Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T20:29:17.312Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Older adults’ networks and public care receipt: do partners and adult children substitute for unskilled public care?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2013

NIELS SCHENK*
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
PEARL DYKSTRA
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
INEKE MAAS
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, Utrecht University, The Netherlands.
RUBEN VAN GAALEN
Affiliation:
Statistics Netherlands, The Hague, The Netherlands.
*
Address for correspondence: Niels Schenk, Department of Sociology, Erasmus University, P.O. Box 1738, Rotterdam 3000 DR, The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

This study investigates how (a) the reliance on public care and (b) the type of public care received by older people in the Netherlands depends on the availability of partners and adult children. Older people aged 65 years and older were surveyed in the Netherlands Kinship Panel Study at two time-points. Survey results were linked to registry data on public care receipt at the two time-points. Multilevel models revealed that receiving frequent help in the household from children was not associated with public care receipt. Only men having a partner were less likely to receive public care. Further analyses comparing the receipt of skilled and unskilled forms of public care revealed that female partners are especially important in rendering unskilled care unnecessary compared to skilled care. Two arguments may explain our findings. One is that a gender-bias exists in processing public care requests – men are perceived as less able to provide care to their female partners. Another is that men lack the skills, or perceive themselves as lacking the care skills that female partners have. Caution is advised against introducing policy measures that increase pressure on female partners.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andersen, R. M. 1995. Revisiting the behavioral model and access to medical care: does it matter? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 36, 1, 110.Google Scholar
Arber, S. and Ginn, J. 1995. Gender differences in informal caring. Health and Social Care in the Community, 3, 1, 1931.Google Scholar
Bolin, K., Lindgren, B. and Lundborg, P. 2008. Informal and formal care among single-living elderly in Europe. Health Economics, 17, 3, 393409.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bonsang, E. 2009. Does informal care from children to their elderly parents substitute for formal care in Europe? Journal of Health Economics, 28, 1, 143–54.Google Scholar
Brandt, M., Haberkern, K. and Szydlik, M. 2009. Intergenerational help and care in Europe. European Sociological Review, 25, 5, 585601.Google Scholar
Campbell, L. D. and Martin-Matthews, A. 2003. The gendered nature of men's filial care. Journals of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 58B, 6, 350–8.Google Scholar
Centrum Indicatiestelling Zorg (CIZ) 2012. CIZ indicatiewijzer versie 5.0. Toelichting op de Beleidsregels Indicatiestelling AWBZ 2012 zoals vastgesteld door het ministerie van VWS. CIZ, Driebergen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Da Roit, B. 2012. The Netherlands: the struggle between universalism and cost containment. Health and Social Care in the Community, 20, 3, 228–37.Google Scholar
Daatland, S. and Lowenstein, A. 2005. Intergenerational solidarity and the family–welfare state balance. European Journal of Ageing, 2, 3, 174–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Leeuw, E. D. and De Heer, W. 2001. Survey nonresponse. In Groves, R. M., Dillman, D. A., Eltinge, J. L. and Little, R. J. A. (eds), Trends in Household Survey Nonresponse: A Longitudinal and International Comparison. Wiley, New York, 4154.Google Scholar
Dykstra, P. A., Kalmijn, M., Knijn, T. C. M., Komter, A. E., Liefbroer, A. C. and Mulder, C. H. 2005. Codebook of the Netherlands Kinship Panel Study, a Multi-actor, Multi-method Panel Study on Solidarity in Family Relationships, Wave 1. Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute, The Hague.Google Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G. 1990. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Polity Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
European Commission 2012. The 2012 Ageing Report: Economic and Budgetary Projections for the 27 EU Member States (2010–2060). European Commission, Brussels.Google Scholar
Eurostat 2012. Europop. Available online at http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/population/data/database [Accessed 11 July 2012].Google Scholar
Gaymu, J., Ekamper, P. and Beets, G. 2008. Future trends in health and marital status: effects on the structure of living arrangements of older Europeans in 2030. European Journal of Ageing, 5, 1, 517.Google Scholar
Geerts, J. 2012. Determinants of use of formal and informal personal care by older persons living at home: evidence from Germany, the Netherlands and Spain. In Geerts, J., Willemé, P. and Mot, E. (eds), Long-term Care Use and Supply in Europe: Projections for Germany, The Netherlands, Spain and Poland. ENEPRI Research Report No. 116, CEPS, Brussels, 1529.Google Scholar
Haberkern, K. and Szydklik, M. 2010. State care provision, societal opinion and children's care of older parents in 11 European countries. Ageing & Society, 30, 2, 299323.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. 2005. Two-wave panel analysis: comparing statistical methods for studying the effects of transitions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 4, 1061–75.Google Scholar
Katz, S. J., Kabeto, M. and Langa, K. M. 2000. Gender disparities in the receipt of home care for elderly people with disability in the United States. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 284, 23, 3022–7.Google Scholar
Knijn, T. and Kremer, M. 1997. Gender and the caring dimension of welfare states: toward inclusive citizenship. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State, Society, 4, 3, 328–61.Google Scholar
Kremer, M. 2006. Consumers in charge of care: the Dutch personal budget and its impact on the market, professionals and the family. European Societies, 8, 3, 385401.Google Scholar
Li, L. W. 2005. Longitudinal changes in the amount of informal care among publicly paid home care recipients. The Gerontologist, 45, 4, 465–73.Google Scholar
Litwak, E. 1985. Helping the Elderly: The Complementary Roles of Informal Networks and Formal Systems. Guilford Press, New York.Google Scholar
Mandemakers, J. J. and Dykstra, P. A. 2008. Discrepancies in parent's and adult child's reports of support and contact. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 2, 495506.Google Scholar
Mol, E. 2010. The Dutch System of Long Term Care. CPB Document No. 204, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis, The Hague.Google Scholar
Motel-Klingebiel, A., Tesch-Römer, C. and Von Kondratowitz, H. 2005. Welfare states do not crowd out the family: evidence for mixed responsibility from comparative analyses. Ageing & Society, 25, 6, 863–82.Google Scholar
Noël-Miller, C. M. 2010. Longitudinal changes in disabled husbands’ and wives’ receipt of care. The Gerontologist, 50, 5, 681–93.Google Scholar
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2005. Long-term Care for Older People. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris.Google Scholar
Pavolini, E. and Ranci, C. 2008. Restructuring the welfare state: reforms in long-term care in Western European countries. Journal of European Social Policy, 18, 3, 246–59.Google Scholar
Rabe-Hesketh, S. and Skrondal, A. 2008. Multilevel and Longitudinal Modeling Using Stata. Stata Corp, College Station, Texas.Google Scholar
Saraceno, C. and Keck, W. 2008. The Institutional Framework of Intergenerational Family Obligations in Europe: A Conceptual and Methodological Overview. Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung, Berlin.Google Scholar
Stoller, E. P. and Cutler, S. J. 1992. The impact of gender on configurations of care among married elderly couples. Research on Aging, 14, 3, 313–30.Google Scholar
Sundström, G., Malmberg, B. and Johansson, L. 2006. Balancing family and state care: neither, either or both? The case of Sweden. Ageing & Society, 26, 5, 767–82.Google Scholar
Tomassini, C., Glaser, K., Wolf, D. A., Broese van Groenou, M. I. and Grundy, E. 2004. Living arrangements among older people: an overview of trends in Europe and the USA. Population Trends, 115, 34, 2434.Google Scholar
Tuynman, M. and Marangos, A. M. 2010. Gemeentelijk Wmo-beleid op de negen prestatievelden. In de Klerk, M., Gilsing, R. and Timmermans, J. (eds), Op weg met de Wmo. SCP The Netherlands Institute for Social Research, The Hague, 69100.Google Scholar
Van den Broek, T. 2013. Formalization of informal care in the Netherlands: cost containment or gendered cost redistribution? International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics, 6, 2.Google Scholar
Van Hooren, F. and Becker, U. 2012. One welfare state, two care regimes: understanding developments in child and elderly care policies in the Netherlands. Social Policy & Administration, 46, 1, 83107.Google Scholar
Van Houtven, C. H. and Norton, E. C. 2004. Informal care and health care use of older adults. Journal of Health Economics, 23, 6, 1159–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Verbrugge, L. M. 1989. The twain meet: empirical explanations of sex differences in health and mortality. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 30, 3, 282304.Google Scholar
Walker, A. J., Pratt, C. C. and Eddy, L. 1995. Informal caregiving to aging family members: a critical review. Family Relations, 44, 4, 402–11.Google Scholar
Wolff, J. L. and Kasper, J. D. 2006. Caregivers of frail elders: updating a national profile. The Gerontologist, 46, 3, 344–56.Google Scholar