Intergenerational solidarity in community in Slovenia Doc. dr. Maša Filipovič Hrast Red. prof. dr. Valentina Hlebec Univerza v Ljubljani Fakulteta za družbene vede

Introduction  Study of intergenerational solidarity in community based on social network approach  Structure of presentation  Theoretical starting points on meaning and role of neighbours  Methodology  Analysis of social networks – support relations with neighbours in Slovenia

Theoretical starting points  Study of intergenerational solidarity possible at macro (state), mezzo (community) and micro levels (family)  These levels are intertwined and influence intergenerational support on other levels  Intergenerational solidarity within community usually observed within different programmes, NGOs in community that connect older and younger age groups  Informal ties within community somewhat neglected in analyses of intergenerational solidarity

Community  Community relations are more important for the elderly than other population groups (Cambell in Lee 1992, Cornwell idr 2008, for Slovenia Filipovič Hrast et al 2005, Filipovič Hrast 2009)  Importance of ageing in the community - community as part of person‘s identity, social meanings of place (see Smith 2009, Ekstrom 1994)

Neighbours  Neighbours as possible support givers; difference between ‚good‘ neighbouring relations and caring relations can be blurred (Barker 2002)  Neighbouring relations (Wenger 1994)  Based on geographical proximity  Expectations and normative obligations are of practical nature (limited to emergencies, small and irregular aid)  These expecattions can be exceeded if the relation grows into friendship  If the need becomes too great the relationship cannot be sustained

Neighbouring support  support between neighbours depends on various factors, such as:  needs of the elderly,  personality of receiver and support giver,  presence of alternative support sources  number of elderly in community

Methodology  Data source is a representative survey of social networks in Slovenia (Ferligoj et al 2002)  Measured were 6 types of support: small and large material support, financial and emotional support, support in case of illness and social support  Intergenerational ties were defined as those that have the same or larger age difference between ego and alter as is the difference between the parent and first-born child (for methodological details see Hlebec et al 2010)

Neighbours as part of social network by age AgeFamilyNeighbor-intergenerationalNeighbor - intragenerational –29 44,720,612,68 30–39 51,530,415,78 40–49 50,420,477,61 50–59 54,650,4610,2 60–69 58,521,6312, ,595,5110,31 Skupaj 51,831,197,33

Share of intergenerational and intragenerational ties between neighbours by type of support socializing Financial support Small material support AgeIntergener.Intragener.Intergener.Intragener.Intergener.Intragener. -290,081,940,170,7926, ,264,020,242,831,0215, ,355,440,384,161,2820, ,338,790,497,160,823, ,1212,391,376,24,1827, ,9412,572,342,8512,3517,51 Total0,856,410,583,422,7416,66

Share of intergenerational and intragenerational ties between neighbours by type of support Large material support Emotional support Support in case of illnes AgeIntergener.Intragener.Intergener.Intragener.Intergener.Intragener. -291,633,570,080,930,521, ,559,670,231,20,244, ,1612,640,252,450,244, ,6311,970,114,570,156, ,2510,280,686,321,557, ,428,172,329,495,415,78 Total1,648,820,443,3114,42

Share of intergenerational and intragenerational ties between neighbours by place of residence and household type Small material support Large material support Socializing Intergener.Intragener.Intergener.Intragener.Intergener.Intragener. Rural 3,7619,302,0310,321,168,51 Suburban 1,8317,931,008,830,646,15 Urban1,7711,901,436,390,533,67 Single2,229,221,706,270,253,53 With partner (not married) 1,2514,350,179,450,685,16 married2,6420,521,7010,140,777,14 Divorced1,3614,490,398,600,225,61 Widow-er7,3423,143,039,203,5512,91

Results  The share of neighbours within social support network is small  the ties with neighbours are more often intra-generational than intergenerational.  The role of neighbours is more pronounced in offering smaller and larger material support, and is smaller in emotional, financial support and support in case of illness.  With age importance of neighbours increases, and that is true for all observed types of support. Especially significant increase after the age of 70.  importance of neighbours as source of support is higher in rural areas, among less educated, among those with lower income and among widow(er)s (not all analyses shown here).

Conclusions  Intergenerational ties in community are relevant source of support for the very old community members (more than 70 years old)  Intragenerational ties are important among community members, especially among age groups above 40 years old  Older neighbours are support givers and receivers! They are integral part of community life. However these is still a lot of room for impoving intergenerational solidarity in the community

 Thank you for attention!