1. Family or State
responsibility?
Elderly and child care policy
preferences in Spain
Isabel Valarino University of Lausanne & Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
Gerardo Meil Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
Jesús Rogero García Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
XII Congreso Español de sociología - July 1st 2016

2. Research background
• Spanish welfare state: Southern regime (Ferrera, 1996)
• Central role of the family for care provision
• Gendered family model
• Since 90s: societal and demographic transformations
• Development of care related policies (León & Migliavaca,
2013 ; Meil, 2006)
o Leaves
o Child care services
o Support for elderly’s autonomy

3. Objectives and questions
① Describe preferences regarding care
responsibility for dependent family members
o Is the family still seen as the primary care provider?
o Does Spain differ from other countries?
② Analyze social determinants of preferences
o Do specific social groups have specific preferences?
o How do socioeconomic factors and values influence these
preferences?

4. Theoretical framework
• Institutional and cultural theory
o Welfare state context orients individuals’ preferences
and expectations
• Self-interest theory
o Individuals more likely to benefit are more favorable
• Ideational theory
o Ideas and values influence welfare attitudes
See for example Gelissen, 2008 ; Blekesaune & Quadagno, 2003 ; Svallfors, 2012

5. Data & Methods I
• International Social Survey Programme 2012 Module
Family & Changing Gender Roles IV
• N= 1973
• 4 survey items :
o Who should primarily provide childcare for preschool
children?
o Who should primarily cover the costs of childcare?
o Who should primarily provide help to elderly people in
everyday life?
o Who should primarily cover the costs of help to the
elderly?
 The family / Non-family actors (the state, private
providers, employers, NGOs)

6. Data & Methods II
Dependent variable : care responsibility preferences based
on a typology of familialism (Leitner, 2003 ; Saraceno & Keck, 2010)
1. Unsupported familialism : the family should care and pay for
child care and elderly care
2. Supported familialism : the family should care for childcare and
elderly care and other actors should pay
3. Defamilialism : non-family actors should care and pay for child
care and elderly care
4. Familialism for childcare and defamilialism for elderly care
5. Defamilialism for childcare and familialism for elderly care
6. Mixed : all remaining combinations
Methods: descriptive statistics and logistic regressions

7. ①Description of care
policy preferences I
15
40
36
33
15
2
10 9
2
14
9
1
21
8 8
4
16
67
26
16
12
10
15
6
11
7
25
16
24
4
17
19
17
23
21
13
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
Spain Mexico United States Poland West Germany Sweden
Distribuoninpercent
Unsuported familialism Supported familialism
Defamilialism Familialism for children and defamilialism for the elderly
Defamilialism for children and familialism for the elderly Mixed
• Multiple preferences
• Unsupported familialism is favored by a minority
(15%)
• Familialism for children and defamilialism for the
elderly is the most frequent pattern (26%)
• Followed by defamilialism (21%)

8. ①Description of care
policy preferences II
15
40
36
33
15
2
10 9
2
14
9
1
21
8 8
4
16
67
26
16
12
10
15
6
11
7
25
16
24
4
17
19
17
23
21
13
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
Spain Mexico United States Poland West Germany Sweden
Distribuoninpercent
Unsuported familialism Supported familialism
Defamilialism Familialism for children and defamilialism for the elderly
Defamilialism for children and familialism for the elderly Mixed

9. ②Social determinants of
preferences
• 4 models are significant
o Unsupported familialism
o Defamilialism
o Familialism for childcare and defamilialism for elderly
care
o Defamilialism for childcare and familialism for elderly
care
• Mixed preferences and supported familialism are
equally distributed across different social groups

10. Logistic regressions, odds ratios
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
UNSUPPORTED
FAMILIALISM
DEFAMI-
LIALISM
FAMILY
FOR
CHILDREN
FAMILY FOR
ELDERLY
Sex (men ref)
Women 0.669**
n.s. n.s. n.s.
Age (+ 65 ref)
18-30
31-45
46-65
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
1.736*
n.s.
2.030*
1.982*
1.864*
Care load (none ref)
Low
Medium
High
n.s. n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
1.375*
n.s.
n.s.
0.594*
Subjective health 0.819** 1.149* n.s. n.s.
Education (none or primary. ref)
Secondary degree
Tertiary degree
n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.
Employment status (not in paid work)
In paid work or job searching
n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.
Living environment (rural ref)
Lives in big city or suburbs
0.715* n.s. 1.406** n.s.
Religiosity (never attends service ref)
Episodic
Frequent
n.s. n.s.
0.648**
0.619***
n.s.
1.403*
1.476*
Gender egalitarian values 0.759** 1.486*** 0.790** n.s.
Political views (center/right ref)
Left n.s. 1.528** 1.327* 0.530**

11. Conclusion
① Care responsibility preferences in Spain:
Multiple views, the family is not the unique provider
Challenge of the “myth of Mediterannean familialism”
(Calzada & Brooks, 2013; see also Mischke, 2014)
② Social determinants of preferences
Combination of self-interest and ideational mechanisms
Contribution to welfare attitudinal research: attitudes
toward child care and elderly care

12. References
• Arriba, A., Calzada, I., & Pino, E. d. (2006). Las actitudes de los españoles hacia el Estado
de Bienestar (1985-2005): Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas.
• Blekesaune, M., & Quadagno, J. (2003). Public Attitudes toward Welfare State Policies: A
Comparative Analysis of 24 Nations. European Sociological Review, 19(5), 415-427.
• Calzada, I., & Brooks, C. (2013). The Myth of Mediterranean Familism. European
Societies, 15(4), 514-534. doi:10.1080/14616696.2013.836402
• Daatland, S. O., & Lowenstein, A. (2005). Intergenerational solidarity and the family–
welfare state balance. European Journal of Ageing, 2(3), 174-182. doi:10.1007/s10433-
005-0001-1
• Ferrera, M. (1996). The "Southern Model" of Welfare in Social Europe. Journal of European
Social Policy, 6, 17-37.
• Gal, J. (2010). Is there an extended family of Mediterranean welfare states? Journal of
European Social Policy, 20(4), 283-300. Retrieved from
http://esp.sagepub.com/content/20/4/283.abstractN2
• Gelissen, J. (2008). European scope-of-government beliefs: the impact of individual,
regional and national characteristics. In W. Van Oorschot, M. Opielka, & B. Pfau-Effinger
(Eds.), Culture and Welfare State (pp. 247-267). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

13. • Leitner, S. (2003). Varieties of familialism: The caring function of the family in comparative
perspective. European Societies, 5(4), 353-375. doi:10.1080/1461669032000127642
• León, M., & Migliavacca, M. (2013). Italy and Spain: Still the Case of Familistic Welfare
Models? Population Review, 52(1), 25-42.
• MECD. (2016). Series de alumnado por comunidad autónoma. Tasas netas de
escolarización por edad. Ministerio de educación, cultura y deporte. Retrieved from
https://www.educacion.gob.es/educabase/menu.do?type=pcaxis&path=/Educacion/Alumna
do/Matriculado/Series/TasasEscolari&file=pcaxis&l=s0
• Meil, G. (2006). The Evolution of Family Policy in Spain. Marriage & Family Review, 39(3-
4), 359-380.
• Mischke, M. (2014). Public Attitudes towards Family Policies in Europe. Linking Institutional
Context and Public Opinion. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
• Saraceno, C., & Keck, W. (2010). Can We Identify Intergenerational Policy Regimes in
Europe? European Societies, 12(5), 675-696. doi:10.1080/14616696.2010.483006
• Svallfors, S. (Ed.) (2012). Contested Welfare States. Welfare attitudes in Europe and
Beyond. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Torres Albero, C. (Ed.) (2015). España 2015. Situación social: Centro de Investigaciones
Sociológicas.