Advertisement

The Limits of Monetizing and Paying for Volunteering in Eldercare: A Behavioral-Economic Approach

  • Konstantin Kehl
  • Stephan Stahlschmidt
Original Paper

Abstract

The monetary value of informal eldercare in the family and voluntary sector has drawn much attention as it concerns a resource of welfare governments and nonprofit organizations try to activate via cash benefits. Studies addressing the issue in order to assess the economic impact of non-market activities and the willingness to accept financial rewards have largely ignored differences in the utility function of caregivers. Applying a behavioral-economic approach, we report a profound and formerly unobserved distinction between care in the household and non-household care for a family member or in a voluntary framework: whereas caregivers within the household perceive care as a burden and a positive shadow price arises, in the non-household context—and particularly in the volunteering case–care extends well-being and leads to negative shadow prices. The results show that non-market activities can only be measured in monetary terms to a limited extent and contribute to explaining the boundaries of monetary incentive policies.

Keywords

Volunteering Informal care Monetary valuation Well-being Incentives 

Résumé

La valeur monétaire des soins informels aux personnes âgées au sein de la famille et dans le secteur bénévole a suscité beaucoup d’intérêt, car il s’agit d’une ressource que les administrations du bien-être et les organisations à but non lucratif essaient de mobiliser par des prestations en espèces. Les études qui se sont penchées sur la question pour évaluer les conséquences économiques des activités non marchandes et la propension à accepter les récompenses financières ont largement ignoré les différences au niveau de la fonction d’utilité des personnels soignants. En appliquant une approche de l’économie comportementale, nous faisons état d’une distinction profonde et auparavant non observée entre les soins dans les ménages et les soins extérieurs donnés à un membre de la famille ou dans le cadre bénévole : tandis que les personnels soignants au sein du ménage considèrent les soins comme une charge et une hausse du prix fictif positif, dans le cadre non domestique—et en particulier dans le cas du bénévolat –, les soins comprennent le bien-être et entrainent des prix fictifs négatifs. Les résultats montrent que les activités non marchandes ne peuvent être mesurées qu’en termes monétaires, dans une mesure limitée, et qu’elles contribuent à expliquer les limites des politiques d’incitation monétaire.

Zusammenfassung

Der Geldwert informeller Altenpflege innerhalb der Familie und im gemeinnützigen Sektor erfährt viel Aufmerksamkeit, da es sich um eine Ressource handelt, die Wohlfahrtsstaaten und gemeinnützige Organisationen über Geldleistungen zu aktivieren versuchen. Studien zu diesem Thema, die die wirtschaftlichen Auswirkungen nicht marktbezogener Aktivitäten und die Bereitschaft zur Entgegennahme finanzieller Geldleistungen bewerten, haben die Unterschiede in der Nutzenfunktion der Pflegekräfte weitgehend außer Acht gelassen. Bei Anwendung eines verhaltensökonomischen Ansatzes erkennen wir einen großen, zuvor nicht beobachteten Unterschied zwischen der Pflege im Haushalt und der haushaltsexternen Pflege für Familienangehörige bzw. der Unterstützung auf freiwilliger Basis: während die Pflegenden innerhalb des Haushalts die Pflege als eine Belastung empfinden und ein positiver Schattenpreis entsteht, erhöht die Pflege im haushaltsexternen Kontext - und insbesondere im freiwilligen Bereich - das Wohlbefinden und führt zu negativen Schattenpreisen. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass nicht marktbezogene Aktivitäten nur in einem begrenzten Umfang in monetärer Größe gemessen werden können, und erklären die Beschränkungen von politischen Strategien, die monetäre Anreize vorsehen.

Resumen

El valor monetario del cuidado informal de los mayores en la familia y en el sector del voluntariado ha atraído mucha atención ya que concierne a un recurso de bienestar que los gobiernos y las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro tratan de activar mediante prestaciones económicas. Los estudios que abordan la cuestión con el fin de evaluar el impacto económico de actividades no mercantiles y la disposición a aceptar recompensas financieras han ignorado ampliamente las diferencias en la función de servicio de los cuidadores. Aplicando un enfoque comportamental-económico, informamos de una profunda distinción no observada anteriormente entre los cuidados en el hogar y los cuidados fuera del hogar para un miembro de la familia o en un marco de voluntariado: mientras que los cuidadores dentro del hogar perciben los cuidados como una carga y surge un precio virtual positivo, en el contexto fuera del hogar - y en particular en el caso del voluntariado - los cuidados amplían el bienestar y llevan a precios virtuales negativos. Los resultados muestran que las actividades no mercantiles sólo pueden ser medidas en términos monetarios de forma limitada y contribuyen a explicar los límites de las políticas de incentivos monetarios.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The financial support from the Generali Zukunfsfonds (GZF) and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeischaft (DFG) via SFB 649 “Ökonomisches Risiko,” Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, is gratefully acknowledged. The authors like to thank Volker Then, Jurgen Willems, Prof. Manfred G. Schmidt, Prof. Wolfgang K. Härdle, and the participants of a session on volunteering at ISTR’s 11th International Conference 2014 for valuable discussions and helpful comments.

References

  1. Alexander, J. C. (2006). The civil sphere. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Al-Janabi, H., Frew, E., Brouwer, W., Rappange, D., & Van Exel, J. (2010). The inclusion of positive aspects of caring in the caregiver strain index: Tests of feasibility and validity. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 47, 984–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker, L. A., Cahalin, L. P., Gerst, K., & Burr, J. A. (2005). Productive activities and subjective well-being among older adults: The influence of number of activities and time commitment. Social Indicators Research, 73, 431–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brouwer, W. B., van Exel, N. J., van den Berg, B., Dinant, H. J., Koopmanschap, M. A., & van den Bos, G. A. (2004). Burden of caregiving: Evidence of objective burden, subjective burden, and quality of life impacts on informal caregivers of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis & Rheumatism, 51, 570–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brouwer, W. B., Van Exel, J., Van den Berg, B., Van den Bos, G. A., & Koopmanschap, M. (2005). Process utility from providing informal care: The benefit of caring. Health Policy, 74, 85–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carmichael, F., & Charles, S. (2003). The opportunity costs of informal care: Does gender matter? Journal of Health Economics, 22, 781–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dahl, R. A., & Lindblom, C. E. (1953). Politics, economics and welfare. New York: Harper & Brothers.Google Scholar
  8. Deaton, A. (2008). Income, health, and well-being around the world: Evidence from the gallup world poll. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 22, 53–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Meijer, C., Brouwer, W., Koopmanschap, M., van den Berg, B., & van Exel, J. (2010). The value of informal care—A further investigation of the feasibility of contingent valuation in informal caregivers. Health Economics, 19, 755–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DeVoe, S. E., & Pfeffer, J. (2007). Hourly payment and volunteering: The effect of organizational practices on decisions about time use. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 783–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Diener, E. (2006). Guidelines for national indicators of subjective well-being and Ill-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 397–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Diener, E., Inglehart, R., & Tay, L. (2013). Theory and validity of life satisfaction scales. Social Indicators Research, 112, 497–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Diener, E., Sandvik, E., Seidlitz, L., & Diener, M. (1993). The relationship between income and subjective wellbeing: Relative or absolute? Social Indicators Research, 28, 195–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dolan, P., & Kahneman, D. (2008). Interpretations of utility and their implications for the valuation of health. The Economic Journal, 118, 215–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ettner, S. L. (1996). The opportunity costs of elder care. The Journal of Human Resources, 31, 189–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Evers, A. (1993). The welfare mix approach: Understanding the pluralism of welfare systems. In A. Evers & I. Svetlik (Eds.), Balancing pluralism. New Welfare mixes in care for the elderly (pp. 3–31). Aldershot: Avebury.Google Scholar
  17. Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A., & Frijters, P. (2004). How important is methodology for the estimates of the determinants of happiness? The Economic Journal, 114, 641–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A., & van Praag, B. M. S. (2002). The subjective costs of health losses due to chronic diseases. An alternative model for monetary appraisal. Health Economics, 11, 709–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fiorillo, D. (2011). Do monetary rewards crowd out intrinsic motivations of volunteers? Some empirical evidence for Italian volunteers. Annals of Public & Cooperative Economics, 82, 139–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Frey, B. S. (2008). Happiness: A revolution in economics. Cambridge MA, London: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Frey, B. S., & Goette, L. (1999). Does pay motivate volunteers? Institute for Empirical Research in Economics Working Paper No. 7.Google Scholar
  22. Frey, B. S., Luechinger, S., & Stutzer, A. (2009). The life satisfaction approach to valuing public goods: The case of terrorism. Public Choice, 138, 317–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Frijters, P. (2000). Do individuals try to maximize general satisfaction? Journal of Economic Psychology, 21, 281–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gneezy, U., & Rustichini, A. (2000). Pay enough or don’t pay at all. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115, 791–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Härdle, W. K. (1990). Applied nonparametric regression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Haski-Leventhal, D., & Meijs, L. C. P. M. (2011). The volunteer matrix: Positioning of volunteer organizations. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 16, 127–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hemerijck, A. (2013). Changing welfare states. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hoyert, D. L., & Seltzer, M. M. (1992). Factors related to the well-being and life activities of family caregivers. Family Relations, 41, 74–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. ILO. (2011). Manual on the measurement of volunteer work. Geneva: ILO.Google Scholar
  30. Kahneman, D., Wakker, P. P., & Sarin, R. (1997). Back to Bentham? Explorations of experienced utility. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112, 375–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kahneman, D., & Krueger, A. B. (2006). Developments in the measurement of subjective well-being. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20, 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kehl, K., & Then, V. (2013). Community and civil society returns of multi-generation cohousing in Germany. Journal of Civil Society, 9, 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kehl, K., Tominski, S. (2013). Monetarisierung oder Ökonomisierung des freiwilligen Engagements? Ein Problemaufriss. In G. Von Schnurbein, D. Wiederkehr, & H. Ammann (Eds.), Freiwilligenarbeit zwischen Freiheit und Professionalisierung: Tagungsband der 6. Europäischen Freiwilligenuniversität vom 31.8. bis 3.9.2011 in Basel (pp. 159–171). Zürich: Kohlhammer, .Google Scholar
  34. Kocka, J. (2004). Civil society from a historical perspective. European Review, 12, 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Koopmanschap, M. A., van Exel, J. N., van den Berg, B., & Brouwer, W. B. (2008). An overview of methods and applications to value informal care in economic evaluations of healthcare. PharmacoEconomics, 26, 269–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kramer, B. J. (1997). Gain in the caregiving experience: Where are we? What next? The Gerontologist, 37, 218–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lum, T. Y., & Lightfoot, E. (2005). The effects of volunteering on the physical and mental health of older people. Research on Aging, 27, 31–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Marks, N. F. (1998). Does it hurt to care? Caregiving, work-family conflict, and midlife well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60, 951–966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mayraz, G., Wagner, G. G., & Schupp, J. (2009). Life satisfaction and relative income: Perceptions and evidence. No: IZA Discussion Paper. 4390.Google Scholar
  40. Meier, S., & Stutzer, A. (2008). Is volunteering rewarding in itself? Economica, 75, 39–59.Google Scholar
  41. Mentzakis, E., McNamee, P., Ryan, M., & Sutton, M. (2012). Valuing informal care experience: Does choice of measure matter? Social Indicators Research, 108, 169–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ng, Y. K. (2003). From preference to happiness: Towards a more complete welfare economics. Social Choice and Welfare, 20, 307–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. OECD. (2005). The OECD health project. Long-term care for older people. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  44. OECD. (2011). Health at a glance 2011: OECD indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  45. Offe, C. (2000). Civil society and social order: Demarcating and combining market, state and community. European Journal of Sociology, 41, 71–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pearlin, L. I., Mullan, J. T., Semple, S. J., & Skaff, M. M. (1990). Caregiving and the stress process: An overview of concepts and their measures. The Gerontologist, 30, 583–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pestoff, V. (2006). Citizens and co-production of welfare services: Childcare in eight European countries. Public Management Review, 8, 503–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pinquart, M., & Sörensen, S. (2003). Associations of stressors and uplifts of caregiving with caregiver burden and depressive mood: A meta-analysis. Journals of Gerontology, 58B, 112–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Roth, D. L., Perkins, M., Wadley, V. G., Temple, E. M., & Haley, W. E. (2009). Family caregiving and emotional strain: Associations with quality of life in a large national sample of middle-aged and older adults. Quality of Life Research, 18, 679–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schneekloth, U. (2006). Entwicklungstrends beim Hilfe- und Pflegebedarf in Privathaushalten. Ergebnisse der Infratest-Repräsentativerhebung. In U. Schneekloth & H. W. Wahl (Eds.), Selbständigkeit und Hilfebedarf bei älteren Menschen in Privathaushalten. Pflegearrangements, Demenz, Versorgungsangebote (pp. 57–102). Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
  51. Schneider, U. (2006). Informelle Pflege aus ökonomischer Sicht. Zeitschrift für Sozialreform, 52, 493–520.Google Scholar
  52. Spiess, C. K., & Schneider, A. U. (2003). Interactions between care-giving and paid work hours among European midlife women, 1994 to 1996. Ageing & Society, 23, 41–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Stadelmann-Steffen, I., & Vatter, A. (2012). Does satisfaction with democracy really increase happiness? Direct democracy and individual satisfaction in Switzerland. Political Behavior, 34, 535–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stevenson, B., Wolfers, J. (2008). Economic growth and subjective well-being: Reassessing the easterlin paradox. NBER Working Paper No. 14282.Google Scholar
  55. Thoits, P. A., & Hewitt, L. N. (2001). Volunteer work and well-being. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 42, 115–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Van den Berg, B., Brouwer, W., & Koopmanschap, M. (2004). Economic valuation of informal care: An overview of methods and applications. The European Journal of Health Economics, 5, 36–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Van den Berg, B., & Spauwen, P. (2006). Measurement of informal care: An empirical study into the valid measurement of time spent on informal caregiving. Health Economics, 15, 447–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Van den Berg, B., & Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A. (2007). Monetary valuation of informal care: The well-being valuation method. Health Economics, 16, 1227–1244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Van Houtven, C. H., Coe, N. B., & Skira, M. (2012). The effect of informal care on work and wages. Journal of Health Economics, 32, 240–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Van Praag, B. M., & Baarsma, B. E. (2005). Using happiness surveys to value intangibles: The case of airport noise. The Economic Journal, 115, 224–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vedung, E. (1998). Policy instruments: Typologies and theories. In M. L. Bemelmans-Videc, R. C. Rist, & E. Vedung (Eds.), Carrots, sticks and sermons: Policy instruments and their evaluation (pp. 21–58). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  62. Verschuere, B., Brandsen, T., & Pestoff, V. (2012). Co-production: The state of the art in research and the future agenda. Voluntas, 23, 1083–1101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Walker, A. J., Pratt, C. C., & Eddy, L. (1995). Informal caregiving to aging family members: A critical review. Family Relations, 44, 402–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Whitlatch, C. J., Zarit, S. H., & von Eye, A. (1991). Efficacy of interventions with caregivers: A reanalysis. The Gerontologist, 31, 9–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wilson, J., & Musick, M. A. (1999). The effects of volunteering on the volunteer. Law and Contemporary Problems, 62, 141–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Social Investment (CSI)Heidelberg UniversityHeidelbergGermany
  2. 2.Ladislaus von Bortkiewicz Chair of StatisticsHumboldt-Universität zu BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations