Abstract
We assess how the support parents provide to young adults as they leave school and begin working is related to their family’s socioeconomic circumstances. We do this using an innovative Australian data set which merges survey and administrative data. The survey data inform us about intergenerational co-residence and financial gifts and the administrative data about the family’s welfare receipt history. We find that disadvantaged young people are more likely to be economically independent of their parents than are their more advantaged peers. This disparity is larger for financial gifts than for co-residence and increases with age. Moreover, there is a complex relationship between parental support and participation in study and work. We find no evidence, however, that a lack of parental support is the source of the socioeconomic gradient in either studying or employment. These results are important in eliminating one potential pathway through which socioeconomic disadvantage limits young people’s outcomes.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
More recent research has also considered the effects of time transfers, particularly in the form of care for grandchildren, between mothers and their adult daughters (e.g., Dimova and Wolff 2010).
See Cobb-Clark (2008) for a review of the literature surrounding the co-residence decision.
For more information about the project and data, see http://youthinfocus.anu.edu.au and Breunig et al. (2009).
Data from mothers are not used in this analysis.
Note that the Child Care Benefit is not means-tested and that only families in the top 20 % of the income distribution are ineligible for the Family Tax Benefit. To place these payments in context, similar benefits in the USA are provided to families through the tax system in the form of standard deductions for dependent children and child care rebates.
Comparing the YIF youth sample with the Australian Census data suggests that the administrative data capture about 98 % of the youths born in the period (Breunig et al. 2009).
Following best practice (see Groves et al. 2004), approach letters, incentive payments, repeated callbacks, and CATI were all used to maximize response rates. More than 96 % of young people completing the survey consented to having this information linked to their families’ administrative public benefits records.
At the time of their wave 1 interviews, 92 % of youths were 18 years of age, while 4 % had turned 19 and the remaining 4 % had unknown ages. At the time of the wave 2 interview, 76 % of youths were aged 20 and 21 % were aged 21 with 3 % having unknown ages.
Note that the YIF administrative data contain the incidence, but not the amounts of income support receipt.
The YIF survey asks youths to report about financial transfers received from their parents and “anyone else.” For simplicity, we refer to these amounts as “parental” support. Youths are also asked if they are expected to pay back any of this money, and we disregard the entire amount if they answered yes to this question. In an earlier version, we considered the entire amount a loan if they answer yes to this question, and we distinguished between receiving gifts, receiving loans, and not receiving financial support (Cobb-Clark and Gørgens 2012). Likelihood ratio tests indicated that separately identifying financial loans from no financial support did not improve the overall fit of the model of youth activities.
Some young people live with relatives or other (older) adults. We determine whether they “co-reside” or “live independently” based on whether they consider any of the adults in their household a “parental figure” and on whether they consider themselves to be living independently or not.
The single exception is the group who live independently and whose families received extensive welfare; they have a lower probability of not working if they receive gifts.
The single exception is that 18-year-old youths experiencing moderate socioeconomic disadvantage who do not receive financial gifts are more likely to be studying if they co-reside rather than live independently.
The exception is young people whose families never received welfare have a higher probability of not working if they receive full support.
There are minor differences relative to Table 2 due to dropping observations with missing values for covariates.
As mentioned earlier, the specification tests in Table A3 in the ESM show that the coefficients representing socioeconomic circumstances are not jointly statistically significant in the model for study and employment outcomes at age 20. The results discussed in this section concern a different metric, namely, predicted outcomes, and confirm that socioeconomic circumstances play a limited role.
References
Aquilino WS (2005) Impact of family structure on parental attitudes toward the economic support of adult children over the transition to adulthood. J Fam Issues 26:143–167
Bernheim BD, Schleifer A, Summers LF (1985) The strategic bequest motive. J Polit Econ 93:1045–1076
Breunig R, Cobb-Clark D, Gørgens T, Ryan C, Sartbayeva A (2009) User’s guide to the Youth in Focus data version 2.0. Youth in Focus Project Discussion Paper 8, Australian National University
Card D, Lemieux T (2000) Adapting to circumstances: the evolution of work, school and living arrangements among North American youth. In: Blanchflower DG, Freeman RB (eds) Youth employment and joblessness in advanced countries. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 171–214
Cobb-Clark DA (2008) Leaving home: what economics has to say about the living arrangements of young Australians. Aust Econ Rev 41(2): 160–176
Cobb-Clark D, Gørgens T (2012) Parents’ economic support of young-adult children: do socioeconomic circumstances matter? Youth in Focus Project Discussion Paper Series 12, Australian National University
Cox D (1987) Motives for private income transfers. J Polit Econ 95:508–546
Cox D (1990) Intergenerational transfers and liquidity constraints. Q J Econ 105(1):187–217
Cox D, Jakubson G (1995) The connection between public transfers and private interfamily transfers. J Public Econ 57:129–167
Cunha F, Heckman JJ (2008) Formulating, identifying and estimating the technology of cognitive and noncognitive skill formation. J Hum Resour 63(4):738–782
Cunha F, Heckman JJ, Schennach S (2010) Estimating the technology of cognitive and noncognitive skill formation. Econometrica 78(3):883–931
D’Addio AC (2007) Intergenerational transmission of disadvantage: mobility or immobility across generations? A review of the evidence for OECD countries. OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers 52. OECD Publishing, Paris
Dimova R, Wolff F-C (2010) Do downward private transfers enhance maternal labor supply? Evidence from around Europe. J Popul Econ 24(3):911–933
Dustmann C, Micklewright J, van Soest A (2009) In-school labour supply, parental transfers, and wages. Empir Econ 37:201–218
Ermisch J (1999) Prices, parents, and young people’s household formation. J Urban Econ 7:137–207
Ermisch J (2003) An economic analysis of the family. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Ermisch J, Di Salvo P (1997) The economic determinants of young people’s household formation. Economica 64:627–644
Folgi A (2000) Endogenous labour market rigidites and family ties. Working paper, New York University
Goldscheider F, Thornton A, Yang L-S (2001) Helping out the kids: expectations about parental support in young adulthood. J Marriage Fam 63(3):727–740
Gong T (2009) Do parental transfers reduce youths’ incentives to work?Labour 23(4):654–676
Groves RM, Fowler FJ, Couper MP, Lepkowski JM, Singer E, Tourangeau R (2004) Survey methodology. Wiley, Hoboken
Guiso L, Jappelli T (2002) Private transfers, borrowing constraints, and the timing of homeownership. J Money Credit Bank 34:315–339
Hamon RR (1995) Parents as resources when adult children divorce. J Divorce Remarriage 23:171–184
Hao L, Hotz J, Jin GZ (2008) Games parents and adolescents play: risky behaviour, parental reputation and strategic transfers. Econ J 118:515–555
Homel J, Mavisakalyan A, Nguyen HT, Ryan C (2012) School completion: what we learn from different measures of family background. Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth Research report 59, NCVER
Kalenkoski C (2008) Parent-child bargaining, parental transfers, and the post-secondary education decision. Appl Econ 40:413–436
Kalenkoski CM, Pabilonia SW (2010) Parental transfers, student achievement, and the labor supply of college students. J Popul Econ 23:469–496
Kaplan G (2010) Moving back home: insurance against labor market risk. J Polit Econ 120(3):446–512
Keane MP, Wolpin KI (2001) The effect of parental transfers and borrowing constraints on education attainment. Int Econ Rev 42(4):1051–1103
Kooreman P (2004) Time, money, peers, and parents: some data and theories on child behavior. J Popul Econ 20:9–33
Laferrère A (2005) Leaving the nest: the interaction of parental income and family environment. CREST working paper 2005-01. Paris
Laferrère A (2006) Leaving the nest: parental income, housing, and altruism. Unpublished manuscript
Le Blanc D, Wolff F-C (2006) Leaving home in Europe: the role of parents’ and children’s incomes. Rev Econ Househ 4:53–73
Lundberg S, Romich JL, Tsang KP (2007) Decision-making by children. Rev Econ Househ 1(1):1–30
Manacorda M, Moretti E (2006) Why do most Italian youths live with their parents? Intergenerational transfers and household structure. J Eur Econ Assoc 4(4):800–829
Martínez-Granado M, Ruiz-Castillo J (2002) The decisions of Spanish youth: a cross-section study. J Popul Econ 15:305–330
McElroy MB (1985) The joint determination of household membership and market work: the case of young men. J Labor Econ 3(3):293–316
Oettinger GS (2005) Parents’ financial support, students’ employment and academic performance in college. Working paper, University of Texas
Pabilonia SW (2001) Evidence on youth employment, earnings and parental transfers in the national longitudinal survey of youth 1997. J Hum Resour 36(4):795–822
Pollak RA (1988) Tied transfers and paternalistic preferences. Am Econ Rev 78(2):240–244
Rosenzweig MR, Wolpin KI (1993) Intergenerational support and the life-cycle incomes of young men and their parents: human capital investments, coresidence, and intergenerational financial transfers. J Labor Econ 11(1):84–112
Schoeni RF (1997) Private interhousehold transfers of money and time: new empirical evidence. Rev Income Wealth 43(4):423–448
Semyonov M, Lewin-Epstein N (2001) The impact of parental transfers on living standards of married children. Soc Indic Res 54(2):115–137
Todd PE, Wolpin KI (2003) On the specification and estimation of the production function for cognitive achievement. Econ J 113:F3—F33
Todd PE, Wolpin KI (2007) The production of cognitive achievement in children: home, school, and racial test score gaps. J Hum Cap 1(1):91–136
Weinberg BA (2001) An incentive model of the effect of parental income on children. J Polit Econ 109(2):266–280
Wolf DA, Soldo BJ (1989) Household composition choices of older unmarried women. Demography 25(3):387–404
Wolff F-C (2006) Parental transfers and the labor supply of children. J Popul Econ 19:853–877
Acknowledgments
This research was supported in part by a grant from the Australian Research Council (DP0989021).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Responsible editor: Junsen Zhang
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cobb-Clark, D.A., Gørgens, T. Parents’ economic support of young-adult children: do socioeconomic circumstances matter?. J Popul Econ 27, 447–471 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-013-0484-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-013-0484-6