Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [Memorial University of Newfoundland]On: 05 October 2014, At: 09:24Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK
European SocietiesPublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reus20
THE EFFECT OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS ONPARENTAL FINANCIAL SUPPORTFROM THE PERSPECTIVES OFTHE GIVERS AND THE RECEIVERSKaroliina Majamaa aa Department of Social Research , University ofHelsinki , Helsinki , FinlandPublished online: 10 Sep 2012.
To cite this article: Karoliina Majamaa (2013) THE EFFECT OF SOCIO-ECONOMICFACTORS ON PARENTAL FINANCIAL SUPPORT FROM THE PERSPECTIVES OFTHE GIVERS AND THE RECEIVERS, European Societies, 15:1, 57-81, DOI:10.1080/14616696.2012.721891
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2012.721891
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressedin this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content shouldnot be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mem
oria
l Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewfo
undl
and]
at 0
9:24
05
Oct
ober
201
4
THE EFFECT OF SOCIO-ECONOMICFACTORS ON PARENTAL FINANCIALSUPPORT FROM THE PERSPECTIVESOF THE GIVERS AND THE RECEIVERS
Karoliina MajamaaDepartment of Social Research, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
ABSTRACT: The labour market and the welfare state have been the main
institutions responsible for economic welfare in the Nordic countries,
whereas the family’s role has been mostly complementary. However,
this may be changing as the welfare state’s role weakens due to cost-containment goals. Based on data sets covering two generations, this study
shows that well educated parents in particular are supporting their adult
children financially especially while they are studying. Overall, the results
suggest that the interaction between the parents’ socio-economic position
and parental financial backing is stronger than previous studies have
indicated. This could lead to diminishing egalitarianism in education along-
side class reproduction even in the Nordic welfare states. The results are
based on questionnaire data obtained from families across two generations:baby boomers and their adult children. The former data set comprised 1,115
randomly selected Finns born in 1945�1950, and the latter consisted of
1,435 adult children. Merged data was obtained from 911 adult children who
were identifiable as offspring of specific parents from the baby boomers’ data
set. Multinomial logistic regression was used in the analysis.
Key words: adult children; parental financial support; private transfers;
class reproduction
Introduction
The transition phases into adulthood have been prolonged, fragmented
and diversified in many European countries. Diversification and the
postponement of adulthood is, at least partially, attributable to two
ongoing changes in the labour market: the role of education has become
more important and insecurity has intensified (Jarvinen and Vanttaja 2001;
Furlong and Cartmel 2007; Swartz and O’Brien 2009). The transition to
– 2013 Taylor & Francis 57
European Societies,2013
Vol. 15, No. 1, 57�81,http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/14616696.2012.721891
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mem
oria
l Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewfo
undl
and]
at 0
9:24
05
Oct
ober
201
4
working life has been postponed by the increases in secondary school
attendance (OECD 2009: 302). In practice this means that young adultsare rarely economically independent in the early years of adulthood, andrely on public as well as private forms of financial support. Benefits from
the welfare state and earnings from the labour market have been primaryforms of economic welfare of young adults in the Nordic countries. The
student grant, and housing and unemployment allowances have becomeaxiomatic for many during the early years of adulthood in the last few
decades, whereas the parents’ role is largely complementary (Berthoud andIacovou 2004; Hamalainen 2004; Bjornberg and Latta 2007).
The level of state support has been diminishing however, and thefinancial situation of young Finnish adults in particular deterioratedduring and after the recession of the 1990s (Honkanen 2006; Moisio 2008;
van Gerven 2008). According to previous studies (see e.g., Kohli 1999;Bjornberg and Latta 2007) parents in higher social strata tend to support
their adult children financially, and young adults in need receive financialtransfers from their families. Bjornberg and Latta (2007), for example,
note that young Swedish adults on low incomes are more likely to receivefinancial support from their families, and in Germany the parents ofunemployed young adults and students support their children financially
(Kohli 1999). There is even some evidence that parental support isbecoming an established compensatory mechanism for many economically
vulnerable young adults (Majamaa 2011).Even if a good economic position predicts the extent of support by
parent to their adult children (see e.g., Fritzell and Lennartsson 2005), onewould expect that almost all parents could help at least to some extent. In
previous studies, however, small amounts of financial support have notbeen taken into account in surveys, have been excluded from the finalanalyses, or have not been separately dealt with as distinct from more
extensive support (see e.g., Kohli 1999; Attias-Donfut and Arber 2000;Fritzell and Lennartsson 2005; Bjornberg and Latta 2007). This study also
takes into account these contributions, which are seen as a positive sign ofthe existence of a safety net for young adults. If there is an interaction
between parental socio-economic characteristics and more modest finan-cial support, there may be a stronger and hidden mechanism behind thesocio-economic factors that had not been acknowledged in previous
studies. This study has another advantage over previous studies in that wehad data sets covering two generations, parents and their adult children,
and were thus able to form adult child�parent dyads. In short, theanalyses are based on data from two postal surveys and two generations:Finnish baby boomers who were born in 1945�1950 and their adult
children. These data sets enabled us to assess the extent of parental
58
EUROPEAN SOCIETIES
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mem
oria
l Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewfo
undl
and]
at 0
9:24
05
Oct
ober
201
4
financial support from the perspectives of both the givers and thereceivers.
Giving and receiving financial support
The financial position of young adults is weak in many Europeancountries, and especially those who live alone are particularly vulnerable(Aassve et al. 2006; Moisio 2008). Prolonged education, atypical employ-ment and the risk of unemployment are all typical features of the post-industrial society, and people with few skills, dependent children and thosewho rely on social security for long periods are increasingly likely to faceeconomic difficulties (Taylor-Gooby 2004; Bonoli 2005).
The Finnish welfare state’s role in providing economic security hasweakened since the 1990s recession, and income differences between low-and median-wage groups have increased. Furthermore, the gulf betweenbasic security benefits and earned income has deepened (Honkanen 2006;Moisio 2009). Poverty rates among the students are particularly high.According to Moisio’s calculations (2010: 186), the relative poverty rateamong 18�34-year-old Finnish students living in a single-person house-hold in 2008 was 90% as opposed to 77% in 1995. The respective ratesamong unemployed young adults (basic unemployment benefit or labourmarket subsidy) were 92 and 62%, and among young working youngadults it was 10%, against 7% in 1995.
Despite the high poverty rates among these young adults who are notworking on full-time basis, because of individually targeted assistance,they are more likely to live independently from their parents than theircounterparts in central and southern European countries. In practice,young Nordic adults are moving out of the parental home at a younger agethan their European counterparts (Eurostat 2008): the proportion ofwomen aged 18 to 24 living away from the parental home was highest inFinland at 61%, against 50% in the UK, 44% in France and 10% in Italy.Finnish young men are also more likely to live outside the parental home(44%) than their counterparts in the UK (33%), France (30%) and Italy(6%). The trend is similar among the 25�29-year-olds but the percentagesare higher (ibid: 156). This tendency to leave the parental home, and thedeclining role of the welfare state partly explain Finland’s high povertyrates among young adults.
Calculations from four comparable surveys drawn up by StatisticsFinland � The Savings and Indebtedness survey in 1987, two wealthsurveys in 1994 and 1998, and The Housing and Wealth survey of 2004(Statistics Finland 2008) � show that household disposable income per
59
Effect of socio-economic factors on parental financial support MAJAMAA
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mem
oria
l Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewfo
undl
and]
at 0
9:24
05
Oct
ober
201
4
average member changed quite dramatically in recent decades (Figure 1),increasing by about 40% between 1988 and 2004.
This growth in disposable income is not equally distributed, however.On an aggregate level it applied to all age groups except those under theage of 25. It reached 27% among those aged 25�34, but was most strikingin 2004 among the 55�64-year-olds, in other words the so-called Finnishbaby boomers, being about 75% on average per household member. Thiswas more than double the increase the 18�24-year-olds. The trend indisposable income is even more striking if housing costs are taken intoaccount in that it is precisely these costs that are prominent amongstyounger age groups (Niemela 2004). Baby boomers are the wealthiestgeneration in Finnish history thus far, which partly explains thedifferences.
In terms of economic survival, young adults dependent mainly onearnings from work, state benefits and/or private money transfers fromfamily members. Many factors determine the potential to earn money aswell as the role of different income sources. The phase of life, for example,the length of any studies undertaken, the household structure andeducational level are all indirectly related to the earnings potential ofthe individual. On the aggregate level the trade cycle, the labour-marketsituation, legislation, cultural norms and welfare provision all have aneffect. Furthermore, the role of financial sources varies depending on thehistorical phase in which the society finds itself. For example, whereasadult children have previously supported their aging parents, the trendnowadays in many European countries is for (grand)parents to support
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
1987 1994 1998 2004
Eu
ro (
)
55-64
45-54
All households
65-
35-44
25-34
18-24
Figure 1. Disposable income (_) per average number of household members bycertain age groups in Finland in 1987, 1994, 1998 and 2004 (the sums are convertedto the 2004 value of money according to the cost-of-living)Source: Statistics Finland (2008), the author’s own calculations.
60
EUROPEAN SOCIETIES
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mem
oria
l Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewfo
undl
and]
at 0
9:24
05
Oct
ober
201
4
their adult (grand)children thus reshaping family solidarity (Kohli 1999;Attias-Donfut and Arber 2000; Fritzell and Lennartsson 2005; Albertiniet al. 2007; Bjornberg and Latta 2007).
Thus far, the Nordic welfare states have assured the main responsibilityfor providing financial support during periods of long-term economicdifficulties (Bjornberg and Latta 2007), but there is evidence that familiesare playing bigger role in the welfare of young adults (Majamaa 2011), andthat private transfers, especially from parents, are an important source ofincome (see e.g., Bjornberg and Latta 2007). Approximately 50% ofFinnish and Swedish young adults under the age of 35 receive at leastsome financial support from their parents (Bjornberg and Latta 2007;Haavio-Mannila et al. 2009). Thus, parental ability and willingness to givesuch support after their children have moved away from home plays amajor role.
The reasons behind this generational solidarity vary, although altruismamongst family members, and especially of parents towards their children(Becker 1991), social obligations, expectations of reciprocity betweengenerations (Coleman 1990), as well as affection and need (Fingermanet al. 2009; Fingerman et al. 2010) are all key factors. When childrenprogress to the family-building phase, parents show one type of familysolidarity in providing help. This descending familialism (see Dykstra andFokkema 2010) reflects both the needs of the young adults who arebecoming independent and the eagerness of parents to give help.Whatever the motivation is, the best outcome is that private help andfinancial transfers support and nurture social and emotional relations (seee.g., Bjornberg and Latta 2007).
It has been found that married or cohabiting couples are better able togive financial support to offspring (Lennartsson et al. 2010). However,children living alone are more likely to receive such support than thosewho are living with a partner (Attias-Donfut and Wolff 2000b; Fritzell andLennartsson 2005). Age also has an effect: the younger the child is, themore likely he or she is to receive support (see e.g., Fritzell andLennartsson 2005; Haavio-Mannila et al. 2009).
From a gender perspective, financial transfers seem to equalise genderdifferences in wealth in that intergenerational transfers tend to benefitwomen more than men (Fritzell and Lennartsson 2005). It has beensuggested that reciprocity and expectations of future care-giving motivatethe giving of support (Rossi and Rossi 1990). Research has also shownthat resources are limited, and are often unevenly distributed amongfamily members and across generations. For example, children in largerfamilies receive less support, on average, than children in smaller families(Fingerman et al. 2010; see also e.g., Attias-Donfut and Wolff 2000b;Fritzell and Lennartsson 2005).
61
Effect of socio-economic factors on parental financial support MAJAMAA
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mem
oria
l Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewfo
undl
and]
at 0
9:24
05
Oct
ober
201
4
Previous studies have also shown a strong association between socio-economic status and giving: parents who give financial support tend tobelong to the higher social strata (Fritzell and Lennartsson 2005). Havinga higher level of education and belonging to a higher income group are keyindicators of financial generosity by parents to their own adult children(Kohli 1999; Bjornberg and Latta 2007). The association between socio-economic position and the receiving of financial support, however, seemsto go two ways, and merits closer attention (Pitrou 1992 as cited in Attias-Donfut and Wolff 2000b: 64). On the one hand, parental support helps toprevent poverty among young adults, and is dispensed to those in need(Fingerman et al. 2009). Bjornberg and Latta (2007) report that parentstend to give more financial transfers to young adults on a low income, andunemployed young adults and students tend to receive more financialsupport from their parents (Kohli 1999). Thus private transfers arecomplementing welfare-state assistance, at least to some extent (Attias-Donfut and Wolff 2000b). On the other hand, some of the researchfindings indicate that private support is orientated to advantaged youngadults who have already established their position in adult life. Receivingsuch help is common among those in a better economic position (Fritzelland Lennartsson 2005; Lennartsson et al. 2010).
Although Bjornberg and Latta (2007) note with regard to Sweden thatcertain risk positions, such as receiving social assistance, unemployment orsickness benefit, do not increase the likelihood of receiving financialsupport from one’s family, Kohli (1999) found that unemployed youngadults and students in particular were likely to receive parental support.Tentative research results from Finland also suggest that recipients ofbenefits, and especially students, are more likely to be supported by theirparents than in the 1990s. It seems that parents have stepped in to hold upthe crumpling pillars of the market and welfare state, thereby engenderinga compensatory mechanism for many economically vulnerable youngadults (Majamaa 2011).
Specific research questions
The context of our study was the income development mentioned above.People aged between 55 and 64 are likely to be in a good financial position,whereas younger age groups often fare worse, at least on the aggregatelevel (see Figure 1). The relative difference has grown over time, and onemight expect that almost all parents are able to give at least some financialsupport to their adult children. Even in small amounts this carries thepositive message that a somewhat stronger safety net is available. In orderto assess the prevalence of given and received support we investigate, first,
62
EUROPEAN SOCIETIES
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mem
oria
l Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewfo
undl
and]
at 0
9:24
05
Oct
ober
201
4
to whom Finnish baby boomers give financial transfers, and secondly,from whom the adult children of Finnish baby boomers receive transfers.Previous studies related to intergenerational support have not, however,factored in smaller contributions, and the main aim of this study is thus toexamine whether there is a connection between the socio-economiccharacteristics of those who give support and these smaller amounts ofsupport. We also consider support from the receiver’s perspective, andspecifically investigate whether the higher propensity among adultchildren who are in need (e.g., receiving social security benefits, orotherwise on a low income) to receive support remains when thecharacteristics of the child and the parent’s socio-economic position arecontrolled for.
Data, variables and methods
Data
This study is based on information obtained from questionnairesdistributed to families across two generations. The first generationcomprised the so-called Finnish baby boomers, and their adult childrenmade up the second, younger generation. The first sample consisted of1998 randomly selected Finns born between 1945 and 1950, and thesecond sample comprised 3391 of their adult children born between 1962and 1988. Statistics Finland drew up both data sets in 2007 and, with thepermission of the respondents, merged some individual-level adminis-trative register data into the survey data, such us information aboutemployment, level of education and income from 2007 and from previousyears. The response rate among the baby boomers was 56% (n�1115),and 42% among their adult children (n�1435).
For the present study we included baby boomers who had at least oneadult child living outside the parental home (n�841), as well as adultchildren who had at least one living parent and who did not live in theparental home (n�1334). We reduced the latter data by a third, becausewe could make adult child�parent dyads only if both child and parentreturned the questionnaire. By means of the family identification numberwe linked the information on the parents with the data on their adultchildren. This new dataset included 911 adult children with informationabout one of their parents.
Because of the low response rate we carried out non-response analysesbased on data from the administrative register separately for men andwomen (Majamaa 2009a). According to the results, both sets of data werefairly representative. However, among the baby boomers there was a
63
Effect of socio-economic factors on parental financial support MAJAMAA
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mem
oria
l Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewfo
undl
and]
at 0
9:24
05
Oct
ober
201
4
higher response rate from women in the higher income deciles (71%) thanfrom those in the lower deciles (48%) although this tendency was notevident among the men. Moreover, those with a higher educational levelresponded more actively than those with only a basic level (women 69 vs.55%, men 57 vs. 40%). Non-response bias in the children’s data wasrelated to education and socio-economic position: the higher theeducational level, the higher was the response rate (women 61 vs. 37%,men 42 vs. 21%) (Majamaa 2009b). Income level did not separate therespondents from the non-respondents among the young adults. Accord-ing to previous studies, financial transfers are more prevalent and largersums are given among those with a better socio-economic position. Over-representation of the higher strata may exaggerate the extent of financialsupport given to young adults (Majamaa 2009a).
The questionnaire items focused on the respondent’s social interaction,including social relations, and any financial transfers and practical helpreceived and given over the previous 12 months. Alternative sources ofhelp included the respondent’s own and his or her spouse’s parents,siblings, cousins, aunts, uncles, grandparents, friends and workmates/neighbours. The emphasis in this article is on the flow of private financialsupport between parents and their adult children.
According to previous studies (see Attias-Donfut and Wolff 2000b;Fritzell and Lennartsson 2005), substantial private transfers, such as(advance) inheritance, are more typical in higher social strata. Further-more, large bequests are usually received in the later phases of life. Therecipients of support studied here were quite homogenous in terms of age:the average age was approximately 31 years. The probability of receivingany form of inheritance is modest among the younger generation, and wasnot considered in this study.
Dependent variable
The financial support given or received was a dependent variable. Thequestionnaire for the baby boomers included two items concerning theiradult children1 and other relatives,2 friends and workmates, which wouldyield the relevant information. The adult children’s questionnaire alsoincluded two separate items covering any financial support received from
1. ‘In the last 12 months, have you given any financial support to your children?’ and
‘How much altogether?’
2. ‘To whom have you given financial support in the last 12 months?’ and ‘How much?’
The questionnaire included five response alternatives: less than t50; t50�250;
t251�500; t501�1500 and over t1500.
64
EUROPEAN SOCIETIES
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mem
oria
l Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewfo
undl
and]
at 0
9:24
05
Oct
ober
201
4
their own and their spouse’s parents3 and other friends and relatives.4
Financial support meant the giving of money or covering specific types ofcosts such as for schooling or certain purchases.
Firstly, in the descriptive part of the study we considered financialsupport given on a more prevalent level. Figure 2 shows the total amountof financial support a parent gave to his or her adult children, as well asthe support the adult child received from both parents. This makescomparison of the different groups more accurate, because the amounts ofmoney given or received from other relatives, friends and workmates werealso considered as lump sums and not as individual donations. Secondly,financial transfers were not summed in the explanatory part. In the case ofparents (givers), the amount given to adult child was considered. Also forthe recipients the amount received from the parent (mother or father) whowas included the data was taken into account. The respondents weredivided into three categories based on the amounts of given and received:those who did not give or receive any, those who gave or received at themost t500 and those who gave or received more than t500. The cut-offpoint of t500 reflects, firstly, the student’s/unemployed person’s monthlyallowance in 2007,5 and secondly the fact that, according to the data onadult children, the median amount of parental support given wasapproximately t500 for those who received support.
Control variables
The choice of control variables was based on previous research. Sevenvariables covering the socio-demographic characteristics of baby boomerswere included in the analysis of the financial support given (Table 2). Thefirst four of these were gender, living with a spouse (living alone or togetherwith a spouse), number of children (one, two, three or more) and average ageof all children (under the age of 30, at least 30 years old). The last threerepresent the baby boomers’ socio-economic characteristics: educationallevel (basic or unknown, secondary and tertiary), received social security
3. ‘In the last 12 months, have you received any financial support from your or your
spouse’s parents?’ and ‘How much altogether?’
4. ‘In the last 12 months, have you received any financial support from another adult?’,
‘Who has given you financial assistance in the last 12 months?’ and ‘How much?’ The
questionnaire included five response alternatives: less than t50; t50�250; t251�500;
t501�1500 and over t1500.
5. In 2007 the maximum student grant was t259.01 per month and the housing
allowance for students was t201.60 per month. Basic unemployment benefit was
approximately t480 per month.
65
Effect of socio-economic factors on parental financial support MAJAMAA
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mem
oria
l Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewfo
undl
and]
at 0
9:24
05
Oct
ober
201
4
benefits6 (none, some7) and disposable income (less than t1000, t1000�1999and t2000 or more). Information about disposable income per month wasconstructed based on information about taxable income minus paid taxesin 2007, and this sum was divided by 12.
The analyses of financial support received covered seven socio-demographic characteristics of the adult child and two socio-economicindicators from his/her parent (Table 3). The first two determinants weregender and age (under the age of 30, at least 30 years old). The number ofsiblings was divided into four groups (no siblings, and one, two, three ormore). Information about living with a spouse and educational level was alsoincluded. In terms of social-security benefits received the information wasbased on the respondents’ own reports of what they had received in theprevious 12 months.8 Three categories emerged; none,8 some9 and thestudent grant.10 Disposable income was included in the analysis, as well asparental educational level and parental disposable income. Even if parentswho still have (numerous) underage children living at the parental homeor have an obligation to provide maintenance to underage child(ren) havefewer assets with which to support offspring who have already movedaway from home, we could not control for these factors due to thelimitations of the data sets.
Methods
First, we considered the prevalence of giving and receiving financialsupport among the baby boomers and their adult children in 2007(Figure 2). We used multinomial logistic regression in the explanatoryanalyses. The response variable is dichotomous in binary logisticregression, and comparisons are made between these two categories. In
6. ‘Circle all the social-security and other benefits you have received in the last 12
months’.
7. ‘Includes those who received at least one of these allowances/benefits: unemployment
benefit, labour market subsidy, earnings-related unemployment benefit, sickness
benefit, social assistance, old-age pension (national and earnings-related), survivors’
pension (for surviving spouses and children), unemployment pension, disability
pension or rehabilitation subsidy’.
8. The none group comprised those who received no social-security benefits (child
benefit was not taken into account).
9. The some group comprised those who received at least one of these allowances/
benefits: unemployment benefit, labour market subsidy, earnings-related unemploy-
ment benefit, sickness benefit, child-care subsidies, maternity, paternity or parental
allowances, disability pension or rehabilitation subsidy, survivors’ pension and social
assistance.
10. The student grant group comprised those who received at least a student grant.
66
EUROPEAN SOCIETIES
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mem
oria
l Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewfo
undl
and]
at 0
9:24
05
Oct
ober
201
4
the case of multinomial regression the response variable has more than twocategories and comparisons are made between category�and the basecategory (Liao 1994). Here we made two comparisons between both thegiver’s and the receivers’ groups: gave at the most j500 vs. gave no financialsupport (base), and gave more than j500 vs. gave no financial support (base)in the former; and received at the most j500 vs. received no financialsupport (base), and received more than j500 vs. received no financial support(base) in the latter. The first category in each explanatory variable was thereference group with an odds ratio (OR) of 1. First, each main effect wasfitted one at a time into the model (Model 1) in order to find out how eachvariable was associated with the giving or receiving of financial support.Then, in order to control for all the characteristics of baby boomers(Table 2) and their adult children (Table 3) under consideration, we fittedall the main effects into Model 2. In interpreting the OR one should beaware that comparisons are always made with the base category. Forexample, as Table 2 shows (Model 1), the odds ratio for men who gaveconsiderable financial support (�t500) to their own adult childrencompared to those who did not give any (base category) is about 1.35times as high as the same ratio for women. In other words, it seems thatmen are more likely than women to give substantial financial supportwhen those who give substantial support are compared to those who donot give any support. Stata’s statistical software cluster option was used tocompute the standard errors because of the clustered data on adultchildren.
Results
To whom are financial transfers given and from whom are theyreceived?
According to the basic data, Finnish baby boomers gave financial transfersmainly to their own adult children (Figure 2, left-hand side). Almost halfof those who had at least one adult child gave some support, but about athird gave more than t500. Among those who gave support, the mediantransfer was t1000. They also supported their friends, siblings, their ownparents and other relatives, but to a relatively lower degree.
An analysis of the sources of financial transfers gave a more variedpicture (Figure 2, right-hand side). The most common source was therecipient’s own parents: 46% of those with at least one living parentreceived some financial support from him or her or from both parents,about a quarter received more than t500 and the median amount was t500among those who received support. Although the most common source of
67
Effect of socio-economic factors on parental financial support MAJAMAA
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mem
oria
l Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewfo
undl
and]
at 0
9:24
05
Oct
ober
201
4
0
10
20
30
40
50
%
Finnish baby boomers, givers (%)
0
10
20
30
40
50
Adult children of the baby boomers, receivers (%)
Figure 2. Proportions of Finnish baby boomers who gave financial support and the proportions of their adult children who received it in 2007,in percentagesThe percentages of baby boomers are calculated with sampling weights.Source: Gentrans (2007), collected by Statistics Finland.
68
EU
RO
PEA
NSO
CIE
TIE
S
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mem
oria
l Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewfo
undl
and]
at 0
9:24
05
Oct
ober
201
4
support was their own parents, a fifth of the young adults received
contributions from their spouse’s parent(s), and about 10% reported that
they had received some economic support from their grandparent(s).Table 1 gives a more accurate picture of the amounts of financial
support given to their adult children11 and received by the adult child
from both parents. The mean amounts given and received were t1116 and
t539, respectively, and the median amount in both groups was zero. The
standard deviations among both groups were approximately three times
higher than the means, however, indicating large differences in the
amounts of support given and received. The amounts of both given and
received financial transfers were relatively small: three-quarters of the
respondents (baby boomers) gave at most (if any) t1000, and three-
quarters of the adult children received less than t500 from their parent(s)
(results not shown here).When we looked more closely at the adult child�parent dyads we
observed differences in recollection of the sums of money given or
received. About half of the adult children (51%) gave the same information
in the questionnaire as his or her parent, whereas a quarter (25%) specified
a larger sum and a quarter (24%) a smaller sum. The major difference was
in the amounts, however. Among those who mentioned a larger sum than
the parent, the average difference was t754, whereas in the case of those
who mentioned a smaller sum, it was t1408. These would appear to be the
main reasons for the discrepancies in the amounts given and received
shown in the Figures 2 and 3. Mandemakers and Dykstra (2008) also found
TABLE 1. Financial support given to adult child(ren) (n�1902) and received fromparent(s) (n�1343), mean, standard error of mean, median, standard deviation,max. and min. values, in Euros
Financial transfers in euros (t)
Given to adult child(ren) Received from parents
Mean 1,116 539Standar erros (se) of the mean 65 48
Median (md) 0 0Standard deviation (sd) 2,846 1,745
Min. value 0 0Max. value 100,0001) 50,000
(n �1,902) (n �1,343)
1) Highest transfer (t100,000) was not included in the mean, se mean and sd.
11. We extended the baby boomers’ data set in order to be able to observe each child
separately in terms of the financial support given to each child.
69
Effect of socio-economic factors on parental financial support MAJAMAA
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mem
oria
l Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewfo
undl
and]
at 0
9:24
05
Oct
ober
201
4
that children have a tendency to under-report the help and support theyreceive whereas parents tend to over-report the amount given.
Assessing the distributions of financial transfers from a generationalperspective gave a more precise picture: such transfers occurred mostfrequently and were most generous, between family generations, especiallywhen the donor’s own adult child(ren) were the recipients (Figure 2). Inline with the results of two Swedish studies (Fritzell and Lennartsson2005; Bjornberg and Latta 2007), parents gave financial transfers almostsolely to their offspring. For example, only 3% of baby boomers with atleast one living parent gave any financial support to their own parents.However, the adult children also received financial help from otherrelatives and friends � especially from their spouse’s parents and their owngrandparents � but the amounts were quite small.
The explanatory part � parental educational background predicts theamount of financial support given
Multinomial logistic regression was used in the analysis reported below.Table 2 shows the odds ratios for giving support of at the most t500(moderate support) or more than t500 (more substantial support), thereference being giving no support according to the chosen variables.Model 1 shows each variable introduced one at a time, and Model 2presents the estimates adjusted for all the chosen variables.
Gender was not statistically significantly related to moderate amountsof financial support given to adult children whether or not they lived witha spouse (Table 2, Model 1). Other factors (number of children, averageage of all children, educational level, social-security benefits anddisposable income per month) were related to the giving of moderatesupport. In the case of more substantial sums (�t500), all the chosenvariables except gender and number of children were associated withparental support (Table 2, Model 1). Those who lived with a spouse,whose children were younger, did not receive any social-security benefits,and who had a high socio-economic position (a higher educational leveland higher disposable income) were more likely to give more substantial(�t500) support to their offspring.
When all the variables were adjusted for in Model 2, only two (thenumber of children and their low average age) were significant predictors ofgiving moderate (5t500) financial support to adult children. Previousstudies have also shown that financial support is more often given toyounger children (Attias-Donfut and Wolff 2000b; Hillcoat-Nalletamby andDharmalingam 2003). Interestingly, when all the variables were fitted intothe model, neither educational level nor disposable income was associated
70
EUROPEAN SOCIETIES
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mem
oria
l Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewfo
undl
and]
at 0
9:24
05
Oct
ober
201
4
with the giving of smaller amounts of support. These results indicate thatneither educational level nor financial position affects parent’s ability andwillingness to give smaller sums of money to their adult children.
As expected, a high level of education and a high disposable income werestatistically significant predictors of giving substantial financial support(�t500) to adult children (Table 2, Model 2). These findings are consistent
TABLE 2. Distributions of the background variables (%) and odds ratios for the givingof financial transfers by parents (baby boomers) to their adult children: multinomiallogistic regression, base group: did not give any financial support (n�451)
Model 1b Model 2c
Baby boomers (parents) %at1�t500(n �183)
�t500(n �207)
t1�t500(n �183)
�t500(n �207)
GenderWomen 52.4 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Men 47.6 0.95 1.35� 0.84 0.86
Living with a spouseNo 21.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Yes 79.0 0.93 1.73* 0.88 1.51
Number of childrenOne child 21.1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Two children 46.2 1.17 1.27 1.18 1.18Three or more children 32.7 1.77* 1.51� 1.78* 1.34
Avarage age of all childrenAt least 30 years old 62.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Under the age of 30 38.0 1.70** 3.11*** 1.51* 2.26***
Educational levelBasic or unknown 30.4 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Secondary 37.5 1.05 1.40 0.94 1.18Tertiary 32.1 1.87** 6.67*** 1.46 3.95***
Social-security benefitsSome benetit(s) 46.6 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00None 53.4 1.48* 2.16*** 1.32 1.15
Disposabe income per monthLess than t1,000 19.3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00t1,000�t1,999 44.8 1.09 1.23 1.00 0.99t2,000 or more 35.9 1.73* 4.73*** 1.31 2.27**
All 100.0N (unweighted) 841
aPercentages of baby boomers were calculated with sampling weights.bEach variable added one at a time into the model.cAll the variables were added into the model at once.
Significance levels: �pB0.1, *p B0.05, **p B0.01, ***p B0.001.
Notes: Only those with at least one adult child living outside the parental home are included into
the models.
Source: Gentrans 2007, collected by Statistics Finland
71
Effect of socio-economic factors on parental financial support MAJAMAA
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mem
oria
l Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewfo
undl
and]
at 0
9:24
05
Oct
ober
201
4
with results reported in Swedish studies (Fritzell and Lennartsson 2005;Bjornberg and Latta 2007) that this level of support is more common inhigher social strata. Furthermore, even if those whose income consistedpartly or wholly of social-security benefits tended to give less financialsupport to their adult children (Model 1), when all the variables werecontrolled for this association no longer held among those who madesubstantial transfers. This result reflects the fact that one’s economicposition later in life depends on many factors: social-security benefits areusually earnings-related, property is likely to have acquired in the form ofone’s own home, costs of living are low and the ability to give extensivesupport is not so strongly related to how current income is formed.
Furthermore, parents also tended to transfer more substantial amountsto children who were relatively young: the odds ratio was more than twiceas high among those whose children were, on average, under the age of 30than when the children were older than 30. In contrast with the results ofa Swedish study (see Lennartsson et al. 2010), living with a spouse did notpredict considerable financial support from the baby boomers. Further-more, it has been reported in previous studies (see e.g., Attias-Donfut andWolff 2000b; Fritzell and Lennartsson 2005) that having a small numberof children predicts the giving of financial support, whereas in this studythere was no statistically significant connection when all the variables wereincluded in the model.
In general, having a good economic position, measured on two differentvariables, increased the odds of giving more substantial rather thanminimal financial support. This reflects the fact that parents have to havesome economic resources in order to be able to give money to their adultchildren, especially when larger amounts are involved. Surprisingly,however, all of the socio-economic factors were associated, at least partly,with giving moderate support (Model 1). In particular, educated parentswere more prepared to support their offspring than those with a lowereducational level. There also seem to be other factors involved, such as therelative low age of the child.
Students in particular receive financial support from their parents
We then shifted the focus of the analysis to the receivers of support. Theadult children in our data received private transfers from several sources,but mainly from their parents (Figure 2). As mentioned earlier, theassociation between parental educational level and giving financial supportheld when larger sums were involved after all the control variables hadbeen incorporated into the model (Table 2, Model 2). This encouraged usto add two more variables concerning the parent’s socio-economic position
72
EUROPEAN SOCIETIES
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mem
oria
l Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewfo
undl
and]
at 0
9:24
05
Oct
ober
201
4
to the analysis of adult children in order to test whether or not thechildren with a more highly educated and better-off parent were morelikely to receive financial support from him or her.
In general, almost all the variables we used (age group, number ofsiblings, living with a spouse, social-security benefits, disposable income,parental educational level and disposable income) were associated with thereceipt of both moderate (5t500) and larger (�t500) amounts of moneyfrom the parent (Table 3, Model 1): the only exceptions were gender andeducational level, which were not statistically significant with regard tosubstantial amounts of support (�t500) received from the parent (Table 3,Model 1). The lack of association between educational level and largerreceived financial transfers may be attributable to the fact that some of thosewith basic or a secondary education were, in fact, studying at vocationalcollege or university, thus confounding the results. At least according to thedata (results not shown here), almost a quarter of those with at least asecondary-level qualification in 2007 were also in a receipt of a studentgrant. The number of children was associated with giving moderatesupport, but now the association was negative: a low number of siblings wasassociated with a greater propensity to receive both smaller and largeramounts of money from one’s own parent (cf. the findings for the parents).
Bringing all the main effects into the model together changed thefindings somewhat (Model 2). Neither gender nor living with a spouse wasnow associated with receiving financial support. However, adult childrenwho were younger and had no or only a small number of siblings weremore likely to receive either moderate or larger amounts of support. Theseresults are congruent with previous findings (see e.g., Attias-Donfut andWolff 2000a; Fritzell and Lennartsson 2005).
Moreover, being in receipt of some social-security benefits, usually inthe form of the student grant or other allowances was, at least partially, ahighly significant predictor of receiving additional private support. Thisresult is consistent with the findings of a study conducted in France(Attias-Donfut and Wolff 2000b), whereas it was found in a Swedish study(Bjornberg and Latta 2007) that being the recipient of unemploymentbenefit, sickness benefit or social assistance had only little relevance toreceiving private financial support. Having a lower disposable income wasassociated with receiving less financial support (Table 3, Model 2). Theassociation between disposable income and receiving more substantialfinancial support disappeared when social-security benefits were included,which is probably attributable to the fact that a low disposable incomemainly comprises such benefits. Finally, consistent with the resultsconcerning their parents, there was a higher propensity among thechildren to receive financial support from a parent with a high disposableincome, even when the child’s socio-demographic characteristics were
73
Effect of socio-economic factors on parental financial support MAJAMAA
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mem
oria
l Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewfo
undl
and]
at 0
9:24
05
Oct
ober
201
4
TABLE 3. Distributions of the background variables (%) and odds ratios for thereceiving of financial transfers by adult children from their parents: multinomiallogistic regression (OR), base group: did not receive any financial support (n�538)
Model 1a Model 2b
Adult children %t1�500
(n �250)�t500
(n �123)t1�500
(n �250)�t500
(n �123)
GenderMen 37.3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Women 62.7 1.39� 1.35 1.13 1.13
Age groupAt least 30 years old 56.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Under the age of 30 43.1 2.42*** 4.68*** 1.77** 2.26**
Number of siblingsAt least three siblings 19.2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Two siblings 29.8 1.18� 1.61 1.50 1.21One sibling 40.5 1.62* 2.44* 1.83* 2.83*No siblings 10.5 1.19 2.03 1.45 2.69�
Living with a spouseYes 73.8 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00No 26.2 1.44* 2.08** 1.05 1.28
Educational levelTertiary 51.8 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Secondary 43.9 1.61** 1.08 1.33 0.80Basic or unknown 4.3 1.03 0.51 0.79 0.67
Social-security benefitsNone 48.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Some benefit(s) 36.0 1.51* 1.27 1.19 1.35Student grant 15.2 4.68*** 12.00*** 1.99* 8.27***
Disposabe income per montht2,000 or more 35.4 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00t1,000�t1,999 42.8 1.56* 1.26 1.27 0.91Less than t1,000 21.8 4.23*** 3.61*** 2.67** 1.28
Parent’s educational levelBasic or unknown 29.4 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Secondary 36.9 1.41� 1.26 1.16 0.90Tertiary 33.7 1.59* 3.81*** 1.08 1.75
Parent’s disposabe income per monthLess than t1,000 22.3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00t1,000�t1,999 43.3 1.75** 1.36 1.71* 1.15t2,000 or more 34.5 2.08** 3.74** 2.02** 2.40
All 100.0N 911
aEach variable added one at a time into the model.bAll the variables were added into the model at once.
Significance levels: �p B0.1, *p B0.05, **p B0.01, ***p B0.001.
Only those with at least one living parent and who do not live in the parental home are included
into the models.
Source: Gentrans 2007, collected by Statistics Finland.
74
EUROPEAN SOCIETIES
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mem
oria
l Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewfo
undl
and]
at 0
9:24
05
Oct
ober
201
4
controlled for. This applied only to smaller (5t500) amounts, however.Parental educational level was not statistically significant when all thevariables were included. Even if high level of education also predictedmore substantial given and received financial support among parents witha low disposable income (results not shown), it seems that the associationbetween parental educational level and financial support depends, to someextent, on the parent’s disposable income, and to some extent that highlyeducated parents’ children were more often students than lower educatedparents’ children (results not shown).
In sum, our Finnish data gives further evidence that the transferbehaviour of parents is related both to their ability and willingness to givefinancial support, and to the needs of young adults. Socio-economicfactors in particular were associated with the giving as well as the receivingof support. Being a recipient of public income support (student grant)increased the odds of receiving additional, especially larger, financialtransfers from parents. Those with a low disposable income, however,were more likely to receive smaller amounts of money from their ownparents. Among the parents, however, the negative association betweenreceiving social-security benefits and giving financial support did not holdafter all the variables were included in the model. Interestingly, there wasalso some interplay between socio-economic factors and giving moderatesupport, which has not been recorded in previous studies. Given thatpatterns of help among family members are more or less inherited (Rossiand Rossi 1990), and that parents with a higher socio-economic positionsupport their children financially especially when they are studying, theextent of parental support has both direct and indirect effects on the lifechances of adult children. In valuing and supporting their children’sstudies financially, parents also contribute to their educational capital.
Conclusions
This article analyses the flows of private financial transfers to adultchildren from both the givers’ and the receivers’ points of view. TheFinnish baby boomers under study were highly likely to give financialsupport to their adult children, and these children were highly likely toreceive support from their parents, but also from their spouse’s parents.Our findings also suggest that the link between parents’ socio-economicposition and their financial backing is stronger than previous studies haveindicated, whereas all the socio-economic characteristics of baby boomerswe considered were, at least partly, associated with the support given evenwhen moderate support was categorised as separately (Table 2, Model 1).It seems, however, that the associations between the socio-economic
75
Effect of socio-economic factors on parental financial support MAJAMAA
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mem
oria
l Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewfo
undl
and]
at 0
9:24
05
Oct
ober
201
4
characteristics of the baby boomers and the giving of financial transferswere stronger among those who gave larger sums than among those whogave smaller sums.
Historical time, place and social circumstances are related to the formsand directions of intergenerational support. During the last few decadesthe main sources of economic welfare among young adults have includedthe labour market and the welfare state, and parental support has beenmostly complementary, at least in the Nordic countries. According to astudy on the financial circumstances of Finnish students (Berndtson2004), the two most important sources of income are public support (studygrant and housing supplement) and working during the holidays, whereasfinancial support from parents is the third most important source. Asstudents have an especially high poverty risk (Moisio 2008: 263), theyprobably receive more financial support from their parents than workingyoung adults, for example. Berndtson’s results (2004) suggest that the roleof the family has been mostly complementary. Furthermore, althoughHamalainen (2004): 46) notes that students comprise a very heterogeneousgroup, the student grant is typically a major source of income for youngerstudents, whereas older students tend to rely more on earned income.
Young adults, in particular are experiencing a more negative trend indisposable income than other age groups (Figure 1): they are entering thelabour market later, and there is less job security. Furthermore, the welfarestate’s role as the provider of financial security has weakened considerably.According to the results of previous research, parental support of theiradult children has become more prevalent during the last 10 years. Onereason seems to be the diminishing public support and another could bethat middle-aged parents nowadays have more assets (see Figure 1). Ourresults reveal that younger adult children, here those under the age of 30,were more likely to receive private transfers from their own parents thanolder children. Moreover, those with a low disposable income, especiallystudents, were more likely to be supported by their parents, even if theproportion of people receiving a student grant was less than half (15%) ofthe proportion of people in receipt of other social-security benefits (36%).
Bourdieu and Passeron (1990) observe that education plays animportant role in the process of reproducing the existing social system.In supporting education parents may hope to be making a sensibleinvestment in the future of their children (Becker 1991: 369). Attias-Donfut and Wolff (2000a) argue that in financially supporting their adultchildren parents are trying to prevent them from slipping down the socialladder. At least in this study, the parent with a higher socio-economicstatus was still found to support his or her adult children when theanalysis was conducted from the child’s perspective. Furthermore, youngadults who were studying in particular received extra help from their own
76
EUROPEAN SOCIETIES
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mem
oria
l Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewfo
undl
and]
at 0
9:24
05
Oct
ober
201
4
parents. It was reported in a previous Swedish study (Lennartsson et al.2010) that the needs of children apparently did not play a significant rolein the likelihood of receiving financial support. From the two-generationapproach taken here, however, it seems that need is the bottom line: ayoung age, a low disposable income, and being in receipt of social-securitybenefits was strongly associated with receiving support. It seems thatmany young adults who do not have sufficient means via the welfare statehave parents who can and are willing to help, at least to some extent.
Educational egalitarianism has been highly valued in Finland, and inpractice almost all young adults have been able to continue their educationif they wished (Antikainen 2006; Kivinen et al. 2007). For example, in2009, 94% of Finnish youth continued on to the intermediate level. Thusfar the educational inheritance has not been as evident in the Nordiccountries as in many other European countries (Hertz et al. 2007). In fact,inequality of educational opportunity depending on family backgroundhas declined in recent decades (Breen et al. 2010), in the Nordic countries,too (Jæger 2007; Kivinen et al. 2007). Nevertheless, the difference inenrolment in university education is still eight-fold (measured in oddsratios) in favour of children from academic families (Kivinen et al. 2007).
State intervention in the provision of education has been at a high level inFinland as the importance of post-compulsory education has increased inthe post-industrial society. If the educational level of parents is a strongdeterminant of their children’s educational level � in other words thechildren of more highly educated parents tend to be more highly educatedthan the children of parents with a lower level of education (Kivinen et al.2007; Myrskyla 2009) � and, as our results show if there is greater tendencyamong parents with a higher socio-economic status to give financialsupport to their adult children, and probably larger sums, it could beargued that parental support increases the inequality of opportunitybetween the higher and lower social strata. In sum, even if parentalsupport fills some of the gap the withdrawal of welfare-state funding hasopened up, policymakers should be aware that not all young adults havesupportive parents who are both willing and able to help them financially.Furthermore, even if young adults are already on an unequal footingin terms of receiving parental financial support, and given the deteriorationin welfare-state provision, the overall situation of young adults would beeven weaker without support from their families.
Finland has been a country with relatively even income distribution.However, after the 1990s recession the gap started to widen (OECD 2010).Andersen et al. (2008) suggest that one of the major challenges facingFinland is to maintain a fair distribution of resources and opportunities.Given that one of the targets of public spending in the Nordic welfarestates has been investment in human capital, including the provision of
77
Effect of socio-economic factors on parental financial support MAJAMAA
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mem
oria
l Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewfo
undl
and]
at 0
9:24
05
Oct
ober
201
4
child care and education (ibid.), in order to maintain a positive economic
and social climate, it is vital � now and in the future � to invest in
education and to maintain equality in educational opportunities.
Acknowledgements
Financial support was provided by the Academy of Finland. This paper
is based on GENTRANS data (http://blogs.helsinki.fi/gentrans/).
GENTRANS data collection in 2007 was primarily funded by the
Academy of Finland (project numbers 29885301, 2006�2009).
References
Aassve, A., Iacovou, M. and Mencarini, L. (2006) ‘Youth poverty andtransition to adulthood in Europe’, Demographic Research 15: 21�50.
Albertini, M., Kohli, M. and Vogel, C. (2007) ‘Transfers of time andmoney among elderly Europeans and their children: Commonpatterns � different regimes?’, Journal of European Social Policy 17:319�34.
Andersen, T., Holmstrom, B., Honkapohja, S., Korkman, S., Soderstrom,H. and Vartiainen, J. (2008) The Nordic Model, Embracing Globalisationand Sharing Risks. The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy(ETLA), Helsinki: Yliopistopaino, available from: http://www.etla.fi/files/1892_the_nordic_model_complete.pdf [accessed 16 December2010].
Antikainen, A. (2006) ‘In search of the Nordic model in education’,Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 50: 229�43.
Attias-Donfut, C. and Aber, S. (2000) ‘Equity and solidarity across thegenerations’, in S. Arber and C. Attias-Donfut (eds), The Myth ofGenerational Conflict. The Family and State in Aging Societies, London:Routledge, pp. 1�21.
Attias-Donfut, C. and Wolff, F.-C. (2000a) ‘The redistributive effectsof generational transfers’, in S. Arber and C. Attias-Donfut (eds),The Myth of Generational Conflict. The Family and State in AgingSocieties, London: Routledge, pp. 22�46.
Attias-Donfut, C. and Wolff, F.-C. (2000b) ‘Complementarity betweenprivate and public transfers’, in S. Arber and C. Attias-Donfut (eds),The Myth of Generational Conflict. The Family and State in AgingSocieties, London: Routledge, pp. 47�68.
Becker, G. (1991) A Treatise on the Family, Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.
78
EUROPEAN SOCIETIES
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mem
oria
l Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewfo
undl
and]
at 0
9:24
05
Oct
ober
201
4
Berndtson, T. (2004) Opiskelijatutkimus 2003. Opiskelijoiden toimeentulo jatoimeentulon ongelmat. Sosiaali- ja terveysturvan katsauksia 65. KELA:Helsinki.
Berthoud, R. and Iacovou, M. (2004) ‘Introduction’, in R. Berthoud andM. Iacovou (eds), Social Europe. Living Standards and Welfare States,Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 1�20.
Bjornberg, U. and Latta, M. (2007) ‘The roles of the family and welfarestate: The relationship between public and private financial support inSweden’, Current Sociology 55: 415�45.
Bonoli, G. (2005) ‘The politics of the new social policies: Providingcoverage against new social risks in mature welfare states’, Policy &Politics 33: 431�49.
Bourdieu, P. and Passeron, J.-C. (1990) Reproduction in Education, Societyand Culture, London: Sage.
Breen, R., Luijkx, R., Muller, W. and Pollak, R. (2010) ‘Long-term trendsin educational inequality in Europe: Class inequalities and genderdifferences’, European Sociological Review 26: 31�48.
Coleman, J. S. (1990) Foundations of Social Theory, Cambridge, MA:Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Dykstra, P. and Fokkema, T. (2010) ‘Relationship between parents andtheir adult children: A West European typology of late-life families’,available from: Cambridge Journals Online 22 Dec 2010 doi:10.1017/S0144686X10001108
Eurostat (2008) ‘The Life of Women and Men in Europe 2008. A statisticalPortrait’, available from: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-80-07-135/EN/KS-80-07-135-EN.PDF [accessed 5January 2011].
Fingerman, K., Miller, L., Birditt, K. and Zarit, S. (2009) ‘Giving to thegood and the needy: Parental support to grown children’, Journal ofMarriage and Family 71: 1220�33.
Fingerman, K., Pitzer, L., Chan, W., Birditt, K., Franks, M. and Zarit, S.(2010) ‘Who gets what and why? Help middle-aged adults provideto parents and grown children’, Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences10, available from: http://psychsocgerontology.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2010/03/10/geronb.gbq009.full.pdf�html [accessed 9April 2010].
Fritzell, J. and Lennartsson, C. (2005) ‘Financial transfers betweengenerations in Sweden’, Ageing & Society 25: 397�414.
Furlong, A. and Cartmel, F. (2007) Young People and Social Change. NewPerspectives, Berkshire: Open University Press.
Haavio-Mannila, E., Majamaa, K., Tanskanen, A., Hamalainen, H.,Karisto, A., Rotkirch, A. and Roos, J. P. (2009) SUKUPOLVIENKETJU Suuret ikaluokat ja sukupolvien valinen vuorovaikutus
79
Effect of socio-economic factors on parental financial support MAJAMAA
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mem
oria
l Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewfo
undl
and]
at 0
9:24
05
Oct
ober
201
4
Suomessa, available from: https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/14965/Tutkimuksia107.pdf?sequence�3 [accessed 24 January2010].
Hertz, T., Jayasundera, T., Piraino, P., Selcuk, S., Smith, N. andVerashchagina, A. (2007) ‘The inheritance of educational inequality:International comparisons and fifty-year trends’, The B.E. Journal ofEconomic Analysis and Policy 7: 1�46.
Hillcoat-Nalletamby, S. and Dharmalingam, A. (2003) ‘Mid-life parentalsupport for adult children in New Zealand’, Journal of Sociology 39:271�90.
Honkanen, P. (2006) ‘Perusturvan indeksisuojassa aikaisempaa enemmanaukkoja’, Yhteiskuntapolitiikka 71: 146�53.
Hamalainen, U. (2004) Nuorten tulojen ja toimeentulon palapeli. Palkansaa-jien tutkimuslaitos. Tutkimuksia-sarja 92. Helsinki.
Jæger, M. (2007) ‘Educational mobility across three generations: Thechanging impact of parental social class, economic, cultural and socialcapital’, European Societies 9: 527�50.
Jarvinen, T. and Vanttaja, M. (2001) ‘Young people, education and work:Trends and changes in Finland in the 1990s’, Journal of Youth Studies 4:195�207.
Kivinen, O., Hedman, J. and Kaipainen, P. (2007) ‘From elite university tomass higher education. Educational expansion, equality of opportunityand returns to university education’, Acta Sociologica 3: 231�47.
Kohli, M. (1999) ‘Private and public transfers between generations:Linking the family and the State’, European Societies 1: 81�104.
Lennartsson, C., Silverstein, M. and Fritzell, J. (2010) ‘Time-for-moneyexchanges between older and younger generations in Sweden’, Journalof Family Issue 31: 189�210.
Liao, T. (1994) Interpreting Probability Models: Logit, Probit, and otherGeneralized Linear Model, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Majamaa, K. (2009a) ‘Kuka vastaa kyselyihin? Katoanalyysi yhdestaperhetutkimuksesta’, Hyvinvointikatsaus 4: 54�7.
Majamaa, K. (2009b) ‘Kuka vastaa kyselyihin? Katoanalyysi yhdestaperhetutkimuksesta’, manuscript.
Majamaa, K. (2011) ‘Dismissed intergenerational support? New socialrisks and the economic welfare of young adults’, Journal of YouthStudies 14: 729�43.
Mandemakers, J. and Dykstra, P. (2008) ‘Discrepancies in parent’s andadult child’s reports of support and contact’, Journal of Marriage andFamily 70: 495�506.
Moisio, P. (2008) ‘Koyhyyden ja toimeentulo-ongelmien kehitys’, inP. Moisio, S. Karvonen, J. Simpura and M. Heikkila (eds) Suomalaistenhyvinvointi 2008, Stakes. Vammala: Vammalan kirjapaino Oy: pp. 256�75.
80
EUROPEAN SOCIETIES
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mem
oria
l Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewfo
undl
and]
at 0
9:24
05
Oct
ober
201
4
Moisio, P. (2009) Vahimmaisturva ja koyhyysraja Suomessa. Selvityssosiaaliturvan kokonaisuudistus (Sata) -komitealle, Terveyden- ja hyvin-voinnin laitos: Avauksia/9. Helsinki: Valopaino Oy.
Moisio, P. (2010) ‘Tuloerojen, koyhyyden ja toimeentulo-ongelmienkehitys’, in M. Vaarama, P. Moisio and S. Karvonen (eds) Suomalaistenhyvinvointi 2010, available from: http://www.thl.fi/thl-client/pdfs/8cec7cec-5cf3-4209-ba7a-0334ecdb6e1d [accessed 29 September 2011]:180�96.
Myrskyla, P. (2009) ‘Koulutus periytyy edelleen’, Hyvinvointikatsaus1/2009: 1�8.
Niemela, M. (2004) ‘Sidotut menot taloudellisen toimeentulon mittaami-sessa’, Yhteiskuntapolitiikka 69: 594�607.
OECD (2009) Education at a Glance 2009, Paris.OECD (2010) OECD Economic Surveys: Finland 2010.Rossi, A. and Rossi, P. (1990) Of Human Bonding: Parent-Child Relations
across the Life Course, New York: de Gruyter.Statistics Finland (2008) Households’ assets, available from: http://
tilastokeskus.fi/meta/til/vtutk_en.html [accessed 16 March 2009].Swartz, T. and O’Brien, K. (2009) ‘Intergenerational support during the
transition to adulthood’, in A. Furlong (ed.), Handbook of Youth andYoung Adulthood: New Perspectives and Agendas, London: Routledge, pp.217�25.
Taylor-Gooby, P. (ed.) (2004) New Risks, New Welfare: The Transformationof the European Welfare State, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
van Gerven, M. (2008) The Broad Tracks of Path Dependent Benefit Reform ALongitudinal Study of Social Benefit Reforms in Three European Countries,1980�2006. Kela, Research Department, available from: http://dspace2.lib.helsinki.fi:8081/dspace/handle/10250/7932 [accessed 26 February2009].
Karoliina Majamaa is PhD candidate of Social Policy at University of Helsinki
in Finland. Her current research interest includes intergenerational help, in
particular helping patterns among parents and their adult children, and
young adults’ economic position in the contemporary society.
Address for correspondence: Karoliina Majamaa, Department of
Social Research, University of Helsinki, Social Policy, PO Box 18
(Snellmaninkatu 10), Helsinki, FIN-00014, Finland.
E-mail: [email protected]
81
Effect of socio-economic factors on parental financial support MAJAMAA
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mem
oria
l Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewfo
undl
and]
at 0
9:24
05
Oct
ober
201
4
