Journal of Population Ageing

, Volume 7, Issue 3, pp 161–184 | Cite as

Migration, Location and Provision of Support to Older Parents: The Case of Romania

  • Zachary Zimmer
  • Codrina Rada
  • Catalin Augustin Stoica


Low fertility and rapid out-migration in Romania are consequential for the migrants that confront challenges of providing support to ageing parents. Systematic data allowing examination of intergenerational support are difficult to find for Eastern Europe, a region undergoing demographic and socio-economic transition. Using recently collected data from Romania this study models monetary and instrumental support from an adult child to an older parent as a function of location of residence and additional covariates that assume Romanian families operate following an integrative family framework wherein support obligations are considered to be shared across a family network and support probabilities depend upon characteristics of the provider and the older parent. Multilevel multinomial models with random intercepts indicate international migrants are likely to give money; within Romania migrants and those living in the same locality as parents are unlikely to give money but likely to provide instrumental support. But, specific probabilities vary depending having sibling and where siblings live. Support is more likely provided to rural parents and to parents with functional limitations. Results elucidate the degree to which and why support is being provided within a rapidly ageing environment.


Aging Ageing Eastern Europe Intergenerational relations Migration Older adults Support Romania 



Support for this research was provided by a grant entitled, ‘The Impact of Migration on Older Age Parents Left Behind in Romania,’ from the Center on Aging at the University of Utah.


  1. Aboderin, I. (2004). Modernisation and ageing theory revisited: Current explanations of recent developing world and historical Western shifts in material family support for older people. Ageing & Society, 24(1), 29–50.Google Scholar
  2. Aboderin, I. (2006). Intergenerational Support and Old Age in Africa. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Agesa, R. U., & Sunwoong, K. (2001). Rural to urban migration as a household decision: Evidence from Kenya. Review of Development Economics, 5(1), 60–75.Google Scholar
  4. Beckett, M., Goldman, N., Weinstein, M., Lin, I.-F., & Chuang, Y.-L. (2002). Socialenvironment, life challenge, and health among the eldelry in Taiwan. Social Science & Medicine, 55(2), 191–209.Google Scholar
  5. Bengston, V. L., & Roberts, R. E. (1991). Intergenerational solidarity in ageing families: An example of formal theory construction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 856–870.Google Scholar
  6. Bongaarts, J., & Zimmer, Z. (2002). Living arrangements of the elderly in the developing world: An analysis of DHS household surveys. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 57(1), S145–S157.Google Scholar
  7. Chappell, N. L. (1992). Social Support and Ageing. Toronto: Butterworths Press.Google Scholar
  8. Chen, X., & Silverstein, M. (2000). Intergenerational social support and the psychologicalwell-being of older parents in China. Research on ageing, 22(1), 43–65.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen, S., & Syme, L. S. (1985). Social Support and Health. Orlando: Academic.Google Scholar
  10. Consiliul Naţional al Persoanelor Vîrstnice. (2011). The socio-economic situation of old-age persons in Romania and the EU countries: the current situation and future evolution. Available at (retrieved on June 1, 2014).
  11. Cowgill, D. O. (1972). A theory of ageing in cross-cultural perspective. In D. O. Cowgill & L. D. Holmes (Eds.), Ageing and Modernization (pp. 1–13). New York: Meredith Corporation.Google Scholar
  12. Daatland, S. O., & Herlofson, K. (2003). ‘Lost solidarity’ or ‘changed solidarity’: a comparative European view of normative family solidarity. Ageing and Society, 23(5), 537–560.Google Scholar
  13. Daatland, S. O., Herlofson, K., & Lima, I. A. (2011). Balancing generations: on the strength and character of family norms in the West and East of Europe. Ageing and Society, 31(7), 1159.Google Scholar
  14. de Jong, G., Jenny, D., Pearl, A., & Schenk, N. (2012). Living arrangements, intergenerational support types and older adult loneliness in Eastern and Western. Europe. Demographics Research, 27, 167–200.Google Scholar
  15. DeWit, D. J., & Frankel, B. G. (1988). Geographic distance and intergenerational contact: A critical assessment and review of the literature. Journal of Ageing Studies, 2(1), 25–43.Google Scholar
  16. Dupertuis, L., Aldwin, C. M., & Bosse, R. (2001). Does the source of support matter for different health outcomes? Findings from the Normative Ageing Study. Journal of Ageing and Health, 13(4), 494–510.Google Scholar
  17. Eyal, G., Szelenyi, I., & Townsley, E. (1998). Making Capitalism Without Capitalists: The New Ruling Elites in Eastern Europe. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  18. Frankenberg, E., Chan, A., & Ofstedal, M. B. (2002). Stability and change in living arragements in Indonesia, Singapore, and Taiwan, 1993-1999. Population Studies, 56(2), 201–213.Google Scholar
  19. Gans, D., & Silverstein, M. (2006). Norms of filial responsibility for ageing parents across time and generations. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 68(4), 961–976.Google Scholar
  20. Ghetau, V. (2009). Evoluţii demografice care pot accentua riscurile sociale. (Demographic evolutions that might increase social risks.) In Marian Preda (Ed.), Riscuri şi Inechităţi Sociale în România: Raportul. Google Scholar
  21. Ghetau, V.. (2012). Drama noastră demografică: Populaţia României la recensământul din octombrie 2011. [Our Demograhic Tragedy: Romania’s Population at the October 2011 Census] Bucharest: Editura Compania.Google Scholar
  22. Giles, J., & Mu, R. (2007). Elderly parent health and the migration decisions of adult children: Evidence from rural China. Demography, 44(2), 265–288.Google Scholar
  23. Giles, J., Wang, D., & Zhao, C. (2010). Can China’s rural elderly count on support from adult children? Implications of rural-to-urban migration. Journal of Population Ageing, 3(3–4), 183–204.Google Scholar
  24. Glaser, K., Agree, E. M., Costenbader, E., et al. (2006). Fertility decline, family structure, and support of older persons in Latin America and Asia. Journal of Ageing and Health, 18(2), 259–291.Google Scholar
  25. Greenwell, L., & Bengtson, V. L. (1997). Geographic distance and contact between middle-aged children and their parents: The effects of social class over 20 years. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 52(1), S13–S26.Google Scholar
  26. Grundy, E. (2006). Ageing and Vulnerable elderly people: European perspectives. Ageing & Society, 26(1).Google Scholar
  27. Hermalin, A. I. (2002). The Well-Being of the Elderly in Asia: A Four-Country Comparative Study. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hoddinott, J. (1992). Family size and support to the elderly in Western Kenya. Fertility, family size, and structure: consequences for families and children. Proceedings of a Population Council Seminar, New York, 9-10 June, edited by Cynthia B. Lloyd.Google Scholar
  29. Horvath, I., & Anghel, R. G. (2009). Migration and its consequences for Romania. Südosteuropa. Zeitschrift für Politik und Gesellschaft, 4, 386–403.Google Scholar
  30. Ingelhart, R., & Baker, W. E. (2000). Modernization, cultural change and the persistence of traditional values. American Sociological Review, 65(1), 19–51.Google Scholar
  31. Kandiyoti, D. (1988). Bargaining with patriarchy. Gender and Society, 2(3), 274–290.Google Scholar
  32. Keil, T. J., & Andreescu, V. (1999). Fertility policy in Ceausescu’s Romania. Journal of Family History, 24(4), 478–492.Google Scholar
  33. Kinsella, K., & Phillips, D. R. (2005). Global ageing: The challenge of success. Population Bulletin, 60(1), 1–40.Google Scholar
  34. Kligman, G. (1998). The Politics of Duplicity: Controlling Reproduction in Ceausescu’s Romania. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  35. Knodel, J., Friedman, J., Anh, T. S., & Cuong, B. T. (2000). Intergenerational exchanges in Vietnam: Family size, sex composition, and the location of children. Population Studies, 54(1), 89–104.Google Scholar
  36. Knodel, J., Kespichayawattana, J., Wiwatwanich, S., & Saengtienchai, C. (2010). How left behind are rural parents of migrant children? Evidence from Thailand. Ageing & Society, 30(1), 811–841.Google Scholar
  37. Kreager, P. (2006). Migration, social structure and old-age support networks: A comparison of three Indonesidan communities. Ageing & Society, 26(1), 37–60.Google Scholar
  38. Lauby, J., & Stark, O. (1988). Individual migration as a family strategy: Young women in the Philippines. Population Studies, 42(3), 473–786.Google Scholar
  39. Lawton, L., Silverstein, M., & Bengston Vern, L. (1994). Solidarity between generations in families. In L. Vern Bengston & R. A. Harootyan (Eds.), Intergenerational Linkages: Hidden Connections in American Society (pp. 19–41). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  40. Lee, R. D. (2000a). Intergenerational transfers and the economic life cycle: A cross-cultural perspective. In A. Mason & G. Tapinos (Eds.), Sharing the Wealth: Demographic Change and Economic Transfers between Generations (pp. 17–56). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Lee, Y.-J. (2000b). Support between rural parents and migrant children in a rapidly industrializing society: South Korea. In A. Mason & G. Tapinos (Eds.), Sharing the Wealth: Demographic Change and Economic Transfers between Generations (pp. 282–305). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Lee, Y. J., Parish, W. L., & Willis, R. J. (1994). Sons, daughters and intergenerational support in Taiwan. American Journal of Sociology, 99(4), 1010–1041.Google Scholar
  43. Levy, M. J. (1966). Modernization and the Structure of Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Lillard, L. A., & Willis, R. J. (1997). Motives for intergenerational transfers: Evidence from Malaysia. Demography, 34(1), 115–134.Google Scholar
  45. Litwak, E. (1960). Geographic-mobility and extended family cohesion. American Sociological Review, 25(3), 385–394.Google Scholar
  46. Lowenstein, A., & Daatland, S. O. (2006). Filial norms and family support in a comparative cross-national context: evidence from the OASIS study. Ageing and Society, 26(2), 203–224.Google Scholar
  47. Martin, L. G. (1989). Living arrangements of the elderly in Fiji, Korea, Malaysia, and the Philippines. Demography, 26(4), 627–643.Google Scholar
  48. Mitrut, A., & Nordblom, K. (2010). Social norms and gift behavior: Theory and evidence from Romania. European Economic Review, 54(8), 998–1015.Google Scholar
  49. Murafa, C. (2011). Romania: The EU's largest receiver of remittances. Accessed at Retrieved May 19, 2013.
  50. Nadolu, B., Nadolu, I. D., & Asay, S. M. (2007). Family strengths in Romania. Marriage and Family Review, 41(3–4), 419–446.Google Scholar
  51. National Institute for Statistics. (2012). The Romanian Statistical Yearbook 2012. Available on-line at (retrieved on June 1, 2014).
  52. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2013). Executive Summary. In OECD (Ed.), International Migration Outlook 2013. 10.1787/migr_outlook-2013-36-en. Retrieved July 6, 2013.
  53. Osaki, K. (2003). Migrant remittances in Thailand: Economic necessity or social norm? Journal of Population Research, 20(2), 203–222.Google Scholar
  54. Phillips, D. R. (2000). Ageing in the Asia-Pacific region: Issues, policies and contexts. In D. R. Phillips (Ed.), Ageing in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues, Policies and Future Trends (pp. 1–34). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  55. Piotrowski, M. (2007). Intergenerational relations in a context of industrial transition: A study of agriculture labor from migrants in Nang Rong, Thailand. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology, 23(1), 17–38.Google Scholar
  56. Preda, M. (2009). Social Risks and Inequities in Romania: The Report of the Presidential Commission for the Analysis of Social and Demographic Risks. Iasi: Polirom.Google Scholar
  57. Rabe-Hesketh, S., & Skrondal, A. (2008). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using STATA. College Station, TX: StataCorp.Google Scholar
  58. Reher, D. S. (1998). Family ties in Western Europe: persistent contrasts. Population and Development Review, 24(2), 203–234.Google Scholar
  59. Robila, M. (Ed.). (2004). Families in Eastern Europe. New York: Elseiver.Google Scholar
  60. Roman, M., & Voicu, C. (2010). Some socio-economic effects of labour migration on the sending country. Evidence from Romania. Theoretical and Applied Economics, 6(547), 2–16.Google Scholar
  61. Romanian National Institute of Statistics. (2013). Rezultatele definitive ale Recensămîntului Populaţiei şi al Locuinţelor – 2011. Caracteristici demografice ale populaţiei. [The Final Results of the Census of Population and Housing of 2011. Demographic Charactersitics of Population.] Retrieved July 7, 2013.
  62. Sandu, D., & Alexandru, M. (2009). Migraţia şi consecinţele sale [Migration and Its Consequences]. In M. Preda (Ed.), Riscuri şi Inechităţi Sociale în România: Raportul Comisiei Prezidenţiale pentru analiza riscurilor demografice şi sociale. [Risks and Social Inequities in Romania: The Report of the Presidential Comission for the Analysis of Demographic and Social Risks] (pp. 287–3041). Lasi, Romania: Polirom.Google Scholar
  63. Secondi, G. (1997). Private monetary transfers in rural China: Are families altruistic? The Journal of Development Studies, 33(4), 487–511.Google Scholar
  64. Seeman, M., Seeman, T. E., & Sayles, M. (1985). Social networks and health status: A longitudinal analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48(3), 237–248.Google Scholar
  65. Serbanescu, F., Morris, L., Stupp, P., & Stanescu, A. (1994). The impact of recent policy changes on fertility, abortion, and contraceptive use in Romania. Studies in Family Planning, 26(2), 76–87.Google Scholar
  66. Shanas, E. (1973). Family-kin networks and ageing in cross-cultural perspective. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 35(3), 505–511.Google Scholar
  67. Sherbourne, C. D., & Stewart, A. L. (1991). The MOS social support survey. Social Science & Medicine, 32(6), 705–714.Google Scholar
  68. Silverstein, M., & Bengston, V. L. (1997). Intergenerational solidarity and the structure of adult child-parent relationships in American families. American Journal of Sociology, 103(2), 429–460.Google Scholar
  69. Silverstein, M., & Litwak, E. (1993). A task-specific typology of intergenerational family structure in later life. The Gerontologist, 33(2), 258–264.Google Scholar
  70. Silverstein, M., Conroy, S. J., & Gans, D. (2012). Beyond solidarity, reciprocity and altruism: Moral capital as a unifying concept in intergenerational support for older people. Ageing & Society, 32(7), 1246–1262.Google Scholar
  71. Smith, G. C. (1998). Residential separation and patterns of interaction between elderly parents and their adult children. Progress in Human Geography, 22, 368–384.Google Scholar
  72. Stoica, A. C. (2011). The Impact of Migration on Older Parents Left Behind in Romania: A Methodological Report. Bucharest, Romania: Center for Urban and Regional Sociology.Google Scholar
  73. Stoica, A. C. (2012). Our Martyrs of 1989 Did not Die for This!: Political Capitalism in Post-Communist Romania. Historical SocialResearchHistorische Sozialforschung, 37(2), 26–52.Google Scholar
  74. Tolkacheva, N., van Marjolein Broese, G., & van Tilburg, T. (2010). Sibling influence on care given by children to older parents. Research on Ageing, 32(6), 739–759.Google Scholar
  75. United Nations. (2002). Report of the Second World Assembly on Ageing: Madrid, 8-12 April 2002. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
  76. United Nations. (2013). World Population Prospects. New York, NY: The 2012 Revision.Google Scholar
  77. van Eeuwijk, P. (2006). Old-Age Vulnerability, Ill-Health and Care Support in Urban Areas of Indonesia. Ageing & Society, 26(1).Google Scholar
  78. Van Gaalen, R. I., Dykstra, P. A., & Flap, H. (2008). Intergenerational contact beyond the dyad: The role of the sibling network. European Journal of Ageing, 5(1), 19–29.Google Scholar
  79. Vanwey, L. K. (2004). Altruistic and contractual remittances between male and female migrants and households in rural thailand. Demography, 41, 739–756.Google Scholar
  80. Vasileva, K. (2010). Foreigners Living in the EU are Diverse and Largely Younger Than the Nationals of EU Member States. Luxembourg: Eurostat—Statistics in Focus.Google Scholar
  81. Verdery, K. (1996). What Was Socialism, and What Comes Next. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  82. von Strauss, E., Aguero-Torres, H., Kareholt, I., Winbald, B., & Fratiglioni, L. (2003). Women are more disabled in basic activities of daily living than men only in very advanced ages: A study on disability, morbidity, and mortality from teh Kungsholmen Project. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 56(7), 669–677.Google Scholar
  83. Whyte, M. K. (2003). The persistence of family obligations in Baoding. In W. Martin King (Ed.), China's Revolutions and Intergenerational Relations (pp. 85–120). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  84. Yount, K. M. (2005). The patriarchal bargain and intergenerational coresidence in Egypt. The Sociological Quarterly, 46(1), 139–166.Google Scholar
  85. Zimmer, Z., & Knodel, J. (2010). Return migration and the health of older aged parents: Evidence from rural Thailand. Journal of Ageing and Health, 22(7), 955–976.Google Scholar
  86. Zimmer, Z., & Kwong, J. (2003). Family size and support of older adults in urban and rural China: Current effects and future implications. Demography, 40(1), 23–44.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zachary Zimmer
    • 1
  • Codrina Rada
    • 2
  • Catalin Augustin Stoica
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Social and Behavioral SciencesUniversity of California San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA
  2. 2.University of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA
  3. 3.National School for Political and Administrative Studies and the Center for Urban and Regional SociologyBucharestRomania

Personalised recommendations