Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Money and time: what would you give back to me? Reciprocity between children and their elderly parents in Europe

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Economia Politica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Using data from the Survey of Health, Ageing, and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) (2004, 2006, 2011, 2013 and 2015), we analyse the determinants of adult children’s transfers of money and time to their parents. Specifically, we focus on reciprocity: analysing resource transfers, in term of both time (i.e., informal care) and money (i.e., financial transfers), helps us understand how parent-to-child transfers may influence the probability of child-to-parent transfers. A multivariate probit model for 10 EU countries is used to simultaneously estimate the probabilities that informal care or financial transfers will be given by children to their parents and, conversely, by parents to their children. Using the longitudinal structure of the data, we consider both concurrent and intertemporal reciprocity. The evidence for reciprocity is different based on the type of transfer: we do not find evidence of reciprocity for time transfers (informal care provided to parents) except in the case of sons, for which a positive link between informal care given to parents and current financial transfers received from parents emerges. In contrast, we find a positive effect of parent-to-child transfers (both time and money) on the probability of child-to-parent financial transfers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The transfer of space (i.e. co-residence) is used as a determinant in our model (given that it affects the probability of receiving time-help); see par. 5.

  2. Two measures can be used to disentangle the two models predicting reciprocity motives: parental income (the recipient’s income) and the amount of the financial transfer or the number of hours of informal care that children supply. The prediction of the exchange model is that there is a positive relationship between the recipient’s income and the financial transfer from givers to the recipient (Cox 1987 p. 519). Unfortunately we do not have these data on children. Even if we do not find a positive relationship (between parental income and transfers by children [prob(t > 0)]), this result may be a prediction of both the altruism and exchange motive hypotheses (Cox 1987).

  3. There are no universal definitions for distinguishing between informal and formal care. Informal care is a somewhat heterogeneous commodity in terms of the differences in time investment and duration, the (number of) care tasks provided, its different components, such as house work (for instance, cleaning and cooking), personal care, including dressing, support with mobility, and administrative tasks and socializing (van den Berg, Brouwer, and Koopmanschap 2004; Arber et al. 1990).

  4. A person is dependent if he/she has limitations in activities of daily living (ADLs) or instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs).

  5. However, other studies have found evidence of neither a “crowding in” nor a “crowding out” effect of informal care on professional care. Instead, they have found evidence of a modification of private transfers depending on public transfers, suggesting a specialization hypothesis: professional providers take over medically demanding and regular physical care, whereas the family is more likely to provide less demanding, spontaneous help (see Brandt et al. 2009; Deindl and Brandt 2011).

  6. For an overview of these studies, see Fehr and Gächter (2000), Fehr and Schmidt (2006) and Cappelen and Tungodden (2019).

  7. See for instance Rabin (1993) Dufwenberg and Kirchsteiger (2004) Falk and Fischbacher (2006) L.K. Raut (1990) Jiang and Wu (2019) Raut and Tran (2005).

  8. This issue is not the focus of this paper; see, for instance, Borsch-Supan et al (1992), Aquilino and Supple (1991).

  9. Our sample is perfectly comparable with their sample given that we also have parent–child dyads; however, the amount given and the amount received are available in only two waves of the panel (2004 and 2006). To include in our model intertemporal transfers from parents to children, we need to use a longer version of the panel that imposes the limitation of not being able to consider the amount of transfers but only the dummy outcome variable.

  10. Formal care and the social benefits received by parents play a controversial role. Public opinion seems to support the substitution idea (Daatland et al. 2011), i.e., the negative effect between formal and informal provision. However, research has largely supported the complementarity approach Other have written about informal and formal care, finding that in some cases, they are complements (Bolin, Lindgren, and Lundborg 2008; Bonsang 2009).

  11. For more details, see https://www.share-project.org.

  12. Recently, wave 7 (i.e., 2017) was carried out. We explored the possibility of updating the data. However, doing so was not possible because not all of the data on the children of the families that participated in wave 7 were available.

  13. Different from Brugiavini et al. (2013), we focused on all types of families: single, couple or extended-type families.

  14. And for whom we have all the necessary information (until the four children selected).

  15. Parents could be associated more than once with their children given that they can have more than one child; thus, they may contribute to the sample more than once. However, in the empirical strategy, we estimate the model for children (thus, the dependent variables relate to children) to avoid the problem of repeated observations.

  16. The share of children giving money and time transfers is below 2%. This result suggests that transfers from children are a phenomenon of minor relevance in the sample considered. However, as Leopold and Raab (2011) state, there is still room for exploring short-term reciprocity despite its current rarity because doing so might lead to new insights into the link between relationship quality and transfer behaviour and because short-term reciprocity might become more prevalent in ageing societies (see p.117). Moreover, this 2% of the sample consists of approximately 1,000 observation, which allows us to estimate a multivariate probit model without any problem of convergence.

  17. As explained in the Appendix A.

  18. To avoid collinearity with the children’s education level, we did not consider the parents’ educational level due to the higher correlation between them.

  19. The results of eqs. 3, 4, 5 and 6 are available in Appendix A.

  20. For individuals who do not make any transfers, this variable is calculated for their first interview. Finally, we interpolate missing values for the previous period with values from the last interview (2015).

  21. However, we find that the unobservable characteristics of parents similarly affect the probability of giving money and time to their children (in both cases, the effect is positive; see Appendix A, Table A4).

  22. In other words, there is evidence of short-term reciprocity, as in Leopold and Raab (2011).

  23. This result is similar to that of Leopold and Raab (2011), who found that living within a 5-km radius of their parents increases the probability that their children will give informal care.

  24. We used the OECD-modified scale first proposed by Hagenaars et al. (1994) to assign a value of 1 to the household head, 0.5 to each additional adult member and 0.3 to each child.

  25. This is in regard to the “pivot generation,” which provides help to their partially dependent adult children and to their elderly parents (Železnà 2018), or, also used in much the same way, the “sandwich generation”” (Miller 1981).

  26. The FOS is an ordinal variable that captures the strength of perceived child-parent and child-grandparent obligations. It was computed applying an ordinal principal component analysis to the questions on questionnaire about duty and responsibility (for questionnaires submitted in 2004 and 2006); details on the construction of this variable are available from the corresponding author.

References

  • Akerlof, G. A., & Yellen, J. L. (1990). The fair wage-effort hypothesis and unemployment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 105(2), 255–283.

    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(4), 319–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altonji, J. G., Hayashi, F., & Kotlikoff, L. J. (1997). Parental altruism and inter vivos transfers: theory and evidence. Journal of Political Economy, 105(6), 1121–1166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altonji, J. G., Blom, E., & Meghir, C. (2012). Heterogeneity in human capital investments: high school curriculum, college major, and careers. Annual Review of Economics, 4(1), 185–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antonucci, T. C., & Jackson, J. S. (1990). The role of reciprocity in social support. In G. R. Pierce, B. R. Sarason, & I. G. Sarason (Eds.), Social Support: An Interactional View (pp. 173–198). USA: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Apps, P. F., & Rees, R. (1996). Labour supply, household production and intra-family welfare distribution. Journal of Public Economics, 60, 199–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aquilino, W. S., & Supple, K. R. (1991). Parent–child relations and parent’s satisfaction with living arrangements when adult children live at home. Journal of Marriage and Family, 53(1), 13–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arber, S., Ginn, J., Finch, J., Groves, D., Finch, J., Groves, D., et al. (1990). The meaning of informal care: gender and the contribution of elderly people. Ageing and Society, 10(04), 429–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barro, R. J. (1974). Are government bonds net wealth? Journal of Political Economy, 82(6), 1095–1117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G. S. (1974). A theory of social interactions. Journal of Political Economy, 82(6), 1063–1093.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behrman, J. R., Pollak, R. A., & Taubman, P. (1982). Parental preferences and provision for progeny. Journal of Political Economy, 90(1), 52–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, D. N. F., Bowes, A., & Heitmueller, A. (2007). Did the introduction of free personal care in scotland result in a reduction of informal care? World Demographic Association - HSG Discussion Paper on Demographic Issues.

  • van den Berg, B., Brouwer, W. B. F., & Koopmanschap, M. A. (2004). Economic valuation of informal care. The European Journal of Health Economics, 5(1), 36–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bettio, F., & Verashchagina, A. (2012). Long-term care for the elderly. Provisions and providers in 33 European countries. Edited by Publications Office of the European Union. Luxembourg.

  • Blau, P.M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. Transaction Books.

  • Blossfeld, H.-P., Klijzing, E., Mills, M., & Kurz, K. (2005). Globalization, Uncertainty and Youth in Society. Edited by Hans-Peter Blossfeld, Erik Klijzing, Melinda Mills, and Karin Kurz. London: Routledge.

  • Boaz, R. F., Hu, J., & Ye, Y. (1999). The transfer of resources from middle-aged children to functionally limited elderly parents: providing time, giving money, sharing space. The Gerontologist, 39(6), 648–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolin, K., Lindgren, B., & Lundborg, P. (2008). Informal and formal care among single-living elderly in Europe. Health Economics, 17(3), 393–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonsang, E. (2009). Does informal care from children to their elderly parents substitute for formal care in Europe? Journal of Health Economics, 28(1), 143–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borsch-Supan, A., Hajivassiliou, V., & Kotlikoff, L. (1992). Health, children, and elderly living arrangements: a multiperiod-multinomial probit model with unobserved heterogeneity and autocorrelated errors. In A. W. David (Ed.), Topics in the Economics of Aging (pp. 79–108). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandt, M., Deindl, C., Haberkern, K., & Szydlik, M. (2008). Reziprozität Zwischen Erwachsenen Generationen. Zeitschrift Für Gerontologie Und Geriatrie, 41(5), 374–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandt, M., Haberkern, K., & Szydlik, M. (2009). Intergenerational help and care in Europe. European Sociological Review, 25(5), 585–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Browning, M., Chiappori, P.-A., & Lechene, V. (2009). Distributional effects in household models: separate spheres and income pooling. The Economic Journal, 120(545), 786–799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brugiavini, A., Buia, R. E., Pasini, G., & Zantomio, F. (2013). Long-term care and reciprocity, does helping with grandchildren result in the receipt of more help at older ages. In A. Börsch-Supan, M. Brandt, H. Litwin, & G. Weber (Eds.), Active Ageing and Solidarity between Generations in Europe (pp. 369–378). Berlino: De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cappelen, A. W., & Tungodden, B. (2019). The Economics of Fairness. Edward Elgar Publishing: Books.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Carmichael, F., & Charles, S. (2003). Benefit payments, informal care and female labour supply. Applied Economics Letters, 10(7), 411–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charles, K. K., & Sevak, P. (2005). Can family caregiving substitute for nursing home care? Journal of Health Economics, 24(6), 1174–1190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, T., Leeson, G. W., & Liu, C. (2016). Living arrangements and intergenerational monetary transfers of older Chinese. Ageing and Society, 24(01), 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiappori, P. (1992). Collective labor supply and welfare. Journal of Political Economy, 100(3), 437–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coe, N. B., & Houtven, C. H. V. (2009). Caring for mom and neglecting yourself? the health effects of caring for an elderly parent. Health Economics, 18(9), 991–1010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Couch, K. A., Daly, M. C., & Wolf, D. A. (1999). Time? Money? Both? The allocation of resources to older parents. Demography, 36(2), 219–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, D. (1987). Motives for private income transfers. Ournal of Political Economy, 95(3), 508–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, D. (1990). Intergenerational transfers and liquidity constraints. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 105(1), 187–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, D., & Rank, M. R. (1992). Inter-vivos transfers and intergenerational exchange. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 74(2), 305–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, D., Eser, Z., & Jimenez, E. (1998). Motives for private transfers over the life cycle: an analytical framework and evidence for Peru. Journal of Development Economics, 55(1), 57–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daatland, S. O., Herlofson, K., & Lima, I. (2011). Balancing generations: on the strength and character of family norms in the west and east of Europe. Ageing and Society, 31(07), 1159–1179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deindl, C., & Brandt, M. (2011). Financial support and practical help between older parents and their middle-aged children in Europe. Ageing and Society, 31(4), 645–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Do, Y. K., Norton, E. C., Stearns, S. C., & Houtven, C. H. V. (2015). Informal care and caregiver’s health. Health Economics, 24(2), 224–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dufwenberg, M. (2002). Marital investments, time consistency and emotions. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 48(1), 57–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dufwenberg, M., & Kirchsteiger, G. (2004). A theory of sequential reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior, 47, 268–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dykstra, P. A. (1993). The differential availability of relationships and the provision and effectiveness of support to older adults. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10(3), 355–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ermisch, J. (2003). An Economic Analysis of the Family. USA: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Evandrou, M., Falkingham, J., Gomez-Leon, M., & Vlachantoni, A. (2016). Intergenerational flows of support between parents and adult children in Britain. Ageing and Society, 7(4), 1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falk, A., & Fischbacher, U. (2006). A theory of reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior, 54, 293–315. 

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2000). Fairness and retaliation: the economics of reciprocity. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(3), 159–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (2006). Chapter 8 The economics of fairness, reciprocity and altruism—experimental evidence and new theories. Handbook of the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity, 1(January), 615–691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fenger, H. J. M. (2007). Welfare regimes in Central and Eastern Europe: Incorporating post-communist countries in a welfare regime typology. Contemporary Issues and Ideas in Social Sciences, 3(2), 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernández, J., Gori, C., & Wittenberg, R. (2016). Long-Term Care Reforms in OECD Countries: Successes and Failures. Bristol: Policy Press.

    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 

  • Gachter, S., & Falk, A. (2002). Reputation and reciprocity: consequences for the labour relation. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 104(1), 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gale, W. G., & Scholz, J. K. (1994). Intergenerational transfers and the accumulation of wealth. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(4), 145–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, A. (2005). Population ageing and health care expenditure. Ageing Horizons, 2, 15–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grundy, E. (2005). Reciprocity in relationships: socio-economic and health influences on intergenerational exchanges between third age parents and their adult children in Great Britain. The British Journal of Sociology, 56(2), 233–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagenaars, A., de Vos, K., & Asghar Zaid, M. (1980s). Poverty Statistics in the Late 1980s: Research Based on Micro-Data. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henretta, J. C., Hill, M. S., Li, W., Soldo, B. J., & Wolf, D. A. (1997). Selection of children to provide care: the effect of earlier parental transfers. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 52B(Special), 110–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hochguertel, S., & Ohlsson, H. (2009). Compensatory inter vivos gifts. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 24(6), 993–1023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollstein, B., & Bria, G. (1998). Reziprozität in Eltern-Kind-Beziehungen? Theoretische Überlegungen Und Empirische Evidenz. Gefälligkeitsübersetzung: Reciprocity in parents–child relationships? Theoretical considerations and empirical evidence. Berliner Journal Für Soziologie, 8(1), 7–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Houtven, C. H., & Norton, E. C. (2006). Economic effects of informal care. Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics, 142, 13–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ikkink, K. K., van Tilburg, T., & Knipscheer, K. C. P. M. (1999). Perceived instrumental support exchanges in relationships between elderly parents and their adult children: Normative and structural explanations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61(4), 831–844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, L., & Jiabin, Wu. (2019). Belief-updating rule and sequential reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior, 113(January), 770–780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Martín, S., & Prieto, C. V. (2015). Informal care motivations and intergenerational transfers in european countries. Health Economics, 24(S1), 89–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koh, S. K. (2002). Financial reciprocity and elder care: understanding multiple, interdependent resource transfers. Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation. Iowa State University.

  • Koh, S.-K., & MacDonald, M. (2006). Financial reciprocity and elder care: interdependent resource transfers. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 27(3), 420–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohli, M. (2004). Intergenerational Transfers and Inheritance: A Comparative View. In M. Silverstein (Ed.), Intergenerational Relations Across Time. Series Annual Review of Gerontology and Geriatrics. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolm, S.-C. (1994). The theory of reciprocity and of the choice of economic systems. Investigaciones Econòmica XVIII, 1, 67–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolm, S.-C. (2006). Introduction to the economics of giving, altruism and reciprocity. Handbook of the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity, 1, 1–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laitner, J. (1997). Chapter 5 intergenerational and interhousehold economic links. In Handbook of population and family economics (Vol. 1(A), pp. 189–238).

  • Lennartsson, C., Silverstein, M., & Fritzell, J. (2010). Time-for-money exchanges between older and younger generations in Swedish families. Journal of Family Issues, 31(2), 189–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leopold, T., & Raab, Ml. (2011). Short-term reciprocity in late parent–child relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73(1), 105–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lillard, L. A., & Willis, R. J. (1997). Motives for intergenerational transfers: Evidence from Malaysia. Demography, 34(1), 115–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowenstein, A., Katz, R., & Gur-Yaish, N. (2007). Reciprocity in parent–child exchange and life satisfaction among the elderly: A cross-national perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 63(4), 865–883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maddala, G. S. (1983). Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • de la Maisonneuve, C., & Martin, J. O. (2013). Public spending on health and long-term care: A new set of projections. OECD Economic Policy Paper Series N. 6.

  • Manser, M., & Brown, M. (1980). Marriage and household decision-making: A bargaining analysis. International Economic Review, 21(1), 31–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazzotta, F., Bettio, F., & Zigante, V. (2019a). Eldercare hours, work hours and perceived filial obligations. Applied Economics, 52, 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazzotta, F., Papaccio, A., & Parisi, L. (2019b). Household management systems and women’s decision making within the family in Europe. Feminist Economics, 25(4), 126–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McElroy, M. B. (1985). The joint determination of household membership and market work: the case of young men on JSTOR. Journal of Labor Economics, 3(3), 293–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McElroy, M. B., & Horney, M. J. (1981). Nash-bargained household decisions: Toward a generalization of the theory of demand. International Economic Review, 22(2), 333–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGarry, K. (2016). Dynamic aspects of family transfers. Journal of Public Economics, 137(May), 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGarry, K., & Schoeni, R. (1995). Transfer behavior in the health and retirement study: measurement and the redistribution of resources within the family (special issue on the health and retirement study: data quality and early results). The Journal of Human Resources, 30, 184–S226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. A. (1981). The ‘sandwich’ Generation: Adult children of the aging. Social Work, 26(5), 419–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molm, L. D. (2003). Theoretical comparisons of forms of exchange. Sociological Theory, 21(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molm, L. D., Whitham, M. M., & Melamed, D. (2012). Forms of exchange and integrative bonds. American Sociological Review, 77(1), 141–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickard, L., Wittenberg, R., Comas-Herrera, A., Davies, B., & Darton, R. (2000). Relying on informal care in the new century? Informal care for elderly people in England to 2031. Ageing and Society, 20(6), 745–772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabin, M. (1993). Incorporating fairness into game theory and economics. The American Economic Review, 83(5), 1281–1302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raut, L. K. (1990). Capital accumulation, income distribution and endogenous fertility in an overlapping generations general equilibrium model. Journal of Development Economics, 34(1–2), 123–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raut, L. K., & Tran, L. H. (2005). Parental human capital investment and old-age transfers from children: is it a loan contract or reciprocity for indonesian families? Journal of Development Economics, 77(2), 389–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarasa, S., & Billingsley, S. (2008). Personal and household caregiving from adult children to parents and social stratification. In S. Chiara (Ed.), Families, Ageing and Social Policy: Intergenerational Solidarity in European Welfare States (pp. 123–146). Cheltenam: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarkisian, N., & Gerstel, N. (2004). Explaining the gender gap in help to parents: the importance of employment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(2), 431–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarzkopf, L., Menn, P., Leidl, R., Wunder, S., Mehlig, H., Marx, P., et al. (2012). Excess costs of dementia disorders and the role of age and gender. An analysis of German health and long-term care insurance claims data. BMC Health Services Research, 12(1), 165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silverstein, M., Conroy, S. J., Wang, H., Giarrusso, R., & Bengtson, V. L. (2002). Reciprocity in parent–child relations over the adult life course. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 57(1), S3–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soldo, B. J., & Hill, M. S. (1995). Family structure and transfer measures in the health and retirement study: background and overview. The Journal of Human Resources, 30, S108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spiess, C.K., & Schneider, U. (2002). Midlife caregiving and employment: an analysis of adjustments in work hours and informal care for female employees in Europe. ENEPRI Working Paper No. 9, February 2002.

  • Villanueva, E. (2003). Parental Altruism under Imperfect Information: Theory and Evidence. Working Papers. Barcelona Graduate School of Economics.

  • Wilde, J. (2000). Identification of multiple equation probit models with endogenous dummy regressors. Economics Letters, 69(3), 309–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Železnà, L. (2018). Care-giving to grandchildren and elderly parents: Role conflict or family solidarity? Ageing and Society, 38(5), 974–994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics and Statistics, CELPE, University of Salerno, Via Giovanni Paolo II, 132, 84084, Fisciano, SA, Italy

    Fernanda Mazzotta & Lavinia Parisi

Authors
  1. Fernanda Mazzotta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lavinia Parisi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fernanda Mazzotta.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 49 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mazzotta, F., Parisi, L. Money and time: what would you give back to me? Reciprocity between children and their elderly parents in Europe. Econ Polit 37, 941–969 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40888-020-00181-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40888-020-00181-w

Keywords

JEL classification

Search

Navigation