PowerPoint - Les blogs de Sciences Po

Downward Intergenerational Transfers in Europe and the USA
An insight into the dialectic of familial solidarity and social inequality
Introduction : All roads lead to Family
• The emergence context of the generational problematization – Economic crisis, welfare state crisis, working class crisis but Family Return!
– Private Intergenerational Transfers: refamilialization in a remarchandization context, a lesser evil? Social research on IT: the interaction between four main issues
Private IT : An insight into the dialectic of familial solidarity and social inequality
• Question 1: International patterns of private IT and the undemonstrated link between private and public IT
• Question 2: Relative impact of household characteristics and the decisive effect of wealth
• Question 3: Distribution of IT value and intragenerational inequalities
• Question 4: Socio‐economical dynamics, political dynamics, IT dynamics
IT regimes matching social protection regimes?
The need of understanding IT in their macrosocial context
• To avoid both artefactual patterns and the uncontrolled use of raw Welfare State’s categories
• To correctly understand what IT practices mean
• To go beyond hasty culturalist explanations
• Sources and data limitations
• SHARE 2004 (rel 2.2.0)
• HRS 2004
• OECD: LFS
IT regimes matching social protection regimes?
Setting IT back in their implementation context
Facteur 2
Unemployment +
1.50
Corresidency +
Gift value -
Schooling rate =
Tenants rate -0.75
Tenants rate -
No fee
Gifts frecuency =
intergen inequal =
Corresidency -
No min income
Gifts are common
intergen inequal -
0
Tenants rate +
Intermediate fees
Min income for young
Gift value --
Unemployment -
Gift value ++
Unemployment =
Schooling rate -
intergen inequal +
Schooling rate +
Few gifts
Gift value +
High fees
-0.75
Corresidency =
Tenants rate =
-1.0
-0.5
0
0.5
1.0
Facteur 1
Political dynamics, socio‐economical dynamics, IT dynamics?
• Current evolutions
 Increasing unemployment rates for young adults
 Growing University fees and rents
 Decreasing public intervention in non‐profit sectors
• Toward a shift along the 1st axis?
An insight into the dialectic of familial solidarity and social inequality
• Introduction : All roads lead to Family
• IT regimes matching social protection regimes?
• Downward IT and inequalities: the perspective of linking the structure of transfers with the transfer of social structures
“Micro” determinants and IT: wealth ownership as a predominant factor
Europe
Chances of making a large gift (5th quintile)
Net House
hold Wealth
(Ref: Quintile 1)
Household Income
(Ref: Quintile 1)
2nd
quintile ns
Exp(b)
0,000
1,92
2,285
0,000
2,70
4th quintile
0,000
2,730
0,000
3,89
5th quintile
0,000
5,040
0,000
5,21
2nd quintile ns
ns
0,000
1,38
3rd quintile
ns
ns
0,000
1,68
4th quintile
0,005
1,529
0,000
2,27
5th quintile
0,000
2,016
0,000
3,41
ns
ns
NA
NA
0,001
1,663
0,000
1,63
0,000
2,883
0,000
2,94
0,000
1,16
ns
ns
0,000
0,658
0,000
1,33
2 children
0,000
1,605
0,000
0,94
3 children
0,000
1,754
0,000
0,93
0,000
0,87
4 children or more
Average Age of Parents
Significativity
0,000
Other form of familial solidarity
Yes
(Ref: « No »)
Corresidency
(Ref: No child at home) Yes
Average Age of Children
ns
Exp(b)
3rd quintile
Max Level of Education niveduc(1)
(Parents)
niveduc(2)
(Ref: Primary)
niveduc(3)
Number of children
(Ref : 1)
Significativity
USA
ns
ns
agenfmo5(1)
0,042
0,763
0,000
0,5
agenfmo5(2)
0,000
0,468
0,000
0,45
agenfmo5(3)
0,007
0,560
0,000
0,31
agenfmo5(4)
0,000
0,359
0,000
0,29
agepar(1)
ns
ns
0,000
1,05
agepar(2)
ns
ns
0,000
1,23
agepar(3)
ns
ns
0,000
1,63
agepar(4)
ns
ns
0,000
2,17
IT and intragenerational inequalities
More than 67% of total value transferred
Empirical limitations
– Survey heterogeneity and sample building
– Lack of a reliable estimation of the value transferred through cohabitation
– Lack of accurate indicators about inequality structures and « opportunity structure » for IT (inter AND intragenerational
inequalities, income and wealth distributions, social mobility? …)
– Necessity of complementary country‐based work to highlight the variation of each factor’s impact according to the global configuration
– Need for longitudinal analysis to develop a « grounded » reflexion on the relation between structural, cultural and « institutional » factors in the IT case Results
– Links between public and private IT cannot be determined without
taking into account their diverse functional equivalent forms
– IT are congruent with a wider range of variables than public IT ; this leads to explanations of IT patterns that do not mainly rely on differences between national cultures
– Intergenerational gifts are highly concentrated ; their occurrences and amounts largely depend on the most unequally distributed resource: household wealth
 Prospective remarks on IT dynamics due to current evolutions in the dimensions taken into account; general research perspective on the variation of IT’s structural effects over time… and the relation between familial solidarity and social inequality
Bibliography_1
Albertini M., Kohli M. and Vogel C. 2007. “Intergenerational transfers of time and money in European families: common patterns, different regimes?”. Journal of European Social Policy. 17:319 – 334.
Albouy V., Murat F. and Roth N. 2003. “Les aides aux jeunes adultes: réflexions sur les concepts et éléments de chiffrage”. Economie et Prévision. 160/161:1 – 22.
Alonzo P., Laufer J., Commaille J., Delphy C. and Schwartz O. 2002. “Autour du Livre de Claudine Attias‐Donfut, Nicole Lapierre and Patrice Segalen Le Nouvel Esprit de Famille”. Travail, genre et sociétés. 8:213 – 227.
Arrondel L. and Grange C. 2004. “Transmission et inégalité des fortunes : une étude empirique de la mobilité
des patrimoines entre 1800 et 1938”. Société contemporaine. 56:49 – 68. Arrondel L. and Masson A. 2007. Inégalités patrimoniales et choix individuels. Paris : Economica.
Attias‐Donfut C. 2001. “Rapports de générations : Transferts intrafamiliaux et dynamique macrosociale”. Revue française de sociologie. 41 :643 – 684.
Attias‐Donfut C. and Rozenkier A. (eds). 1995. Les solidarités entre générations : vieillesse, familles, Etat. Paris : Nathan.
Attias‐Donfut C. and Wolff F‐C. 2007. “Les comportements de transfert intergénérationnels en Europe”. Economie et statistique. 403/404:117 – 141.
Auerbach A., Gokhale J. and Kotlikoff L. 1994. “Generational Accounting: A Meaningful Way to Evaluate Fiscal Policy”. The Journal of Economic Perspectives. 8:73 – 94.
Barnet‐Verzat C. and Wolff F‐C. 2001. “L’argent de poche versé aux jeunes : l’apprentissage de l’autonomie financière”. Economie et statistique. 343:51 – 72.
Baudelot C. and Establet R. 2000. Avoir 30 ans en 1968 et en 1998. Paris : Seuil.
Becker G. and Tomes N. 1976. “Child Endowments and the Quantity and Quality of Children”. The Journal of Political Economy. 84:143 – 162.
Bengston V., Giarrusso R., Mabry J. and Silverstein M. 2002. “Solidarity, Conflict and Ambivalence: Complementary or Competing Perspectives on Intergenerational Relationships?”. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 64:568 – 576.
Bernhard E., Gähler M. and Goldscheider F. 2005. “Childhood Family Structure and Routes Out of the Parental Home in Sweden”. Acta Sociologica. 48:99 – 115.
Bismans F. and Docquier F. 1996. “Consommation, épargne et accumulation dans la transition démographique”. Revue économique. 47:667 – 676.
Bibliography_2
Blöss T. 2005. “Relations entre générations et inégalités sociales : la société multigénérationnelle en question”. Informations sociales. 125:72 – 79. Browning M., Bourguignon F., Chiappori P.‐A. and Lechene V. 1994. “Income and Outcome: A Structural Model of Intrahousehold Allocation”. The Journal of Political Economy. 102:1067 – 1096.
Caussat L. 1995. “Les chemins vers l’indépendance financière”. Economie et Statistique. 283:127 – 136. Chambaz C. and Herpin N. 1995. “Débuts difficiles chez les jeunes : le poids du passé familial”, Economie et Statistique. 283 :111 – 125. Chauvel L. 2002. Le destin des générations : structure sociale et cohortes en France au XXe siècle”. Paris : PUF.
Cheal D. 1983. “Intergenerational Family Transfers”. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 45:805 – 813.
Conlisk J. 1984. “Four Invalid Propositions About Equality, Efficiency, and Intergenerational Transfers Through Schooling”. The Journal of Human Resources. 19:3 – 21.
Damon J., Chauvel L., Viriot‐Durandal J.‐P. and Masson A. 2007. “Qu’en est‐il des rapports intergénérationnels en France ? ”. Horizons stratégiques. 4:111 – 129.
De Barry C., Eneau D. and Hourriez J‐M. 1996. “Les aides financières entre ménages”. INSEE Première. N°441.
Gokhale J. and Kotlikoff L. 2002. “Simulating the Transmission of Wealth Inequality”, 2002, The American Economic Review. 92:265 – 269. Goldscheider F. and Lawton L. 1998. “Family Experiences and the Erosion of Support for Intergenerational Coresidence”. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 60:623 – 632.
Guth W., Offerman T., Potters J., Strobel M. and Verbon H. 2002. “Are Family Transfers Crowded Out by Public Transfers? ”. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics. 104:587 – 604.
Hank K. 2007. “Proximity and Contacts Between Older Parents and their Children: A European Comparison”. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 69:157 – 173. Herpin N. and Déchaux J‐H. 2004. “Entraide familiale, indépendance économique et sociabilité”. Economie et Statistique. 373:3 – 32.
Herpin N. and Olier L. 1996. “Pauvreté des familles, pauvreté des enfants”. INSEE Première. 363:1 – 4.
Herpin N. and Verger D. 1997. “Les étudiants, les autres jeunes, leur famille et la pauvreté”. Economie et Statistique. 308:211 – 227. Hummel C. and Hugentobler V. 2007. “La construction sociale du problème intergénérationnel”. Gérontologie et société. 123:71 – 84.
Bibliography_3
Ingersoll‐Dayton B., Neal M. and Hammer L. 2001. “Aging Parents Helping Adult Children: The Experience of the Sandwiched Generation”. Family Relations. 50:262 – 271.
Ioannides Y. and Sato R. 1987. “On the Distribution of Wealth and Intergenerational Transfers”. Journal of Labor Economics. 5:366 – 385.
Keister L. 2003. “Religion and Weath : The Role of Religious Affiliation and Participation in Young Adult Asset Accumulation”. 82:175 – 207. Keister L. 2004. “Race, Family Structure and Wealth : the Effect of Childhood Family on Adult Asset Ownership”. Sociological Perspectives. 47:161 – 187.
Kotlikoff L. and Summers L. 1981. “The Role of Intergenerational Transfers in Agreggate Capital Accumulation”. The Journal of Political Economy. 89:706 – 732. McDaniel S. 1997. “Intergenerational Transfers, Social Solidarity, and Social Policy : Unanswered Questions and Policy Challenges”. Canadian Public Policy. 23:1 – 21.
Paugam S. and Zoyem J‐P. 1997. “Le soutien financier de la famille : une forme essentielle de la solidarité”. Economie et statistique. 308:187 – 210.
Robert‐Bobée I. 2002. “Les étudiants sont plus aidés par leurs parents”. INSEE Première. 826:1 – 4.
Sayn I. 2006. “Droit et transferts intergénérationnels”.Informations sociales. 134:16 – 127.
Schneider J. 1999. “The Increasing Financial Dependency of Young People on their Parents”. SPRC Discussion Paper. N°96.
Schneider J. 2003 “Income Sharing Between Parents and Young People Living at Home”. SPRC Discussion Paper.
N°125.
Settersten R. 1998. “A Time to Leave Home And a Time Never to Return ? Age Constraints and the Living Arrangements of Young Adults”. Social Forces. 76:1373 – 1400.
Silversten M. and Bengston V. 1997. “Intergenerational Solidarity and the Structure of Adult Child‐Parent Relationships in American Families”. American Journal of Sociology. 103:429 – 460.
Van de Velde C. 2008. Devenir adulte: sociologie comparée de la jeunesse en Europe. Paris : PUF.
Vollevebergh W., Iedema J. and Raaijmakers Q. 2001. “Intergenerational Transmission and the Formation of Cultural Orientations in Adolescence and Young Adulthood”. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 63:1185 – 1198.