The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

10 Household Dynamics and Living Arrangements of the Elderly in Indonesia: Evidence from a Longitudinal Survey--Firman Witoelar
Pages 229-260

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 229... ... This is particularly important in Indonesia and in other developing countries in the region, where social programs and pension schemes to support the elderly are lacking.2 In Indonesia, as 1 I gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the World Bank's Research Support Budget (RF-P121879-RESE-BBRSB) Read the entire page →
From page 230... ... Data from the National Socioeconomic Survey (the Susenas) , the nationally representative survey of households conducted annually in Indonesia, indeed show that the living arrangements among the elderly had not changed considerably between 1993 and 2007. Read the entire page →
From page 231... ... Male 55+, 1993 Male 55+, 2007 .8 .8 .6 .6 .4 .4 Proportion Proportion .2 .2 0 0 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 Age Age Alone With Spouse Alone With Spouse With Child Other With Child Other FIGURE 10-1 Living arrangements of males aged 55 and older. 231 SOURCE: Data from National Socioeconomic Survey (Susenas) Read the entire page →
From page 232... ... Female 55+, 1993 Female 55+, 2007 232 .8 .8 .6 .6 .4 .4 Proportion Proportion .2 .2 0 0 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 Age Age Alone With Spouse Alone With Spouse With Child Other With Child Other FIGURE 10-2 Living arrangements of females aged 55 and older. SOURCE: Data from National Socioeconomic Survey (Susenas) Read the entire page →
From page 233... ... The Indonesia Family Life Survey (IFLS) , a longitudinal household survey that spans 1993 to 2007, does not have these limitations. Read the entire page →
From page 234... ... , covering a span of 14 years. The survey collects detailed questions about household membership, including questions about noncoresident family members, which is crucial for studies that aim to look at issues related to changing household structure and living arrangements. Read the entire page →
From page 235... ... other form of living arrangement, a residual category that includes households where the elderly live with siblings' family, with immediate family of his/her children but not with any of one his/her children, and so forth. The analysis focuses on adult children since one of main reasons one cares about co-residence is to look at elderly support. Read the entire page →
From page 236... ... I created dummy variables indicating whether individuals have some primary education, completed primary education, or completed junior high school, using the group of those without schooling as the base cat egory. The total number of living children at the time of the survey provides us with the potential number of sources of support for the elderly. Read the entire page →
From page 237... ... LIVING ARRANGEMENT PATTERNS This section begins by going back to Figures 10-1 and 10-2 that show the patterns of living arrangement of adults aged 55 and older using the Susenas data from 1993 and 2007.7 The pattern that emerges from the fig 6 Per capita consumption is constructed from the household consumption expenditure module of IFLS, which reports the market expenditures as well as own production of house holds on food and nonfood items including on durable and nondurable goods. 7 Note that the Susenas does not separate biological and nonbiological children in catego rizing relationship to the head of the households. Read the entire page →
From page 238... ... The U-shaped pattern is particularly interesting since the upturn suggests that as elderly women age they tend to move into shared living arrangements with their adult children, either by moving into the children's households or by taking in the children who have left their households earlier. This pattern is consistent with the pat tern of old-age support of elderly women by the children. Read the entire page →
From page 239... ... Male 55+, 2007 Male 55+, 1993 1 1 .8 .8 .6 .6 Proportion Proportion .4 .4 .2 .2 0 0 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 Age Age Alone With Spouse Alone With Spouse With Child Other With Child Other FIGURE 10-3 Living arrangements of males aged 55 and older. 239 SOURCE: Data from Indonesia Family Life Survey, IFLS 1 and IFLS4. Read the entire page →
From page 240... ... Female 55+, 1993 Female 55+, 2007 240 1 1 .8 .8 .6 .6 Proportion Proportion .4 .4 .2 .2 0 0 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 Age Age Alone With Spouse Alone With Spouse With Child Other With Child Other FIGURE 10-4 Living arrangements of females aged 55 and older. SOURCE: Data from Indonesia Family Life Survey, IFLS 1 and IFLS4. Read the entire page →
From page 241... ... SOURCE: Author's calculation based on data from Indonesia Family Life Survey -- IFLS1, IFLS2, IFLS3, and IFLS4. be relatively stable over the 14 years, with lower percentage of men living alone (around 3%) Read the entire page →
From page 242... ... SOURCE: Author's calculation based on data from Indonesia Family Life Survey -- IFLS1, IFLS2, IFLS3, and IFLS4. Read the entire page →
From page 243... ... 1993 2007 1993 2007 Living Alone 0.4 2.5 3.0 11.1 Living with Spouse Only 5.5 20.5 6.5 14.4 Co-reside with an Adult Child 68.7 65.1 75.2 63.8 Other Living Arrangements 25.4 11.9 15.4 10.7 SOURCE: Data from Indonesia Family Life Survey -- IFLS1, IFLS2, IFLS3, and IFLS4. 2007 for whom we have data in 1993 and who have at least one surviving adult child. Read the entire page →
From page 244... ... 0.00 0.00 8.84 0.00 6.07 0.00 0.00 8.69 0.00 6.53 Working = 1 1.00 0.92 0.90 0.94 0.91 0.65 0.59 0.49 0.58 0.52 Spouse working = 1 0.00 0.59 0.45 0.50 0.47 0.00 0.82 0.64 0.68 0.64 Co-resident child working = 1 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.43 Any ADL problem = 1 0.00 0.16 0.11 0.08 0.11 0.50 0.31 0.27 0.22 0.27 GHS poor = 1 0.00 0.12 0.11 0.09 0.11 0.22 0.14 0.14 0.11 0.14 Rural = 1 0.14 0.74 0.55 0.63 0.58 0.62 0.74 0.53 0.72 0.57 SOURCE: Data from Indonesia Family Life Survey -- IFLS1, IFLS2, IFLS3, and IFLS4. Read the entire page →
From page 245... ... Standard errors are corrected for clustering at the household level. SOURCE: Author's calculation based on data from Indonesia Family Life Survey -- IFLS1. Read the entire page →
From page 246... ... The results discussed thus far are based on cross-sectional relationships. For variables indicating labor participation, health status, and even marital status, making inference based on these cross-sectional correla tions is problematic, given that labor market participation decisions and living arrangement decisions could are taken jointly. Read the entire page →
From page 247... ... Standard errors are corrected for clustering at the household level. SOURCE: Author's calculation based on data from Indonesia Family Life Survey -- IFLS1. Read the entire page →
From page 248... ... Standard errors are corrected for clustering at the household level. SOURCE: Author's calculation based on data from Indonesia Family Life Survey -- IFLS1 and IFLS4. Read the entire page →
From page 249... ... Standard errors are corrected for clustering at the household level. SOURCE: Author's calculation based on data from Indonesia Family Life Survey -- IFLS1 and IFLS4. Read the entire page →
From page 250... ... The first specification includes only the basic specification without the characteristics of the spouse. The second specification includes spouse's characteristics and variables indicating work status of the respondent, the spouse, and the child, as well as health status of the elderly. Read the entire page →
From page 251... ... While the pattern of living arrangements seems to stay constant for now, demographic pressure will likely affect living arrangements as the population ages further. One important caveat of this paper is that the analysis excludes elderly who have no surviving children at the time of the survey -- around 6 to 8%. Read the entire page →
From page 252... ... years of children's educ. 6.060 5.073 ± 1 standard deviation Marginal effect Discrete Change from 0 to 1 Own age Aged 60−69 0.418 0.493 Age 70 0.275 0.447 Own education Completed primary 0.313 0.464 Completed junior high 0.267 0.442 Completed senior high 0.238 0.426 Maximum age of child > 15 0.945 0.228 Divorced/widowed/never married 0.017 0.131 Spouse's age Aged 60−69 0.043 0.202 Age 70 0.003 0.058 Spouse's education Completed primary 0.334 0.472 Completed junior high 0.206 0.405 Completed senior high 0.136 0.343 0.576 0.494 Rural labor participation Working 0.912 0.283 Spouse working 0.467 0.499 Any child working 0.325 0.469 Health status Any problem with ADLs 0.106 0.308 "Poor" GHS 0.107 0.309 NOTE: This table is based on regressions in Appendix Table 10-A1, Specification 2. Read the entire page →
From page 253... ... 0.209 0.659 0.124 0.008 Ave. With With Adult Other Living Living Alone \|Change\| Spouse Child Arr. Read the entire page →
From page 254... ... years of children's educ. 6.513 5.085 ± 1 standard deviation Marginal effect Discrete Change from 0 to 1 Own age Aged 60–69 0.448 0.497 Age 70 0.269 0.444 Own education Completed primary 0.266 0.442 Completed junior high 0.170 0.375 Completed senior high 0.117 0.321 Maximum age of child > 15 0.988 0.111 Divorced/widowed/never married 0.221 0.415 Spouse's age Aged 60–69 0.197 0.398 Age 70 0.057 0.231 Spouse's education Completed primary 0.231 0.421 Completed junior high 0.191 0.393 Completed senior high 0.154 0.361 0.577 0.494 Rural labor participation Working 0.516 0.500 Spouse working 0.641 0.480 Any child working 0.426 0.495 Health status Any problem with ADLs 0.275 0.447 "Poor" GHS 0.140 0.347 NOTE: This table is based on regressions in Appendix Table 10-A2, Specification 2. Read the entire page →
From page 255... ... 0.209 0.659 0.124 0.008 Ave. With With Adult Other Living Living Alone \|Change\| Spouse Child Arr. Read the entire page →
From page 256... ... p < 0.01. SOURCE: Author's calculation based on data from Indonesia Family Life Survey, IFLS1 and IFLS4. Read the entire page →
From page 257... ... 257 FIRMAN WITOELAR Specification 2 with an adult with spouse child other RRR Z RRR Z RRR Z 0.460 –1.53 0.155* Read the entire page →
From page 258... ... p < 0.001. SOURCE: Author's calculation based on data from Indonesia Family Life Survey, IFLS1 and IFLS4. Read the entire page →
From page 259... ... 259 FIRMAN WITOELAR Specification 2 with an adult with spouse child other RRR Z RRR Z RRR Z 1.081 0.28 0.156 –1.82 0.998 –0.01 1.183 0.49 0.157 –2.05 1.462 1.10 1.160 0.56 0.245 0.57 1.394 1.24 0.897 –0.33 0.208 –0.85 0.825 –0.56 1.382 0.70 0.441 0.38 0.918 –0.17 0.836* Read the entire page →
From page 260... ... . The Fourth Wave of the Indonesia Family Life Survey: Overview and Field Report, Volume 1. Read the entire page →

From page 229...

... This is particularly important in Indonesia and in other developing countries in the region, where social programs and pension schemes to support the elderly are lacking.2 In Indonesia, as 1 I gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the World Bank's Research Support Budget (RF-P121879-RESE-BBRSB)

10 Household Dynamics and Living Arrangements of the Elderly in Indonesia: Evidence from a Longitudinal Survey--Firman Witoelar Pages 229-260

10 Household Dynamics and Living Arrangements of the Elderly in Indonesia: Evidence from a Longitudinal Survey--Firman Witoelar
Pages 229-260