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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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)

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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)

8. 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 58,521,6312,52 70 + 59,595,5110,31 Skupaj 51,831,197,33

9. Share of intergenerational and intragenerational ties between neighbours by type of support socializing Financial support Small material support AgeIntergener.Intragener.Intergener.Intragener.Intergener.Intragener. -290,081,940,170,7926,41 30-390,264,020,242,831,0215,14 40-490,355,440,384,161,2820,98 50-590,338,790,497,160,823,5 60-691,1212,391,376,24,1827,9 70 +4,9412,572,342,8512,3517,51 Total0,856,410,583,422,7416,66

10. 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. -291,633,570,080,930,521,34 30-390,559,670,231,20,244,28 40-490,1612,640,252,450,244,29 50-590,6311,970,114,570,156,66 60-692,2510,280,686,321,557,56 70 +7,428,172,329,495,415,78 Total1,648,820,443,3114,42

11. 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

12. 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).

13. 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

14.  Thank you for attention!