage and there is a high degree of solidarity for the needy and vulnerable members of the family. For Trifiletti (1999), the specificity of familialistic countries lies in the state not guaranteeing a family wage for the male breadwinners and hence the families need more income earners. Finally, Saraceno (2000) and Bratti et al. (2016) both emphasize that the familialistic model relies heavily on informal care, but formal care arrangements for children and the elderly are underdeveloped in these countries. For a complete review of the literature, see Jurado and Naldini (2018).

Appendix B: full retirement ages for women

Country\year

2004

2007

2011

2013

2015

Austria

60

60

60

60

60

Belgium

63

64

65

65

65

Croatia

58

58

60

60.9

61.5

Czech Republic

60

59

60.8

61

61.4

Denmark

65

65

65

65

65

Estonia

59

60

61

62

61

France

60

60

60

65

66.2

Germany

65

65

65

65.1

65.2

Greece

60

60

65

67

67

Hungary

59

62

62

62.6

62.6

Ireland

66

65

66

66

66

Italy

60

60

60

62

66.7

Luxembourg

65

65

65

65

65

Netherlands

65

65

65

65

65.2

Poland

60

60

60

60.2

60.3

Portugal

65

65

65

65

66

Slovenia

59.8

60.8

61

61

58.4

Spain

65

65

65

65

65.2

Sweden

61

61

61

61

61

Switzerland

63

63

64

64

64

  1. Main data source: OECD’ Pensions at a Glance reports. Complemented by data from Ministries of Social Affairs. For more details, see the Online Appendix

Appendix C: countries classification by family benefits and values

Country

Low benefits

Family

Parent to child

Love and respect

Ill parent

Child to parent

Austria

0

0

0

0

0

0

Germany

0

0

0

0

0

0

Sweden

0

1

1

0

0

0

Netherlands

1

0

1

0

0

0

Spain

1

1

1

1

1

1

Italy

1

1

1

1

1

1

France

0

0

0

1

1

0

Denmark

0

0

0

0

0

0

Greece

1

1

1

1

1

1

Switzerland

1

0

0

0

0

0

Belgium

0

0

0

0

1

0

Czech Republic

0

0

0

0

0

1

Poland

1

1

1

1

1

1

Ireland

0

1

0

0

0

0

Luxembourg

0

1

1

0

0

1

Hungary

0

1

0

1

1

1

Portugal

1

1

1

1

1

1

Slovenia

1

0

1

1

1

1

Estonia

1

0

0

1

0

0

Croatia

1

1

1

1

1

1

  1. Data source: European Value Survey. Low benefits is a binary indicator equal to one for countries where family benefits are below the OECD average. Family is a dummy equal to one for countries where the proportion of individuals that declare that family is important in their lives is higher than the median. Parent to child is an indicator equal to one for countries where the proportion of individuals that declare that parents should sacrifice their well-being for their children is higher than the median. Love and respect is a binary variable that equals one for countries where the ratio of individuals that indicate that one should love and respect their parents even if they do not deserve it is higher than the median. Ill parent is an indicator that equals one for countries where the proportion of individuals that declare that it is children’s duty to take care of ill parents is higher than the median. Children to parent is a dummy equal to one for countries where the proportion of individuals that declare that children should sacrifice their well-being for their parents is higher than the median
Table 10 IV results. Using also early retirement age as instrument
Table 11 IV results. Excluding mothers who never worked
Table 12 IV results. Restricting the sample to eldest daughters
Table 13 IV results. Placebo test
Table 14 IV results. Adding potential mechanisms as controls in the main regression
Table 15 IV results. Mechanisms for daughters with and without children
Table 16 IV results. Daughters’ labor market status by daughters’ education
Table 17 IV results. Adding interactions as controls in the continuous FB specification
Table 18 IV results. Heterogeneity of effects by daughters’ and mothers’ characteristics

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aparicio Fenoll, A. The uneven impact of women's retirement on their daughters' employment. Rev Econ Household 18, 795–821 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11150-019-09473-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11150-019-09473-y

Keywords

JEL

Navigation