The Economics of Reciprocity, Giving and Altruism 2000
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-349-62745-5_18
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Nature of Two-directional Intergenerational Transfers of Money and Time: An Empirical Analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
18
0
2

Year Published

2002
2002
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
2
18
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Similarly, Ioannides and Kan (2000) analyze two-directional inter vivos transfers of time and money between parents and children and find that they are motivated by mutual altruism rather than by selfish exchange motives (but see Cox, 1987;Cox and Rank, 1992;and Altonji, et al, 1997).…”
Section: Survey Of Previous Empirical Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similarly, Ioannides and Kan (2000) analyze two-directional inter vivos transfers of time and money between parents and children and find that they are motivated by mutual altruism rather than by selfish exchange motives (but see Cox, 1987;Cox and Rank, 1992;and Altonji, et al, 1997).…”
Section: Survey Of Previous Empirical Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Zissimopoulos (2001) using US data (Health and Retirement Study (HRS)) finds that an increase in an adult child's income and wealth increases transfers to parents, while an increase in wage rate leads to an increase in financial transfer and a decrease in time transfer. Ioannides and Kan's (1999) estimates from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) indicate a positive effect of head of household hourly earnings on financial transfer to parents and a negative one for time transfer. Sloan et al's (2002) results from the HRS suggest that financial assistance responds positively to an increase in the wage rate, while it exhibits no significant effect on time assistance to elderly parents.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…All of these results appear to support the strategic bequest (exchange) motive because only bequeathable wealth should influence the behavior of children and because parents' threat of disinheritance is truly credible only if they have multiple children. However, Perozek (1998) replicates Bernheim, Shleifer, and Summers's (1985) test using a richer data set (the 1987 National Survey of Families and Households (NSFH)) and finds that bequeathable wealth no longer has a significant impact on attention from one's children when additional child and family characteristics are taken into account and/or a more comprehensive measure of attention is used, and Sloan, Picone, and Hoerger (1997), Altonji, Hayashi, and Kotlikoff (2000), and Ioannides and Kan (2000) obtain similar results (but see Cox 1987, Cox and Rank 1992, Altonji, Hayashi, and Kotlikoff 1997, Norton and Taylor 2005, and Norton and Van Houtven 2006.…”
Section: Survey Of Previous Empirical Studiesmentioning
confidence: 94%