Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T06:24:58.246Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘What are Families For?’: On Family Solidarity and Preference for Help*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 November 2008

Svein Olav Daatland
Svein Olav Daatland
Affiliation:
Norwegian Institute of Gerontology, Oscarsgt. 36, 0258 Oslo 2, Norway.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Norwegian elderly people today are clearly more aware of public help and services compared to the late 1960s, and a growing number of them prefer public rather than family help. A study in Oslo found that a majority would turn to the public services when in need of long-term help, even when children were living close by. Children or other informal helpers were preferred over the public services only when there was a need for short-term assistance. The growing preference for public help is taken primarily as a response to increased availability of public services, and not as a reflection of weaker inter-generational solidarity.

Type
Research Article
Information
Ageing & Society , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , March 1990 , pp. 1 - 15
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

1 Anderson, M. The impact on the family relationships of the elderly of changes since victorian times in governmental income-maintenance provision. In Shanas, E. and Sussman, M. B. (eds), Family, Bureaucracy, and the Elderly, p. 38. Duke University Press, Durham, 1977.Google Scholar

2 See, e.g. Shanas, E. et al. Old People in Three Industrial Societies. Atherton Press, New York, 1968.Google ScholarShanas, E.Social myth as hypothesis: the case of family relations of old people. The Gerontologist, 19 (1979), 3–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMedHagestad, G. Parent and child: generations in the family. In Field, T. M., Huston, A., Quay, H. C. and Finley, G. E. (eds), Review of Human Development. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1982.Google ScholarNydegger, C. N.Family ties of the aged in cross-cultural perspective. The Gerontologist, 23 (1983), 26–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMedLaslett, P.The significance of the past in the study of ageing. Ageing and Society, 4, 4 (1984), 379–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Op. cit.

4 Gordon, C.Familial support for the elderly in the past: the case of London's working class in the early 1930s. Ageing and Society, 8 4 (1988), 287–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Østerberg, D.Sosiologiens nekkelbegreper og deres opprinnelse. Cappelen forlag, Oslo, 1977.Google Scholar

6 Helland, H., Solem, P. E. and Trældal, A.Eldres integrasjon. NOV 1973: 60. Sosialdepartementet, Oslo.Google Scholar

7 Daatland, S. O.Holdninger til hjelp og hjelpere – endringer i løpet av ig70–årene. Gerontologisk Magasin, 3 (1984), 112–120.Google Scholar

8 Connidis, I.Living arrangement choices of older residents: assessing quantitative results with qualitative data. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 8 (1983), 359–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 Nygård, L.Helse, institusjon og sosiale ressurser. NGI rapport 1, 1975, Norsk gerontologisk institutt, Oslo.Google ScholarNygård, L.Omsorgsressursar hos nære pårørande. NIS, rapport 2, 1982, Norsk institutt for sykehusforskning, Trondheim.Google ScholarThorsen, K.Grenser for omsorg. Kvinner, aldring og omsorg. NGI, rapport 10, 1980, Norsk gerontologisk institutt, Oslo.Google ScholarWærness, K.Kvinneperspektiver på sosialpolitikken. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo, 1982.Google Scholar

10 Daatland, S. O.Boform og husholdsstruktur i eldre år. Endringer i perioden 1960–1980. NGI, rapport 2, 1986, Norsk gerontologisk institutt, Oslo.Google Scholar

11 Daatland, S. O.Care of the Aged in the Nordic Countries: Trends and Policies 1965–1982. Ministry of Social Affaires, Oslo, 1987.Google Scholar

12 Sussman, M. B. The family life of old people. In Binstock, R. H. and Shanas, E. (eds), Handbook of Aging and the Social Sciences. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, 1985.Google ScholarDaatland, S. O.Use of public services for the aged and the role of the family. The Gerontologist, 6 (1983), 650–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 Hammervold, R.Helsetjenesten i kommunene. Variasjoner i aktivitet og ressurser 1985/1986.Google Scholar NIS, rapport 2, 1988, Norsk institutt for sykehusforskning, Trondheim.

14 Knipscheer, K. The primary relations in old age. In Dooghe, G. and Helander, J. (eds), Family Life in Old Age. Martinus Nijhoff, Haag, 1979.Google ScholarLingsom, S., Uformell omsorg for syke og eldre. Samfunnsøkonomiske studier nr. 57. Statistisk sentralbyrå, Oslo, 1985.Google Scholar

15 Nordhus, I. H., Isaksen, L. W. and Wærness, K.De fleste gamle er kvinner. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo, 1986.Google Scholar

16 Lingsom, S. I.eget hjem med andres hjelp. INAS, rapport 3, 1987. Institutt for sosialforskning, Oslo, 1987.Google Scholar

17 ‘Help dependent’ are persons who, according to their own reports, cannot manage one or several activities of daily living (shopping, cleaning, walking in stairs, etc.) without help. The moderately disabled (restricted capacity) can perform these tasks, but for one or several of them ‘only with difficulty’.

18 Daatland, S. O.Den kjære plikt. Om holdninger til pleieansvar. Aldring & Eldre, 1 (1989). 24–2.Google Scholar

19 Rosenmayr, L. and Köckeis, E.Propositions for a sociological theory of aging and the family. International Social Science Journal, 15 (1963), 410–426.Google Scholar

20 Rosenmayr, L.Belastungen und Befreiungen in den Wechselbeziehungen zwischen Familie und alternden Menschen. Triangel, 25, 2 (1986), 7–12.Google Scholar