Australian Population & Migration Research Centre
Policy Brief
Vol. 1, No. 12
December, 2013
INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSFERS OF TIME
AND MONEY BY PEOPLE AGED 50+
A current popular view is
By Lisel O’Dwyer, Jennifer Buckley, Helen Fiest and Kelly
Parker
that the ageing population
will result in an
unacceptable burden being
placed on younger
generations. We explore
the extent to which people
aged 50 or more give and
receive time, money or
both. We examine the
amount and value of time
and money transfers, the
factors influencing whether
time or money transfers
are provided, and whether
these two types of
assistance are substitutes
or complementary.
Understanding the nature
and forms of informal
family assistance will
become increasingly
important as societal
structures, social norms
and policies change.
Background
D
emographic and social trends such as lower birth rates, delayed first
births and increased longevity influence the number of generations
alive at any one time and the number of family members within each
generation. As these changes have occurred simultaneously with
changing family dynamics such as divorce, single parent families, dual
income families, increased female labour participation, geographic
dispersion of family members, and an increased likelihood of living
alone in later life, the nature of intergenerational interactions will
also change.
Respondents (n=612) of a Computer Assisted Telephone Interview
(CATI) were allocated to groups based on whether they had living
parents and children:
 ‘KaNPs’ (Kids and No Parents) - at least one living adult child but
no living parents (47 per cent of the sample)
 ‘Sandwiches’ – at least one adult child and at least one living
parent or parent-in-law (44 per cent)
 PaNKs (‘Parent(s) and No Kids’) - at least one living parent and
no living children of any age (5 per cent)
 ‘Neither’ - no living children of any age, nor parents (4 per cent).
Generations were defined as:
 The respondent’s generation
 The ‘older’ generation (in relation to respondent). The definition
includes parents, parents-in-law, and aunts and uncles.
However, no respondents had living grandparents and aunts and
uncles were rarely mentioned.
 The ‘younger’ generation (in relation to respondent and
minimum age of 18). The definition includes children, childrenin-law, nieces and nephews, and grandchildren. Younger
generation relatives other than children were rarely mentioned.
Transfers of money are defined as gifts and loans exceeding $1000.
Values are reported in 2011 Australian dollars.
The current study was funded by National Seniors.
Research findings
Transfers of money
Just over a third (36 percent) of respondents
reported that they or their partner (ie their
household) gave financial support to family
members in the previous 12 months. The
median value of transfers per person is $2,000
($4,000 per household). Most transfers (68 per
cent) were given as gifts and the rest as loans.
There is a net outward flow of money to family
members, with the value of all outward flows
from older people in Australia estimated to be
$23 billion, compared to $1.8 billion received The
aggregated value of outward financial transfers
($23 billion) can be compared with national
government expenditure in 2011 on:
 education - $9 billion
 recreation and culture - $2 billion
 defence - $24 billion (ABS Cat No. 5204
Table 35).
The value of private sector industrial production
in 2011(total 2010 September and December
quarters and 2011 March and June quarters)
provides another basis for comparison:
 mining - $97 billion
 manufacturing - $107 billion
 agriculture - $29 billion
 retail - $59 billion (ABS Cat No. 5206
Table 6).
 health - $29 billion;
 social security and welfare - $15 billion
Transfers of time
Approximately two thirds (64 per cent) of the
sample (households) or one third of persons
aged 50 or more provided practical help to family
members not living with them, with the median
amount of time given per person giving time is
2.7 hours per week. The number of hours given
is highly positively skewed (ie most households
gave low numbers of hours of help). The number
of hours given exceeds the number of hours
received.
Beneficiaries of transfers
Of the 267 financial transfers given, 90 percent went
to children. Two thirds (65 percent) of transfers
to children were gifts and 35 per cent were
loans. The median value of both gifts and loans
to children was $4,000.
Few people aged 50 or more gave or received
money as gifts or loans from their older relatives
(namely their parents). They generally did not
receive any time either. Just under one quarter
of them gave time to older relatives, but this low
rate reflects the fact that 53 per cent of
respondents did not have living parents.
The bulk of financial transfers went to the
younger generation which only contributed 11
percent of financial transfers to persons age 50+
in return. Children received more money than
they gave, and also received more time than
they gave.
The overall flow of time to and from persons
aged 50 or more is almost equal. However, the
overall flow of money is overwhelmingly
outward, and goes mainly to the younger
generation. Combining the values of time and
money shows a net outward flow of around $14
billion from people aged 50 or more; ($53 billion
outward vs $39 billion inward).
Relationships between money and time
There was no between number of hours of help
given and value of money given, nor between
help given and money received but the number
of cases for the latter was small. Transfers of
time and money tended to occur together.
Very few households gave money only.
Low income respondents were the least likely
to give both time and money and the most
likely to give neither. High income respondents
were not particularly different from middle
income groups.
Interestingly, the relationship between the
number of hours of help received and the value
of money given was moderately strong
suggesting that people aged 50 or more may
feel obliged to give financial gifts in return for
practical help. There was a strong positive
relationship between money given and money
received (r=0.8, n=6, p=0.026), but the number
of cases reporting values for both parameters is
small and should be viewed with caution.
Around 40 percent of respondents aged 80+
are still giving practical help of some form to
other family members. At all ages over 50, the
proportion of respondents who give money
exceeds those who receive it.
Intergenerational family status
Sandwich respondents are the most likely to
provide both practical and financial help to
family members compared to respondents in
other generation/generational family types
(Figure 1).
Sandwich members have more potential
recipients of help, having both living children
and parents (and possibly grandchildren) and
illustrates the pressure many members of the
Sandwich group may be experiencing. The
financial transfers made by this group were
primarily directed to younger family members
(70 percent) with only 8.2 percent flowing to
the older generation (Table 1).
By contrast, the KaNPs, who had a mean age of
72, were more likely to receive practical help.
Having no parents or parents-in-law, this group
made few upward transfers. However, they
provided more help to the younger generation
than the Sandwich group, with 90 percent
giving practical assistance and 74 percent
providing financial assistance.
Figure 1. Give and Receive Practical or Financial Transfers by Generational Family Type
80
Provide practical help
70
Receive practical help
Percent
60
Provide financial help
50
Receive financial help
40
30
20
10
0
Sandwiches
PAKs (n=267)
(n=267)
PANKS (n=31)
Source: APMRC Survey of Intergenerational Transfers, November 2011
KANPs (n=285)
Neither (n=27)
Table 1. Proportion respondents who provide help to younger or older generation by generational
family type* Source: APMRC Survey of Intergenerational Transfers, November 2011.
Sandwiches
PANKS
KANPs
Neithers
Total
percent
percent
Percent
percent
percent
N
206
18
162
8
394
Percent helping older generation
54.9
77.8
3.7
0.0
33.8
Percent helping younger generation
70.9
5.6
89.5
75.0
75.6
*Respondents may help family members in more than one generation
The PaNKs group had a mean age of 57, similar
to the Sandwich group. However, their other
characteristics were very different. They had
substantially lower incomes, were more likely to
be renting, unemployed and have poor-fair selfrated health. Very few made financial transfers.
Yet in spite of their disadvantages, PANKS
provided more practical help to the older
generation than any other group. Note that the
types of help required by the old-old such as
personal care and housework can be much more
physically (and emotionally) demanding or than
the types of help given to younger people, such
as childcare.
Table 2 shows that children are clearly the most
common recipients of practical help at 67
percent of recipients, followed by mothers and
then mothers-in-law. Even where respondents
had both parents alive, mothers were still more
likely to be helped than fathers.
Table 2. Relatives Given Help
Source: APMRC Survey of Intergenerational Transfers, November
2011
Percent Relatives Given Help
Mother
11.3
Father
2.6
Mother-in-law
6.7
Father-in-law
1.6
Children
66.8
Niece or nephew
2.8
Uncle or aunt
1.8
Grandchild
0.8
Cousin
Other
1
1.5
4.1
Total
100.0
N
6792
1. Cousins included if defined as in older or younger generation
on basis of age in relation to respondent (25 years difference is
used as rule of thumb).
2.This was a multiple response question; individuals may give to
more than one family member. Base number n=679 is the total
number of family ties listed as recipients of practical help.
Comparisons with respondents who did not give or receive time or money
There is no difference in health between those
who gave and those who did not give, and even
more unexpected is that those who received
time were as healthy than those who did not
receive.
Age, employment status and income level were
the key factors in distinguishing between
people who give and receive time and those
who do not. Respondents who gave time or
money were significantly younger than those
who did not Marital status, location (ie.
whether in capital city or a non-metropolitan
area) and distance appear to be relevant in
giving time, but not receiving it, suggesting they
are important factors for people aged 50+ but
not their relatives. Similar differences in
demographic profiles are evident for transfers
of money, although location and distance are
not factors in this type of transfer.
Respondents who gave help were more likely
to be married, less likely to be widowed and
more likely to be employed than those who do
not give time. They are also more likely to live
in a capital city than a non-metropolitan area
than people who do not give time.
Respondents who gave time were significantly
more likely to be working full time than those
who did not give time to relatives, but most
people in both groups were not in the labour
force. This is clearly a function of the age of the
sample.
Implications
The relationship between transfer patterns and
income is not direct but is likely to be
moderated by other demographic factors
associated with each of the income groups. For
example, those on higher incomes were more
likely to have other characteristics that enabled
them to provide assistance, such as paid
employment, better health, being in a couple
household and younger age.
The much larger flow of transfers to children is
partly related to the fact that only 49 percent of
respondents had a living parent while 91
percent had one or more children.
Consequently there was greater opportunity to
make transfers to children. However, members
of the Sandwich group who had both parents
and children still made most transfers to their
children, a pattern showing that ‘love runs
downhill’.
The age-related decline in the proportion giving
assistance, which occurs from the mid-70s
onwards, is likely to be related to poorer
health, frailty, and reduced mobility. In
addition, this age group is likely to have fewer
opportunities to provide assistance as they may
no longer have living parents, children are more
established and grandchildren are likely to be
older and thus have no need for either practical
or financial assistance.
Differences in the type of transfers made by
married respondents, compared to those who
are separated/divorced, are likely to be
influenced by variations in the time and
financial resources of each group.
As higher income households are both more
likely to make transfers and to make higher
value transfers, which could perpetuate and
even intensify intergenerational differences in
socioeconomic status. On the other hand, two
thirds of persons aged 50 or more do not make
such transfers at all, and so most of the next
generation has no assistance from that quarter.
These exchanges have strong implications for
the degree of support offered by the welfare
state.
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
 There is a need to identify and target members of the PaNK group for support, based
on the trend for PANKs to contribute such large amounts of practical help to the older
generation, in spite of poorer health.
 Over half of the Sandwich group, which makes the most transfers, is still in the
workforce. They are likely to face considerable stress in balancing their work
obligations with the provision of practical assistance to family members. Policy
options to alleviate this stress include:
o adequate provision of affordable and appropriate community care and
childcare services;
o introduction of legislation to provide flexible working conditions, similar to that
which has been introduced for families with children (see National
Employment Standards at www.fairwork.gov.au).
 The propensity for the Sandwich group to financially support other family members
while spending on their own consumption may have important repercussions for their
future income levels in retirement. While this may reduce the burden on the public
purse at one stage of the life cycle, it may well increase it later through the effect it
has on middle aged parents’ capacity to save for retirement, especially for low income
members.
 There is a need to quantify the redistributive effects of intergenerational transfers
and redress any polarisation or entrenchment effects through instruments such as the
taxation system and education system.
 A substantial 20 percent of the sample either had no children or did not receive help
from children (many of whom lived overseas or interstate and must be recognised
and targeted for support in old age).
Edited by Arusyak Sevoyan
Australian Population and
Migration Research Centre
http://www.adelaide.edu.au/apmrc/
School of Social Sciences
Room G17, Ground Floor, Napier Building
The University of Adelaide
South Australia 5005
Telephone +61 8 8313 3900;
Fax: +61 8 8313 3498