Skip to main content
NCBI home page
European Journal of Ageing logoLink to European Journal of Ageing
. 2022 Sep 29;19(4):1467–1477. doi: 10.1007/s10433-022-00730-1

Cultural traits and second-generation immigrants’ value of informal care

Freya Diederich 1,2,✉, Hans-Helmut König 2, Christian Brettschneider 2
PMCID: PMC9729634  PMID: 36506669

Abstract

Many European studies find that immigrants and the native population differ in their long-term care use. These differences have been attributed to immigrants’ cultural preferences, among others. However, the cultural integration process of immigrants may result in a potential caregiving conflict between foreign-born immigrants’ preferences for long-term care and their children’s willingness to provide long-term care. In this study, we empirically assess to what extent cultural factors that prevail in foreign-born immigrants’ country of origin are reflected in their children’s value of informal care. Using data from the German Family Panel and the World Values Survey/European Values Study, we regressed second-generation immigrants’ value of informal care on the cultural strength of family ties that prevails in their parents’ country of birth. Probit models were estimated and individual characteristics were accounted for. The results show that second-generation immigrants who originate from cultures with stronger family ties are more likely to express a high value of informal care than second-generation immigrants who come from cultures with weaker family ties. We conclude that immigrants’ values of informal care are deeply shaped by their country of origin. Policy makers should keep immigrants’ needs and preferences in mind when implementing long-term care interventions. The same set of long-term care interventions can have very different effects, depending on immigrants’ values.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10433-022-00730-1.

Keywords: Caregiving, Family economics, Cultural economics, Social norms

Introduction

Many European studies find that immigrants and the native population differ in their long-term care (LTC) use, even if the country is associated with a well-developed LTC system. In Sweden, foreign-born older adults are less likely to use formal LTC services offered by the municipality than their Swedish-born counterparts (Innes 2020). In Denmark, older immigrants tend to be less likely to use municipal residential care facilities and home care services than ethnic Danes (Hansen 2014). In Germany, people who need LTC with non-German citizenship are more likely to receive informal care and less likely to receive formal or institutional care than people with German citizenship (Schmidt and Schneekloth 2011; Stock et al. 2018).

Whether differences in LTC use between immigrants and the native population are due to immigrants’ barriers in accessing the LTC system, due to immigrants’ active choice, or a combination of the two, has been subject to debate. Immigrants’ barriers to the LTC system include language barriers, an insufficient knowledge of the LTC system or mistrust, and discrimination [see Innes (2020) for a review of the literature]. German studies also mention financial aspects as a contributing factor (Schmidt and Schneekloth 2011; Tezcan-Güntekin and Razum 2017). Immigrants’ active choice for a certain LTC arrangement is often explained by immigrants’ cultural preferences. In the USA, foreign-born immigrants’ intention to use exclusively family care is related to a culture of strong family ties that prevails in their region of origin (Diederich et al. 2022). Similarly, foreign-born Asian Indian immigrants in the USA do not want to live in institutional care due to a perceived lack of cultural fit and a preference for family living (Sudha 2014). From the perspective of economists, active choice implies that individuals explicitly make a choice by considering all costs and benefits (Walsh et al. 2011). Then, immigrants’ active choice of accessing the LTC system is not only based on cultural preferences, but also on their perceived barriers.

Although foreign-born immigrants’ preferences for certain LTC arrangements may be influenced by cultural factors, immigrants’ wishes may only be fulfilled if family members act in their interest. The decision for LTC use is not a one-dimensional decision for or against a certain LTC arrangement, but depends on many factors such as psychosocial factors, financial aspects, and the family’s willingness and ability to provide support (Bradley et al. 2002). The availability of children can be crucial within the caregiving decision as 36% of unpaid care is directed from children to parents across Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries (Colombo et al. 2011). For immigrants, a large reliance on children can result in a potential conflict as foreign-born immigrants’ preferences for LTC and their children’s willingness to provide LTC may differ due to different cultural traits.

A large part of immigrants’ cultural integration process arises through intergenerational shifts in behavior and values (Algan et al. 2012). In Europe, second-generation immigrants are on average more likely to have a higher income, to speak the host country’s language at home, to report a lower religiosity, and to be civically involved in various types of activities than first-generation immigrants (Algan and Aleksynska 2012). When comparing second-generation immigrants to the native population, Algan and Aleksynska (2012) find that immigrants’ values often converge to the local context within one generation. However, value similarity between parents and their adult children can be crucial in children’s provision of LTC to parents. Pillemer and Suitor (2006) find that a perceived similarity in values between mothers and children predicts which children mothers name as future caregivers. In a later study, Pillemer and Suitor (2014) show that children of whom mothers perceived similar values were also more likely to become caregivers if care was needed.

In the light of increasingly diverse older populations (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs 2020), we empirically assess to what extent cultural factors that prevail in foreign-born immigrants’ country of origin are reflected their children’s value of informal care. Culture is assumed to play an important role in the value formation of individuals (Guiso et al. 2006). The cultural integration process of immigrants may thus result in diverging perceptions of caregiving responsibilities between children and their parents. In this case, foreign-born immigrants’ cultural preferences for a certain LTC arrangement are not necessarily a factor that influences differences in immigrants’ and the native population’s LTC use as immigrants’ cultural preferences may not be fulfilled.

Background

Many qualitative studies find that cultural factors, which prevail in foreign-born immigrants’ home country, are reflected in their children’s value of informal care. Cheung et al. (2020) conducted 15 interviews to analyze perceptions of filial care among second-generation Chinese immigrants in the Netherlands. The authors find that the Confucian concept of filial piety is still relevant to the younger immigrant Chinese community. Similarly, Sharma et al. (2012) conducted focus groups with Asian Indian immigrants in the USA. The results show that traditional cultural values retain important for second-generation immigrants and influence care expectations among the study participants. Interviewing 100 parent–child-dyads of post-immigrant Japanese Canadian families, Kobayashi and Funk (2010) find that 79% of parent–child-dyads indicate congruence on the degree of adherence to filial obligation. The authors conclude that generational differences in life course experience do not necessarily translate into attitudinal differences.

A transmission process of cultural traits is not only visible for Asian immigrants who migrate to Western countries, but also for other non-Western immigrants. Albertini and Semprebon (2020) study filial obligations among Mahgrebine immigrants in Italy. The majority of participants regards co-residence as the best solution to cope with the care needs of a lone older frail mother. However, compared to first-generation immigrants, second-generation immigrants are more likely to consider economic support, e.g., to buy LTC, as another option. Merz et al. (2009) use large scale survey data to analyze differences in values of family solidarity among Moroccan, Turkish, Suriname, and Dutch Antilles immigrants in the Netherlands. First-generation immigrants scored higher on an index of family solidarity than second-generation immigrants. Moreover, respondents from Turkey and Morocco report higher values of family solidarity than respondents from Suriname and the Dutch Antilles.

Although previous studies provide evidence for a relationship between cultural factors and immigrant children’s value of informal care, there are important factors that have not been sufficiently covered: First, the relationship between cultural traits and immigrants’ values is mainly assessed for people who migrate from non-Western countries to Western countries. However, there are non-negligible migration flows within Western countries. For example, 44% of German residents with non-German citizenship originated from a European Union country in 2020 (Federal Statistical Office 2021). Second, the study by Merz et al. (2009) suggests that the country of origin can be important in shaping immigrants’ values. Third, it may not be culture, but similarity between the host and home countries LTC settings that influences immigrants’ values of informal care.

Conceptual framework

According to Dilworth-Anderson et al. (2002), research that addresses the role of cultural factors in LTC should build on a clear conceptualization and measure of culture. We follow this recommendation and build our conceptual framework on a definition of culture that is commonly used in the economic literature.

A measure of culture

The recent economic literature defines one dimension of culture as “those customary beliefs and values that ethnic, religious, and social groups transmit fairly unchanged from generation to generation” (Guiso et al. 2006). Accordingly, second-generation immigrants carry a “cultural baggage” that includes values and beliefs from their parents’ home country culture (Alesina and Giuliano 2010). The definition restricts its attention to inherited and slow-moving components of culture. This allows for an empirical strategy that disentangles the effect of culture from the influence of institutional factors (details on the empirical strategy are given below). In addition, it assumes value similarity between immigrant parents and their children, which is in accordance with the qualitative gerontological literature (e.g., Kobayashi and Funk 2010).

Among studies that address immigrants’ values of caregiving, individual beliefs about the importance of the family are a central aspect (Albertini and Semprebon 2020; Cheung et al. 2020; Kobayashi and Funk 2010; Merz et al. 2009; Sharma et al. 2012). In addition, the economic literature has shown that the importance of the family varies across cultures and plays an important role in the value formation of individuals. Alesina and Giuliano find that the cultural strength of family ties, which prevails in a country, affects attitudes toward women, obedience from children, and families’ living arrangements (Alesina and Giuliano 2010, 2014). Most importantly, the strength of family ties is transmitted from generation to generation and affects second-generation immigrants’ values and behavior. Second-generation immigrants who originate from countries with stronger family ties exhibit a lower geographic mobility, are more likely to live at home with their parents, and are more likely to reside with a higher number of family members (Alesina et al. 2015; Alesina and Giuliano 2010).

Research question and hypothesis

Based on the studies that address immigrants’ values of caregiving and the work of Alesina and co-authors, the cultural strength of family ties is deemed suitable to systematically analyze the role of culture in immigrants’ value of informal care. We hypothesize that second-generation immigrants who originate from cultures with stronger family ties are more likely to express a high value of informal care than second-generation immigrants who come from cultures with weaker family ties.

Methods

Our empirical analysis is based on the epidemiological approach in the economic literature. The approach builds on the outlined definition of culture, which restricts attention to its inherited and slow-moving components. The effect of culture is identified through a variation in outcomes for individuals who live in the same institutional setting but whose values and beliefs potentially vary in a systematic fashion depending on cultural factors that prevail in their country of origin. Consequently, people from different cultures will take different actions despite facing an identical environment (Fernández 2011).

The empirical model that corresponds to the epidemiological approach links values or behaviors of first or higher-order generation immigrants that live in the same country to the values or behaviors of individuals in their or their forebears’ country of origin. If immigrants’ values or behaviors are systematically correlated with the values or behaviors that prevail in their country of origin after individual characteristics have been accounted for, then there is evidence that a cultural component influences immigrants’ values or behaviors (Fernández 2011). Linking variables that reflect cultural traits in immigrants’ country of origin instead of using country-of-origin dummy variables has the advantage that the “cultural baggage” of interest is directly identified. The influence of confounding factors, such as, language barriers, an insufficient knowledge of the LTC system or mistrust, and discrimination is therefore limited.

Data and sample selection

We used data from the German Family Panel pairfam, release 10.0 (Brüderl et al. 2019). This annual survey was initiated to provide an extended empirical basis for research on intergenerational relationships and transfers. The panel study started with 12,402 individuals in 2008/9 and includes 13 waves to date. Individuals were randomly drawn from population registers of 343 randomly selected communities across Germany and belong to one of the three birth cohorts 1971–1973, 1981–1983, or 1991–1993. The multi-actor design collects data from primary respondents and from related persons. The primary respondents’ partner was interviewed from wave 1 onward and the primary respondents’ parents were interviewed from wave 2 onward. Core questions are asked annually, whereas more detailed sets of questions on various topics are asked either every 2 or 4 years (see Huinink et al. 2011 for details).

The dataset has several advantages for the purpose of our analysis. First, Germany has a mandatory LTC insurance scheme that secures a basic provision of LTC services (Nadash et al. 2017). Access to the LTC system is provided to German residents in need for LTC, independent of their citizenship. Immigrants’ value of informal care is, therefore, unlikely to be driven by differences in institutional access. Second, the dataset includes two questions on people’s value of informal care and open entry questions that ask for the respondent’s and his or her parents’ country of birth. This enables us to assign a “cultural baggage” of family ties to each second-generation immigrant at the parents’ country of birth level.

We selected all second-generation immigrants who participated in the second wave from the primary respondents and partner samples. Compared to later survey waves, the second wave included two distinct questions that were intended to measure the respondent’s value of informal care and participation rates were substantially higher. We defined second-generation immigrants as those respondents who were born in Germany and who had at least one foreign-born parent. Due to historical changes in the German “state territory” between 1871 when the German Reich was established and today, we considered all parents who were born in a region that was part of the former German Reich (e.g., Silesia or Pomerania) as German-born, although, these territories are located mostly in Poland today. We excluded respondents who named a region of birth that could not be assigned to one specific country (e.g., Kurdistan or Caucasus). Finally, we excluded all individuals who did not provide full information regarding the variables of interest (see Supplementary Material S.1 for an illustration).

To obtain a cultural measure of the strength of family ties that prevails in immigrants’ country of origin, we used data from the World Values Survey (2018) and the European Values Study (2015) (WVS/EVS). The WVS/EVS are the world’s largest noncommercial, cross-national investigations of human beliefs and values. The surveys were initiated in 1981, include data until 2020 so far, and were conducted in more than 100 countries with a total of approximately 640,000 respondents. Both studies capture beliefs on the importance of the family. We constructed the cultural measure including all respondents who provided full information on three questions that capture beliefs on the importance of the family. The approach excludes very recent survey years as these only include one question on the importance of the family.

Dependent variables

The dependent variable was the value of informal care and measured by two questions: “Children should accommodate their parents if they cannot take care for themselves any longer” and “Children should arrange their work so as to be able to care for their sick parents”. Respondents could answer on a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 corresponds to “disagree completely” and 5 to “agree completely.” For the ease of interpretation, we grouped scores 4–5 to represent individuals with a high value of informal care. Respondents who chose scores 1–3 represent individuals with a low value.

Key independent variable

The key independent variable was the strength of family ties that prevails in the parents’ country of birth. We measured this variable following Alesina and Giuliano (2010). Briefly, we used the questions that capture beliefs on the importance of the family and summarized these variables into a single index via principal component analysis. The questions asked about the general importance of the family, children’s respect and love for parents, and parents’ responsibilities to their children. The index measures how close family members are tied together in different cultures and is a widely accepted approach in the economic literature (Alesina and Giuliano 2011, 2014).

First, we assigned different scores to the respondents’ answers, e.g., 1 for “not at all important” and 4 for “very important.” Second, we extracted the first principal component from the whole dataset with all respondents’ answers. Third, we calculated the average first principal component at the country level. We provide a detailed description of the analysis steps in the Supplementary Material S.2.

We assigned each second-generation immigrant a country of origin by applying the following procedure. We assigned the father’s country of birth if the father was non German-born and the mother’s country of birth if the father was German-born. If the father was non German-born, but from a country that was not included in the WVS/EVS, we assigned the mother’s country of birth if she was from a country that was included in the WVS/EVS. The use of the father’s country of birth to define second-generation immigrants’ country of origin was applied in the early literature (Card et al. 1998) and is still fairly standard today (Alesina and Giuliano 2010). We used the mother’s country of birth if the father’s country of birth could not be assigned in order to maximize the number of observations. We justify our proceeding by the economic literature, which theoretically and empirically shows that there is an intergenerational transmission process of values from fathers and mothers to their children (Bisin and Verdier 2000; Dohmen et al. 2012). The assignment of the country of birth was subject to robustness checks.

Control variables

We controlled for a number of individual characteristics and the living environment. We initially included immigrants’ age and gender to assess whether a culture of strong family ties was still reflected in their value of informal care if exogenous personal characteristics were accounted for. Then, we added control variables that could additionally affect the value of informal care. This includes a standard set of socioeconomic characteristics, that is, marital status, number of children, educational attainment, employment status, and net income (e.g., Diederich et al. 2020). In addition, we controlled for religious affiliation as religiosity has been shown to be significantly associated with eldercare norms (Dykstra and Fokkema 2012; Gans et al. 2009). We also added the respondents’ self-rated health because health has been considered as an important aspect regarding a potential selection into the caregiving role (Coe and Van Houtven 2009). Respondents’ living environment was accounted for by federal state fixed effects.

Empirical analysis

We estimated the relationship between the strength of family ties that prevails in parents’ country of birth and second-generation immigrants’ value of informal care by applying simple probit regressions. The analysis was constructed for each of the two measures of the value of informal care separately. Standard errors were clustered at the parents’ country of birth level.

Results

Descriptive statistics

The second wave of the pairfam dataset includes 11,756 respondents in the primary respondents and partner samples. Of these 11,756 respondents, 1174 are German-born with at least one foreign-born parent. Fathers have their origins in 102 different countries and mothers have their origins in 96 different countries. As the WVS/EVS include questions on the importance of the family in approximately 80 countries, we are only able to assign family ties to second-generation immigrants have their origins in 62 different countries. 1011 of these respondents provide full information regarding the variables of interest. The main countries of origin are Turkey, Poland, Czech Republic or Slovakia, and Italy. Table 1 displays the sample characteristics. 62.71% of respondents agree with the statement that children should accommodate their parents to care and 40.36% of them agree that children should arrange their work.

Table 1.

Sample characteristics

Variable Responses
Dependent variable: value of informal care
“Children should accommodate their parents if they cannot take care of themselves any longer” (in %)
 1 Disagree completely 3.26
 2 7.52
 3 26.51
 4 31.95
 5 Agree completely 30.76
“Children should arrange their work so as to be able to care for their sick parents” (in %)
 1 Disagree completely 10.39
 2 19.19
 3 30.07
 4 23.84
 5 Agree completely 16.52
Control variables
Male (in %) 47.58
Mean age (in years) 26.08
Married (in %) 28.78
Number of children (in %)
 No children 66.67
 One child 10.98
 Two children 15.53
 Three children 6.82
Educational attainment (in %)
 Enrolled in high school 29.87
 No degree or lower schooling degree 20.57
 Intermediate schooling degree 25.42
 Upper schooling degree 24.13
Employed (in %) 42.83
Religious affiliation (in %)
 Roman Catholic 33.93
 German protestant 17.51
 Islam 22.16
 Other 6.92
 No confession 19.49
Self-rated poor health (in %) 15.13
Net monthly income (in Euros)
 < 1500 29.18
 ≥ 1500; < 2500 13.35
 ≥ 2500 6.13
 No response 51.34
Number of individuals 1011
Open in a new tab

We hypothesize that second-generation immigrants who come from cultures with stronger family ties are more likely to express a high value of informal care than second-generation immigrants who come from cultures with weaker family ties. Figure 1 shows a positive correlation between the cultural measure of the strength of family ties and immigrants’ average values of informal care at the country of origin level. Denmark is associated with relatively weak family ties and individuals who originate from that country chose score 3 on average if asked about the accommodation of parents. By contrast, Turkey is associated with relatively strong family ties and respondents who originate from Turkey chose score 4.26 on average (Fig. 1a). A similar relationship is found between the strength of family ties and the value of informal care if measured by the arrangement of work to care for sick parents. In this case, respondents from Denmark chose score 2.6 on average and respondents from Turkey chose score 3.72 on average (Fig. 1b). This simple comparison between the strength of family ties and respondents’ average values of informal care gives a first indication that culture in parents’ country of birth is reflected in second-generation immigrants’ value of informal care.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Relationship between the strength of family ties that prevails in country of origin and second-generation immigrants’ average value of informal care

Probit regressions

Table 2 shows that the positive relationship between the cultural strength of family ties in parents’ country of birth and second-generation immigrants’ value of informal care prevails if individual characteristics are accounted for. Models (1)–(3) show the coefficient estimates when considering the accommodation of parents, whereas Models (4)–(6) show the coefficient estimates when considering the arrangement of work to care for sick parents. A one standard deviation increase in the strength of family ties is associated with an increase in the value of informal care by 0.029 (4.6% of the sample average) for Model (3) and by 0.148 (36.6% of the sample average) for Model (6). The coefficient estimates for Models (4)–(6) are significant at the 1% level, however, the coefficient estimates for Models (1)–(3) lose significance once we add control variables. The consistently positive coefficient estimates suggest that second-generation immigrants’ value of informal care is influenced by a “cultural baggage” of family ties that was transmitted from their parents.

Table 2.

Association between the strength of family ties that prevails in the parents’ country of birth and second-generation immigrants’ value of informal care

Dependent variable: value of informal care
Children should accommodate their parents if they cannot take care for themselves any longer Children should arrange their work so as to be able to care for their sick parents
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Key independent variable
Strength of family ties 0.491* 0.332 0.111 1.024*** 0.852*** 0.569***
(0.283) (0.225) (0.170) (0.295) (0.202) (0.154)
Control variables
Male 0.203** 0.227** 0.214*** 0.138*
(0.102) (0.0989) (0.0746) (0.0755)
Age − 0.0154 − 0.0376 − 0.110*** − 0.0922**
(0.0491) (0.0586) (0.0306) (0.0435)
Age2 − 0.0003 0.0002 0.00126** 0.00144**
(0.0008) (0.001) (0.0005) (0.000676)
Additional control variables ✓ ✓
Federal state fixed effects ✓ ✓
Number of observations 1011 1011 1011 1011 1011 1011
Pseudo R2 0.008 0.052 0.095 0.030 0.097 0.159
Open in a new tab

Results are obtained from probit regressions. Each column represents a separate regression. Standard errors are in parentheses and clustered at the parents’ country of birth level. A constant is included. Additional control variables include marital status, number of children, educational attainment, employment status, religious affiliation, self-rated health, and net income. The variable “strength of family ties” has a mean of 0.054 and a standard deviation of 0.260. For Model (3), a one standard deviation increase in the strength of family ties is associated with an increase in the value of informal care by 0.260∙0.111 = 0.029 (0.029/0.6271 = 0.046 ≙ 4.6% of the sample average). Full regression results are provided in the Supplementary Material S.3. *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01

Sensitivity analyses

We conducted various sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of results (see Supplementary Material S.4 for coefficient estimates). First, we repeated the estimations using an ordered probit model with the dependent variable measured from 1 to 5. We compare the coefficient estimates to the estimates in Table 2 where the dependent variable is binary. The results of the probit and ordered probit models are similar. Second, we repeated the regressions but only included respondents with a German citizenship. Respondents who do not have a German citizenship might have stronger ties to their parents’ country of birth and might be influenced by the institutional and environmental setting in the respective country. The coefficient estimates are positive and significant at the 1% level regarding the arrangement of work to care for sick parents. However, when considering the accommodation of parents, the coefficient estimates are non-significant. Third, we repeated the regressions but only assigned the mother’s country of birth in one case and the father's country of birth in another case. The coefficient estimates are again positive across all model specifications. In the case of the accommodation of parents, the coefficient estimates are non-significant when control variables are included.

Discussion and conclusion

Findings in context to previous research

In the light of prevailing differences in LTC use between immigrants and the native population within European countries, it is important to understand the underlying reasons for these differences. Although differences in LTC use have been partly attributed to immigrants’ cultural preferences, children’s willingness to provide LTC to parents is crucial within the caregiving decision process. We outline that if immigrant children’s values are not related to their parents’ cultural traits, there is a potential conflict between foreign-born immigrants’ preferences for LTC and their children’s willingness to provide LTC. Our study contributes to the literature by systematically analyzing whether a culture of strong family ties that prevails in parents’ country of origin is reflected in second-generation immigrants’ values of informal care.

The results show that second-generation immigrants have a relatively high value of informal care. 62.71% of respondents state that children should accommodate their parents and 40.36% agree that children should arrange their work to care. Compared to primary respondents with no migration background in the pairfam dataset, these shares are 6.67 and 10.04 percentage points higher for second-generation immigrants (authors’ calculations). Based on the hypothesis that family ties in immigrants’ country of origin are related to their value of informal care, this finding is not surprising. Family ties in Germany and Northern European countries rank among the lowest in the world, whereas family ties in immigrants’ main countries of origin are substantially higher (Alesina and Giuliano 2014).

Our regression analyses confirm that second-generation immigrants’ value of informal care is systematically related to the cultural strength of family ties that prevails in their parents’ country of birth. This finding is in line with a study by Alesina and Giuliano (2010) that finds a positive relationship between a culture of strong family ties and geographical proximity between second-generation immigrants and their parents. The geographic distance between parents and children has been found to be a strong predictor for a child’s provision of informal care (e.g., Stern 1995). Moreover, Alesina and Giuliano (2010) find a negative relationship between the strength of family ties and female labor force participation for second-generation immigrants. Related to this finding, Carmichael et al. (2010) show that women are more likely to become caregivers if they are not in paid employment. The strong relationship between the strength of family ties in the country of origin and second-generation immigrants’ value of informal care if measured by the arrangement of work to care for sick parents in our study may, therefore, also be driven by a lower labor force attachment of women in certain cultures.

Various studies find that children’s values are related to their caregiving behavior if parents need LTC (Diederich et al. 2020; Fingerman et al. 2011; Silverstein et al. 2006). Then, second-generation immigrants would be more likely to provide LTC to their parents than people with native-born parents. This is in line with the finding that immigrants in European countries are less likely to use formal LTC services and more likely to use informal care than the native population (Hansen 2014; Innes 2020; Schmidt and Schneekloth 2011; Stock et al. 2018).

Our results also relate to an emerging empirical literature that addresses the importance of cultural traits for LTC outcomes. Verbakel (2018) finds that family care norms are related to the proportion of intensive informal caregivers within European countries. Bolin et al. (2008) show that informal care substitutes to a greater extent for formal home care in regions that are associated with stronger family ties. Gentili et al. (2017) find that people residing in the French speaking part of Switzerland enter nursing homes with a higher dependency level compared to people residing in the German speaking part. These differences may be influenced by differences in the importance of the family between German speaking people and people who speak a language with Latin origin.

Strengths and limitations

The pairfam dataset allows us to identify the origins of second-generation immigrants. The large variety of origins is a strength of this study as it is less likely that our results are driven by characteristics that prevail in specific home countries. It may be argued that unobserved confounding factors such as language barriers and differences in social networks can influence the results. However, when considering second-generation immigrants, this is less of a concern as they are more civically involved in activities and more likely to speak the host country’s language (Algan and Aleksynska 2012).

Still, there are limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results. First, the WVS/EVS included data from 1981 to 2010, whereas the pairfam wave 2 interviews were conducted in 2009/2010. Thus, the data used were collected at different points in time. When linking the strength of family ties to people’s value of informal care, we implicitly assume that people’s beliefs about the importance of the family and their value of informal care do not change over time. In line with this assumption, the economic literature attributes the concept of culture and people’s values a certain persistency over time (Alesina and Giuliano 2014).

Second, our results are based on second-generation immigrants in Germany. Compared to immigrants’ home countries, the strength of family ties is relatively low in Germany (Alesina and Giuliano 2014). Thus, the results might be less pronounced if values between second-generation immigrants and the native population are compared in countries with stronger family ties, such as, Southern Europe or the USA.

Third, our results would additionally be supported if similar effects are found for respondents’ parents. Although the sample structure of the pairfam dataset allows for such an analysis, the response rate of parents is too low. Therefore, we also cannot make any inference on the underlying acculturation process. On the one hand, immigrants’ values of informal care may gradually converge from generation to generation to those of the native population. On the other hand, there are other acculturation strategies, such as, separation, which assumes a weak connection to the host culture and a strong connection to the home culture (Algan et al. 2012).

Implications

Although Germany and other European countries make efforts toward the integration of immigrants (European Commission 2016), second-generation immigrants’ values of informal care are shaped by a culture of strong family ties that prevails in their parents’ country of birth. It can, therefore, be assumed that immigrants have different needs and preferences when needing LTC. Policy makers should keep in mind that the same set of LTC interventions can have very different effects, depending on immigrants’ value of informal care and the importance of the family. On the one hand, immigrants in need for LTC who have stronger family ties may be less willing to use professional LTC services, even if these options may be available to them. Likewise, immigrants’ children held the view that they would be responsible for their parents irrespective of other LTC options (Arora et al. 2020). A discrepancy between people’s LTC values/preferences and the actual care arrangement has been hypothesized to affect people’s well-being and satisfaction (Arora et al. 2020; Kasper et al. 2019). On the other hand, informal caregivers may cope very differently with the caregiving burden depending on their value of informal care and the importance of the family. Some caregivers may struggle less with the caregiving role than others or the caregiving burden may be hidden. Immigrant children view the provision of LTC to parents as a duty and fear social exclusion if other LTC options are chosen (Arora et al. 2020). Thus, the set of public policies that is intended to lower the caregiver burden may be subject to different requirements. On the bottom line, public policies that respond to the growing need for LTC should be designed such that interventions are in accordance with the social values of people in need for LTC, including those of immigrants.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 54 KB) (54.2KB, docx)

Acknowledgements

This paper uses data from the German Family Panel pairfam, coordinated by Josef Brüderl, Sonja Drobnič, Karsten Hank, Johannes Huinink, Bernhard Nauck, Franz J. Neyer, and Sabine Walper. From 2004 to 2022 pairfam was funded as priority program and long-term project by the German Research Foundation (DFG).

Funding

This work was supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Grant Number 01EH1601B).

Declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. Albertini M, Semprebon M. Caring for elderly parents: perceived filial obligations among Maghrebine immigrants in Italy. Ethnicities. 2020;20:1117–1143. doi: 10.1177/1468796820932583. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Alesina A, Giuliano P. The power of the family. J Econ Growth. 2010;15:93–125. doi: 10.1007/s10887-010-9052-z. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Alesina A, Giuliano P. Family ties and political participation. J Eur Econ Assoc. 2011;9:817–839. doi: 10.1111/j.1542-4774.2011.01024.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Alesina A, Giuliano P. Family ties. In: Aghion P, Durlauf SN, editors. Handbook of economic growth. North Holland: Elsevier; 2014. pp. 117–215. [Google Scholar]
  5. Alesina A, Algan Y, Cahuc P, Giuliano P. Family values and the regulation of labor. J Eur Econ Assoc. 2015;13:599–630. doi: 10.1111/jeea.12121. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Algan Y, Aleksynska M. Conclusion: cultural integration of immigrants in Europe. In: Algan Y, Bisin A, Manning A, Verdier T, editors. Cultural integration of immigrants in Europe: studies of policy reform. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012. pp. 301–332. [Google Scholar]
  7. Algan Y, Bisin A, Verdier T. Introduction: perspectives on cultural integration of immigrants. In: Algan Y, Bisin A, Manning A, Verdier T, editors. Cultural integration of immigrants in Europe: studies of policy reform. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012. pp. 1–48. [Google Scholar]
  8. Arora S, Rechel B, Bergland A, Straiton M, Debesay J. Female Pakistani carers’ views on future formal and informal care for their older relatives in Norway. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20:603. doi: 10.1186/s12913-020-05468-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bisin A, Verdier T. "Beyond the melting pot": cultural transmission, marriage, and the evolution of ethnic and religious traits. Q J Econ. 2000;115:955–988. doi: 10.1162/003355300554953. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Bolin K, Lindgren B, Lundborg P. Informal and formal care among single-living elderly in Europe. Health Econ. 2008;17:393–409. doi: 10.1002/hec.1275. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Bradley EH, McGraw SA, Curry L, Buckser A, King KL, Kasl SV, Andersen R. Expanding the Andersen model: the role of psychosocial factors in long-term care use. Health Serv Res. 2002;37:1221–1242. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.01053. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Brüderl J, Drobnič S, Hank K, Nauck B, Neyer FJ, Walper S, Alt P, Bozoyan C, Buhr P, Finn C, Garrett M, Greischel H, Gröpler N, Hajek K, Herzig M, Huyer-May B, Lenke R, Minkus L, Müller B, Peter T, Schmiedeberg C, Schütze P, Schumann N, Thönnissen C, Wetzel M, Wilhelm B (2019) The German family panel (pairfam). ZA5678 Data file Version 10.0.0. 10.4232/pairfam.5678.10.0.0
  13. Card D, DiNardo J, Estes E (1998) The more things change: immigrants and the children of immigrants in the 1940s, the 1970s, and the 1990s. NBER Working Paper No. 6519. 10.3386/w6519. Accessed 02 Aug 2022
  14. Carmichael F, Charles S, Hulme C. Who will care? Employment participation and willingness to supply informal care. J Health Econ. 2010;29:182–190. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2009.11.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Cheung S-L, Barf H, Cummings S, Hobbelen H, Chui EW-T. Changing shapes of care: expressions of filial piety among second-generation Chinese in the Netherlands. J Fam Issues. 2020;41:2400–2422. doi: 10.1177/0192513x20917992. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Coe NB, Van Houtven CH. Caring for mom and neglecting yourself? The health effects of caring for an elderly parent. Health Econ. 2009;18:991–1010. doi: 10.1002/hec.1512. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Colombo F, Llena-Nozal A, Mercier J, Tjadens F. Help wanted? Providing and paying for long-term care. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2011. [Google Scholar]
  18. Diederich F, König H-H, Brettschneider C. How politico-economic systems shape individuals’ value of elderly care: evidence from the German reunification. Gerontologist. 2020;60:350–358. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnz128. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Diederich F, König H-H, Brettschneider C. Cultural differences in the intended use of long-term care services in the united states: the role of family ties. J Gerontol Ser B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2022;77:201–211. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbab035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Dilworth-Anderson P, Williams IC, Gibson BE. Issues of race, ethnicity, and culture in caregiving research: a 20-year review (1980–2000) Gerontologist. 2002;42:237–272. doi: 10.1093/geront/42.2.237. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Dohmen T, Falk A, Huffman D, Sunde U. The intergenerational transmission of risk and trust attitudes. Rev Econ Stud. 2012;79:645–677. doi: 10.1093/restud/rdr027. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Dykstra PA, Fokkema T. Norms of filial obligation in the Netherlands. Population. 2012;67:97–122. doi: 10.3917/popu.1201.0103. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. European Commission (2016) Action plan on the integration of third country nationals. https://ec.europa.eu/migrant-integration/main-menu/eus-work/archive/actions. Accessed 02 Aug 2022
  24. European Values Study (2015) european values study 1981–2008, Longitudinal data file. ZA4804 Data File Version 3.0.0. 10.4232/1.12253
  25. Federal Statistical Office (2021) Ausländer: Deutschland, Stichtag, Geschlecht/Altersjahre/Familienstand, Ländergruppierungen/Staatsangehörigkeit. Dataset. https://www-genesis.destatis.de/genesis/online
  26. Fernández R. Does culture matter? In: Benhabib J, Jackson MO, Bisin A, editors. Handbook of social economics. North Holland: Elsevier; 2011. pp. 481–510. [Google Scholar]
  27. Fingerman KL, VanderDrift LE, Dotterer AM, Birditt KS, Zarit SH. Support to aging parents and grown children in Black and White families. Gerontologist. 2011;51:441–452. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnq114. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Gans D, Silverstein M, Lowenstein A. Do religious children care more and provide more care for older parents? A study of filial norms and behaviors across five nations. J Comp Fam Stud. 2009;40:187–201. doi: 10.3138/jcfs.40.2.187. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Gentili E, Masiero G, Mazzonna F. The role of culture in long-term care arrangement decisions. J Econ Behav Organ. 2017;143:186–200. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2017.09.007. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Guiso L, Sapienza P, Zingales L. Does culture affect economic outcomes? J Econ Perspect. 2006;20:23–48. doi: 10.1257/jep.20.2.23. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Hansen EB. Older immigrants’ use of public home care and residential care. Eur J Ageing. 2014;11:41–53. doi: 10.1007/s10433-013-0289-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Huinink J, Brüderl J, Nauck B, Walper S, Castiglioni L, Feldhaus M. Panel analysis of intimate relationships and family dynamics (pairfam): conceptual framework and design. Z Familienforsch. 2011;23:77–101. [Google Scholar]
  33. Innes HM. Use of long-term care services in a universal welfare state-on the importance of age at migration. Soc Sci Med. 2020;252:112923. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.112923. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Kasper JD, Wolff JL, Skehan M. Care arrangements of older adults: what they prefer, what they have, and implications for quality of life. Gerontologist. 2019;59:845–855. doi: 10.1093/geront/gny127. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Kobayashi KM, Funk L. Of the family tree: congruence on filial obligation between older parents and adult children in Japanese Canadian families. Can J Aging Rev Can Vieil. 2010;29:85–96. doi: 10.1017/s0714980809990341. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Merz E-M, Özeke-Kocabas E, Oort FJ, Schuengel C. Intergenerational family solidarity: value differences between immigrant groups and generations. J Fam Psychol. 2009;23:291–300. doi: 10.1037/a0015819. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Nadash P, Doty P, von Schwanenflügel M. The German long-term care insurance program: evolution and recent developments. Gerontologist. 2017;58:588–597. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnx018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Pillemer K, Suitor JJ. Making choices: a within-family study of caregiver selection. Gerontologist. 2006;46:439–448. doi: 10.1093/geront/46.4.439. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Pillemer K, Suitor JJ. Who provides care? A prospective study of caregiving among adult siblings. Gerontologist. 2014;54:589–598. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnt066. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Schmidt M, Schneekloth U (2011) Abschlussbericht zur Studie “Wirkungen des Pflege-Weiterentwicklungsgesetzes": Bericht zu den Repräsentativerhebungen. Federal Ministry of Health. https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/. Accessed 02 Aug 2022
  41. Sharma RK, Khosla N, Tulsky JA, Carrese JA. Traditional expectations versus US realities: first- and second-generation Asian Indian perspectives on end-of-life care. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27:311–317. doi: 10.1007/s11606-011-1890-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Silverstein M, Gans D, Yang FM. Intergenerational support to aging parents: the role of norms and needs. J Fam Issues. 2006;27:1068–1084. doi: 10.1177/0192513x06288120. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Stern S. Estimating family long-term care decisions in the presence of endogenous child characteristics. J Hum Resour. 1995;30:551–580. doi: 10.2307/146035. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Stock S, Ihle P, Simic D, Rupprecht C, Schubert I, Lappe V, Kalbe E, Tebest R, Lorrek K. Prävalenz von Demenz bei Versicherten mit und ohne deutsche Staatsangehörigkeit. Bundesgesundheitsblatt. 2018;61:404–411. doi: 10.1007/s00103-018-2711-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Sudha S. Intergenerational relations and elder care preferences of Asian Indians in North Carolina. J Cross Cult Gerontol. 2014;29:87–107. doi: 10.1007/s10823-013-9220-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Tezcan-Güntekin H, Razum O. Pflege von Menschen mit migrationshintergrund. In: Jacobs K, Kuhlmey A, Greß S, Klauber J, Schwinger A, editors. Die Versorgung der Pflegebedürftigen. Stuttgart: Schattauer; 2017. pp. 73–81. [Google Scholar]
  47. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2020) International Migrant Stock 2020. Dataset. https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/content/international-migrant-stock
  48. Verbakel E. How to understand informal caregiving patterns in Europe? The role of formal long-term care provisions and family care norms. Scand J Public Health. 2018;46:436–447. doi: 10.1177/1403494817726197. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Walsh M, Fitzgerald MP, Gurley-Calvez T, Pellillo A. Active versus passive choice: evidence from a public health care redesign. J Public Policy Mark. 2011;30:191–202. doi: 10.1509/jppm.30.2.191. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. World Values Survey (2018) World value survey official 6 wave aggregate 1981–2015. v.220180912. https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSDocumentationWVL.jsp

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 54 KB) (54.2KB, docx)

Articles from European Journal of Ageing are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES