european university institute slide 1 social networks martin kohli (european university institute,...
TRANSCRIPT
European University Institute
Slide 1
Social networks
Martin Kohli(European University Institute, Florence)
&
Harald Künemund
(University of Vechta)
ESF Forward Looks Workshop
Well-Being of the Elderly
(Lausanne, October 24, 2008)
European University Institute
Slide 2
Overview
1. Concepts & policy questions
2. The structure of family networks
3. Benefits and costs of family networks
4. Trends in network evolution
5. Conclusions: Remaining gaps in knowledge
European University Institute
Slide 3
1. Concepts & policy questions
Social networks are constituted by socially interacting units or actors at different levels of aggregation
Focus on social networks of elderly individuals (structure, exchange, benefits, costs)
Social connectedness: mutually exclusive concepts? activities networks social capital
Kin and non-kin networks:Hierarchical compensation vs. task specificity
European University Institute
Slide 4
Network benefits
Social networks are crucial for the well-being of elderly individuals… Buffering of life course risks Health Mortality
…and the society at large Support Productive activities Social participation
How can they be supported in turn?
European University Institute
Slide 5
2. The structure of family networks:Marital status by age group
0 %
20 %
40 %
60 %
80 %
100 %
50-59 60-69 70-79 > 79 50-59 60-69 70-79 > 79
Married Never married Divorced Widowed
Men Women
European University Institute
Slide 6
Number of living children by age group
0 %
20 %
40 %
60 %
80 %
100 %
50-59 60-69 70-79 > 79
None 1 child 2 children 3 or more children
European University Institute
Slide 7
Proximity of nearest child by age group
0 %
20 %
40 %
60 %
80 %
100 %
50-59 60-69 70-79 > 79
Household House <1 km 1-25 km 25-100 km >100 km
European University Institute
Slide 8
Residential proximity by country
0 %
20 %
40 %
60 %
80 %
100 %
DK SE AT DE NL FR CH IT ES GR
Household House <1 km 1-25 km 25-100 km >100 km
European University Institute
Slide 9
Co-residence with adult child by age and country
0 %
10 %
20 %
30 %
40 %
50 %
60 %
70 %
All < 60 60 - 70 > 70
DK SE
AT FR DE NL CH
GR IT ES
Northern Europe
Central Europe
Southern Europe
European University Institute
Slide 10
3. Benefits and costs of family networks:Transfers of money and time
0 %
10 %
20 %
30 %
40 %
50 %
60 %
70 %
DK SE
AT FR DE NL CH
GR IT ES
Northern Europe
Central Europe
Southern Europe
Financial transfers:received
Financial transfers:given
Social support:received
Social Support:given
European University Institute
Slide 11
Balance of financial transfers and social supportby age group and country
-4.000 €
-2.000 €
0 €
2.000 €
4.000 €
6.000 €
8.000 €
SE DK DE NL BE FR CH AT IT ES GR IL
50-59 60-69 70-79 80+
European University Institute
Slide 12
Costs and burdens:„Sandwich“ situations
0
20
40
60
80
100
40-4445-49
50-5455-59
60-6465-69
70-7475-79
80-85
Age group
+ work
+ care for child
+ care for parent
Sandwich generation
European University Institute
Slide 13
Competing demands
“Soft” and “hard” sandwich situations
Consequences of being sandwiched have often been described as being dramatic, but these situations seem to be very rare in all western societies.
There is also no general deterioration of well-being simply because of the additional existence of younger generations within the family – these might be of help instead.
Increasing labour force participation of women will result in an increase of “hard” sandwich constellations.
European University Institute
Slide 14
4. Trends in network evolution
a) changes in family demography (fertility, childlessness, nuptiality, later marriage and parenthood, divorce and family recomposition)
b) changes in norms and values (gender roles, labour market participation, responsibility for care)
c) changing individual resources and capabilities (education, health, wealth, experience with cultural diversity)
d) changes in opportunities for mobility (migration, portability of social rights)
European University Institute
Slide 15
Risks for family networks
Factors that may weaken the extent to which family networks can be activated in times of need:
Increasing geographical distance
Increasing burden due to competing demands from parents, children, and the labour market
Fading norms of solidarity and responsibility
Will non-kin social networks fill in the gap?
European University Institute
Slide 16
Public and private support
A basic assumption was that the development of the welfare state would crowd out the private support within families.
However, welfare state provisions, far from crowding out family support, enable the family in turn to provide intergenerational support and transfers an improves the quality of releationships.
Reductions in welfare state spending are therefore likely to result in less family solidarity.
European University Institute
Slide 17
Results
Co-residence among adult family generations has decreased massively in all Western societies, but by extending the boundaries of „togetherness“, the situation turns out to be very different.
Findings on the frequency of contact, emotional closeness, and the exchange of support confirm that adult generations in the family, even in countries with weaker family traditions and larger geographical distance, remain closely linked.
Networks have benefits and costs.
European University Institute
Slide 18
5. Conclusion:Remaining gaps in knowledge
Wider kinship networks, e.g., role of siblings or in-laws. (demography, relevance in case of need)
Special groups: childless, divorced (availability of compensation)
Kin and non-kin networks of elderly migrants, both for those ageing abroad and those migrating after retirement (‘amenity migration’)
Gender differences in networks and exchange activities (e.g., incidence of caring men, appropriate supportive measures)
Informal sociability and solidarity (incidence and reliability) Regional disparities in ageing and service provision)
European University Institute
Slide 19
Research needs
Comparisons are needed among European societies, but also with the other advanced societies that face similar challenges.
Analyses of network patterns and network salience over the life course are required to overcome the narrow focus on specific life periods such as older age.
Comparative longitudinal (panel) data needs to be expanded.
Interactions between social actors and feedback patterns have to be studied longitudinally.
The impact of new communication technologies on the social relations of the future elderly must be explored.
European University Institute
Slide 20
Titel
Punkte
European University Institute
Slide 21
Ageing societies and family solidarity
• Intergenerational family solidarity is an important provider of welfare• Insurance for children‘s life course risks (e.g., unemployment, divorce)• Support for children‘s parenting • Care for dependent elderly
• Families provide generational integration• Proximity, contact, emotional ties• Financial and instrumental linkages, equalization of disparities between
generations
• But are families still able to perform?
European University Institute
Slide 22
Limits of family solidarity
• Culture shift: Individualization
• Weaker family structure: Divorce, singlehood, childlessness
• Potential overload of the “sandwich generation” (especially women)
• Dilemma between caring and later exit from the labor force
Need for new arrangements between employment and care
European University Institute
Slide 23
Is family support „good“ support?
• Family transfers are selective and may deepen social inequalities • Intergenerational family relations are „ambivalent“• Generations do not want to depend on each other• Families may be a source of conflict• Family carers may suffer from overload• Family care may constrain employment careers
• But closeness and support outweigh conflicts• Families promote social and economic well-being and inclusion
It pays to help the family support its members
European University Institute
Slide 24
Heterogeneity
• Class• Regions, urban-rural• Ethnic/migrant families• Divorce, family recomposition• Monoparental families• Number of children, childlessness
European University Institute
Slide 25
Conclusions
• Intergenerational family solidarity is important for demographic reproduction and social integration, and as an insurance system for life course risks
• But this solidarity potential of the family is threatened by current changes, and cannot be taken for granted any more
• Family support may be costly for those who give (especially women), and lead to individual and policy dilemmas
• One dilemma is between family care work and employment (not only for young parents but also for the young elderly)
Generational mainstreaming: • Systematic „generational check“ of all public policies • Check not only for direct effects (on the primary target persons) but
also for indirect effects (on the other generations)