Intergenerational Transfers and Solidarity Systems in Slovenia

2009–2010

ERSTE Foundation Fellowship for Social Research Ensuring Income Security and Welfare in Old Age

Intergenerational Transfers and Solidarity Systems in Slovenia Masa Filipovic Hrast Valentina Hlebec

ERSTE Foundation Social Research Fellowship Intergenerational transfers and solidarity systems in Slovenia Maša FILIPOVIČ HRAST and Valentina HLEBEC University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences Kardeljeva pl. 5 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia Masa.filipovic@fdv.uni-lj.si Valentina.hlebec@fdv.uni-lj.si Abstract Our research addresses the role of the elderly as a source of support in intergenerational support flows. We examine support flows in the family as well as in the community in the context of structural, institutional and cultural changes seen 20 years after the transition in Slovenia. We describe the demographic structure of families and households as well as the key features of the Slovenian social welfare system, family values and changes in the last 20 years (using secondary data). Employing primary data (a quantitative survey) on social support networks – theoretically defined as one of the possible ways to analyse intergenerational solidarity – we will analyse intergenerational transfers.

1. Introduction The whole of Europe is facing an intensive demographic change – low fertility rates and ageing of the population. This has a profound impact on all of society; its welfare systems, intergenerational relations, family changes etc. As the number of elderly (those older than 65) is increasing along with their share in the population, owing to longer life expectancy, studies devoted especially to the elderly are ever more important. Like other European societies, Slovenia is encountering the rapid ageing of its population. The share of the elderly (people aged 65 and over) rose from 12.9% in 1997 to 15.9% in 2007. The old age dependency rate is expected to further increase from 21.4% to 55.6% in 2050 (CEC, 2006).

Table 1: SHARE OF THE POPULATION OVER 65

1997 EU (27) EU (25) Euro area (15) Slovenia Eurostat (2008)

15.1 15.2 15.7 12.9

1998 15.3 15.4 (b) 15.9 13.2

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 15.4 15.5 16.1 13.6

15.6 15.7 16.3 13.9

15.8 15.9 16.5 14.1

16.0 16.1 16.8 14.5

16.2 16.3 17.0 14.8

16.4 16.4 17.2 15.0

16.6 16.7 17.4 15.3

16.8 16.9 17.7 15.6

16.9 17.0 : 15.9

Table 2: SHARE OF THE POPULATION OVER 80 2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

1

2000 EU (27) EU (25) Euro area (15) Slovenia Eurostat (2008)

3.3 3.4 3.6 2.3

2001 3.5 3.6 3.7 2.4

2002 3.6 3.7 3.9 2.5

2003 3.8 3.9 4.1 2.7

2004 3.9 4.0 4.2 2.9

2005 4.0 4.1 4.3 3.0

2006 4.1 4.2 4.5 3.2

2007 4.3 4.4 : 3.4

The average age of a mother at the birth of her first child grew from 23.9 in 1990 to 28.4 in 2008 (SURS, 2009), which shows that Slovenia is encountering similar trends as in Western European countries. However, these demographic changes are happening in a period of transition, which exerts an additional influence that must be taken into account when observing the elderly population in Slovenia. The transition has brought several changes at the structural level: changes in the welfare system (pension system, social protection system), the organisation of communities, development of the voluntary sector, changes in the labour market (increasing of the pensionable age) etc.

These structural changes have had a profound impact on the generational contract, on the macro, micro and meso levels of everyday life. The macro sphere as understood in this article is the public sphere. The generational contract is linked in the public sphere mainly to pension and health provisions, where the flows usually go from the younger, active population to the older population. However, other transfers in the private domain must also be included here, i.e. transfers within the family (Albertini et al., 2007; Kohli and Albertini, 2007), or within the community. Here, at the micro (family) and meso levels (community) the transfer flows are more reciprocal or even predominate from the older to younger generation.

We would like to stress that the elderly also play a role on the giving side of transfer flows (as already indicated in the literature as being very strong, ibid.). Research in Slovenia has already shown that, at the micro level, it is intergenerational family transfers that have tried to compensate for the instability of the structures in the transition (Mandič and Hlebec, 2005; Šadl, 2005). At the macro level, the elderly have been in a relatively good position due to their advantageous labour market position (experiencing low unemployment and stable employment during their working lives) and the favourable pension system (mostly having relatively high pensions and a low age threshold for achieving pensioner status). They are therefore in a position to help the young within the family or at the community level. Young people have namely faced high risks in the transition period, such as changes in the labour market (increasing temporary employment, short-term contracts, flexible employment), changing welfare services (like, for example, day-care and the education system), difficult housing market conditions (a low share of non-profit and rental housing, growing housing prices) (see Črnak Meglič, 2005; Mandič, 1996, 2001, 2006, 2009; Trbanc, 1996, 2005, 2006, 2007). Due to these conditions, we can also expect very high intergenerational solidarity from the elderly to the young.

In this paper we will analyse the new role of the elderly as a source of support in intergenerational support flows in Slovenia. First, we present the theoretical approaches to observing intergenerational solidarity that will also be used in the article. Then we present the important structural, institutional and cultural changes seen 20 years after the transition as contextual factors influencing support flows. Support flows in the family as well as in the community are then analysed in Slovenia and the main conclusions are drawn.

2

2. Theoretical approaches to intergenerational solidarity Intergenerational solidarity and its flows are often observed on the macro level of countries, where the main systems are analysed (such as the pension system, wealth distribution etc.).

However, researchers have also emphasised that this is a very one-sided view of intergenerational solidarity and that a micro level analysis (such as family transfers) has to be included in the observation to complete the picture of intergenerational solidarity in a certain country.

The question of intergenerational solidarity can be operationally linked with the study of social networks that represent a source of support within a community or intimate others. We can observe the exchange of support between generations and link it theoretically and empirically to the quality of the social network (e.g. Lin et al., 1999; Berkman and Symea, 1979; Hampton and Wellman, 1999, 2000). The analysis of social networks enables observations at both levels – integration/isolation on the local community level as well as on the level of intimate relationships. Through the size and composition of social networks (e.g. density, heterogeneity, geographic distance, shares of relatives, friends, neighbours, formal ties etc.), the quality of ties and exchange of social support (e.g. durability, intimacy, significance and frequency of contacts), we can observe the way and type of support between generations.

The concept of social support is an appropriate way to observe intergenerational solidarity and such an indicator has also been used in research into other societies (see Albertini et al., 2007). Cassel (1976), Caplan (1974) and Cobb (1976) are some of the most important and influential beginners of systematic research into social support. They were mainly preoccupied with emotional support. Caplan stressed the reciprocity and durability of contacts, but did not limit them to the strongest ties (i.e. family members and friends) for he also took account of weaker ties like help groups, neighbourly relations and »community caretakers« (i.e. local priests). Cobb (1976) understood social support strictly in the sense of protection against stress and as a factor of well-being. Newer definitions (i.e. House, 1981; Vaux, 1988, 1992; Burleson et al. 1994) stress the importance of social support as a complex interaction and communication process among people. Vaux’s (1985, 1988; also Thoits, 1985) definition is considered to be one of the best since it understands social support as a complex higher order theoretical meta-construct. Vaux (1988) recognises three elements of social support: sources of social support, types of social support and the individual’s subjective perception or judgment about the sources and types of social support. These three elements are connected with complex dynamic processes of exchange in communication between the individual and his/her social environment.

Antonucci (1986) found important individual differences in social support among older people. The »support bank« term she uses relates to changes in the balance between support given and support received. Many authors present data that show how important a source of help adult descendants are for their aged parents (Silverstein et al., 1996). But other studies about money transfers between generations show that at least some older people give their children more than they receive in exchange from them. Freedman and his colleagues (1991) state that the number of older adult people who give money to their adult children is nearly double the number of older adult people who receive financial help from their children (Krause, 1999).

3

A detailed analysis of intergenerational solidarity and transfers in Europe was made in the SHARE (Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement) project (see Albertini et al., 2007; also Kohli and Albertini, 2007). The research was carried out in 10 European countries (Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland) in 2004. In the focus of the analysis were intergenerational transfers from the young to the older generation and vice versa. Findings for all the countries show that overall financial transfer and social support goes from the older to the younger generation (these include transfers between the living but not inheritance, that is one additional transfer going from the older to the younger). The research proved that transfers from grandparents to their children are more frequent and more intensive than the other way around. The difference between the transfers decreases with age but in total older people remain support givers also after the age of 70. This shows the importance of the role of older people who are often perceived by people as passive receivers of help. Further, the results also point out some differences between countries with regard to their welfare systems. In southern countries transfers from parents to children are more frequent and more intensive than in Scandinavian countries.

Continental Europe lies somewhere in between these two groups (Albertini et al., 2007).

Based on the theories described above, we will analyse social support flows in Slovenia and try to interpret the results also in the context of the different welfare regime that Slovenia belongs to compared to the countries so far analysed in the SHARE project. However, first we will present the important changes after the transition in the social welfare context, family and value changes and changes of community that significantly influence intergenerational solidarity flows in Slovenia.

3. The transitional context and its influence on intergenerational solidarity in Slovenia Before we turn to the social network analysis we will present the macro level context that is relevant when observing intergenerational solidarity. Here the public sphere of welfare provisions (e.g. pension systems), systemic changes, value changes, changes at the community level and family level is important. These potentially affect the micro level of intergenerational transfer flows, a subject that will be analysed in the next section.

We emphasise only a few of the potential influences as there are too many of them for this limited research. We therefore try to overview those changes that are perhaps more pronounced due to the transition (e.g. social welfare systems) and those that set out the background of relations – like family structures, values, community structures.

3.1. The social welfare context The economic and political transition in Slovenia, as in other Eastern European countries, has had profound effects on all aspects of social life. Changes have been introduced in important spheres of society, like the political sphere (see, for example, Adam, 1994; Adam and Rončevič, 2004), economic system and the welfare system. These changes have also brought some new social risks that individuals have had to face, as to which intergenerational solidarity can also be an important factor in mediating these risks. While in the political sphere this is perhaps less evident, the changes in the economic sphere have brought, for example, high unemployment as well as the intensification and flexibilisation of work (Ignjatovič, 2002; Kanjuo-Mrčela and Ignjatovič, 2004). The transition to a market economy has led to an increasing number of unemployed and a reduction of the active population (early retirement schemes), along with a significant shift from a passive to an active employment

4

policy that transferred many new obligations to individuals (Ignjatovič, 2002; Kopač, 2005).

Full employment which was typical before the transition still prevails in Slovenia; however, flexible work forms are increasing (part-time and time-limited contracts), but mainly among the younger population (Ignjatovič, 2002).

The changes to the social welfare system have been significant. The system is based on the state-socialist welfare system developed in Yugoslavia (Kolarič, 1992). The structure before the 1990s (Kolarič, 1992; Kolarič et al., 2009) was a tripartite system with a well-developed and regionally dispersed network of public/state organisations and institutions (production and distribution of services and financial compensation by the state and within the framework of enterprises for employed people), and voluntary and unpaid services within the informal sector. The informal sector – informal social networks – was heavily burdened with care for the elderly, especially close family members (women in particular), other relatives and neighbours regardless of the very high employment rate of women.

There has been a gradual introduction of reforms concerning individual social policies (Kolarič et al., 2009) since the transformation of the political and economic system. The new welfare system can be described as a “welfare mix” and more closely resembles Western European welfare systems. In the context of the transition from a socialist to a post-socialist society, the Slovenian welfare system constituted a dual model with elements of a conservative-corporate welfare system/compulsory social insurance system, based on a social partnership and a social-democratic welfare system, where a strong public/state sector is still the dominant service provider of all types of services to which all citizens are equally entitled, the non-profit/voluntary sector is evolving and state support for the informal sector is growing (Kolarič et al., 2009). Some of the more generous parts of the social protection system have been slowly limited during these reforms. For example, the eligibility criteria have in some cases become stricter and the extent of social support has also been reduced (see Kopač, 2005; Črnak Meglič, 2005).

With its recent reforms the state has also been withdrawing from the supply of some social services – causing the burden to shift to other sectors (market, civil society, family), mainly the private non-profit sector – voluntary organisations and the family. This brings new risks, especially in terms of unequal access to the services older people need (for more on services for older people in Slovenia, see Hvalič Touzery, 2007; Hojnik Zupanc et al., 1996). Social networks, especially family networks, are an important mediator of these new risks with intergenerational solidarity going in two ways, from the young to the older, and from older to the younger. This can also be observed in the care provided to preschool and schooling children by older people (which can be partly understood in the context of diminishing access to child-care services). Namely, almost a third of those aged 50-64 care for children on a daily basis, while the share is also still high among those aged 65 or more (13%).

Table 3: SHARES OF THOSE CARING FOR PRE-SCHOOL 15 YEARS (ACCORDING TO THE AGE OF THE CARER) 18-34 35-49 Every day (%) 28 69 A few times a 4 5 week (%)

CHILDREN AND CHILDREN UNDER 50-64 29 17

65+ 13 9

5

Average no.1 of 7.3 5.0 hours Source: EQLS (2003), own calculations.

4.3

4.7

Changes in the health system have also led to increasing risks for individuals. Basic (compulsory) health insurance (CHI) still covers almost the entire Slovenian population and therefore the health security system is accessible to all. However, several services, medicines etc. require additional voluntary health insurance, which limits its accessibility to more vulnerable groups. Voluntary health insurance (VHI) covers payments for health services above the share covered by CHI and for services that represent low value for money and are not covered by CHI. VHI has been criticised for aggravating social inequality in Slovenia (Stropnik et al., 2003). However several researchers (e.g., Hanžek, 1998; Hanžek and Gregorčič, 1999) claim that the increasing social and economic inequalities as a result of the transition have had a greater effect on differences in health and overall well-being than the health security system itself. The health system and social welfare system are also only slowly responding to demographic change and the intensive ageing of the population. The system of long-term care is quite fragmented and systemic, with policy changes being envisaged in the future.

Social services of help at home and institutional services cover only small proportions of the population. Consequently, care for the elderly has stayed predominantly in the private, informal sector and the importance of family social support networks is indicated in various researches (Hlebec, 2003, 2007, 2009; Dremelj, 2003; Kogovšek et al., 2003). Care for elderly or disabled persons is therefore part of daily care for a significant share of the population. It is, however, the highest not among the young but actually among the ageing (10% of those aged 50-64 and also 5% among those 65 years of age care every day for an elderly or disabled person).

Table 4: SHARES OF THOSE CARING FOR THE ELDERLY AND DISABLED (ACCORDING TO THE AGE OF THE CARER) 18-34 35-49 50-64 65+ Every day (%) 2 6 10 5 A few times a week (%) 5 11 14 3 Average no. of hours (per day) 1.5 4.0 Source: EQLS (2003), own calculations.

3.8

7.5

3.2. Community changes The meso level of intergenerational solidarity as understood in this article is the community level, where public policies (macro level) and the micro level (family unit) intersect. The community is seen as an important resource, aiding other actors in caring for the elderly, especially in the context of overburdened employed women. “Families must therefore be supported to a greater extent. This is where social services and networks of solidarity and care within local communities come in” (CEC, 2005: 10). It is therefore also a potential space of intergenerational flows (e.g. among neighbours), but is also an arena where certain actors

1

Only respondents who provide care every day.

6

influencing these transfer flows may emerge (e.g. community-based organisations, voluntary organisations etc.).

There have been significant changes in Slovenia at the local organisation level. Before the transition, Slovenia was organised into municipalities where the obligatory constitutive elements of each municipality were so-called “local communities”. Local communities were very involved in the social area and concerned with local problems, while the municipality had many responsibilities delegated from the state. After the transition, this way of organising has been transformed. The local level only consists of municipalities (although they are much smaller than the former ones) with practically no obligations delegated from the state (Grafenauer, 2000). The consequence of the disappearance of some local communities (e.g. in the capital Ljubljana) has led to the loss of many community places (for gathering etc.), leaving many localities impoverished, less informed and less able to organise themselves (see Dragoš and Leskošek, 2003).

Consequently, perhaps not surprisingly researchers have found that in Slovenia the family has responded to the transition with the most flexibility, while the community has been less responsive (Mandič and Hlebec, 2005). In the period before the transition, the community had a vital role in the life of people and local community participation was on a very high level.

After the transition, the role of local communities has diminished and the formal structures have changed (see Grafenauer, 2000), often leaving estranged individuals with no places to meet and exchange information (Dragoš and Leskošek, 2003). Research on social support networks in Slovenia shows that the role of the community has decreased in the past 20 years (Mandič and Hlebec, 2005; Filipovič et al., 2005; Filipovič, 2007). But the elderly have kept their community networks to a greater extent (Filipovič et al., 2005; Filipovič, 2007) and can therefore represent the most important support givers.

Another aspect of community life is the development of community organisations. In Slovenia public network providers are well dispersed regionally and therefore also established in the communities, a fact which has not significantly changed in the period of transition. On the other hand, the NGO sector is still developing and as such is not very well developed as a provider of social support for the elderly. However, there are projects of intergenerational support (also funded by the Ministry of Labour, Family and Social Affairs). Here the support of the elderly by the elderly is very evident – one such is a project of the Pensioners’ Association where elderly people help other elderly people in need within their local community. This shows that the elderly can be very active in providing support to others in need at the community level. Hence, in Slovenia the Eurostat data show that more than onethird of people who have retired do community work or volunteering.

Graph 1: PARTICIPATION IN VOLUNTEER WORK – A COMPARISON OF COUNTRIES

7

Source: Eurobarometer (2007)

3.3. Family structure It has already been emphasised that the family is one of the most important sources of social support and a place of intergenerational solidarity transfers in response to several of the risks and conditions arising after the transition. However, the family structure is changing and this may have an important effect on the availability of intergenerational solidarity in the family.

As several researches on the family have emphasised, the structure of the family and its roles are changing today. Some speak of a crisis of the family due to increasing individualisation, the professionalisation of some of the roles traditionally performed by the family and overburdening of the family and strong emotional pressures. In general, the changes in the family can be summarised as: the pluralisation of family forms and lifestyles, an increasing number of divorces, ever more single-parent households and reorganised households, while the young also leave their primary family later in life and form their new family later. The pluralisation of family forms means that several family forms co-exist, and mainly depend on individual decisions of people. This process is linked to the falling number of formal marriages and growing number of co-habitations, increasing number of divorces and the formation of new families following a divorce (therefore changing the usual structure of families) (see Rener, 1995, Dremelj, 2003; Beck and Beck-Gernsheim, 2002; Ĺ vab, 2001).

Changes in household types over time can already be seen from the size of households.

Namely, the number of larger households is decreasing while the number of smaller households is rising, especially single households are becoming much more common.

Table 5: SIZE OF HOUSEHOLDS IN SLOVENIA Households (by no. of people in the household) Year 1948

Â

Total 368754

1 person 18.4%

2 15.0%

3 17.1%

4 16.5%

5 12.6%

6+ 20.4%

8 Â

1953 398019 1961 458839 1971 515531 1981 580592 1991 640198 2002 684847 Source: SURS (2009)

17.2% 17.8% 17.4% 17.5% 18.0% 21.9%

15.6% 16.4% 17.2% 18.2% 21.0% 23.0%

18.8% 19.8% 21.0% 22.1% 21.4% 20.9%

18.1% 19.8% 22.2% 24.9% 25.1% 23.1%

12.9% 12.8% 11.6% 9.6% 8.6% 7.2%

17.4% 13.4% 10.7% 7.6% 5.9% 3.9%

Further, within the increasing number of single households the largest share is taken by older people (aged 65 and over), who in 2002 represented 4% of all households. This is consistent with the general demographic trend of population ageing, but also to changes household types (the elderly no longer live with their children but often alone). These changes indicate that an increasing number of elderly live alone (single elderly households and elderly couples) and therefore have poorer access to social support within the family and lower potential intergenerational solidarity. This is combined with the general trend of the elderly increasingly living further away from their family members, as indicated in some foreign research (as due to career and family obligations children move further away from their parents, Hoff, 2006), which again means less immediate access to certain support within the family.

Table 6: HOUSEHOLD TYPES – A COMPARISON OF 1998 AND 2002 (SLOVENIA) household type single, age 65 and over single, age 30-64 single, age less than 30 couple without children, one aged 65 or over couple without children, age less than 65 single parent (children under 18) couple with 1 child (under 18 ) couple with 2 children under 18 couple with 3 or more children under 18 single parent with at least one child over 18 couple with children (at least one over 18) other households (where persons are related) other households (where one or more persons are not related) Total Source: Javornik (2006)

year 1998 3 2.1 0.2

2002 4.2 2.6 0.4

4.9

5.8

5.7 1.3 9 16.6

5.8 1.5 7.6 15.3

4.1

4.1

4.6

4.8

24.2

28.4

23.3

18.4

1 100

1.1 100

3.4. Value changes

Â

9 Â

In this section we briefly address values and attitudes linked to ageing, care for the elderly and their potential change after the transition. This is because they are inextricably linked to issues of intergenerational solidarity and affect how families and communities work, as well as which policies are adopted in the public sphere.

Values are deeply rooted and abstract motivations that direct and explain attitudes, norms, opinions and actions. They can be hierarchically ordered and this ordering differs among individuals, groups and countries. There are two reasons for differences in the value hierarchy. The first is needs and temperament, and the other is exposure to certain social experience (e.g. different welfare regimes). Consequently, when observing values of individuals and groups, the influences of common experiences (such as retirement, illness) or of larger social changes (such as changes of an economic and/or political system) can be seen (Schwartz, 2006; Schwartz and Bardi, 2001; Bardi and Schwartz, 2003). Due to these premises we can expect that the transition in Slovenia might have some effect on values linked to ageing and care for the elderly.

The attitudes of respondents are presented since in research the attitudes and values of people are often not distinguished (see Schwartz, 2006). The general attitude to responsibility for caring for elderly parents is one possible indicator of intergenerational solidarity. In Slovenia (in 2000) the general attitude is that the grown-up children are responsible for caring for their elderly parents (77%). However, almost a third of respondents did not strongly recognise this as a duty of children. Also the most recent data show that in Slovenia a majority (60%) feels that children should pay for their parents’ care if their income is insufficient, which is above the EU-27 average, however almost 40% disagree with this. Here it has to be noted that according to the law2 children have a duty to take care of their elderly parents if they are unable to provide for themselves.

Table 7: ATTITUDES TO OBLIGATIONS OF CARING FOR THE ELDERLY – SLOVENIA It is a duty of adult children to care for their elderly parents Strongly agree

Share (%) 28.7

agree

48.7

Neither agree nor disagree

12.6

Disagree

7.5

Strongly disagree

1.5

Don’t know

0.9

Sources: SJM (2000/2), Toš (1997, 1999, 2004) Graph 2: ATTITUDES TO OBLIGATIONS OF CARING FOR THE ELDERLY – A COMPARISON OF COUNTRIES

2

Marriage and Familiy Relations Act (1976, last revised in 2007).

10

Source: Eurobarometer (2007)

On the other hand, the large majority of respondents see the state as the main actor responsible for ensuring an appropriate standard of living for elderly people. Here the opinion seems to be quite constant, before the transition and also during the decade that followed, with only smaller amounts of fluctuation.

Graph 3: ATTITUDES TO THE STATE’S OBLIGATIONS FOR CARING FOR THE ELDERLY

Sources: Toš (1997, 1999, 2004)

However, the relevance of the family is still seen as very strong and can even be perceived as too strong. Namely, the large majority (67%) of respondents feel that dependent people have to rely too much on their relatives. Here it should also be noted that among the groups listed as likely to abuse and maltreat an elderly person (i.e. children, spouses, siblings,

11

acquaintances, care workers at home, nursing home staff, hospital staff), in Slovenia children are perceived as being the most likely (according to 32% of respondents), which is much higher than the EU-27 average (where 23% perceive children as being the most likely).

Graph 4: ATTITUDES TO DEPENDING ON RELATIVES IN OLD AGE

Source: Eurobarometer (2007)

If conflicts are perceived as strong among the young and elderly at the societal level, this has negative consequences for intergenerational solidarity. The shares of respondents who perceive the tensions between the young and old as being strong fluctuate considerably. At the beginning of the transition, these were perceived as quite high (in 1991) and decreased in subsequent years. However, another peak in perceived tensions can be observed in 1999.

These tensions can tentatively be explained with what was then occurring at the macro level, namely at both times pension reforms were being prepared and the related political and media discussions quite strongly involved themes of old age, pensions etc. This might be the reason for respondents perceiving more tension between these two groups at those times.

Graph 5: PERCEPTION OF TENSIONS BETWEEN THE ELDERLY AND YOUNG

Â

12 Â

Source: Toš (1997, 1999, 2004)

In general, values regarding elderly care are, as expected, also quite stable in the period of transition, showing a strong orientation towards the importance of the family as the main care giver (also in financial terms as it is obliged to potentially pay for the care). In addition, the state’s role is quite consistently seen as very strong.

3.5. Conclusions The changes described above are partly linked to Slovenia’s transition into a democratic society and also to general changes that are occurring due to various societal factors like demographic change, development, restructuring of the economy etc. that are not specific to Slovenia but are characteristic of all European societies.

These changes potentially affect intergenerational flows, mainly in the family context.

Namely, as we have shown above, the family is perceived by people as being an important mediator of risks and care for the elderly (as persistent values in society, not also changing in the transition) and consequently adult children are usually the main source of support for the elderly. On the other hand, the elderly in the existing circumstances (e.g. existing circumstances in the labour market, the changed welfare system) can also be an important resource for families through financial transfers (e.g. profiting from the beneficial retirement schemes that were in place at the beginning of the transition period) or other transfers (e.g. caring for grandchildren in the circumstances of child care being less accessible).

In the following part we will analyse intergenerational transfer flows in the family and community (with neighbours) on the basis of social network analysis.

4. Research methodology 4.1. Research questions The research questions we pose in this article are: How does the younger generation perceive the support flows from the elderly and how do the elderly perceive support from the younger generations? Which micro level factors mediate the flow of support from elderly to young generations (e.g. family and household composition, income, and the education of parents and children, marriage and cohabitation arrangements). Which types of social support (emotional,

13

financial, practical, support and social companionship) are predominantly received in intergenerational transfers?

The analysis will also encompass intergenerational transfers occurring in the community as some support functions can best be performed by close ties such as neighbours or are exclusively performed by neighbours since there is an increasing number of people living alone who either do not have children or whose children live further away from them (see Hoff, 2006).

4.2. Methods and data In measuring the provision of social support, two general approaches can be distinguished – the network generator approach and the role relationship approach. A simple way, using the role relationship approach, to evaluate the provision of social support is to ask a survey question where response categories are types of support providers (e.g. partner, parents, children, friends etc.). This approach is appealing as it saves time and money and is used in large, comparative surveys such as the EQLS (European Quality of Life Survey), ESS (European Social Survey) or ISSP (International Social Survey Programme). However, information obtained by this approach is very limited as the amount of support cannot be estimated, nor the characteristics of support providers (such as their age or place of living) or characteristics of ties between respondent (ego) and support providers (alters).

Most often, when evaluating social support provision the name generator approach to assessing social support networks is employed. The list of respondents (egos) is obtained in the first step. In the second step, existing ties are identified – all alters with whom the respondent has some sort of relationship, using a survey question called a name generator.

When all the ties have been identified, the contents of the ties (provision of social support) and their characteristics (e.g. how often the respondent is in contact with support providers) are assessed. In most cases the characteristics of the alters are also measured, such as their age or gender. The name generator approach yields more and better quality data. However, it is time- and money-consuming and requires considerable effort from the respondent. The name generator approach has been used in SHARE (Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe).

In this section, the 2002 study is described (Social Support Networks of Residents of Slovenia). The study is cross-sectional (Ferligoj et al., 2002). The sample size was 5,013 and the interview mode was computer-assisted telephone interviews. Data were collected from respondents aged 18 and over, with no upper limit. The study gives information about various types of support provision. It provides a representative sample of the Slovenian adult population after weighting. Several social support provisions were assessed, namely small material assistance, social support in the case of illness, financial support, emotional support in the case of trouble with a partner and in the case of sadness or depression, and advice support. The exact wording is found in the Appendix. The final sample includes 5,013 respondents which allows a detailed analysis of socio-demographic groups (sex, age, residential location etc.) In this research a generator of names approach was used to observe social support flows. Respondents indicated by names who were the persons offering them a particular kind of support and then later they defined their relationship with this person. This allows a high quality analysis of the flows of social support between generations. For the analysis of quantitative data we will use modern quantitative methods seeking mutual interaction and dependence between phenomena (bivariate and multivariate analysis

14

methods). Among the indicators of intergenerational solidarity, we will observe the size of the networks and, the composition of the network regarding the indicators of intergenerational solidarity (connectedness between generations, support flows). Quantitative analysis allows an examination of intergenerational solidarity on the micro level (intergenerational family transfers), that is practical help, emotional support, financial support, informational support, social companionship and help in the case of illness. Moreover, it will allow observations of intergenerational transfers in the community (between neighbours).

4.3. Intergenerational solidarity within the family The demographic characteristics of the sample are presented in the first part of this section.

Altogether there were 52% of female and 48% of male respondents. Nearly half of respondents claim that they live in a rural setting (48%, suburban 20% and urban 32%).

About 30% have a primary school education or less, 28% an occupational one, 29% have completed 4 or 5 years of secondary school and 12% have a higher education. Age was recoded into 10 year categories, except the first and the last category (18-29: 22%, 30-39: 19%, 40-49: 19%, 50-59: 16%, 60-69: 13%, 70+: 12%).

Descriptive results are presented in the next part.

We will begin with the total network size and the size of the network providing a particular type of support. The total network size is 6.353. As expected, the largest network size is for socialising and the smallest is for financial support, regardless the age of the respondents.

Network size shrinks along with higher age categories; except for emotional support and support in the case of illness (the network size is the smallest for respondents aged 30-39).

Table 8: NETWORK SIZE

Type of support/Age Socialising Financial support Small practical aid Large practical aid Emotional support Support in the case of illness Total network size

- 29

30-39

40-49

50-59

60-69

70-79

Total

4.44

4.23

4.16

4.26

4.09

3.74

4.20

1.40

1.31

1.23

1.19

1.07

1.03

1.23

1.91

1.84

1.73

1.54

1.48

1.28

1.68

1.42

1.63

1.56

1.54

1.31

1.15

1.46

1.88

1.60

1.61

1.64

1.69

1.60

1.68

1.68

1.59

1.69

1.68

1.61

1.51

1.64

6.53

6.56

6.52

6.37

6.25

5.48

6.35

Next, we present the total network composition in terms of the percentages of the total network represented by a specific tie (such as a partner) and the way we evaluate intergenerational support within the family.

Table 9: DETAILED NETWORK COMPOSITION Detailed network composition % Partner 10.75 Parents 7.98 Brother or sister 8.92 Child 11.54 3 Network sizes cannot be summed up as a particular person (e.g. a partner) may be a source of many types of Other relative 13.40 support.

Co-worker 4.76 Co-member of some organisation 0.27 Â 15 Â Neighbour 8.88 Friend 30.47 Acquaintance 1.77

Overall the network composition presented in so many categories gives little information about the types of ties that are major sources of support. To make the interpretation of the results easier, some categories are collapsed (parents and children – intergenerational ties4, siblings – intragenerational ties, co-member of some organisation, acquaintance and professional consultant are collapsed into the category “other”). A table with these collapsed categories is given below, along with the proportions of ties that are intergenerational within the family and within the total network.

Table 10: NETWORK COMPOSITION Network composition Partner Intergenerational (parents and child) Intragenerational (siblings) Other relatives Total family Intergenerational within the family Co-worker Neighbour Friend Other Total

% 10.75 19.52 8.92 13.40 52.59 37.12 4.76 8.88 30.47 3.30 100.00

The collapsed categories reveal that the total network composition is family-oriented and that intergenerational ties represent 37% of all family ties and 20% of all ties. Friends are also an important part of the network composition (30%), whereas neighbours and co-workers are not. From this point on, only the collapsed categories will be presented in the tables and detailed categories are given in the Appendix.

4

It would be correct to have descriptions of the categories grand parent and grandchildren and to include them in the category »intergenerational ties«. Unfoturnately, these categroies were not provided in the questionnaire.

Therefore, these ties are collapsed into the category »other family«.

16

Considerable variations in network composition are expected across the different types of social support.

Table 11: NETWORK COMPOSITION ACROSS SOCIAL SUPPORT Socialising Financial Small Large support practical practical aid aid Partner 7.59 5.31 6.25 11.12 Intergenerational 12.50 31.62 17.60 22.87 Intragenerational 9.08 13.92 10.67 10.91 Other relative 12.56 12.70 13.95 16.13 Total family 41.73 63.55 48.47 61.03 Intergenerational 29.95 49.76 36.32 37.48 within the family Co-worker 6.25 3.88 2.41 2.23 Neighbour 7.61 4.28 20.17 10.98 Friend 40.75 26.56 26.46 22.45 Other 3.65 1.73 2.50 3.31

Emotional support 33.95 15.38 7.75 4.95 62.03 24.79

Support in the case of illness 33.99 34.85 7.12 6.98 82.93 42.02

5.09 3.91 27.34 1.64

0.60 5.75 9.99 0.72

Let us consider which ties are the most important for a specific type of support and how important intergenerational ties are within the family. First of all, family ties are the most important source of all types of support, except socialising where they are as important as friends. By far the most important are family ties for support in the case of illness (83%); further, intergenerational family ties are the most frequent source of support in the case of illness with regard to the complete network composition (35%). If we consider the proportion of intergenerational family ties with regard to the complete family composition, we can see that intergenerational ties are the most important source of financial support and the least important source of emotional support, exactly opposite to the role of a partner. Thus, people would turn to their partner to talk about important personal matters, and to their parents or children for money. Both partner and intergenerational family ties are equally important sources of support in the case of illness. With regard to practical aid, family ties are diversified. However, intergenerational ties are more important for large practical assistance.

As regards neighbours, they are a less frequent source of support, except for small practical help. Whereas friends are concerned, they are a frequent source of support, apart from support in the case of illness. As the intergenerational ties are by far the most important for provision of financial support an support in the case of illness, we will focus on these two types of social support in further analysis. Tables for all other social support types will be presented in Appendix.

To observe intergenerational exchanges of social support we look at support sources across age categories. We would like to examine where and when adult children turn to their parents for support and where and when aged parents turn to their adult children for support.

Table 12: NETWORK COMPOSITION ACROSS AGE CATEGORIES FOR FINANCIAL SUPPORT Age

Partner

- 29 30-

Â

Intragenerational 6.68

Other relatives 9.64

Total family 72.66

Interg/ Family 66.32

Coworker 2.15

Neighbour

Friend

Other

8.15

Intergenerational 48.19

0.84

23.05

1.30

4.66

27.08

15.25

15.47

62.46

43.36

5.34

3.28

27.91

1.01

17 Â

39 4049 5059 6069 70 +

4.32

16.11

19.21

13.02

52.65

30.60

6.49

4.93

34.56

1.37

4.70

21.15

15.46

12.88

54.19

39.03

4.62

8.10

30.39

2.70

4.75

28.66

17.98

13.09

64.48

44.45

2.12

7.49

23.14

2.77

2.20

44.68

14.17

14.11

75.16

59.45

1.42

5.08

15.88

2.46

Total

5.31

31.62

13.92

12.70

63.55

49.76

3.88

4.28

26.56

1.73

As shown in Table 11, the overall importance of intergenerational ties for providing financial support is by far the most pronounced compared to other types of social support. Overall, intergenerational ties represent 32% of all ties and 50% of all family ties. There are, however, significant differences across the age groups. Namely, intergenerational ties are the majority of support sources within the family for the youngest and the oldest group (about 60%). We estimate that both of these groups turn to the same people for financial support (aged 40-50).

For the two age groups aged 40-49 and 50-59, intergenerational ties are important (31% 39%) but are supplemented by friends (35% - 30%) and intragenerational ties (19% - 15%).

The middle-aged generation can be described as a “sandwich generation”, but nevertheless older people aged 60+ are an important source of financial support for younger generations.

In their present form, the data not allow us to calculate the balance between the age groups (whether older people receive more than they give).

Table 13: NETWORK COMPOSITION ACROSS AGE CATEGORIES FOR SUPPORT IN THE CASE OF ILLNESS Age

Partner

Intragenerational 11.59

Other relatives 3.21

Total family 82.41

Interg/ Family 53.42

Coworker 0.41

Neighbour

Friend

Other

23.58

Intergenerational 44.03

- 29

1.76

14.90

0.53

3039 4049 5059 6069 70 +

48.18

22.43

6.27

7.11

83.98

26.71

0.90

4.81

10.07

0.23

42.58

30.21

7.88

4.38

85.06

35.52

0.71

4.61

9.14

0.49

37.95

36.03

4.37

4.78

83.13

43.34

0.46

7.31

8.65

0.46

29.29

38.17

5.14

10.02

82.62

46.20

0.72

9.31

6.75

0.60

16.05

39.66

4.07

18.81

78.59

50.46

0.37

11.50

6.63

2.92

Total

33.99

34.85

7.12

6.98

82.93

42.02

0.60

5.75

9.99

0.72

Help in the case of illness as defined in our study – for those who cannot leave their apartment to go shopping or buy medicines – does not necessarily require a shared household. However, the family represents the vast majority of support sources (83% on average) and it is relatively constant across the age groups. Intergenerational ties would give 22%- 44% of all ties and 27% to 53% of family ties, indicating that the youngest and the oldest would turn to the middle generation, and at the same time adult children would turn to their parents for support in the case of illness. Intergenerational support in the case of illness is even more emphasised than in the case of financial support.

Effects of demographic characteristics on networks size

18

Other demographic characteristics of households and respondents will now be addressed (the related tables are found in Appendix 3). As regards network size (Table 21 – Table 26,), household income and education have similar effects. The higher the income and the higher the education, the larger the network size (except for large practical aid). Women have larger networks for socialising emotional support and support in the case of illness, whereas men have larger networks for financial support and large practical aid. While couples with children have larger networks for socialising, financial support, emotional support and support in the case of illness, respondents living in multigenerational households have larger networks for practical aid. As regards marital status, single respondents have the largest networks, except for large practical aid. As regards intergenerational sources of social support, we will outline only the most significant differences across the demographical variables.

As regards financial support (Table 37 - Table 42), intergenerational sources represent about 30% of all network sources, except for respondents living alone (42%) and divorced respondents (42%). Intergenerational sources within the family represent a larger percentage of family resources, e.g., people living alone and single-parent intergenerational sources represent about half of family sources (53%, 56%), 56% for respondents living in the cities, 63% for single respondents and 60% for widowed respondents. There are no systematic differences across other variables, except for gender – women use more intergenerational sources than men.

As regards social support in the case of illness (Table 73 - Table 78), intergenerational ties are more important than in any other case (26%-55% of all ties are intergenerational ties). People living alone and single parents have about half and about three-quarters of intergenerational ties in all family ties, respectively (53%, 72%). Intergenerational ties in the family are more frequent for people living in the city (45%), in households with the lowest income (48%), with the lowest education (47%) and women (48%), and widowed (67%) and divorced respondents (74%).

Already from the descriptive observation of intergenerational ties within the total network and within the family, some findings are common to all support types. Women, respondents living alone, single parents, respondents with a lower education, respondents living in poorer households, as well as widowed and divorced respondents would rely more on intergenerational ties than others. We would like to know how these socio-demographic characteristics are interrelated among themselves and with the age of respondents.

Effects of demographic characteristics on share of intergenerational ties in social support networks In the next step we closely observe only intergenerational ties within the whole social support network and the percentage of intergenerational ties in the family. Multiple Classification Analysis (MCA) was chosen as the multivariate analysis technique. Multivariate (MCA) coefficients indicate how much the network composition – percentages of intergenerational ties and intergenerational ties within the family – deviate from the mean as a result of a given demographic characteristic of respondents, while controlling for the effects of all other demographic characteristics included in the analysis. Two measures of the overall effect of each predictor are obtained, along with the MCA Eta and MCA Beta. The MCA Eta coefficient measures the strength of the bivariate relationship between a percentage of the intergenerational ties within the social support network and a demographic characteristic.

19

MCA Beta coefficients, on the other hand, measure the strength of the relationship, controlled for the other predictor (demographic characteristics) variables in the model. The rank order of the Betas indicates the relative importance of the predictor variables – demographic characteristics in their explanation of the dependent variable – percentages of intergenerational ties within the social support network. Finally, the multiple R2, indicating the total proportion of variance explained by all predictors together, is estimated.

Next to the columns with Beta coefficients there are columns with the predicted mean value of intergenerational ties and the deviations, which indicate how much the percentage of intergenerational ties changes owing to a specific demographic characteristic, while controlling for the effects of all other characteristics. Thus, the average percentage of intergenerational ties for socialising for people above 70 is 12.49% (the mean percentage of intergenerational ties for socialising) + 8.43% (the effect of age) = 20.92%, after controlling for all other effects. As this is an additive model, one can calculate the percentages of the intergenerational ties for the other characteristics as well. For example, the percentage of intergenerational ties for socialising for women above 70, with a lower education and living in a rural setting is: 12.49 + 8.43 + 3.77 + 0.41 + 1.50 = 26.6%.

We conducted several multivariate analyses separately for each type of social support, the percentage of intergenerational ties within the whole network and the percentage of intergenerational ties within family ties. In the first set of analyses, four independent variables were included: age, gender, type of setting and education. In the second series of multivariate analyses we included age, gender and type of household. In the third series of multivariate analyses we included age, gender and marital status. Those separate analyses were needed as household type and marital status are interrelated variables that both interact with age; for example, it is highly unlikely to find young respondents who are widowed and living alone.

Empty cells are somewhat tolerated, but there should not be a large number of empty cells in the multivariate cross tables.

Table 14: MCA FOR FINANCIAL SUPPORT AFTER CONTROLLING FOR AGE, GENDER, COMMUNITY SETTING AND EDUCATION

Age

Up to 29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70 and above Male Female Rural Suburban City Occupational or less 4 year

Gender Community

Education

Inter-generational Predicted Mean = 31.61 Deviation Mean Adjusted Adjusted N Eta Beta for for Factors Factors 997 48.19 16.58 752 27.13 -4.48 676 15.96 -15.65 0.281 0.276 566 21.15 -10.46 407 28.66 -2.95 349 44.68 13.07 1780 26.29 -5.32 0.115 0.110 1966 36.43 4.82 1725 29.57 -2.04 755 0.050 0.029 31.31 -0.30 1266 34.56 2.95 2087 1659

0.053

0.028

29.51

-2.10

34.25

2.64

***

***

*

Inter-generational Family Predicted Mean = 48.46 Deviation Mean Adjusted Adjusted N Eta Beta for for Factors Factors 763 65.12 16.66 506 42.37 -6.10 393 29.18 -19.29 0.276 0.267 335 38.37 -10.09 277 44.01 -4.45 275 57.79 9.33 1110 44.09 -4.38 0.081 0.078 1438 51.84 3.38 1211 43.45 -5.01 497 0.108 0.084 49.56 1.10 841 55.03 6.57 1394 1154

0.065

0.025

45.63

-2.83

51.88

3.42

20

***

*** ***

secondary or more Multiple R2

0.093

0.091

As regards financial support (Table 14), a similar pattern emerges, namely, age and gender have a strong effect on intergenerational ties, education on the percentage of intergenerational ties in the social support network and community setting on the percentage of intergenerational ties in the family. As regards financial transfers, only the youngest (aged up to 29) and the oldest (aged 70+), women, and the more educated rely on intergenerational support sources. As regards family intergenerational ties, respondents living in urban areas rely more on intergenerational ties than respondents living in rural areas, apart from the youngest, the oldest, women and more educated. Age, gender, type of setting and education explain about 9% of the variability of intergenerational sources of financial support. It is worth emphasising that intergenerational sources of financial support represent about 30% of total social support sources and almost 50% of family social support sources.

Table 15: MCA FOR SUPPORT IN THE CASE OF ILLNESS AFTER CONTROLLING FOR AGE, GENDER, COMMUNITY SETTING AND EDUCATION

Age

Up to 29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70 and above Male Female Rural Suburban City Occupational or less 4 year secondary or more

Gender Community

Education

Multiple R2

Inter-generational Predicted Mean = 34.84 Deviation Mean Adjusted Adjusted N Eta Beta for for Factors Factors 1070 44.03 9.19 888 22.47 -12.38 869 30.21 -4.63 0.183 0.182 719 36.03 1.19 593 38.17 3.33 501 39.53 4.68 2158 30.07 -4.77 0.108 0.107 2481 38.99 4.15 2215 34.27 -0.57 931 0.017 0.015 34.61 -0.23 1493 35.83 0.99 2713 0.017

***

***

Inter-generational Family Predicted Mean = 41.86 Deviation Mean Adjusted Adjusted N Eta Beta for for Factors Factors 946 53.06 11.20 788 26.97 -14.89 774 35.13 -6.74 0.219 0.217 628 43.19 1.33 522 46.22 4.36 416 49.66 7.79 1902 35.45 -6.41 0.139 0.136 2172 47.48 5.61 1976 40.07 -1.80 809 0.047 0.046 41.81 -0.06 1289 44.65 2.79

35.43

0.59

2351

34.01

-0.83

1723

0.019

1926 0.045

0.021

42.63

0.77

40.81

-1.05

0.027

*** **

*

0.069

Intergenerational support in the case of illness (Table 15) is affected significantly by age and gender. Intergenerational ties in the family are also affected significantly by the type of setting and education, but not so strongly as by age and gender. As before, the youngest (aged up to 29) and the oldest two groups of respondents (aged 60+) and women rely more on intergenerational ties. Intergenerational ties within the family are more frequent for respondents living in urban areas and for less educated respondents. As regards social support types, support in the case of illness is frequently provided by intergenerational ties (35% of whole social support network, 42% of ties in the family). However, only 5% to 7% of the

Â

***

21 Â

variability in percentages of intergenerational ties is explained by age, gender, education and type of setting.

If we sum up, age and gender are significant predictors of the selection of intergenerational ties for the provision of all types of social support. Age is by far the most important predictor.

Most often, the youngest and the oldest group have the largest proportion of intergenerational ties for all types of support, with the exception of socialising (young respondents would not turn to intergenerational ties for socialising). Without exception, women would have a larger proportion of intergenerational ties than men. As regards community and education, their predictive power is less systematic and weaker. For example, intergenerational ties would be more frequent in the social support networks of people living in urban areas than in rural or suburban areas. The effect of the type of setting is small. The effect of education is not systematic, for some types of support intergenerational ties would be more frequent for more educated respondents (large practical aid, small practical aid, financial support), and for some types of support for less educated respondents (socialising, emotional support, support in the case of illness – see tables in Appendix 3).

For the next series of multivariate analyses, the age categories had to be collapsed owing to the interaction between age and household composition (it is more likely that young people live alone, middle aged in households described as a single parent with children or couple with children etc.). Therefore, age was recoded to produce a smaller number of categories for the second and third series of multivariate analyses (aged up to 29, 30 – 59, 60 +). The recoding was done on the bases of the univariate analysis and the first series of MCAs, taking into account at which ages intergenerational support was more or less frequent.

Table 16: MCA FOR FINANCIAL SUPPORT AFTER CONTROLLING FOR AGE, GENDER, AND HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION

Age

Up to 29 30-59 60 and above Gender Male Female Household Living composition alone Single parent with child(ren) Couple Couple with child(ren) Multi generational Other Multiple R

2

Inter-generational Inter-generational Family Predicted Predicted Mean = 31.63 Deviation Mean = 48.48 Deviation Mean Mean Adjusted Adjusted Adjusted Adjusted N Eta Beta for for N Eta Beta for for Factors Factors Factors Factors 993 48.87 17.24 759 66.00 17.51 1992 0.26 0.26 22.00 -9.63 1234 37.57 -10.91 *** 0.25 0.26 *** 755 34.36 2.73 552 48.78 0.30 1777 0.11 0.11 1963

26.44 36.33

-5.19 4.70

1110 0.08 0.08 1436

44.37 51.66

-4.12 3.18

395

33.20

1.57

277

51.50

3.02

334

30.39

-1.24

220

51.27

2.79

549 0.03 0.03

32.62

0.99

383 0.06 0.05

48.90

0.42

1766

31.87

0.24

1197

48.09

-0.39

264

28.10

-3.54

185

41.29

-7.19

432

31.10

-0.54

284

49.14

0.66

0.08

***

0.07

22

***

After controlling for age and gender, the household composition of the respondent is not significantly related to the provision of financial support (Table 16) via intergenerational ties.

We assume that the opportunity structure – household composition (whether or not intergenerational ties are provided within the household) – per se is not a relevant predictor of the provision of financial support. Probably, other factors such as the economic status of the respondent and its social support network members are more important.

Table 17: MCA FOR SUPPORT IN THE CASE OF ILLNESS AFTER CONTROLLING FOR AGE, GENDER, AND HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION Inter-generational Inter-generational Family Predicted Predicted Mean = 34.85 Deviation Mean = 41.85 Deviation Mean Mean Adjusted Adjusted Adjusted Adjusted N Eta Beta for for N Eta Beta for for Factors Factors Factors Factors Age Up to 29 1066 42.35 7.50 942 52.12 10.27 30-59 2474 0.16 0.16 28.70 -6.15 *** 2190 0.19 0.18 34.84 -7.01 *** 60 and above 1094 41.44 6.60 940 47.87 6.02 Gender Male 2155 30.84 -4.01 1902 36.75 -5.10 0.11 0.09 *** 0.14 0.11 *** Female 2479 38.33 3.49 2170 46.31 4.47 Household Living alone 512 31.75 -3.10 387 47.59 5.74 composition Single parent with 396 54.03 19.18 335 67.87 26.02 child(ren) Couple 726 24.76 -10.09 636 30.69 -11.16 0.17 0.17 *** 0.23 0.21 *** Couple with 2131 35.23 0.38 1929 40.28 -1.57 child(ren) Multi 311 36.25 1.40 285 40.96 -0.88 generational Other 558 34.95 0.10 499 40.67 -1.18 Multiple R2

0.06

0.10

Intergenerational ties are very important for providing support in the case of illness (Table 17) for single parents with children, even after controlling for age and gender. Intergenerational ties would, on average, represent about 42% of the social support ties providing such support.

Therefore, these ties are very important on average for all groups of respondents. Household composition is a significant predictor of the variability in the proportion of intergenerational ties.

If we summarise (see also tables in Appendix 3), the effect of the household composition of a respondent on the percentage of intergenerational ties in their social support network is only significant for some types of social support after controlling for age and gender. The provision of financial support and small practical aid is independent of household composition. The provision of emotional support, large practical aid, support in the case of illness and socialising is affected by household composition. It is more likely that single parents living with children will have a larger proportion of intergenerational ties in their social support network than other respondents. It is surprising that people living in multiple generational households would not have more than an average proportion of intergenerational ties within their social support networks – one would assume that their opportunity structure

23

would enhance the selection of intergenerational ties. On the other hand, it seems that singe parents living with children would rely heavily on intergenerational ties, perhaps to compensate for the absence of the second parent. Also, people living alone would rely on intergenerational ties more often than others, but only for emotional support and large practical help.

Table 18: MCA FOR FINANCIAL SUPPORT AFTER CONTROLLING FOR AGE, GENDER, AND MARITAL STATUS Inter-generational Predicted Mean = 30.66 Deviation Mean Adjusted Adjusted N Eta Beta for for Factors Factors Up to 29 994 40.01 16.36 30-59 1934 0.27 0.25 22.03 -8.62 *** 60 and 508 31.48 0.83 above Male 1746 26.30 -4.36 0.10 0.10 *** Female 1691 35.16 4.50 Single 1047 32.51 1.86 Married 2257 29.67 -0.99 0.18 0.03 Divorced or 132 32.77 2.12 widowed

Age

Gender

Marital status Multiple R2

0.08

Inter-generational Family Predicted Mean = 47.48 Deviation Mean Adjusted Adjusted N Eta Beta for for Factors Factors 762 62.67 15.18 1198 0.27 0.23 38.13 -9.35 *** 362 47.48 -1.01 1087 0.07 0.07 1234 758 236 0.21 0.73 1328

44.19 50.39 51.24 45.02

-3.29 2.90 3.76 -2.47

57.71

10.23

***

*

0.08

Marital status does not affect the proportion of intergenerational ties for financial support (Table 18). If we only look at the family context, the effect of marital status is significant after controlling for age and education. Divorced or widowed respondents would turn to intergenerational ties more often than other respondents. There is, of course, a strong interaction of marital status with age and gender, with widowed respondents also being older and more likely women.

Table 19: MCA FOR SUPPORT IN THE CASE OF ILLNESS AFTER CONTROLLING FOR AGE, GENDER, AND MARITAL STATUS

Age

Gender Marital

Â

Up to 29 30-59 60 and above Male Female Single

Inter-generational Inter-generational Family Predicted Deviatio Predicted Deviatio Mean = 32.93 Mean = 39.28 Mean n Mean n Adjusted Adjusted Adjusted Adjusted Bet Bet N Eta for for N Eta for for a a Factors Factors Factors Factors 1068 38.62 5.69 945 42.24 2.96 2394 0.17 0.10 29.73 -3.19 2119 36.62 -2.76 *** 0.20 0.07 *** 737 35.07 2.14 638 43.72 4.44 2105 0.09 0.08 2094 1154 0.22 0.18

29.79 36.09 40.27

-3.14 3.16 8.34

1856 0.11 0.10 1846 *** 960 0.31 0.29 ***

34.87 43.72 55.72

-4.41 4.44 16.44

*** ***

24 Â

status

Married 2878 Divorced or 167 widowed

Multiple R2

0.06

28.29

-4.64

2607

31.60

-7.68

55.15

22.23

135

70.72

31.44

0.11

Marital status is a significant predictor of the proportion of intergenerational ties in the social support network providing support in the case of illness (Table 19) after controlling for age and gender. Even more, its effect is stronger than the effect of age and gender.

Intergenerational ties would provide support in the case of illness more often for single, divorced and widowed respondents than for married respondents. Especially widowed or divorced respondents would rely on intergenerational ties.

Overall, marital status is an important predictor of the proportion of intergenerational ties for the provision of social support. It is as important as age or even a more important predictor of the proportion of intergenerational ties in social support networks (see also tables in Appendix 3). Without exception (for all support types), widowed or divorced respondents would have the highest proportion of intergenerational ties in their social support networks. These results are in agreement with multivariate analyses for household types where respondents, living alone or single parents with children, would have the largest proportion of intergenerational ties in social support networks. It seems that whenever respondents cannot rely on a partner for social support they would rely on their parents or children instead.

Conclusions In the article we have analysed intergenerational solidarity through an analysis of social networks in the context of transitional changes. We did not attempt to differentiate the individual influences on intergenerational solidarity, as this would be a difficult if not impossible task. However, we tried to portray the situation in Slovenia and describe some of the changes potentially linked to the transition context. Transitional changes seem to have been directed in a way that encourages or pushes towards solidarity within the family (Mandič and Hlebec 2005, Šadl 2005; Hlebec, Filipovič Hrast and Kogovšek, 2010). This was motivated mainly by the slow withdrawal of the state in providing welfare services and the fragmented long-term care services, leaving the family as the unit responsible for care of the elderly (Kolarič et al. 2009; Mali 2007; Hvalič Tuzery 2007). This role of the family was also strong in the past and is part of the value structure of people.

Consequently, it is not surprising that we have found that among the social support networks it is the family which plays the biggest role in practically all support types and that, within the family, intergenerational support is very strong for all age groups. This shows how intergenerational transfers generally are strong in both directions, from the young to the old and from the old to the young. However, the importance of intergenerational flows increases with age, which seems to indicate the stronger reliance of the elderly on support from the young than the other way around. We are unable to evaluate amounts of hours or money transfered in intergenerational relationships as Albertini, Kohli and Vogel (2007) or Kohli and Albertini (2007). Nevertheless the relative importance of intergenerational ties within social support networks is confirmed, particularly for financial support and help in the case of illness.

25

Especially in the case of illness, intergenerational support represents a very big part of family support, which is also the dominant support source (Pahor, Domajnko and Hlebec 2010). This corresponds to the situation where long-term care is fragmented and health care is becoming less available or people have very unequal access to both. Consequently, the family’s role as a mediator and main support giver is vital and here intergenerational ties are very prominent.

As the data show, caring for the elderly is a daily task for a significant share of people. Yet the reverse transfer flows are also very common, even if less evident in this analysis, since grandparents are an important resource for caring for their grandchildren.

The transitional circumstances have in some way also been very difficult, especially for the younger generation (see Črnak Meglič, 2005; Mandič, 1996, 2001, 2006, 2009; Trbanc, 1996, 2005, 2006, 2007) due to the unfavourable labour market, housing market etc. which also means poorer financial resources for the young. Again, it is here that intergenerational transfers play a very prominent role within support networks (i.e. from parents to children).

However, also for the older generation this type of intergenerational support is vital.

Therefore, even though the state is seen as being responsible for providing a suitable standard of living for the elderly, the family must compensate to a large degree when that does not actually happen (which also corresponds to the prevailing opinion held by people that children are responsible for financing the care of their parents). This situation is however very difficult for the middle generation, which in this way is becoming the sandwich generation, being a very important source of financial support for both the young and the elderly. The middle aged (40-60) are therefore less able to rely on intergenerational support than other age groups, even though also for this group this support is quite common.

For socialising and emotional support, the importance of intergenerational support is less evident, even though still present (see Šadl 2005). Here support is more diversified among various support givers. Yet it again significantly increases with age and seems to indicate the flow moves more strongly from the young to the elderly than vice versa.

Ties in the community seem to be generally less important and here the intergenerational relations also could not be analysed. However, they are an important source of support in the case of small practical help, particularly for the elderly generation, therefore relieving some of the burden on the family (Filipovič Hrast 2007). In addition, the elderly themselves might be also more active in the community and giving various types of support to community members as the share of those active in the community through voluntary work is quite high.

Perhaps surprisingly, for large practical aid the community is much less important, while again the family and also intergenerational support within the family play a role.

Therefore, intergenerational support is very important for almost all types of support flows and seems to play a very important buffering role in cases where perhaps the transition has brought new risks and changes. The transfer flows very clearly run in both directions, especially when it comes to financial support. However, further exploration of intergenerational solidarity in ways, comparable to other cross-national surveys, such as SHARE, has to be undertaken in the future.

26

References Adam, Frane (1994): After four years of democracy: fragility and stability: lessons from an accelerated evolution of the political system. In Frane Adam and Gregor Tomc (eds.), Small societies in transition: the case of Slovenia: transformation processes in a small post-socialist society, 35-50. Ljubljana: Slovene Sociological Association: Institute for Social Sciences.

Adam, Frane and Rončević, Borut (2004): Razvojni potencial socialnega kapitala: Slovenija v evropskem kontekstu. Družboslovne razprave 20 (46/47): 219-237. Available at http://dk.fdv.uni-lj.si/dr/dr46-47AdamRoncevic.PDF, 7. 8. 2010.

Albertini, M., Kohli, M., and Vohel, C. (2007): Intergererational Transfers of time and money in European families: common patterns different regimes? Journal of European Social Policy 17: 319–334.

Antonucci, T. C. (1986): Measuring Social Support Networks: Hierarchical Mapping Technique. Generations 1: 10–12.

Bardi, A. and Schwartz, S. H. (2003): Values and behavior: Strength and structure of relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 29: 1207–1220.

Beck, Ulrich and Beck-Gernsheim, Elisabeth (2002): The normal chaos of love. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Berkman, L. F. and Syme, S. L. (1979): Social Networks, Host Resistance and Mortality: A Nine-Year Follow Up Study of Alameda County Residents. American Journal of Epidemiology 109: 225–254.

Burleson, B. R., Albrecht, T. L. and Sarason, I. G. (ed.) (1994): Communication of Social Support: Messages, Interactions, Relationships, and Community. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Caplan, G. (1974): Support Systems and Community Mental Health: Lectures on Concept Development. New York: Behavioral Publications.

Cassel, J. (1976): The Contribution of the Social Environment to Host-Resistance. American Journal of Epidemiology 104: 107–122.

CEC- Commission of the European communities (2006): Commission communication. The demographic future of Europe – from challenge to opportunity. Brussels. Available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2006:0571:FIN:EN:PDF, 7. 8.

2010.

CEC- Commission of the European communities (2005): Commission communication. Green Paper - Confronting demographic change: a new solidarity between the generations. Brussels.

Available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2005/com2005_0094en01.pdf, 7. 8. 2010.

27

Cobb, S. (1976): Social Support as a Moderator of Life Stress. Psychosomatic Medicine 38: 300–314. Črnak Meglič, A. (ed.) (2005): Otroci in mladi v prehodni družbi. Ljubljana: Urad za mladino.

Dragoš, S. and Leskošek, V. (2003): Družbena neenakost in socialni kapital. Ljubljana: Mirovni inštitut, Inštitut za sodobne družbene in politične študije.

Dremelj, P. (2003): Sorodstvene vezi kot vir socialne opore posameznikov. Družboslovne razprave lXIX (43): 149–170.

Eurobarometer (2007).

Standard Eurobarometer 67.

Available http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb67/eb67_en.htm, 13. 5. 2009.

at

Eurostat

at

(2008):

Tables.

Available

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&plugin=1&language=en&pco de=tps00028, 13. 5. 2009.

EQLS – European Quality of Life Survay (2003). Available at http://www.unicefirc.org/datasets/EQLS_matrix.pdf , 13. 5. 2009.

Ferligoj, A. et al. (2002): Omrežja socialnih opor prebivalstva Slovenije. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede in Inštitut Republike Slovenije za socialno varstvo.

Filipovič, M. (2007): Prostorska determiniranost omrežij starejših in vloga sosedov v časovni perspektivi. Teorija in praksa 44 (1/2): 298–316.

Filipovič, M., Kogovšek, T. and Hlebec, V. (2005): Starostniki in njihova vpetost v sosedska omrežja. Družboslovne razprave 21 (49/50): 205–221.

Freedman, V. A., Wolf, D. A., Soldo, B. J. and Stephen, E. H. (1991): Intergenerational transfers? A question of perspective. The Gernotologist 31: 640 - 647.

Grafenauer, B. (2000): Lokalna samouprava na Slovenskem. Maribor: Univerza v Mariboru, Pravna Fakulteta.

Hampton, K. N. and Wellman, B. (1999): Netville On-Line and Off-Line: Observing and Surveying a Wired Suburb. American Behavioral Scientist 43: 475–492.

Hampton, K. N. and Wellman, B. (2000): Examining Community in the Digital Neighborhood: Early Results from Canada's Wired Suburb. In T. Ishida and K. Isbister (eds.), Digital Cities: Technologies, Experiences, and Future Perspectives, 194–208. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

28

Hanžek, M. (ed.) (1998): Human development report: Slovenia 1998. Ljubljana: Institute of Macroeconomic Analysis and Development.

Hanžek, M. and Gregorčič, M. (eds.) (1999): Human development report: Slovenia 1999.

Ljubljana: Institute of Macroeconomic Analysis and Development.

Hlebec, V. (2003): Socialna omrežja starostnikov v Sloveniji. Družboslovne razprave 19 (43): 171–182. Available at http://dk.fdv.uni-lj.si/dr/dr43Hlebec.PDF, 12. 5. 2009.

Hlebec, V. (2007): Implications of population ageing for family relations and intergenerational solidarity. ESCR Workshop in Oxford. Oxford.

Hlebec, V. (ed.) (2009): Starejši ljudje v družbi sprememb. Maribor: Aristej.

Hlebec, V., Filipovič Hrast, M, and Kogovšek, T. (2010): Social networks in Slovenia changes during the transition period. European Societies. Forthcoming.

Hoff, A. (2006): Zemljepisna oddaljenost in pogostnost stikov med ostarelimi starši in odraslimi otroki v Nemčiji - prečna kohortna in longitudinalna raziskava. Kakovostna starost 9 (2): 2–15.

Hojnik-Zupanc, Ida, Ličer, Nina and Hlebec, Valentina (1996): Varovalni alarmni sistem kot socialna inovacija v slovenskem prostoru. Zdravstveno varstvo 35 (9/10): 289-294.

House, J. S. (1981): Work Stress and Social Support. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

Hvalič Touzery, S. (2007): Supporting family carers of older people in Europe - the national background report for Slovenia. Hamburg, Münster: LIT Verlag.

Ignjatović, Miroljub (2002): Družbene posledice povečanja prožnosti trga delovne sile.

Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede.

Javornik, J. S. (2006): Socialni razgledi 2006. Available at http://miha.ef.unilj.si/_dokumenti3plus2/191029/Socialni_razgledi_UMAR_2006.pdf, 13. 5. 2009.

Kanjuo-Mrčela, Aleksandra and Ignjatović, Miroljub (2004): Neprijazna fleksibilizacija dela in zaposlovanja - potreba po oblikovanju varne fleksibilnosti. In Ivan Svetlik and Branko Ilič (eds.), Razpoke v zgodbi o uspehu: primerjalna analiza upravljanja človeških virov v Sloveniji. Ljubljana: Sophia.

Kogovšek, T., Hlebec, V., Dremelj, P., and Ferligoj, A. (2003): Omrežja socialne opore Ljubljančanov. Družboslovne razprave 19 (43): 183–204.

Kohli, M., and Albertini, M. (2007): The generational contract in the Family: Explaining Regime Differences in Financial Transfers from Parents to Children in Europe. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.

Kolarič, Z. (1992): From socialist to post-socialist social policy. In I. Svetnik (ed.), Social policy in Slovenia, 15–32. Avebury: Ashgate.

29

Kolarič, Z., Rakar, T., Kopač Mrak (2009): Slovenski sistem blaginje v procesu postopnega spreminjanja. In V. Hlebec (ed.), Starejši ljudje v družbi sprememb. Maribor: Aristej.

Kopač, Anja (2005): Od brezpogojne k pogojevani državi blaginje - spremembe znotraj koncepta državljanstva. Družboslovne razprave 21 (49/50): 51-64.

Krause, N. (1999): Assessing Change Research on Aging 21(4): 539–569.

in

Social

Support

During

Late

Life.

Lin, N., Ye, X., and Ensel, W. M. (1999): Social Support and Depressed Mood: A Structural Analysis. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 40: 344–359.

Mandič, S. (1996): Stanovanjska mobilnost in izbira stanovanja: koncepti in nekaj podatkov.

Družboslovne razprave 12 (21): 105–124.

Mandič, S. (2001): Residential mobility versus in place adjustments in Slovenia: viewpoint from a society in transition. Housing studies 16 (1): 53–73.

Mandič, S., in Hlebec, V. (2005): Socialno omrežje kot okvir upravljanja s kakovostjo življenja in spremembe v Sloveniji med letoma 1987 in 2002. Družboslovne razprave 21 (45/50): 263–285. Available at http://dk.fdv.uni-lj.si/dr/dr49-50MandicHlebec.PDF, 12. 5.

2009.

Mandič, S. (2006): Stanovanjske strategije. In S. Mandič in A. Cirman (eds.), Stanovanje v Sloveniji 2005, 71–84. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede.

Mandič, S. (2009): Medgeneracijsko zavezništvo, izmenjava virov blaginje in sodobne dileme. In V. Hlebec (ed.), Starejši ljudje v družbi sprememb. Maribor: Aristej.

Marriage and Familiy Relations Act (Zakon o zakonski zvezi in družinskih razmerjih ZZZDR) (1976): Ur. l.

RS 15/1976.

Available at http://zakonodaja.gov.si/rpsi/r00/predpis_ZAKO40.html, 13. 5. 2009.

Pahor, Majda, Domajnko Barbara and Valentina Hlebec (2010): Social support in the case of illness: intergenerational solidarity. Forthcoming. Zdravstveni vestnik.

Rener, Tanja (1995): Ideologija krize. In Tanja Rener, Vika Potočnik and Vera Kozmik (eds.), Družine, 15-23. Ljubljana: Vitrum.

Schwartz, S. H. (2006): Value orientations: Measurement, antecedents and consequences across nations. In R. Jowell, C. Roberts, R. Fitzgerald and G. Eva (eds.), Measuring attitudes cross-nationally - lessons from the European Social Survey. London: Sage Schwartz, S. H. and Bardi, A. (2001): Value hierarchies across cultures: Taking a similarities perspective . Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology 32: 268–290.

30

Silverstein, M., Chen, X. and Heller, K. (1996): Too much of a good thing? Intergenerational social support and the psychological well-being of aging parents. Journal of Marriage and the Family 58: 970–982.

SJM - Slovensko javno mnenje – Slovenian Public Opinion (2000/2). Available at http://nesstar2.adp.fdv.uni-lj.si/webview/?object=http://nesstar2.adp.fdv.unilj.si:80/obj/fStudy/sjm002, 13. 5. 2009.

Stropnik, Nada, Rebolj, Tine, Prevolnik, Matejka and Rupel, Valentina (2003): Country study Slovenia. Social protection in the candidate countries. Berlin: AKA. SURS - Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia (2009): Statistical yearbook. Available at http://www.stat.si/letopis/2009/04_09/04-08-09.htm, 7. 8. 2010. Šadl, Zdenka (2005): Družbene spremembe, travmatične emocije in emocionalna opora.

Družboslovne razprave 21 (49/50): 223-242. Švab, Alenka (2001): Družina: od modernosti k postmodernosti. Ljubljana: Znanstveno in publicistično središče.

Thoits, P. A. (1985): Social Support and Psychological Well-Being: Theoretical Possibilities.

In I. G. Sarason and B. R. Sarason (eds.), Social Support: Theory, Research and Applications, 51–72. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

Toš, N. (ed.) (1997): Vrednote v prehodu I. Slovensko javno mnenje 1968-1990. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede, Inštitut za družbene vede, Center za raziskovanje javnega mnenja.

Toš, N. (ur.) (1999): Vrednote v prehodu II. Slovensko javno mnenje 1990-1998. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede, Inštitut za družbene vede, Center za raziskovanje javnega mnenja.

Toš, N. (ur.) (2004): Vrednote v prehodu III. Slovensko javno mnenje 1999-2004. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede, Inštitut za družbene vede, Center za raziskovanje javnega mnenja.

Trbanc, M. (2005): Zaposlovanje in brezposelnost mladih. In A. Črnak Meglič (ed.), Otroci in mladina v prehodni družbi, 161–188. Maribor: Založba Aristej.

Trbanc, Martina (2006): Employment and unemployment situation of young people. In Andreja Črnak-Meglič (ed.), Children and youth in the transitional society: analysis of the situation in Slovenia, 171-200. Ljubljana: Ministry of Education and Sport, The Slovenian Office for Youth. Maribor: Aristej.

Trbanc, Martina (2007): Poti mladih v zaposlitev: primerjava Slovenije z drugimi državami EU. In Anton Kramberger and Samo Pavlin (eds.), Zaposljivost v Sloveniji: analiza prehoda iz šol v zaposlitve: stanje, napovedi, primerjave, 38-63. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede.

31

Trbanc, Martina (1996): Social exclusion: the concept and data indicating exclusion in Slovenia. Družboslovne razprave 12 (22/23): 99-114. Available at http://dk.fdv.unilj.si/dr/dr22-23Trbanc.PDF, 7. 8. 2010.

Vaux, A. (1985): Variations in Social Support Associated with Gender, Ethnicity, and Age. Journal of Social Issues 41: 89–110.

Vaux, A. (1988): Social Support: Theory, Research, and Intervention. New York: Praeger.

Appendix: Question wordings 1. Sometimes people socialise with other people, for example, they visit each other, go on a trip together, have dinner together and such. Who are the people you usually socialise with?

2. Suppose you have found yourself in a situation that you need a larger sum of money which you do not have (for example, five average monthly wages). Who would you turn to (a person, not an institution such as a bank)?

3. Sometimes people borrow things from other people such as tools or ask them for help with small household tasks. Who would you usually turn to for support in such cases?

4. Try to remember the last time you had a large household task or worked outdoors or in the garden (such as building or renovating a house or flat, larger garden tasks). Who did you turn to for support the last time you were in such situation?

5. Sometimes people discuss their important personal matters with other people, for example when they quarrel with somebody, when they have problems at work and so on. Who do you usually talk to about personal matters that are important to you?

6. Suppose that you become seriously ill or become fragile and cannot leave your apartment to go shopping or to buy medicines. Who would you usually turn to for support in such a situation?

32

Appendix 2 Table 20: DETAILED NETWORK COMPOSITION ACROSS TYPES OF SOCIAL SUPPORT % Socialising Financial Small Large Emotional support practical aid practical aid support

Partner Parents Brother or sister Child Other relative Co-worker Co-member Neighbour Friend Acquaintance Professional consultant Other Total

7.59 3.22 9.08 9.29 12.56 6.25 0.44 7.61 40.75 1.68 0.06

5.31 21.77 13.92 9.86 12.70 3.88 0.22 4.28 26.56 0.63 0.11

6.25 9.98 10.67 7.63 13.95 2.41 0.06 20.17 26.46 1.32 0.13

11.12 12.35 10.91 10.52 16.13 2.23 0.06 10.98 22.45 2.38 0.10

33.95 6.47 7.75 8.90 4.95 5.09 0.17 3.91 27.34 0.53 0.20

Support in the case of illness 33.99 14.00 7.12 20.85 6.98 0.60 0.05 5.75 9.99 0.35 0.02

1.47 100.00

0.77 100.00

0.99 100.00

0.77 100.00

0.74 100.00

0.31 100.00

33

Appendix 3 Table 21: NETWORK SIZE ACROSS HOUSEHOLD TYPES Type of support/Household

Single

Single parent with children

Couple

Multigenerational household

Other

Total

4.18

Couple with children 4.29

Socialising

3.80

4.02

4.16

4.40

4.20

Financial support

1.06

1.20

1.23

1.28

1.26

1.21

1.23

Small practical aid Large practical aid

1.31

1.55

1.50

1.79

1.85

1.84

1.68

1.17

1.33

1.35

1.53

1.68

1.60

1.46

Emotional support

1.67

1.74

1.61

1.68

1.55

1.83

1.68

Support in the case of illness

1.56

1.64

1.61

1.66

1.57

1.71

1.64

Total network size

5.59

5.92

6.21

6.58

6.60

6.62

6.35

Table 22: NETWORK SIZE ACROSS TYPES OF SETTING Type of support/Community

Rural

Suburban

City

Total

Socialising

4.20

4.14

4.23

4.20

Financial support

1.17

1.26

1.31

1.23

Small practical aid

1.79

1.54

1.60

1.68

Large practical aid

1.69

1.38

1.17

1.46

Emotional support

1.67

1.71

1.68

1.68

Support in the case of illness

1.60

1.67

1.68

1.64

Total network size

6.45

6.39

6.19

6.35

Table 23: NETWORK SIZE ACROSS HOUSEHOLD INCOME Type of support/Income

Up to 130,000 SIT

More than 260,001 to 390,000 4.42

More than 390,001

Total

3.79

More than 130,001 to 260,000 4.25

Socialising

4.56

4.20

Financial support

1.10

1.20

1.37

1.46

1.24

Small practical aid

1.40

1.72

1.85

1.99

1.70

Large practical aid

1.39

1.54

1.52

1.39

1.48

Emotional support

1.59

1.66

1.73

1.86

1.68

Support in the case of illness

1.59

1.64

1.64

1.82

1.65

Total network size

5.69

6.51

6.80

6.81

6.40

Table 24: NETWORK SIZE ACROSS EDUCATION Type of support/ Education

Occupational

4 or 5 year secondary

Higher or more

Total

Socialising

Primary school or less 3.95

4.14

4.36

4.56

4.20

Financial support

1.09

1.19

1.35

1.41

1.23

Small practical aid

1.53

1.68

1.78

1.79

1.68

Large practical aid

1.51

1.52

1.43

1.30

1.46

Emotional support

1.63

1.58

1.78

1.81

1.68

Support in the case of illness

1.60

1.59

1.69

1.72

1.64

Total network size

5.98

6.43

6.52

6.72

6.36

Table 25: NETWORK SIZE ACROSS GENDERS

34

Type of support/ Gender

Male

Female

Total

Socialising

4.09

4.29

4.20

Financial support

1.26

1.21

1.23

Small practical aid

1.67

1.68

1.68

Large practical aid

1.52

1.41

1.46

Emotional support

1.56

1.79

1.68

Support in the case of illness

1.55

1.72

1.64

Total network size

6.31

6.40

6.35

Table 26: NETWORK SIZE ACROSS MARITAL STATUS Type of support/Marital status

Single

Socialising

4.33

Marital or nonmarital relationship 4.25

Divorced

Widowed

Total

4.03

3.63

4.20

Financial support

1.36

1.23

1.02

0.98

1.23

Small practical aid

1.86

1.69

1.35

1.28

1.68

Large practical aid

1.42

1.55

0.98

1.22

1.46

Emotional support

1.92

1.59

1.72

1.66

1.68

Support in the case of illness

1.75

1.62

1.56

1.52

1.64

Total network size

6.38

6.51

5.78

5.54

6.36

Socialising Table 27: NETWORK COMPOSITION ACROSS AGE CATEGORIES FOR SOCIALISING Age

Partner

- 29

9.23

Intergenerational 6.99

Intragenerational 7.26

Other relatives 6.04

Total family 29.51

Interg/ Family 23.69

Coworker 4.27

Neighbour

Friend

Other

2.14

58.96

5.13

30-39

8.76

10.05

9.36

12.95

41.12

24.44

8.26

4.51

43.65

2.46

40-49

7.44

10.92

11.40

13.06

42.82

25.50

9.70

5.96

39.06

2.46

50-59

6.46

15.53

9.49

14.65

46.13

33.67

7.45

9.61

33.32

3.49

60-69

6.47

17.26

9.45

16.22

49.40

34.94

3.35

13.38

29.75

4.12

70 +

5.38

20.94

7.39

17.19

50.90

41.14

2.58

17.57

24.57

4.39

Total

7.59

12.50

9.08

12.56

41.73

29.95

6.25

7.61

40.75

3.65

Table 28: NETWORK COMPOSITION ACROSS HOUSEHOLDS FOR SOCIALISING Partner Single

2.03

Intergenerational 13.99

13.28

38.84

4.41

Single parent with children

3.76

15.48

8.85

8.30

36.39

42.55

5.86

7.50

45.01

5.23

Couple

11.02

14.74

7.94

15.31

49.01

30.08

4.33

9.73

33.03

3.89

Couple with children Multigenerational household Other

8.40

10.53

9.32

11.62

39.87

26.41

7.38

5.61

44.03

3.10

7.80

11.06

11.77

11.82

42.45

26.05

6.56

3.95

43.67

3.36

8.03

14.55

9.04

14.80

46.41

31.35

5.70

9.23

35.24

3.42

Total

7.59

12.52

9.10

12.57

41.78

29.96

6.26

7.62

40.73

3.61

Intragenerational 8.43

Other relatives 13.94

Total family 38.39

Interg/ Family 36.44

Coworker 5.08

Neighbour

Friend

Other

35

Table 29: NETWORK COMPOSITION ACROSS TYPES OF SETTING FOR SOCIALISING Community

Partner

Intragenerational 10.34

Other relatives 14.55

Total family 45.21

Interg/ Family 28.60

Coworker 6.11

Neighbour

Friend

Other

7.40

Intergenerational 12.93

Rural

9.85

35.47

3.37

Suburban

6.82

12.64

9.85

12.62

41.93

30.14

5.46

7.29

41.80

3.52

City

8.36

11.79

6.70

9.56

36.41

32.37

6.95

4.48

48.02

4.14

Total

7.59

12.50

9.07

12.56

41.74

29.96

6.25

7.62

40.75

3.64

Table 30: NETWORK COMPOSITION ACROSS HOUSEHOLD INCOME FOR SOCIALISING Partner Up to 130,000 SIT More than 130,001 to 260,000 More than 260,001 to 390,000 More than 390,001 Total

Intragenerational 9.56

Other relatives 14.75

Total family 47.34

Interg/ Family 35.57

Coworker 5.79

Neighbour

Friend

Other

6.19

Intergenerational 16.84

13.70

30.52

2.65

7.07

11.88

10.32

13.59

42.85

27.72

7.03

6.99

39.79

3.34

7.87

9.74

8.81

11.49

37.91

25.69

7.82

3.86

46.15

4.26

9.29

9.89

6.61

8.65

34.44

28.72

6.14

2.27

53.20

3.95

7.28

12.45

9.38

12.86

41.98

29.67

6.77

7.47

40.36

3.42

Table 31: NETWORK COMPOSITION ACROSS EDUCATION FOR SOCIALISING Education

Partner

Intragenerational 10.06

Other relatives 13.34

Total family 47.75

Interg/ Family 36.36

Coworker 5.28

Neighbour

Friend

Other

6.99

Intergenerational 17.36

Primary school or less Occupational

13.79

29.95

3.23

4 or 5 year secondary

7.55

10.38

9.83

14.61

42.37

24.51

7.15

7.28

40.23

2.97

7.63

10.22

8.09

11.05

36.98

27.63

5.93

3.54

49.35

4.20

Higher or more

9.01

10.77

7.31

9.62

36.71

29.33

7.33

2.99

48.04

4.93

Total

7.59

12.48

9.08

12.57

41.71

29.93

6.25

7.62

40.76

3.65

Table 32: NETWORK COMPOSITION ACROSS GENDERS FOR SOCIALISING Gender

Partner

Intragenerational 8.09

Other relatives 11.89

Total family 36.55

Interg/ Family 22.88

Coworker 7.06

Neighbour

Friend

Other

8.21

Intergenerational 8.36

Male

7.38

45.43

3.57

Female

7.02

16.27

9.99

13.17

46.45

35.02

5.51

7.83

36.49

3.72

Total

7.59

12.50

9.08

12.56

41.73

29.95

6.25

7.61

40.75

3.65

Table 33: NETWORK COMPOSITION ACROSS MARITAL STATUS FOR SOCIALISING Marital status

Partner

Intragenerational 7.59

Other relatives 6.52

Total family 27.52

Interg/ Family 24.09

Coworker 4.30

Neighbour

Friend

Other

6.78

Intergenerational 6.63

Single

4.38

58.29

5.51

Married or living as married Divorced

9.26

12.87

9.78

14.55

46.45

27.71

7.40

7.72

35.82

2.61

3.19

18.83

6.76

8.83

37.61

50.07

10.55

6.25

39.20

6.40

Widowed

0.64

22.58

9.43

16.94

49.59

45.54

2.21

15.97

27.84

4.39

Total

7.60

12.46

9.09

12.57

41.73

29.87

6.25

7.62

40.76

3.64

36

Table 34: MCA FOR SOCIALISING AFTER CONTROLLING FOR AGE, GENDER, COMMUNITY SETTING AND EDUCATION

Age

Gender Community

Education

Up to 29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70 and above Male Female Rural Suburban City Occupational or less 4 year secondary or more

Inter-generational Predicted Mean = 12.49 Deviation Mean Adjusted Adjusted for for N Eta Beta Factors Factors 1114 6.99 -5.50 945 10.06 -2.42 918 10.85 -1.64 0.199 0.177 784 15.53 3.04 625 17.26 4.78 540 20.92 8.43 2346 8.34 -4.15 0.173 0.157 2581 16.26 3.77 2374 12.89 0.41 967 0.022 0.005 12.64 0.15 1586 11.79 -0.70 2877 0.078

1.50

10.38

-2.11

***

1927

0.038

2050

Multiple R2

13.99

***

Inter-generational Family Predicted Mean = 26.08 Deviation Mean Adjusted Adjusted for for N Eta Beta Factors Factors 689 18.69 -7.39 628 21.22 -4.86 610 22.60 -3.48 0.202 0.189 536 31.44 5.36 426 33.62 7.54 364 37.56 11.47 1434 19.36 -6.72 0.179 0.164 1818 31.39 5.30 1613 24.52 -1.56 639 0.054 0.072 26.00 -0.08 1001 28.65 2.57

***

0.049

1.37

24.10

-1.99

*** ***

0.024

1325

0.065

27.45

***

0.072

Table 35: MCA FOR SOCIALISING AFTER CONTROLLING FOR AGE, GENDER, AND EDUCATION HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION Inter-generational Mean = 12.52 N Age

Up to 29 30-59 60 and above Gender Male Female Household Living alone composition Single parent with child(ren) Couple Couple with child(ren) Multi Generational Other Multiple R2

Eta

Beta

1110 2645 0.18 0.19 1166 2343 0.17 0.16 2578 566 417

Predicted Mean Adjusted for Factors 6.77 11.98 19.22 8.76 15.94 8.94

Inter-generational Family

Deviation

Mean = 26.11

Adjusted for Factors

N

-5.75 -0.54 6.70 -3.76 3.42 -3.58

15.58

3.06

11.95

-0.57

2252

12.46

-0.06

332 591

13.87 13.98

1.35 1.46

763

0.09 0.07

0.06

Eta

Beta

686 *** 1775 0.17 0.17 792 1436 *** 0.18 0.15 1817 328 262 ***

Predicted Mean Adjusted for Factors 18.62 25.12 34.83 20.41 30.62 26.97

Deviation Adjusted for Factors -7.49 -0.99 8.72 -5.71 4.51 0.86

36.60

10.49

23.45

-2.66

1468

25.36

-0.75

227 422

25.05 25.55

-1.06 -0.56

545

0.15 0.10

0.07

37

*** ***

***

Table 36: MCA FOR SOCIALISING AFTER CONTROLLING FOR AGE, GENDER AND MARITAL STATUS Inter-generational Mean = 11.40 N Age

Gender

Marital status

Up to 29 30-59 60 and above Male Female Single Married or living as Divorced or widowed

1112 2560 785 2284 2172 1223 3054

Eta

Beta

0.15

0.10

0.14

0.14

0.15

0.10

180

Multiple R2

Predicted Mean Adjusted for Factors 9.33 10.79 17.27 8.48 14.47 8.11

Inter-generational Family

Deviation

Mean = 24.08

Adjusted for Factors -2.07 -0.60 4.90 -2.85 2.99 -3.28

12.41

1.02

16.47

5.07

N

*** ***

***

688 1714 539 1405 1535 697 2129

Eta

Beta

0.13

0.12

0.15

0.14

0.15

0.12

114

0.05

Predicted Mean Adjusted for Factors 19.05 23.85 31.22 19.50 28.27 23.56

Deviation Adjusted for Factors -5.03 -0.23 7.14 -4.58 4.20 -0.52

23.23

-0.84

43.02

18.94

*** ***

***

0.05

Financial Support Table 37: NETWORK COMPOSITION ACROSS HOUSEHOLDS FOR FINANCIAL SUPPORT Partner Single

3.08

Intergenerational 35.01

Intragenerational 17.39

Other relatives 10.98

Total family 66.46

Interg/ Family 52.68

Coworker 4.27

Neighbour

Friend

Other

3.21

24.28

1.78

Single parent with children

3.78

33.48

13.14

9.35

59.75

56.04

3.31

4.89

29.60

2.44

Couple

8.43

31.42

13.56

11.96

65.38

48.06

3.31

6.26

23.02

2.03

Couple with children Multigenerational household Other

5.25

30.57

13.71

13.58

63.09

48.45

4.42

3.45

27.94

1.10

5.21

31.45

17.36

12.91

66.93

47.00

1.72

3.57

26.54

1.23

4.81

31.84

10.67

14.00

61.32

51.92

3.87

6.02

25.22

3.58

Total

5.30

31.63

13.93

12.69

63.55

49.77

3.89

4.27

26.57

1.72

Table 38: NETWORK COMPOSITION ACROSS TYPES OF SETTING FOR FINANCIAL SUPPORT Community

Partner

Intragenerational 16.25

Other relatives 14.73

Total family 66.33

Interg/ Family 44.66

Coworker 3.99

Neighbour

Friend

Other

5.73

Intergenerational 29.62

Rural

5.00

22.63

2.05

Suburban

4.28

31.31

13.50

11.82

60.91

51.41

3.46

5.23

28.64

1.76

City

5.37

34.56

10.89

10.47

61.29

56.39

3.97

2.74

30.70

1.29

Total

5.32

31.63

13.89

12.70

63.54

49.78

3.88

4.28

26.57

1.73

Table 39: NETWORK COMPOSITION ACROSS HOUSEHOLD INCOME FOR FINANCIAL SUPPORT Partner

Intergenerational

Intragenerational

Other relatives

Total family

Interg/ Family

Coworker

Neighbour

Friend

Other

38

up to 130,000 SIT

3.88

32.72

14.89

13.58

65.06

50.28

3.23

7.20

22.53

1.98

more than 130,001 to 260,000 more than 260,001 to 390,000 more than 390,001 Total

5.15

27.26

14.74

13.98

61.13

44.60

4.73

4.72

27.71

1.71

5.09

32.65

14.29

14.27

66.30

49.25

4.62

2.30

25.27

1.51

7.82

30.27

13.69

8.32

60.10

50.36

3.28

0.82

34.57

1.23

5.21

30.02

14.54

13.19

62.96

47.69

4.18

4.24

26.96

1.66

Table 40: NETWORK COMPOSITION ACROSS EDUCATION FOR FINANCIAL SUPPORT Education

Partner

Intragenerational 14.43

Other relatives 13.45

Total family 66.22

Interg/ Family 50.99

Coworker 3.04

Neighbour

Friend

Other

4.58

Intergenerational 33.77

Primary school or less Occupational

8.69

20.33

1.71

4.32

25.30

15.24

15.37

60.23

42.00

4.87

3.87

29.14

1.89

4 or 5 year secondary

6.22

35.20

12.31

10.33

64.06

54.95

3.62

1.77

28.80

1.74

Higher or more

6.87

31.99

13.83

11.06

63.75

50.18

4.11

1.83

28.88

1.43

Total

5.32

31.60

13.92

12.70

63.54

49.73

3.88

4.28

26.57

1.73

Table 41: NETWORK COMPOSITION ACROSS GENDERS FOR FINANCIAL SUPPORT Gender

Partner

Intragenerational 13.66

Other relatives 13.51

Total family 57.25

Interg/ Family 45.97

Coworker 4.72

Neighbour

Friend

Other

3.77

Intergenerational 26.32

Male

3.68

32.69

1.66

Female

6.72

36.43

14.15

11.96

69.26

52.60

3.11

4.82

21.00

1.80

Total

5.31

31.62

13.92

12.70

63.55

49.76

3.88

4.28

26.56

1.73

Table 42: NETWORK COMPOSITION ACROSS MARITAL STATUS FOR FINANCIAL SUPPORT Marital status

Partner

Intragenerational 10.45

Other relatives 8.50

Total family 68.40

Interg/ Family 62.54

Coworker 3.18

Neighbour

Friend

Other

6.68

Intergenerational 42.78

Single

1.51

25.20

1.70

Married or living as married Divorced

5.40

25.09

15.41

14.83

60.72

41.31

4.47

5.30

28.05

1.46

4.13

29.75

17.40

5.04

56.31

52.82

8.14

2.71

27.85

4.98

Widowed

0.65

42.38

13.31

14.70

71.04

59.66

0.14

6.55

19.81

2.46

Total

5.32

31.63

13.92

12.70

63.57

49.76

3.88

4.25

26.57

1.73

Small Practical Aid Table 43: NETWORK COMPOSITION ACROSS AGE CATEGORIES FOR SMALL PRACTICAL AID Age - 29

6.88

Intergenerational 25.98

30-39

7.28

14.05

10.51

17.83

49.67

28.29

2.79

16.65

28.83

2.07

40-49

6.99

8.01

13.22

14.18

42.40

18.89

3.80

22.46

28.93

2.41

50-59

6.87

14.49

10.26

15.04

46.65

31.11

3.77

24.36

23.12

2.10

60-69

4.13

20.85

9.21

12.32

46.52

44.82

0.85

32.62

18.18

1.83

70 +

2.70

23.41

7.16

17.88

51.15

45.77

0.76

29.61

14.69

3.78

Partner

Intragenerational 11.19

Other relatives 9.18

Total family 53.22

Interg/ Family 48.82

Coworker 1.60

Neighbour

Friend

Other

8.75

33.44

2.99

39

Total

6.25

17.60

10.67

13.95

48.47

36.31

2.41

20.17

26.46

2.50

Table 44: NETWORK COMPOSITION ACROSS HOUSEHOLDS FOR SMALL PRACTICAL AID Partner Single

2.48

Intergenerational 22.92

Intragenerational 10.82

Other relatives 18.62

Total family 54.84

Interg/ Family 41.80

Coworker 1.99

Neighbour

Friend

Other

21.11

19.29

2.77

Single parent with children

2.98

19.10

11.29

11.02

44.39

43.02

1.69

22.54

29.34

2.04

Couple

8.80

17.37

8.47

11.90

46.54

37.32

2.28

24.26

23.94

2.99

Couple with children Multigenerational household Other

7.16

16.66

10.44

14.40

48.66

34.23

2.56

17.94

28.40

2.44

5.24

16.22

15.06

15.46

51.99

31.20

2.13

17.66

25.88

2.34

5.63

16.86

11.14

12.10

45.73

36.88

2.97

22.81

26.27

2.22

Total

6.24

17.61

10.68

13.96

48.49

36.32

2.41

20.18

26.44

2.48

Table 45: NETWORK COMPOSITION ACROSS TYPES OF SETTING FOR SMALL PRACTICAL AID Community

Partner

Intragenerational 12.39

Other relatives 15.54

Total family 49.29

Interg/ Family 32.12

Coworker 2.47

Neighbour

Friend

Other

5.53

Intergenerational 15.83

Rural

23.42

23.04

1.77

Suburban

6.81

19.21

10.05

12.49

48.56

39.55

2.00

20.83

26.53

2.08

City

7.05

19.48

8.29

12.31

47.13

41.33

2.57

14.41

31.97

3.93

Total

6.25

17.61

10.67

13.95

48.48

36.32

2.41

20.14

26.47

2.50

Table 46: NETWORK COMPOSITION ACROSS HOUSEHOLD INCOME FOR SMALL PRACTICAL AID Partner up to 130,000 SIT

5.19

Intergenerational 19.28

Intragenerational 11.20

Other relatives 14.25

Total family 49.92

Interg/ Family 38.62

Coworker 1.83

Neighbour

Friend

Other

26.62

19.60

2.03

more than 130,001 to 260,000 more than 260,001 to 390,000 more than 390,001 Total

5.73

15.03

11.65

14.59

47.00

31.98

3.20

21.09

25.90

2.82

8.30

16.70

9.86

13.45

48.31

34.56

2.59

16.90

30.04

2.16

5.59

16.90

9.39

14.18

46.06

36.69

2.19

13.40

35.43

2.93

6.10

16.59

10.89

14.23

47.81

34.69

2.63

20.51

26.53

2.52

Table 47: NETWORK COMPOSITION ACROSS EDUCATION FOR SMALL PRACTICAL AID Education

Partner

Intragenerational 10.28

Other relatives 13.88

Total family 50.17

Interg/ Family 40.81

Coworker 1.66

Neighbour

Friend

Other

5.55

Intergenerational 20.47

Primary school or less Occupational

25.26

20.65

2.26

4 or 5 year secondary

5.87

13.58

10.81

15.47

45.73

29.69

3.10

22.28

26.18

2.72

6.66

19.03

11.04

12.32

49.05

38.79

2.37

14.98

31.23

2.37

Higher or more

7.77

16.74

10.32

14.51

49.34

33.94

2.68

15.78

29.37

2.84

Total

6.25

17.60

10.66

13.95

48.46

36.32

2.41

20.17

26.46

2.50

Table 48: NETWORK COMPOSITION ACROSS GENDERS FOR SMALL PRACTICAL AID Gender

Partner

Intergenerational

Intragenerational

Other relatives

Total family

Interg/ Family

Coworker

Neighbour

Friend

Other

40

Male

2.35

11.52

9.66

14.30

37.84

30.46

3.75

21.06

34.46

2.89

Female

9.65

22.92

11.55

13.64

57.75

39.68

1.24

19.38

19.47

2.16

Total

6.25

17.60

10.67

13.95

48.47

36.32

2.41

20.17

26.46

2.50

Table 49: NETWORK COMPOSITION ACROSS GENDERS FOR SMALL PRACTICAL AID Marital status

Partner

Intragenerational 12.14

Other relatives 9.44

Total family 49.25

Interg/ Family 46.94

Coworker 1.95

Neighbour

Friend

Other

4.56

Intergenerational 23.12

Single

12.39

33.31

3.09

Married or living as married Divorced

7.94

13.39

10.35

15.40

47.09

28.44

2.94

22.22

25.55

2.21

3.36

24.42

9.17

11.08

48.03

50.85

1.59

15.35

29.76

5.26

Widowed

0.32

28.12

9.20

18.37

56.02

50.20

0.24

30.71

11.41

1.61

Total

6.25

17.56

10.68

13.96

48.45

36.24

2.40

20.17

26.49

2.49

Table 50: MCA FOR SMALL PRACTICAL AID AFTER CONTROLLING FOR AGE, GENDER, COMMUNITY SETTING AND EDUCATION

Age

Gender Community

Education

Up to 29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70 and above Male Female Rural Suburban City Occupational or less 4 year secondary or more

Inter-generational Predicted Mean = 17.61 Deviation Mean Adjusted Adjusted N Eta Beta for for Factors Factors 1011 25.98 8.37 826 14.07 -3.53 781 8.01 -9.60 0.193 0.189 630 14.49 -3.12 503 20.85 3.25 395 23.38 5.77 1934 11.53 -6.08 0.167 0.164 2214 22.91 5.31 2064 15.82 -1.78 804 0.052 0.048 19.21 1.60 1280 19.48 1.87 2399 0.019

*** ***

17.07

-0.54

1367

18.35

0.74

1050

0.001

1749

Multiple R2

***

Inter-generational Family Predicted Mean = 34.68 Deviation Mean Adjusted Adjusted N Eta Beta for for Factors Factors 658 46.24 11.56 508 27.13 -7.55 410 19.31 -15.36 0.236 0.230 348 30.17 -4.51 273 42.99 8.31 220 42.98 8.30 957 28.07 -6.61 0.123 0.112 1460 39.01 4.33 1231 29.96 -4.72 453 0.112 0.100 38.42 3.74 733 40.30 5.62

0.066

0.033

33.43

-1.25

36.30

1.63

0.008

0.079

Table 51: MCA FOR SMALL PRACTICAL AID AFTER CONTROLLING FOR AGE, GENDER, AND HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION

Age

Gender

Up to 29 30-59 60 and above Male

Inter-generational Inter-generational Family Predicted Predicted Mean = 17.61 Deviation Mean = 34.68 Deviation Mean Mean Adjusted Adjusted Adjusted Adjusted N Eta Beta for for N Eta Beta for for Factors Factors Factors Factors 1007 26.78 9.17 656 47.31 12.63 2235 0.18 0.18 12.33 -5.28 *** 1264 0.23 0.22 25.73 -8.95 *** 900 20.46 2.86 494 40.81 6.13 *** 956 0.12 0.12 *** 1930 0.17 0.16 11.65 -5.96 28.47 -6.21

41

***

*** ***

Female 2211 Household Living alone 423 composition Single parent with 358 child(ren) Couple 614 0.06 0.03 Couple with 1935 child(ren) Multi 299 generational Other 512 Multiple R

2

22.81 19.82

5.20 2.21

1459 264

38.74 36.38

4.07 1.70

16.95

-0.65

192

37.51

2.83

17.56

-0.05

336

36.85

2.17

34.82

0.14

0.08 0.06

18.04

0.43

1145

15.01

-2.60

183

27.68

-7.00

16.18

-1.43

295

32.62

-2.05

0.06

0.07

Table 52: MCA FOR SMALL PRACTICAL AID AFTER CONTROLLING FOR AGE, GENDER, AND MARITAL STATUS

Age

Gender

Marital status

Up to 29 30-59 60 and above Male Female Single Married Divorced or widowed

Inter-generational Predicted Mean = 16.56 Deviation Mean Adjusted Adjusted N Eta Beta for for Factors Factors 1009 24.96 8.40 2169 0.19 0.18 11.79 -4.77 *** 611 19.61 3.05 1902 11.64 -4.92 0.15 0.15 *** 1887 21.52 4.96 1078 18.22 1.66 2572 0.14 0.06 15.47 -1.09 ** 138 23.93 7.37

Multiple R2

Inter-generational Family Predicted Mean = 33.25 Deviation Mean Adjusted Adjusted N Eta Beta for for Factors Factors 658 46.21 10.31 1220 0.24 0.20 24.25 -7.67 *** 320 40.93 8.04 945 28.02 -4.92 0.11 0.10 *** 1253 37.19 3.71 660 44.07 4.25 217 0.19 0.10 27.51 -2.73 *** 1321 49.60 15.64

0.06

0.07

Large Practical Aid Table 53: NETWORK COMPOSITION ACROSS AGE CATEGORIES FOR LARGE PRACTICAL AID Age

Intragenerational 11.83

Other relatives 10.10

Total family 67.64

Interg/ Family 52.88

Coworker 1.55

Neighbour

9.94

Intergenerational 35.77

5.34

23.57

1.91

30-39

12.42

14.01

12.36

18.25

57.03

24.57

2.53

10.63

26.78

3.02

40-49

12.81

11.82

12.33

15.29

52.25

22.62

3.40

13.34

27.60

3.41

50-59

13.04

18.58

10.92

15.99

58.53

31.74

2.18

12.97

22.03

4.29

60-69

9.37

26.04

8.96

20.87

65.23

39.92

2.08

13.18

15.15

4.37

70 +

7.00

34.83

5.44

22.08

69.35

50.22

1.22

14.70

10.58

4.15

Total

11.12

22.87

10.91

16.13

61.03

37.47

2.23

10.98

22.45

3.31

- 29

Partner

Friend

Other

42

Table 54: NETWORK COMPOSITION ACROSS HOUSEHOLDS FOR LARGE PRACTICAL AID Partner Single

1.60

Intergenerational 29.18

Intragenerational 9.43

Other relatives 20.19

Total family 60.40

Interg/ Family 48.31

Coworker 1.63

Neighbour

Friend

Other

11.73

19.54

6.71

Single parent with children

4.38

29.10

13.85

10.68

58.00

50.17

1.03

12.55

24.71

3.71

Couple

18.37

19.81

7.29

19.32

64.79

30.57

1.75

9.93

19.52

4.01

Couple with children Multigenerational household Other

12.99

20.68

11.03

15.08

59.78

34.60

2.74

11.03

23.81

2.63

9.78

25.47

13.56

15.30

64.10

39.73

2.33

9.93

21.59

2.05

8.73

23.54

12.48

17.18

61.92

38.02

2.20

10.88

22.50

2.50

Total

11.10

22.87

10.91

16.14

61.02

37.48

2.23

10.97

22.48

3.30

Table 55: NETWORK COMPOSITION ACROSS TYPES OF SETTING FOR LARGE PRACTICAL AID Community

Partner

Intragenerational 12.69

Other relatives 17.54

Total family 62.46

Interg/ Family 35.76

Coworker 2.17

Neighbour

Friend

Other

9.89

Intergenerational 22.34

Rural

12.87

19.88

2.62

Suburban

13.84

21.82

9.38

14.94

59.98

36.38

2.60

10.51

22.42

4.49

City

11.47

24.54

8.84

14.47

59.31

41.37

2.07

8.01

26.94

3.67

Total

11.12

22.88

10.92

16.14

61.06

37.48

2.23

10.99

22.44

3.29

Table 56: NETWORK COMPOSITION ACROSS HOUSEHOLD INCOME FOR LARGE PRACTICAL AID Partner up to 130,000 SIT

9.07

Intergenerational 24.58

Intragenerational 10.27

Other relatives 18.19

Total family 62.11

Interg/ Family 39.57

Coworker 1.22

Neighbour

Friend

Other

15.93

16.62

4.12

more than 130,001 to 260,000 more than 260,001 to 390,000 more than 390,001 Total

11.82

18.67

11.62

17.11

59.22

31.53

2.95

11.01

23.45

3.37

12.56

20.31

10.68

15.79

59.34

34.23

2.37

8.93

25.53

3.83

10.33

25.17

11.14

14.23

60.87

41.35

2.51

6.08

27.83

2.71

11.11

21.21

11.05

16.79

60.16

35.25

2.36

11.28

22.64

3.57

Table 57: NETWORK COMPOSITION ACROSS EDUCATION FOR LARGE PRACTICAL AID Education

Partner

Intragenerational 9.73

Other relatives 17.42

Total family 63.57

Interg/ Family 41.07

Coworker 1.66

Neighbour

Friend

Other

10.31

Intergenerational 26.11

Primary school or less Occupational

13.99

17.52

3.26

9.91

17.56

11.24

18.02

56.73

30.95

3.11

12.89

23.92

3.35

4 or 5 year secondary

12.05

25.93

11.78

12.76

62.52

41.48

1.98

7.71

24.68

3.10

Higher or more

14.06

19.91

10.77

16.52

61.26

32.51

2.11

6.36

26.39

3.88

Total

11.12

22.88

10.89

16.13

61.02

37.50

2.23

10.99

22.46

3.31

Table 58: NETWORK COMPOSITION ACROSS GENDERS FOR LARGE PRACTICAL AID Gender

Partner

Intragenerational 11.77

Other relatives 16.03

Total family 49.10

Interg/ Family 33.71

Coworker 3.41

Neighbour

Friend

Other

4.74

Intergenerational 16.55

Male

12.49

31.74

3.27

Female

16.80

28.51

10.15

16.21

71.68

39.78

1.17

9.64

14.17

3.34

Total

11.12

22.87

10.91

16.13

61.03

37.48

2.23

10.98

22.45

3.31

43

Table 59: NETWORK COMPOSITION ACROSS MARITAL STATUS FOR LARGE PRACTICAL AID Marital status

Partner

Intragenerational 12.51

Other relatives 10.96

Total family 61.77

Interg/ Family 53.45

Coworker 1.39

Neighbour

Friend

Other

5.29

Intergenerational 33.02

Single

8.78

25.52

2.54

Married or living as married Divorced

15.28

15.84

10.44

17.89

59.45

26.65

2.77

11.84

22.69

3.25

3.83

30.11

12.26

10.57

56.76

53.04

2.34

8.86

28.06

3.98

Widowed

0.90

40.56

9.31

20.69

71.46

56.76

0.72

12.13

9.99

5.70

Total

11.12

22.82

10.92

16.14

61.01

37.40

2.23

10.99

22.46

3.31

Table 60: MCA FOR LARGE PRACTICAL AID AFTER CONTROLLING FOR AGE, GENDER, COMMUNITY SETTING AND EDUCATION

Age

Gender Community

Education

Up to 29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70 and above Male Female Rural Suburban City Occupational or less 4 year secondary or more

Inter-generational Predicted Mean = 22.89 Deviation Mean Adjusted Adjusted N Eta Beta for for Factors Factors 812 35.77 12.88 711 14.03 -8.85 655 11.82 -11.07 0.263 0.259 552 18.58 -4.31 411 26.04 3.15 346 34.95 12.06 1643 16.57 -6.32 0.160 0.155 1843 28.53 5.64 1787 22.35 -0.54 678 0.029 0.009 21.82 -1.07 1021 24.54 1.65 2079 0.030

***

21.96

-0.93

1444

24.27

1.38

1005

0.024

1407

Multiple R2

***

Inter-generational Family Predicted Mean = 35.63 Deviation Mean Adjusted Adjusted N Eta Beta for for Factors Factors 613 50.87 15.24 495 22.61 -13.02 411 21.48 -14.15 0.285 0.281 375 31.35 -4.27 298 39.23 3.61 256 49.03 13.40 999 31.02 -4.61 0.089 0.083 1450 38.81 3.18 1309 33.28 -2.35 468 0.066 0.037 36.11 0.48 672 39.87 4.24

0.038

0.094

34.28

-1.35

37.56

1.94

0.030

0.091

Table 61: MCA FOR LARGE PRACTICAL AID AFTER CONTROLLING FOR AGE, GENDER, AND HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION

Age

Gender Household composition

Up to 29 30-59 60 and above Male Female Living alone

Inter-generational Inter-generational Family Predicted Predicted Mean = 22.87 Deviation Mean = 35.61 Deviation Mean Mean Adjusted Adjusted Adjusted Adjusted N Eta Beta for for N Eta Beta for for Factors Factors Factors Factors 809 35.87 13.00 611 51.13 15.53 1916 0.25 0.25 14.73 -8.13 *** 1279 0.27 0.26 25.33 -10.27 *** 758 29.55 6.68 555 42.18 6.57 1641 16.93 -5.93 998 31.79 -3.81 0.16 0.15 *** 0.09 0.07 *** 1841 28.16 5.29 1448 38.24 2.63 ** 243 0.14 0.10 *** 364 0.09 0.06 24.95 2.08 42.69 7.08

Single parent with

303

26.86

3.99

199

45.73

10.12

44

***

***

child(ren) Couple Couple with child(ren) Multi generational Other Multiple R

521

18.90

-3.97

376

30.56

-5.05

1616

22.87

0.00

1128

34.34

-1.27

256

23.78

0.91

189

34.79

-0.82

423

22.56

-0.31

311

34.78

-0.83

2

0.09

0.09

Table 62: MCA FOR LARGE PRACTICAL AID AFTER CONTROLLING FOR AGE, GENDER, AND MARITAL STATUS

Age

Gender

Marital status

Up to 29 30-59 60 and above Male Female Single Married Divorced or widowed

Inter-generational Predicted Mean = 21.11 Deviation Mean Adjusted Adjusted N Eta Beta for for Factors Factors 810 31.94 10.82 1855 0.26 0.20 15.40 -5.71 *** 515 24.66 3.54 1605 16.27 -4.84 0.13 0.14 *** 1575 26.05 4.93 886 27.09 5.97 2186 0.22 0.12 18.26 -2.85 *** 109 29.80 8.68

Multiple R2

Inter-generational Family Predicted Mean = 33.4 Deviation Mean Adjusted Adjusted N Eta Beta for for Factors Factors 613 43.75 10.35 1234 0.28 0.18 26.87 -6.63 *** 364 38.11 4.71 975 30.53 -2.87 0.06 0.07 *** 1235 35.67 2.27 621 44.06 10.66 1523 0.28 0.19 28.23 -5.16 *** 66 52.31 18.91

0.09

0.10

Emotional Support

Table 63: NETWORK COMPOSITION ACROSS AGE CATEGORIES FOR EMOTIONAL SUPPORT Age

Partner

- 29

26.40

Intergenerational 16.50

Intragenerational 7.68

Other relatives 2.57

Total family 53.15

Interg/ Family 31.04

Coworker 2.72

Neighbour

Friend

Other

1.23

40.28

2.62

30-39

42.51

9.18

7.26

4.55

63.50

14.46

6.77

1.64

27.28

0.82

40-49

41.94

9.49

7.63

3.34

62.40

15.21

10.28

2.70

23.60

1.02

50-59

35.18

16.03

8.12

5.31

64.65

24.80

5.42

4.78

23.00

2.15

60-69

31.74

19.74

10.15

7.21

68.83

28.68

2.26

7.10

20.69

1.12

70 +

21.22

28.96

5.62

10.79

66.60

43.48

0.77

11.28

19.44

1.92

Total

33.95

15.38

7.75

4.95

62.03

24.79

5.09

3.91

27.34

1.64

Table 64: NETWORK COMPOSITION ACROSS HOUSEHOLDS FOR EMOTIONAL SUPPORT Partner

Intergenerational

Intragenerational

Other relatives

Total family

Interg/ Family

Coworker

Neighbour

Friend

Other

45

Single

4.41

24.54

11.12

9.17

49.24

49.83

4.19

7.18

36.94

2.44

Single parent with children

9.78

23.54

11.14

3.69

48.16

48.88

5.81

3.91

38.64

3.49

Couple

47.36

13.17

6.47

4.66

71.66

18.38

3.05

5.50

18.60

1.18

Couple with children Multigenerational household Other

40.76

12.25

6.75

3.50

63.25

19.36

5.88

2.29

27.47

1.11

34.00

15.72

6.80

5.98

62.51

25.16

6.05

2.74

26.85

1.85

33.38

16.32

8.40

7.45

65.55

24.90

4.40

5.98

22.00

2.07

Total

33.96

15.38

7.74

4.94

62.02

24.79

5.09

3.91

27.35

1.63

Table 65: NETWORK COMPOSITION ACROSS TYPES OF SETTING FOR EMOTIONAL SUPPORT Community

Partner

Intragenerational 7.98

Other relatives 6.28

Total family 66.41

Interg/ Family 25.53

Coworker 5.22

Neighbour

Friend

Other

35.20

Intergenerational 16.96

Rural

5.31

21.26

1.79

Suburban

34.65

13.91

7.63

4.07

60.26

23.09

4.54

4.06

29.82

1.33

City

31.64

13.94

7.40

3.52

56.50

24.68

5.24

1.69

34.99

1.59

Total

33.96

15.38

7.72

4.96

62.02

24.80

5.09

3.91

27.35

1.64

Table 66: NETWORK COMPOSITION ACROSS HOUSEHOLD INCOME FOR EMOTIONAL SUPPORT Partner up to 130,000 SIT

23.84

Intergenerational 22.48

Intragenerational 8.83

Other relatives 7.05

Total family 62.20

Interg/ Family 36.15

Coworker 3.84

Neighbour

Friend

Other

7.39

25.49

1.07

more than 130,001 to 260,000 more than 260,001 to 390,000 more than 390,001 Total

37.59

12.80

7.84

4.96

63.19

20.25

6.18

2.92

26.13

1.59

38.33

11.87

7.65

4.44

62.30

19.05

5.78

1.85

28.37

1.70

36.61

10.57

6.42

3.40

56.99

18.54

5.57

1.43

34.77

1.24

34.28

14.69

7.87

5.17

62.00

23.69

5.46

3.61

27.49

1.44

Table 67: NETWORK COMPOSITION ACROSS EDUCATION FOR EMOTIONAL SUPPORT Education

Partner

Intragenerational 8.51

Other relatives 6.79

Total family 65.19

Interg/ Family 33.89

Coworker 4.41

Neighbour

Friend

Other

27.80

Intergenerational 22.09

Primary school or less Occupational

7.67

20.73

2.00

39.76

13.45

8.37

5.13

66.71

20.17

5.80

3.11

23.20

1.19

4 or 5 year secondary

33.99

12.59

6.70

3.90

57.18

22.02

4.37

1.94

34.78

1.73

Higher or more

34.97

10.70

6.91

2.78

55.36

19.33

6.77

1.60

34.69

1.58

Total

33.94

15.39

7.73

4.96

62.01

24.81

5.09

3.91

27.36

1.64

Table 68: NETWORK COMPOSITION ACROSS GENDERS FOR EMOTIONAL SUPPORT Gender

Partner

Intragenerational 7.06

Other relatives 3.64

Total family 66.67

Interg/ Family 16.37

Coworker 4.52

Neighbour

Friend

Other

45.07

Intergenerational 10.91

Male

2.88

24.32

1.60

Female

24.21

19.29

8.36

6.11

57.96

33.28

5.58

4.80

29.99

1.67

Total

33.95

15.38

7.75

4.95

62.03

24.79

5.09

3.91

27.34

1.64

Table 69: NETWORK COMPOSITION ACROSS MARITAL STATUS FOR EMOTIONAL SUPPORT

46

Marital status

Partner

Intragenerational 10.74

Other relatives 3.26

Total family 47.16

Interg/ Family 36.70

Coworker 3.12

Neighbour

Friend

Other

15.86

Intergenerational 17.31

Single Married or living as married Divorced

1.86

44.86

3.00

47.38

11.20

6.09

4.69

69.36

16.15

5.99

4.03

19.76

0.86

6.83

15.46

11.23

5.13

38.65

40.00

8.85

3.55

44.56

4.39

Widowed

1.13

39.20

9.73

11.55

61.61

63.63

2.75

8.99

24.50

2.15

Total

33.96

15.36

7.75

4.96

62.04

24.76

5.09

3.91

27.33

1.64

Table 70: MCA FOR EMOTIONAL SUPPORT, AFTER CONTROLLING FOR AGE, GENDER, COMMUNITY SETTING AND EDUCATION

Age

Gender Community

Education

Up to 29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70 and above Male Female Rural Suburban City Occupational or less 4 year secondary or more

Inter-generational Predicted Mean = 15.39 Deviation Mean Adjusted Adjusted N Eta Beta for for Factors Factors 1073 16.50 1.11 895 9.19 -6.20 855 9.50 -5.89 0.195 0.178 708 16.03 0.64 570 19.74 4.35 474 29.03 13.64 2135 10.92 -4.47 0.136 0.121 2440 19.30 3.91 2195 16.97 1.58 927 0.049 0.032 13.91 -1.48 1453 13.94 -1.45 2642 0.093

2.46

12.03

-3.36

0.067

1933

Multiple R2

17.85

***

*** *

Inter-generational Family Predicted Mean = 24.87 Deviation Mean Adjusted Adjusted N Eta Beta for for Factors Factors 716 31.36 6.49 643 14.86 -10.01 605 15.25 -9.62 0.236 0.216 508 25.12 0.25 440 27.83 2.96 342 42.98 18.11 1599 16.70 -8.17 0.209 0.189 1655 32.76 7.89 1626 25.25 0.38 650 0.023 0.023 23.10 -1.77 978 25.41 0.54 1931

***

0.064

2.04

21.89

-2.98

0.053

1324

0.059

26.91

0.094

Inter-generational Inter-generational Family Predicted Predicted Mean = 15.38 Deviation Mean = 24.86 Deviation Mean Mean Adjusted Adjusted Adjusted Adjusted N Eta Beta for for N Eta Beta for for Factors Factors Factors Factors 1068 16.22 0.84 712 31.07 6.21 2457 0.17 0.16 11.46 -3.92 *** 1755 0.20 0.16 19.24 -5.62 *** 1045 23.72 8.35 783 31.80 6.94 2133 11.79 -3.59 1597 18.41 -6.45 0.14 0.11 *** 0.21 0.17 *** 2437 18.51 3.14 1654 31.08 6.22 *** 285 0.27 0.21 *** 483 0.15 0.11 18.87 3.50 40.15 15.29

Up to 29 30-59 60 and above Gender Male Female Household Living alone composition Single parent with 390 child(ren) Couple 712 Couple with 2130 child(ren)

***

***

Table 71: MCA FOR EMOTIONAL SUPPORT AID AFTER CONTROLLING FOR AGE, GENDER, AND HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION

Age

***

22.99

7.61

225

45.85

20.99

10.33

-5.05

565

16.49

-8.37

14.51

-0.86

1547

22.24

-2.62

47

Multi generational Other Multiple R

312

17.50

2.13

220

26.00

1.15

543

15.59

0.21

408

23.47

-1.39

2

0.05

0.12

Table 72: MCA FOR EMOTIONAL SUPPORT AFTER CONTROLLING FOR AGE, GENDER, AND MARITAL STATUS

Age

Gender

Marital status

Up to 29 30-59 60 and above Male Female Single Married Divorced or widowed

Inter-generational Predicted Mean = 13.04 Deviation Mean Adjusted Adjusted N Eta Beta for for Factors Factors 1071 13.84 0.80 2382 0.11 0.08 11.37 -1.67 *** 717 17.38 4.34 2092 10.54 -2.50 0.09 0.09 *** 2077 15.56 2.52 1141 17.02 3.98 2865 0.10 0.09 11.40 -1.64 *** 163 13.98 0.94

Multiple R2

Inter-generational Family Predicted Mean = 21.26 Deviation Mean Adjusted Adjusted N Eta Beta for for Factors Factors 715 22.32 1.06 1711 0.17 0.07 19.47 -1.79 *** 548 25.47 4.20 1572 16.26 -5.00 0.15 0.16 *** 1403 26.87 5.61 695 35.16 13.90 2203 0.22 0.22 16.41 -4.85 *** 77 34.62 13.36

0.02

0.08

Support in the Case of Illness Table 73: NETWORK COMPOSITION ACROSS HOUSEHOLDS FOR SUPPORT IN THE CASE OF ILLNESS Partner Single

4.73

Intergenerational 36.14

Intragenerational 10.49

Other relatives 16.32

Total family 67.67

Interg/ Family 53.41

Coworker 0.98

Neighbour

Friend

Other

14.41

15.30

1.64

Single parent with children

5.69

55.43

11.50

4.07

76.68

72.29

0.61

7.38

14.24

1.09

Couple

46.44

26.21

3.26

6.84

82.74

31.68

0.53

8.19

7.89

0.65

Couple with children Multigenerational household Other

42.43

33.15

6.38

4.52

86.48

38.33

0.61

3.70

8.93

0.29

36.09

36.20

10.65

4.86

87.80

41.23

0.11

2.91

8.91

0.27

31.53

36.01

6.78

11.30

85.63

42.06

0.59

3.02

9.42

1.34

Total

34.02

34.85

7.11

6.99

82.97

42.00

0.60

5.76

9.98

0.69

Table 74: NETWORK COMPOSITION ACROSS TYPES OF SETTING FOR SUPPORT IN THE CASE OF ILLNESS Community

Partner

Intragenerational 7.99

Other relatives 8.71

Total family 85.07

Interg/ Family 40.32

Coworker 0.55

Neighbour

Friend

Other

34.07

Intergenerational 34.30

Rural Suburban

5.98

7.80

0.61

36.17

34.61

5.18

5.91

81.88

42.27

0.37

6.94

10.31

0.51

City

32.54

35.83

6.96

5.07

80.40

44.57

0.83

4.69

13.06

1.02

Total

34.00

34.86

7.09

6.98

82.93

42.03

0.60

5.76

10.00

0.72

48

Table 75: NETWORK COMPOSITION ACROSS HOUSEHOLD INCOME FOR SUPPORT IN THE CASE OF ILLNESS Partner up to 130,000 SIT

20.88

Intergenerational 36.40

Intragenerational 7.60

Other relatives 11.35

Total family 76.23

Interg/ Family 47.75

Coworker 0.65

Neighbour

Friend

Other

11.44

10.90

0.77

more than 130,001 to 260,000 more than 260,001 to 390,000 more than 390,001 Total

37.52

32.09

6.85

6.58

83.04

38.65

0.67

5.80

9.98

0.50

42.18

33.53

7.15

5.30

88.16

38.03

0.54

3.17

7.72

0.41

39.65

34.40

7.44

3.37

84.86

40.54

0.37

2.28

11.87

0.62

34.63

33.71

7.16

7.10

82.60

40.81

0.60

6.24

10.00

0.56

Table 76: NETWORK COMPOSITION ACROSS EDUCATION FOR SUPPORT IN THE CASE OF ILLNESS Education

Partner

Intragenerational 7.30

Other relatives 9.17

Total family 81.98

Interg/ Family 47.44

Coworker 0.35

Neighbour

Friend

Other

26.62

Intergenerational 38.89

Primary school or less Occupational

8.05

8.81

0.81

36.78

31.75

7.12

7.37

83.02

38.25

0.59

6.83

8.72

0.84

4 or 5 year secondary

35.81

35.46

7.40

5.25

83.93

42.25

0.75

3.52

11.39

0.41

Higher or more

41.23

30.58

6.05

4.80

82.66

36.99

0.89

2.96

12.52

0.97

Total

34.00

34.83

7.12

6.98

82.93

42.00

0.60

5.75

10.00

0.72

Table 77: NETWORK COMPOSITION ACROSS GENDERS FOR SUPPORT IN THE CASE OF ILLNESS Gender

Partner

Intragenerational 7.98

Other relatives 5.07

Total family 83.94

Interg/ Family 35.80

Coworker 0.71

Neighbour

Friend

Other

40.84

Intergenerational 30.05

Male

5.55

9.12

0.67

Female

28.03

39.02

6.37

8.63

82.05

47.55

0.51

5.93

10.75

0.76

Total

33.99

34.85

7.12

6.98

82.93

42.02

0.60

5.75

9.99

0.72

Table 78: NETWORK COMPOSITION ACROSS GENDERS FOR SUPPORT IN THE CASE OF ILLNESS Marital status

Partner

Intragenerational 15.27

Other relatives 4.92

Total family 76.30

Interg/ Family 58.33

Coworker 0.65

Neighbour

Friend

Other

11.60

Intergenerational 44.50

Single Married or living as married Divorced

4.57

17.76

0.72

49.63

26.98

3.91

6.19

86.71

31.12

0.65

5.26

6.98

0.40

7.36

55.33

8.02

3.79

74.50

74.27

0.93

5.80

16.56

2.21

Widowed

0.47

52.93

6.43

18.90

78.73

67.22

0.05

12.00

6.93

2.28

Total

34.00

34.82

7.13

6.98

82.93

41.98

0.60

5.75

10.00

0.72

49