Older People’s Capacities and Intergenerational Mutual Support Provision in Vietnam

Trinh Thai Quang*

Abstract: This paper focuses on the mutual support provision between older people and their children. Intergenerational exchange is considered an empirical indicator of functional solidarity, a core constituent of intergenerational solidarity. Types of support in this analysis include financial support, housework, care support, and work assistance. Data from the Vietnam National Ageing Survey 2011 were used for analysis with a sample of 2,700 participants aged 60 and older. Results suggest that older people with more resources tend to involve in intergenerational mutual support provision relationships, particularly with regard to financial support. Additionally, age, marital status, living arrangement, number of children and the health condition of older parents significantly contribute to encouraging mutual support provision. Future research could focus on reciprocity models and the relationship between quality of intergenerational relationships and support exchange. Further, it could explore the outcomes of support exchanges, which results in older people’s wellbeing in advanced age.

Keywords: Intergenerational support; Elderly; Inter-generational relationship; Vietnam.

1. Introduction

Intergenerational exchange can be understood as the giving and receiving of support between generations, which plays a role in family functioning by providing support or transfer of resources among members (Frankenberg, Lillard, & Willis, 2002). These exchanges are almost always asymmetric during an individual lifespan, with later life usually following a pattern of upward transfers; that is, older people are more likely to be support recipients than providers. This pattern is often observed in Asian societies, where the main direction and motivation underlying the flow of support between generations is from adult children to their older parents, consistent with the patriarchal culture of filial norms and obligations (Lin & Yi, 2013). In societies such as Vietnam, families play crucial roles in taking care of older members and support exchanges vary with a range of factors. For example, co-residence may create more opportunities for immediate support exchange among generations, and greater numbers of children may increase the chance that an older parent receives support from at least one of the children. Other factors include household living standards, sex of children, adult children’s resources, health and economic status of older parents and regional differences.

Among these factors, important points must be recognised when examining this relationship. First, it is older people’s circumstances and children’s resources and proximity that basically determine the need, amount and pattern of support exchanges. Second, social norms and values and expectations can be specific to a family member, family ties and perceived filial obligations, as well as reciprocity and altruism, which play central roles as motivators of support provision between generations.

The Vietnamese family is still the main institution that provides support for family members, especially the elderly. Notwithstanding social change, the elderly generally receive support from their adult children in old age. However, family bonds in Vietnam are in transition due to rapid demographic and social change. There are more older adults living alone or with only a spouse, and a decrease in multigenerational households has been seen. In that context, what is the main pattern of intergenerational mutual support among Vietnamese families? In which directions do intergenerational support mainly flow, what are the determinants and normative principles underlying them and what situations reinforce or threaten these relationships? This paper contributes to answering these central research questions using data from the Vietnam National Ageing Survey (VNAS) 2011.

2. Methodology

Data and sample

This paper uses data from the Vietnam Ageing National Survey 2011, with a total 2,789 individuals aged 60 years and older. As stated earlier, the paper focuses on mutual support relationships between the elderly and their adult children. Therefore, 89 older people (3.2% of the original sample) who have no children were excluded from the analyses, but are still presented in the tables as a group of reference. Thus, the analysis sample includes 2,700 participants who have at least one child. This child may be biological, adopted, in-law or a stepchild.

The data cover information on both older parents’ and adult children’s support, which allows for analysing the patterns by household and older people’s backgrounds. The supports encompass many aspects, including financial and practical support. A few potential biases have been recognised. First, data were retrieved from a cross-sectional survey, and thus cannot capture well the lifespan effect on intergenerational support and changes over the life course. Second, information was collected only from older people; thus, the views of adult children may not be well represented.

3. Measures

Support provision: mutual support in this analysis includes financial assistance, care, housework, personal care assistance, and work assistance. Details of the variables are as follows:

- Older parents provide financial assistance to their children (Yes, No)

- Older parents provide care for grandchildren (Yes, No)

- Older parents provide housework assistance (Yes, No)

- Older parents receive financial assistance from children (Yes, No)

- Older parents receive daily personal care assistance (Yes, No)

- Older parents receive housework assistance (Yes, No)

- Older parents receive work assistance (business or family farm work) (Yes, No).

Intergenerational support provision between the elderly and their adult children are mainly examined in four different domains: economics, health, household structure, and living arrangements. Measurements of these domains are discussed below.

The elderly’s economic conditions are measured by six indicators, including whether they have sufficient income, pension, and savings; whether they actively work; whether they own the house; and the household wealth index.

Household wealth index was compiled from components capturing housing condition (e.g., type of housing, type of toilet and the source of water and lighting) and household possessions (e.g., cars, motorbikes, telephone, mobile phones, televisions, computers, vacuum cleaners and microwaves). The higher the value of the variable, the wealthier the household.

Health conditions were identified by four components: self-reported difficulties in mobility and self-care activities, diagnosed diseases, and health complaints. The higher the value of the variables, the worse the elderly’s health condition. Regarding mobility, it refers to older people’s ability to walk 200–300 meters, lift or carry something 5 kilograms, crouch and squat, use fingers to grab or hold, walk up and down the stairs, stand up when sitting down and extend arms above shoulder level. Self-care activities refer to older people’s ability to perform activities including eating, getting dressed or undressed, crouching or squatting, bathing/washing, getting up and getting to and using the toilet. Diseases are diagnosed with chronic diseases (12 items) such as arthritis, angina, diabetes, lung diseases, and depression, among others. Health complaints were measured by 16 different items. Older people were asked to report if they had experienced any of those symptoms within the last 30 days.

Household structure: The dimensions used in this domain include older people’s marital status, whether they have a son, whether they have grandchildren, numbers of own children and household size.

Living arrangement was measured by the number of generations and whether the older person has a child living nearby or not.

Covariates include age (60–69, 70–79 and 80 and older), gender (male and female), education level (no schooling, primary and below, secondary and higher) and residential area (rural and urban).

4. Method

The descriptive analysis used cluster analysis, which helps to define and divide the sample into different groups over four domains, including economic condition, health condition, family structure and living arrangements, together with demographic characteristics and mutual support provision. Older people in a cluster share similar specific attributes, which helps to reduce the complexity of further analysis. It is recommended to apply a two-step cluster analysis (Norusis, 2009)and K-means cluster analysis. First, clusters and quality of clustering are identified using two-step cluster analysis. Three clusters have been created for both downward and upward support, with clustering quality ranging from fair to good. Second, K-mean cluster analysis was used to divide the elderly into different groups. Three clusters, based on the results of the two-step cluster analysis, were applied in the K-means cluster analysis. The three clusters are labelled as Cluster 1: the most capable elderly (C1); Cluster 2: moderately capable elderly (C2); and Cluster 3: the least capable elderly (C3).

Determinants of intergenerational support provision were identified using logistic regression analysis with dependent variables as support exchange receipt and provision.

5. Results

The majority of older people (68%) receive financial assistance from their adult children and 34% consider that to be the most important source of income. The elderly also play a role as a financial supporter of their children, even though the percentage of those sending money to children (16%) is not as high as those receiving. Conversely, the elderly provide substantial help with accommodation, household chores and caring for grandchildren. In this analysis, 53% of older people who co-reside with children were the primary person performing housework and 37% had provided care for grandchildren during the preceding 12 months at the time of their interview. A significant proportion (62%) provides accommodation to their children as they are the owner of the house.

Besides providing financial support to older parents, adult children were also reported as supporters in older parents’ economic activities (22%), and primarily as caregivers in cases of older parents facing health problems (35%) and difficulties in self-care activities (12.2%). For older people who are currently married, it is the spouse who plays the central role as a caregiver when they are sick; however, children are the most important source of support for people who are widowed, separated or divorced.

Clusters of capabilities and vulnerabilities in downward support

Cluster analysis divides the older population into three groups: 993 older people in C1 (38.8%), 847 in C2 (33.1%) and 717 in C3 (28.6%). The following section discusses similarities and variations across clusters in regards to their demographic characteristics, vulnerability and resources and household structure and living arrangements.

Demographic characteristics

The percentage of elderly in early old age (60–69) is the highest (51%) in the group of most capable elderly (C1), significantly higher than moderately capable elderly (C2) (39%) and the least capable elderly (C3) (32.6%).⁽²⁾ The percentage of female elderly is significantly high among C3 (70%), while it is 51% among C1 and 59% among C2. This suggests a connection between age and gender in each cluster. Older people in this analysis live more in rural than urban areas and there are more older people in C3 (82.4%) living in rural areas than those in C1 (71%) and C2 (70%). Across clusters, older people in C1 have higher levels of education than the other two clusters.

Economic, health conditions, household structure and living arrangements

Older people in C1 are in a better position compared with other clusters in terms of income, savings and status of actively working, although the lowest proportion of elderly in C1 has a pension among clusters. The number of older people in early old age within this cluster is relatively high, resulting in a higher percentage of those who are still actively working. Older people who live in households with the highest wealth index and better health conditions are also seen more in C1. For example, 55% of older people in C1 have no difficulty in mobility, significantly higher than their counterparts in C2 and C3 (15.5% and 1.8% respectively). The same trends were reported in health complaints and diagnosed chronic diseases.

A half of C3 were no longer married (divorced, separated or widowed), while this percentage is only one-third in C1, with most currently married (66%). There is not much difference in terms of having a son and grandchildren among these groups. C2 generally have more own children than C1 and C3, and were also found more often living in multigenerational households than C1 and C3, which may occur due to the fact that they have fewer children.

In terms of support provision, Table 1 shows that 19% of elderly in C2 provide financial support for their children while 17% of elderly in C1 and only 12% in C3 provide it. It might be that children of older people in C1 are in good condition and would not need any support from their older parents, which lead to less support provision from older people in C1. Older people in C2 also provide more grandparenting than other older people, which may relate to their living arrangements, as a majority of them live in multigenerational households.

As most people in C1 live in small households with one or two generations, which means that they are not co-residing with their grandchildren, that reduces the chance for older people to provide care for their grandchildren. Thus, it suggests that proximity plays an essential role in encouraging the elderly to take care of their grandchildren.

Table 1. Clusters by Types of Support Provision (n = 2,557) (%)

Data source: VNAS, 2011.

For elderly who provided housework assistance, the majority live in multigenerational households and the highest percentage is among C2, followed by C1 and C3 (54%, 30%, and 17%, respectively). In general, although living closely with children may promote older people’s housework assistance, which can be considered a prerequisite, good health also has an influence as it is required to provide such support for their children. For this reason, the percentage of C3 elderly performing housework assistance is the lowest of the three clusters, as they face many more difficulties with their health than their counterparts.

Clusters of capabilities and vulnerabilities in upward support

Demographic information

C1 includes 986 individuals, half of whom are between 60–69 years old (54%), female, most live in rural areas and 47% have an education level of primary and below. There are 916 individuals in C3. No significant difference was found regarding age, but the percentage of people aged 80 and older (36%) is slightly higher than other age groups and much higher than for C1. Female and rural older people are dominant in C3, much higher than counterparts in C1 and C2 (69% and 82%, respectively). C2 encompasses 709 moderately capable people, with 58% female and 71% living in rural areas. These results are relatively similar to previous analysis of downward support.

Economic, health conditions, household structure and living arrangements

Some 43% of C1 have enough income for daily living, compared with 38% and 25% for C2 and C3, respectively. Some 13% have savings (compared with 8.2% for C2 and 8.1% for C3) and 89% own their home, 46% are actively working, and 20% are living in households with the highest wealth index (compared with 16% and 8% for C2 and C3). They probably have more chances to exchange support with their children because they have available resources, among which are financial resources, savings – ‘a crucial component of safety net for the elderly’ (Demirgüç-Kunt, Klapper, & Panos, 2016, p. 1)– which they have at much higher levels than those in C2 or C3.

Most people in C3 do not have enough income for daily living (75%), even though the percentage of those who have a pension is relatively higher than those in C1 and C2. Few have savings, but around 78% own the house they are living in. They were also reported as the least likely to live in wealthier households, at only 8.3%; one-third live in the lower middle while 54% live in the higher middle of household wealth. Older people in this cluster are seen less among those who are actively working (31%) compared with other clusters, probably because of their poor health. Older people in C1, though in good economic condition, receive more financial assistance. Those in worse condition, as in C3, receive less financial support from their children. These results imply underlying factors other than economic conditions that influence financial support receipt.

In regards to health conditions, the elderly in C1 are the healthiest. This is entirely different than the case of the elderly in C3, as most of C3 have at least some issues with mobility. They also have many health complaints; for instance, the results show that 33% of older people in C3 have 11–16 health complaints, while this is 0% and 2% for C1 and C2, respectively. Some 70% of C3 have difficulties in self-care activities. Multiple morbidities have also been reported more seriously in this group.

Similar to the case of downward support, currentlymarried elderly were found more in C1, while the percentage of no longer married is the highest in C3. Older people in C2 remain in the middle, but they tend to have more children, with nearly 40% having seven or more children, much higher than in C1 and C3. No-longer-married elderly in C3 are in even worse circumstances, because they have lost support from their spouse and most have health issues. Thus, their only source of support is from their children. No significant difference was found regarding having a son and having at least one grandchild among clusters.

Living arrangements of older people are varied among clusters. We found that C2 elderly live more often in multigenerational households, while C1 and C3 elderly live in smaller households with one or two generations.

Regarding support receipt, older people in C1 receive more financial support but less care support from children, as they have better health. The majority of C1 older people are married, which means that the primary responsibility of care provision belongs to their partners. On the contrary, C3 elderly receive less financial support but much more care support, because they have several health problems, especially with mobility and self-care activities. In this case, it is their adult children who provide care because half of older people in C3 are separated, divorced or widowed. Their poor health substantively prevents them from working. Many of them have numerous children (29% have 5–6 children; 16% have 7 or more children), which may increase the chance that they receive care support from their offspring. In contrast, 15% of people in this cluster live alone, and thus, may require care from children who live away from them. Fortunately, half of those who live alone in C3 have a child living nearby.

As noted earlier, elderly in C1 are mainly in early old age and healthy, which may result in their high rate of participation in the labour force, and thus, lead to their higher rate of receiving working assistance from their children than those in different clusters. However, the percentage of older people receiving working assistance reduces across clusters, together with a reduction in labour force participation, which may be caused by their health, and thus working assistance receipt decreases as well.

Table 2. Clusters by Support Receipt (n = 2,611) (%)

C1 elderly have the lowest proportion receiving housework assistance, maybe due to the fact that a significant share of them is married and in a reasonably good health. Alternatively, living in a smaller household and having fewer children may contribute to the lower percentage of C1 elderly receiving this support. On the contrary, the percentage of elderly in C2 receiving housework assistance is highest among the clusters. Many elderly in C2 live in multigenerational households, which strongly encourages mutual support. In addition, their health condition is at only a fair level, requiring help in physical tasks from other household members. Also, having more children is another source of help that may contribute to the higher rate of elderly in C2 receiving housework support from adult children.

Determinants of intergenerational support provision

The elderly as support providers

The most significant factor that affects the elderly’s support provision is their age in all three types of support including financial, care and housework support (see Table 3). Older people who are aged 60–69 years, married, more highly educated and actively working tend to provide financial support to their children more than their counterparts. The most noteworthy point concerns older people’s economic condition, which they may use in mutual support relationships. The results indicate that elderly who have no savings are less likely to provide financial support than those who have savings. In terms of health, elderly with difficulties in self-care are less likely to provide financial support to children than those who do not have any difficulties. Difficulties in self-care also negatively influence other support provision from the elderly, including caring for grandchildren and housework.

In terms of grandparenting, analysis of health factors highlights that older people who have problems with mobility or self-care are less likely to provide care for grandchildren than those who are healthy. However, in the case of multiple morbidities, they keep providing this type of support. This finding is somewhat contradictory, and the most reasonable explanation is that older people with multiple chronic diseases stay at home and thus provide care to their grandchildren. Also, living in multigenerational households increases the probability to provide care to grandchildren, which raises the issue of older people with multiple morbidities being dependent on their offspring in terms of care support – they may choose to live in multigenerational households and care for grandchildren as a way to share their mutual responsibilities. Alternatively, those who have a child living nearby and who have sufficient income are also more likely to take care of the grandchildren than their counterparts.

Regarding housework assistance, results present structural effects by gender and area of residence. Female elderly and elderly in rural areas tend to provide this support to children more than male elderly and those who live in urban areas. Living in larger households promotes this support among the elderly, but in the case of elderly living alone or with a spouse, it is their own duty. Regarding health, difficulties in mobility and self-care activities were found as obstacles to the elderly helping children with household chores.

Table 3. Logistic Regression on Downward Supports (n = 2,700)

 Data source: VNAS, 2011.

Note: Bolded numbers indicate statistical significance at p < 0.05 level.

Financial support received by the elderly was significantly determined by their number of children. Older people who have more children, have no pension and are not working are more likely to receive financial support from their children than their counterparts. It must be stressed that having no pension or not working does not necessarily mean that older people are in poor economic condition. Older people who live in smaller households are more likely to have financial support from non-co-resident children than their counterparts; and those who do not live with children are more likely to receive financial support from children who live elsewhere.

Regarding health, it seems that those who have no health complaints tend to receive support from non-co-resident children. However, those who have difficulties in self-care activities (2–3 difficulties) are more likely to receive money from these children than those who have no difficulties at all. Possibly, economic hardship is not the driver of financial transfer in this case, because older people who have sufficient income and own their home are more likely to receive money from physically distant children than their counterparts, and those who live in urban areas have a higher likelihood of receiving this support as well.

Care support is significantly related to older people’s health. Older people who have difficulties in mobility and self-care activities, more health complaints and diagnosed diseases are more likely to receive care support from children, especially those who have problems in self-care and health complaints. For examples, older people with 5–8 health complaints are 2.8 times more likely to receive care support, and this increases to four times among those who have nine or more health complaints, compared with those who have no problems at all. In cases of self-care difficulties, those who have 2–3 problems are 1.5 times more likely to receive care support from children. In addition, females are more likely to receive care support from children.

In regards to work assistance, older people who are in early old age are more likely to receive this type of support from their children because they are more likely to actively participate in the labour force than those who are in advanced age. The results also show that those who are living in less wealthy households tend to receive this type of support. Regarding health, older people with no difficulties in mobility and self-care are more likely to receive work assistance from their adult children. On the contrary, older people with health complaints, to a certain extent, are still able to work and therefore, in this case, are more likely to receive work assistance from children than those who have no problems at all. Other factors that contribute to determining this type of support receipt are area of residence, education, pension and marital status.

Number of children was found to be a significant factor in housework assistance. Having more children increases the elderly’s chance of receiving this type of support. More critically, elderly who live in multigenerational households are more likely to receive help with housework than those who live in on or two-generational households. Older people who have children living nearby are more likely to receive housework assistance than their counterparts, regardless of their current living arrangement. Alternatively, older people with self-care difficulties are also more likely to receive help with household chores from their children.

6. Discussion and Conclusion

Families are the primary institution providing care for the elderly, not only recognised by society but officially stated in legal documents including the Vietnam Marriage and Family Law and Law on the Elderly. Previous research has indicated the importance of children in providing financial assistance to older people (Friedman et al., 2002), which is one of the most significant financial sources that helps to ensure the elderly’s daily living (Le, 2012; Ministry of Culture Sport and Tourism et al., 2008). The traditional expectation for living arrangements of the elderly is that they prefer to live with a married son when they get older, with a son considered ‘crucial for their well-being later in life’ (Knodel et al., 2000, p. 90). Nevertheless, son preference appears not to be essential to the elderly regarding intergenerational support provision, but the number of children is a powerful factor that determines this relationship, consistent with Knodel et al. (2000). This consistency confirms the correlation between household structure and intergenerational support provision.

Theoretically, this finding supports the theory of filial obligations (or debt theory) of children towards their parents. However, it also suggests that reciprocity is firmly embedded in Vietnamese society, because it implies that children keep sending money to older parents no matter how wealthy their older parents are, which could be considered payback for what parents have previously (and significantly) provided for them. Support from children is not as simple as ‘paying back’ what they have received previously from their parents. It depends much more on the state of the intimate relationship between generations, social and family culture and children’s abilities. Thus, ‘the duties of grown children to parents do not look like the duties of debtors and creditors’ (Keller, 2006, p. 257).

Another explanation may lie with the elderly’s living arrangements. When the elderly live with dependent children, financial support from adult children is a contributing source to reduce the expense of raising dependent children. Conversely, previous research has argued that the elderly may use their resources as bargaining power to request their children’s support, and children providing care for parents is thought to increase the chance of being heirs. Findings in this analysis found a significant association between older people’s home ownership and financial support by non-co-resident children, but this is not sufficient to make any conclusions similar to the arguments above. Alternatively, this finding confirms previous research findings that children are willing to provide support when their older parents are economically independent (Chow, 1993; Ng, Phillips, & Lee, 2002 in Silverstein, 2005).

Another interesting finding consistent with previous literature is on non-co-resident children’s support provision. Older parents tend to receive this support from non-co-resident children when the parents live on their own rather than when they are co-residing with other children. This may be because non-co-resident children believe that their parents are safe living with other siblings or are ‘reluctant to provide’ support in case their support may also benefit their siblings in specific ways (Pezzin, Pollak, & Schone, 2004 in Silverstein, 2005, p.167). In this analysis, this is seen only in financial support, as the data do not cover information on physical support from non-co-resident children. Nevertheless, this finding suggests a mechanism of division on support provision among children to their elderly parents.

Regarding downward financial support, the results highlight the correlation between older people’s economic condition and support provision, as older people with more financial resources tend to provide more support than others. The availability of financial resources, hence, plays an essential role in encouraging intergenerational financial support exchange. Results from this analysis confirm the literature. This may be ‘real’ support to children who are in need or away for the elderly to maintain their role among family members. Financial pressures that children face maybe more serious than previous generations, which encourages parents to provide financial support to children because they do not want their children to face difficulties as they did. Alternatively, intergenerational mutual support has been proven to be closely related to the elderly’s wellbeing and life satisfaction (Lee et al., 2014), which then may serve as a motivation for them to engage in a supportive relationship.

Care receipt by older people in this analysis was predicted by two main determinants: gender and health condition. Women are more likely to receive care support than men. This may be because they have a higher life expectancy, which results in a higher risk of being widowed and having health problems in advanced age. In regards to health, older people who have disabilities, are frail or have mobility issues are more in need of help than other people, and it is their partner who takes care of them in the first instance. For elderly people no longer married, children are expected to be the primary supporters. People with mobility difficulties are also more likely to receive care than those with other health issues, in this case, those with multiple chronic diseases. In some stages, older people who have chronic diseases can still provide help, which explains why older people with chronic diseases provide care for grandchildren, even more than those who have no diseases at all. It may be that these people cannot work anymore, they have to stay at home because of their health issues, and in this situation, they play the role of caregiver to their grandchildren, especially those who are living in multigenerational households.

One question raised in previous research on caregiving to older parents by adult children regards whether caring for elderly parents is a duty (Stuifbergen & Van Delden, 2011), and the difference in perception of filial obligations between Western and Asian countries. The paper argues that adult children do not have to take care of or provide financial support for elderly parents as their duty unless they would like to maintain the parent–child relationship, and that ‘caring about an elderly parent does not necessarily entail care-giving. In most instances, it will probably mean taking care of aspects of the situation, for instance supervising the care provided by others’ (Stuifbergen & Van Delden, 2011, p. 70). The difference presented here is that the relationship between adult children and elderly parents in Asian countries, particularly Vietnam, is not just determined by both parties’ wishes, but is implicitly controlled by norms, values and social judgments.

Other types of support, including work and housework assistance, were investigated in this paper. The reason why work assistance was chosen for analysis is that the majority of the population lives in rural areas and works in the agricultural sector. A significant share of this population is farmers, who work on their land for their whole life. Rural older people in this research are living in poorer conditions and lack financial resources than their urban counterparts, thus they have to keep working in their old age for living, which resulted in their higher chance receiving work assistance support from their children. It is hard to identify what kind of assistance children provide to their elderly parents regarding work assistance. It could be the ‘heavy’ parts of the elderly people’s jobs; for example, in farming, it may include preparing the soil and harvesting. For this type of support, it is older people’s health condition that directly determines children’s support, because those who have health issues, especially with mobility and self-care activities, are not able to work. Thus, they are less likely to receive support from children. On the contrary, people with better health but in poor living conditions keep working for their living and to contribute to the household’s income. In this case, they may receive more support from children with their work. As mentioned above, working in old age is not necessarily because of poor living conditions, but to a certain extent, it is one of the main reasons why the elderly continue to actively work.

One interesting finding relates to housework assistance provided by the elderly, apparently driven by gender and place of residence, which are interrelated. Housework has been considered women’s duty for centuries and that perception still exists in modern Vietnam, especially among elderly influenced by feudal education. Regarding support receipt, it strictly depends on the elderly’s living arrangements, because it is usually children’s duty to perform housework. That explains why elderly who live in multigenerational households or have a child living nearby are more likely to receive housework support than others. Proximity encourages this type of support exchange, as it does with care support.

Regarding grandchildren care support, this research found a significant relationship between older people’s age, health condition, living arrangements and support provision. Those in early old age and without difficulties in mobility and self-care seem to provide more grandparenting than others, even though those who have chronic diseases provide care for their grandchildren. This is probably because of their inability to work; they take care of grandchildren instead of participating in the labour force. Grandparenting, according to Geurts, Poortman, and Tilburg (2012), could be considered an investment in adult children for reciprocated support in the advanced age of older parents. Providing childcare for grandchildren ‘creates a debt’, which is reciprocated by adult children when older parents reach advanced age. This is believed to ‘restore the cost-benefit balance within the relationship’ between parents and adult children (Geurts et al., 2012, p. 247). Based on this argument, older parent’s grandchild care provision is not just seen as ‘support’ but as a means of securing support from children later in life, especially from their sons. Whether this applies in the case of Vietnam cannot be answered by this study due to limitations in the data; however, to a certain extent, supporting adult children in general may be considered by older people as their responsibility and care for grandchildren is the most common one, regardless of any promised support in return.

A few limitations have been recognised in this analysis. First, the data used in this analysis do not support testing the relationship between intergenerational support and quality of intergenerational relationships. Second, there is no information on children’s economic condition in the data. Finally, the data were from a cross-sectional survey, with elderly respondents only, which limits the ability to capture mutual support exchange between the elderly and their adult children. The results suggest that ‘healthy and wealthy’ ageing does not only benefit older people in many ways but also the next generations, which can be used as empirical evidence for policy advocacy on health care and long-term care for the elderly, as well as programmes that promote healthy lifestyles in old age. Future research could focus on analysing reciprocity models and the relationship between quality of life, wellbeing and support exchange.

_________________

Endnotes

* Trinh Thai Quang, Ph.D., Institute for Family and Gender Studies.

(1) The majority of this paper’s content has been drawn from Chapter 6 of the author’s doctoral thesis completed in 2018 at The Australian National University

(2) From this point on, C1 will be used to refer to Cluster 1 (the most capable elderly), C2 to Cluster 2 (moderately capable elderly) and C3 to Cluster 3 (the least capable elderly).

References

1. Bengtson, V., & Roberts, R. E. L. (1991). Intergenerational solidarity in aging families: An example of formal theory construction. Journal of Marriage and Family, 53(4), 856-870.

2. Chow, N. (1993). The changing responsibilities of the state and family toward elders in Hong Kong. Journal of Aging and Social Policy, 5(1 - 2), 111 - 126.

3. Demirgüç-Kunt, A., Klapper, L., & Panos, G. A. (2016). Saving for old age. World Bank, Washington, DC: Policy Research Working Paper 7693. World Bank Group.

4. Frankenberg, E., Lillard, L., & Willis, J. R. (2002). Patterns of intergenerational transfers in Southeast Asia. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(3), 627 - 641.

5. Friedman, J. E. D., Knodel, J., Bui, T. C., & Truong, S. A. (2002). Gender and intergenerational exchange in Vietnam. Michigan, USA: Population Studies Center, University of Michigan.

6. Geurts, T., Poortman, A.-R., & Tilburg, T. G. v. (2012). Older parents providing child care for adult children: Does it pay off? Journal of Marriage and Family, 74(2), 239.

7. Keller, S. (2006). Four theories of filial duty. The Philosophical Quarterly, 56(223), 254 - 274.

8. Knodel, J., Friedman, J. E. D., Truong, S. A., & Bui, T. C. (2000). Intergenerational exchanges in Vietnam: Family size, sex composition, and the location of children. Population Studies, 54(1), 89 - 104. doi: 10.1080/713779067

9. Le, N. L. (2012). Some determinants of physical and emotional care for the elderly in Vietnamese family. Journal of Family and Gender Studies, 2, 59-73.

10. Lee, H. J., Lyu, J., Lee, C. M., & Burr, J. A. (2014). Intergenerational financial exchange and the psychological well-being of older adults in the Republic of Korea. Aging & Mental Health, 18(1), 30 - 39. doi: 10.1080/13607863.2013.784955

11. Lin, J. P., & Yi, C. C. (2013). A comparative analysis of intergenerational relations in East Asia. International Sociology, 28(3), 297 - 315. doi: 10.1177/0268580913485261

12. Ministry of Culture Sport and Tourism, GSO, Institute for Families and Gender Studies, & UNICEF. (2008). Results from Vietnam family survey 2006. Hanoi, Vietnam: Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism & UNICEF Vietnam.

13. Ng, A. C. Y., Phillips, D. R., & Lee, W. K.-m. (2002). Persistance and challenges to filial piety and informal support of older persons in a modern Chinese society: A case study in Tuen Mun, Hong Kong. Journal of Aging Studies, 16, 135 - 153.

14. Norusis, M. J. (2009). Cluster analysis. In M. J. Norusis (Ed.), PASW Statistics 18 Statistical Procedures Companion (pp. 361-391). New Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall.

15. Pezzin, L. E., Pollak, R. A., & Schone, B. (2004). Long-term care and family decision making. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved from http://www.ibrarian.net/navon/paper/Long_Term_Care_and_Family_Decision_Making.pdf?paperid=329792.

16. Silverstein, M. (2005). Intergenerational family transfers in social context. In R. Binstock, L. K. George, S. J. Cutler, J. Hendricks & J. H. Schulz (Eds.), Handbook of aging and the social sciences (6th ed.) (pp. 165 - 181). California, USA: Academic Press.

17. Stuifbergen, M. C., & Van Delden, J. J. (2011). Filial obligations to elderly parents: A duty to care? Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 14(1), 63 - 71. doi: 10.1007/s11019-010-9290-z

Sources cited: Vietnam Journal of Family and Gender Studies. Vol. 14, No. 1, p. 19-39