Table 5.

Multinomial logistic models of care provider type (average marginal effects reported)

	Panel A: Dependent variable: Caregiver is none, spouse only, child only, both spouse and child, and others
	(1) No care	(2) Spouse only	(3) Child only	(4) Both spouse and child	(5) Others
Women	0.031*	− 0.125***	0.042**	0.006	0.046***
Age	− 0.022*	− 0.071***	0.052***	0.010	0.031***
Rural hukou	− 0.020	0.017	− 0.019	0.011	0.011
Rural residence	0.039*	0.005	− 0.014	− 0.017	− 0.014
Education level (base: illiteracy)
Did not finish primary school	0.049*	− 0.019	− 0.005	− 0.016	− 0.008
Finished primary school	0.006	− 0.011	− 0.043	0.009	0.040
Finished middle school	− 0.034	0.070*	− 0.014	− 0.024	0.003
Finished high school and above	0.016	0.021	− 0.091	− 0.022	0.076
No. of children	0.002	− 0.001	0.019***	0.004	− 0.025***
No. of sons	− 0.014	0.020*	− 0.009	− 0.008	0.011
Receives a pension	− 0.025	0.031	0.010	− 0.004	− 0.011
Spouse’s health status (base: no spouse)
Spouse requires care	− 0.061*	0.464***	− 0.436***	0.062***	− 0.029
Spouse does not require care	− 0.130***	0.646***	− 0.517***	0.094***	− 0.093***
Log-likelihood	− 1701.47	− 1701.47	− 1701.47	−1701.47	−1701.47
Observations	1,694	1,694	1,694	1,694	1,694
	Panel B: Dependent variable: Caregiver is none, spouse only, child only, both spouse and child, and others (with interactions of the female indicator with spousal health status indicator)
	(1) No care	(2) Spouse only	(3) Child only	(4) Both spouse and child	(5) Others
Women	0.031*	− 0.125***	0.043**	0.005	0.046***
Age	− 0.020	− 0.071***	0.052***	0.010	0.030***
Rural hukou	− 0.021	0.018	− 0.018	0.011	0.011
Rural residence	0.039*	0.006	− 0.013	− 0.017	− 0.014
Education level (base: illiteracy)
Did not finish primary school	0.051**	− 0.020	− 0.006	− 0.016	− 0.008
Finished primary school	0.004	− 0.010	− 0.043	0.009	0.040
Finished middle school	− 0.037	0.073**	− 0.012	− 0.025	0.001
Finished high school and above	0.021	0.018	− 0.095	− 0.022	0.078
No. of children	0.002	− 0.001	0.019***	0.004	− 0.025***
No. of sons	− 0.013	0.019*	− 0.009	− 0.008	0.011
Receives a pension	− 0.023	0.030	0.008	− 0.004	− 0.011
Spouse’s health status (base: no spouse)
Spouse requires care	− 0.067**	0.467***	− 0.428***	0.060***	− 0.031
Spouse does not require care	− 0.131***	0.643***	− 0.514***	0.093***	− 0.090***
Predicted probability of receiving care
Male respondent with no spouse	0.274***	0.005	0.591***	0.004	0.126***
Female respondent with no spouse	0.207***	0.002	0.617***	0.001	0.172***
t-test (p-value)	0.161	0.688	0.611	0.659	0.189
Male respondent, spouse needs care	0.163***	0.555***	0.112***	0.072***	0.098***
Female respondent, spouse needs care	0.174***	0.408***	0.224***	0.057***	0.138***
t-test (p-value)	0.788	0.005	0.005	0.559	0.248
Male respondent, spouse does not need care	0.057***	0.756***	0.071***	0.084***	0.031***
Female respondent, spouse does not need care	0.142***	0.564***	0.106***	0.102***	0.085***
t-test (p-value)	0.000	0.000	0.109	0.415	0.002
Log-likelihood	− 1698.09	− 1698.09	− 1698.09	− 1698.09	− 1698.09
Observations	1,694	1,694	1,694	1,694	1,694

Notes: Sample includes those who have care needs. In panels A and B, the variable of age squared is controlled; in panel B, the interaction term of dummy variable of female and spouse’s health status is also controlled. Following the modified score function estimator proposed by Shelley B. Bull, Carmen Mak, and Celia M.T. Greenwood (2002), maximum penalized likelihood estimates (MPLEs) instead of maximum likelihood estimates (MLEs) are used in both panel A and panel B to get less biased and more efficient estimators.

^{***, **, *}denote statistical significance at the 1, 5, and 10 percent levels, respectively.