This study aims to investigate the impact of Home and Community Based Care and Services (HCBCS) on intergenerational support from offspring, specifically examining whether HCBCS acts as a substitute or supplement. Using four waves of data from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS), we employ the difference-in-differences (DID) method, along with Logit, Oprobit, and OLS models. The findings show that HCBCS boosts economic support from offspring to older adults but reduces emotional and caregiving support, indicating HCBCS has both supplementary and substitutive effects. Also, the results emphasize that the effects of HCBCS are more prominent in households with multiple offspring and urban areas. These findings have important implications for HCBCS program design, providing insights into how such services can better complement and substitute family-based intergenerational support and offering valuable evidence for policymakers to assess and enhance the effectiveness of public elderly care services.
AntonucciT. C.BirdittK. S.ShermanC. W.TrinhS. (2011). Stability and change in the intergenerational family: A convoy approach. Ageing and Society, 31(7), 1084–1106. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X1000098X
2.
ArrowK. J.LevinS. A. (2009). Intergenerational resource transfers with random offspring numbers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(33), 13702–13706. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0905613106
3.
BaozhongS.YuhengL.XiaodongZ. (2022). Who are to support the aged in rural China? The study of people's willingness to purchase socialized care service and its influencing factors. Journal of Rural Studies, 93, 496–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.12.017
4.
BlomgrenJ.MartikainenP.MartelinT.KoskinenS. (2008). Determinants of home-based formal help in community-dwelling older people in Finland. European Journal of Ageing, 5(4), 335–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-008-0094-4
5.
BrandtM.DeindlC. (2013). Intergenerational transfers to adult children in Europe: Do social policies matter?Journal of Marriage and Family, 75(1), 235–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.01028.x
CahillS.BielstenT.ZaritS. H. (2023). Developing a framework for the support of informal caregivers: Experiences from Sweden, Ireland, and the United States. Research on Aging, 45(3-4), 385–395. https://doi.org/10.1177/01640275221113356
8.
CandaE. R. (2013). Filial piety and care for elders: A contested confucian virtue reexamined. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 22(3-4), 213–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/15313204.2013.843134
9.
ChenR.JiangY.LiX. (2024). Community-based elderly home care services policy and household consumption enhancement: Evidence from China. International Review of Economics & Finance, 96(8), Article 103620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2024.103620
10.
ChenY.FangH. (2021). The long-term consequences of China's “Later, Longer, Fewer” campaign in old age. Journal of Development Economics, 151(4), Article 102664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2021.102664
11.
ChenY.FeeleyT. H. (2014). Social support, social strain, loneliness, and well-being among older adults: An analysis of the Health and Retirement Study. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31(2), 141–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407513488728
12.
ChesterH.HughesJ.ChallisD. (2014). Commissioning social care for older people: Influencing the quality of direct care. Ageing and Society, 34(6), 930–950. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X12001249
13.
DaatlandS. O.HerlofsonK. (2003). Lost solidarity’or ‘changed solidarity’: A comparative European view of normative family solidarity. Ageing and Society, 23(5), 537–560. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X03001272
14.
DotyP.SpillmanB. (2015). Help for family caregivers available from government programs and policies. In Family caregiving in the new normal (pp. 153–190). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-417046-9.00010-6
15.
FingermanK. L.KimK.TennantP. S.BirdittK. S.ZaritS. H. (2016). Intergenerational support in a daily context. The Gerontologist, 56(5), 896–908. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnv035
16.
GuoJ.GuanL.FangL.LiuC.FuM.HeH.WangX. (2017). Depression among Chinese older adults: A perspective from hukou and health inequities. Journal of Affective Disorders, 223(17), 115–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2017.07.032
17.
HanY.XuC.ZhangL.WuY.FangY. (2023). Expenditure projections for community home-based care services for older adults with functional decline in China. International Journal for Equity in Health, 22(1), 143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-023-01954-y
18.
HerrmannD. S.Sipsas-HerrmannA.StaffordM.HerrmannN. C. (2005). Benefits and risks of intergenerational program participation by senior citizens. Educational Gerontology, 31(2), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/0360127059089152
19.
HoC. (2019). Child’s gender, parental monetary investments and care of elderly parents in China. Review of Economics of the Household, 17(3), 741–774. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11150-018-9428-y
20.
IgarashiH.HookerK.CoehloD. P.ManoogianM. M. (2013). “My nest is full:” Intergenerational relationships at midlife. Journal of Aging Studies, 27(2), 102–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaging.2012.12.004
21.
KadiS.RodriguesR.KahlertR.HofmannS.BauerG. (2024). Does the family care best? Ideals of care in a familialistic care regime. Journal of Social Policy, 53(1), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279422000022
22.
LarssonK.ThorslundM.KåreholtI. (2006). Are public care and services for older people targeted according to need? Applying the behavioural model on longitudinal data of a Swedish urban older population. European Journal of Ageing, 3(1), 22–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-006-0017-1
23.
LeiX.StraussJ.TianM.ZhaoY. (2015). Living arrangements of the elderly in China: Evidence from the CHARLS national baseline. China Economic Journal, 8(3), 191–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/17538963.2015.1102473
24.
LiC.WangL.DingL.ZhouY. (2024). Determinants and inequities in healthy working life expectancy in China. Nature Medicine, 30(11), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-024-03184-3
25.
LiuH. (2021). Formal and informal care: Complementary or substitutes in care for elderly people? Empirical evidence from China. Sage Open, 11(2), Article 21582440211016413. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211016413
26.
MudrazijaS. (2016). Public transfers and the balance of intergenerational family support in Europe. European Societies, 18(4), 336–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2016.1207792
27.
PesandoL. M. (2019). Childlessness and upward intergenerational support: Cross-national evidence from 11 European countries. Ageing and Society, 39(6), 1219–1254. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X17001519
28.
Schröder-ButterfillE. (2004). Inter-generational family support provided by older people in Indonesia. Ageing and Society, 24(4), 497–530. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X0400234X
29.
SilversteinM.GansD.YangF. M. (2006). Intergenerational support to aging parents: The role of norms and needs. Journal of Family Issues, 27(8), 1068–1084. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X06288120
SundströmG.MalmbergB.JohanssonL. (2006). Balancing family and state care: Neither, either or both? The case of Sweden. Ageing and Society, 26(5), 767–782. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X06005101
32.
VerbakelE. (2018). How to understand informal caregiving patterns in europe? The role of formal long-term care provisions and family care norms. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 46(4), 436–447. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494817726197
33.
WildmanJ. M.GouldingA.MoffattS.ScharfT.StenningA. (2022). Intergenerational equity, equality and reciprocity in economically and politically turbulent times: Narratives from across generations. Ageing and Society, 42(10), 2284–2303. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X21000052
34.
WilesJ. L.LeibingA.GubermanN.ReeveJ.AllenR. E. (2012). The meaning of “aging in place” to older people. The Gerontologist, 52(3), 357–366. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnr098
35.
YanY. (2023). Familial affections vis-à-vis filial piety: The ethical challenges facing eldercare under neo-familism in contemporary China. The Journal of Chinese Sociology, 10(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40711-023-00185-6
36.
YipO.DhainiS.EsserJ.SiqecaF.MendietaM. J.HuberE.ZellerA.De GeestS.DeschodtM.ZúñigaF.ZulligL. L.KingH. A.INSPIRE consortium INSPIRE consortium Urfer Pia Vounatsou Penelope Obas Katrina Briel Matthias Schwenkglenks Matthias Quinto Carlos Blozik Eva. (2022). Health and social care of home-dwelling frail older adults in Switzerland: A mixed methods study. BMC Geriatrics, 22(1), 857. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-022-03552-z
37.
ZhuC.LeeC. C. (2022). The effects of low-carbon pilot policy on technological innovation: Evidence from prefecture-level data in China. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 183(10), Article 121955. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121955
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
