Diese Präsentation wurde erfolgreich gemeldet.
Wir verwenden Ihre LinkedIn Profilangaben und Informationen zu Ihren Aktivitäten, um Anzeigen zu personalisieren und Ihnen relevantere Inhalte anzuzeigen. Sie können Ihre Anzeigeneinstellungen jederzeit ändern.

Speciale_præsentation

55 Aufrufe

Veröffentlicht am

  • Als Erste(r) kommentieren

  • Gehören Sie zu den Ersten, denen das gefällt!

Speciale_præsentation

  1. 1. Andreas Kausgård Christensen, Økonomisk Institute CSS Effects of Informal Caregiving on Labour-Market Outcomes among European citizens aged 50+
  2. 2. 4 Motivation/Aim of project Theoretical framework Empirical strategy Results Conclusion Discussion Agenda
  3. 3. Aim of the project • The aim of this master thesis is to estimate the relationship between informal caregiving and the labour-market. • The overall expectation was to identify a negative relationship, that can explain why people giving care have a lower labour-market participation • However, when accounting for an intensive caregiving margin in the model, the effect is expected to be less intensive and maybe non-existent. • Why is this thesis relevant? 08-12-2016 3
  4. 4. Informal caregiving can play an important role in the realisation of an effect home care and welfare state! However, meeting the care needs of relatives can have an impact on the labour-market! “
  5. 5. What is the Causal Effect of Informal Caregiving on Labour-Market Outcomes Q1
  6. 6. Is Informal Caregiving decision Endogenous or Exogenous Q2
  7. 7. What is the effect of an elderly parent passing away Q3
  8. 8. Theoretical framework
  9. 9. Theoretical Framework • Labour-market supply and informal caregiving • Utility function 𝑈𝑖 = 𝑓 𝐶𝑖) + 𝑣(𝐿 𝑖, 𝐼𝐶𝑖, 𝑊𝑖 + 𝛽𝑉(𝑍𝑖, 𝐼𝐶𝑖) (3.1) Conditions Τ = Τ 𝑤 + Τ𝐿 + Τ𝐼𝐶 (3.2) 𝐶𝑖 ≤ 𝑤𝑖 ∙ 𝑇 𝑤 + 𝑀𝑖 (3.3) 08-12-2016 9
  10. 10. The parental welfare function in the decision making • The parent welfare function 𝛽𝑣 𝑍𝑖, 𝐼𝐶𝑖 • It is expected that there will be an increase in the likelihood of providing informal care, when only having one parent left • When a parent pass away, an decrease in the likelihood of being employed is expected 08-12-2016 10
  11. 11. Theoretical effects of informal caregiving • Informal caregivers will decide to reduce work only when the substitution effect outweights the income effect. • An intensive threshold for informal caregiving. • If the respite effect is dominating a positive relationship between informal caregiving and working hours should be found. 08-12-2016 11
  12. 12. 08-12-2016 12 The Intensive Margin
  13. 13. Empirical strategy & methods
  14. 14. The Empirical Model • Labour-market model 𝐿 𝑖𝑗𝑡 = 𝑓𝑗 𝐼𝐶𝑖𝑡, 𝐻𝑖𝑡, 𝑋𝑖𝑡, 𝑅𝑖, 𝜖 𝑖𝑗𝑡 , 𝑗 = 1,2 𝑡 = 1,2 (4.1) where 𝐼𝐶𝑖𝑡 is informal caregiving 𝐻𝑖𝑡 is the individuals health-status 𝑋𝑖𝑡 is social-economic control variables 𝑅𝑖 is the institutional framework in the country 08-12-2016 14
  15. 15. Binary Choice model Instrument Variable model Fixed Effect model Average Treatment Effect model Empirical strategy
  16. 16. Correlation between the endogenous variable and the instrument (Relevance) The instrument variable must be exogenous (Exogeneity) The unbiased estimator Binary Choice model Instrument Variable model Fixed Effect model Average Treatment Effect model Empirical strategy • 𝐶𝑜𝑣 𝑧𝑖𝑡, 𝜖𝑖𝑡 = 0 • 𝐶𝑜𝑣 𝑧𝑖𝑡, 𝐼𝐶𝑖𝑡 ≠ 0 • 𝛽𝐼𝑉 = 𝐶𝑜𝑣(𝑌,𝑍) 𝐶𝑜𝑣(𝑋,𝑍)
  17. 17. Strictly exogeneity in the fixed-effect model Allows for correlation between unobserved variables and the error-term The unbiased FE-estimator Binary Choice model Instrument Variable model Fixed Effect model Average Treatment Effect model Empirical strategy • 𝐸 𝑋𝑖𝑡 𝛼𝑖 ≠ 0 • 𝐸 𝑢𝑖𝑡 𝑋𝑖𝑡, 𝛼𝑖 = 0 • 𝛽 𝐹𝐸 = 𝑖=1 𝑁 𝑿𝑖 ′ 𝑿𝑖 −1 𝑖=1 𝑁 𝑿𝑖 ′ 𝑳𝑖
  18. 18. The Results An empirical study of caregiving in Europe
  19. 19. The Results Labour-market Participation
  20. 20. Table 6-1: Regression results of informal caregiving hours on labour-market participation 08-12-2016 20 Coeff S.E. Marginal S.E. Coeff S.E. Coeff S.E. Coeff S.E. Coeff S.E. Coeff S.E. Hours of care -0,003 *** 0,001 -0,001 *** 0,000 -0,001 0,001 - - -0,012 * 0,006 - - 0,002 0,010 Informal care - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Intensive care - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Age 0,088 ** 0,045 0,061 * 0,033 0,118 *** 0,043 -0,698 1,286 0,081 * 0,046 -0,931 2,795 0,120 ** 0,044 Age Squared -0,001 ** 0,000 -0,001 ** 0,000 -0,001 ** 0,000 0,007 0,012 -0,001 ** 0,000 0,008 0,026 -0,001 ** 0,000 Number of children -0,012 *** 0,004 -0,007 * 0,004 -0,014 0,012 -0,206 ** 0,082 -0,014 *** 0,004 -0,093 0,403 -0,013 0,012 Number of chronical conditions -0,021 *** 0,006 -0,017 *** 0,005 -0,003 0,010 0,167 0,144 -0,019 *** 0,006 0,394 0,532 -0,004 0,011 Married -0,118 *** 0,012 -0,084 *** 0,011 -0,025 0,032 0,246 0,297 -0,115 *** 0,012 -0,919 1,781 -0,023 0,034 Self-rated health 0,171 *** 0,016 0,110 *** 0,015 0,066 *** 0,017 0,107 0,386 0,171 *** 0,016 -0,113 0,863 0,066 *** 0,017 Household's income percentile 0,041 *** 0,002 0,026 *** 0,002 0,012 *** 0,002 0,021 0,050 0,041 *** 0,002 -0,061 0,132 0,012 *** 0,002 EURO-D -0,015 *** 0,003 -0,011 *** 0,002 -0,009 *** 0,003 0,179 ** 0,081 -0,013 *** 0,003 0,193 0,185 -0,009 *** 0,004 Wave2 dummy 0,032 *** 0,010 0,024 *** 0,007 -0,049 ** 0,023 -0,511 * 0,272 0,032 *** 0,010 -0,101 1,176 -0,050 ** 0,023 Years of education 0,014 *** 0,001 0,013 *** 0,002 - - -0,027 0,034 0,013 *** 0,001 - - - - Female -0,206 *** 0,010 -0,186 *** 0,011 - - 2,122 *** 0,218 -0,188 *** 0,017 - - - - Region B 0,087 *** 0,014 0,066 *** 0,015 - - -0,960 ** 0,458 0,080 *** 0,016 - - - - Region C 0,001 0,014 -0,010 0,014 - - -0,536 0,424 -0,002 0,015 - - - - Region D 0,161 *** 0,015 0,139 *** 0,020 - - -1,431 *** 0,410 0,149 *** 0,018 - - - - Constant -1,669 1,247 - - -2,982 ** 1,265 18,127 35,637 -1,480 1,279 30,201 76,756 -3,059 ** 1,308 Parent 1 - - - - - - -0,562 * 0,299 - - - - - - Mother Age - - - - - - 0,011 ** 0,005 - - - - - - Mother Health - - - - - - 1,532 *** 0,294 - - 1,224 ** 0,596 - - Mother Distance - - - - - - -1,182 *** 0,315 - - - - - - Father Age - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Father Health - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Father Distance - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Observations 6479 6479 6479 6479 6479 6479 6479 Individuals 3423 3423 3423 3423 3423 3423 3423 F-Test first stage 6,48 *** 10,09 *** 0,82 Overidentification test 0,99 (p=0,80) Durbin-Wu-Hausman exogeneity test 2,33 (p=0,13) Hausman (Test for random effects) 208,96 *** (Reject) Wald Chi2 3177 *** 1077 *** 254 *** 2825 *** 250 *** R2 29% 7% 3% 25% 1% 5% Correlation (u,X) 0,115 -0,039 0,072 *** Significant at 1 %; ** Significant at 5%; *Signifiant at 10 % Note that the marginal effect calculation is based on a man from region A in the sample (female=0, RegionB=0, RegionC=0,RegionD=0, rest of the variables are at means) Carehours LPM (R1) Pooled Probit (R2) LPM FE (R3) LPM IV LPM IV (R4) LPM FEIV LPM FEIV (R5) Second-stage Second-stageFirst-stage First-stage
  21. 21. Table 6-2: Regression results of Informal Care & Intensive Care (>15) on labour-market participation 08-12-2016 21 Coeff S.E. Marginal S.E. Coeff S.E. Coeff S.E. Coeff S.E. Coeff S.E. Coeff S.E. Coeff S.E. Coeff S.E. Hours of care - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Informal care 0,036 *** 0,010 0,017 * 0,009 -0,007 0,011 - - - - 0,060 0,084 - - - - -0,007 0,155 Intensive care -0,175 *** 0,031 -0,085 *** 0,025 -0,016 0,028 - - - - -0,705 ** 0,354 - - - - 0,087 0,624 Age 0,090 ** 0,045 0,095 *** 0,037 0,124 *** 0,042 0,016 0,053 0,007 0,022 0,093 ** 0,046 -0,026 0,109 0,000 0,050 0,119 *** 0,043 Age Squared -0,001 ** 0,000 -0,001 *** 0,000 -0,001 *** 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 -0,001 ** 0,000 0,000 0,001 0,000 0,000 -0,001 ** 0,000 Number of children -0,012 *** 0,004 -0,011 ** 0,005 -0,012 0,012 -0,007 0,004 -0,004 ** 0,002 -0,013 *** 0,004 -0,008 0,023 0,002 0,011 -0,014 0,012 Number of chronical conditions -0,021 *** 0,006 -0,018 *** 0,006 -0,003 0,010 0,012 * 0,007 0,002 0,003 -0,021 *** 0,006 0,019 0,020 0,004 0,009 -0,003 0,010 Married -0,118 *** 0,012 -0,090 *** 0,014 -0,022 0,033 0,013 0,014 0,006 0,006 -0,114 *** 0,013 0,048 0,119 -0,027 0,039 -0,021 0,040 Self-rated health 0,169 *** 0,016 0,131 *** 0,014 0,064 *** 0,017 0,049 *** 0,016 -0,005 0,008 0,162 *** 0,017 0,011 0,038 -0,009 0,018 0,067 *** 0,019 Household's income percentile 0,040 *** 0,002 0,028 *** 0,002 0,011 *** 0,002 0,007 *** 0,002 0,000 0,001 0,040 *** 0,002 -0,001 0,005 -0,001 0,002 0,012 *** 0,002 EURO-D -0,015 *** 0,003 -0,013 *** 0,003 -0,009 *** 0,003 -0,001 0,003 0,002 * 0,001 -0,013 *** 0,003 0,003 0,007 0,001 0,003 -0,009 *** 0,003 Wave2 dummy 0,033 *** 0,010 0,029 *** 0,007 -0,049 ** 0,023 -0,039 *** 0,013 -0,014 ** 0,005 0,033 *** 0,011 -0,015 0,056 -0,016 0,025 -0,049 ** 0,023 Years of education 0,013 *** 0,001 0,017 *** 0,002 - - 0,008 *** 0,001 -0,001 * 0,001 0,012 *** 0,002 - - - - - - Female -0,208 *** 0,010 -0,214 *** 0,012 - - 0,090 *** 0,011 0,034 *** 0,004 -0,193 *** 0,014 - - - - - - Region B 0,083 *** 0,014 0,080 *** 0,019 - - 0,076 *** 0,015 -0,023 *** 0,008 0,070 *** 0,020 - - - - - - Region C -0,007 0,014 -0,011 0,018 - - 0,169 *** 0,015 -0,015 ** 0,007 -0,017 0,024 - - - - - - Region D 0,150 *** 0,015 0,152 *** 0,019 - - 0,256 *** 0,018 -0,031 *** 0,007 0,129 *** 0,032 - - - - - - Constant -1,726 1,248 - - -3,126 ** 1,255 -0,525 1,467 -0,221 0,621 -1,805 1,287 1,115 3,200 -0,094 1,443 -2,995 ** 1,271 Parent 1 - - - - - - 0,001 0,014 -0,016 ** 0,006 - - 0,102 *** 0,034 0,009 0,015 - - Mother Age - - - - - - 0,002 *** 0,000 0,000 ** 0,000 - - - - - - - - Mother Health - - - - - - 0,078 *** 0,014 0,038 *** 0,006 - - 0,057 ** 0,029 0,027 ** 0,012 - - Mother Distance - - - - - - -0,162 *** 0,015 -0,021 *** 0,005 - - - - - - - - Father Age - - - - - - 0,063 *** 0,015 0,011 * 0,007 - - - - - - - - Father Health - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Father Distance - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Observations 6479 6479 6479 6479 6479 6479 6479 6479 6479 Individuals 3423 3423 3423 3423 3423 3423 3423 3423 3423 F-Test first stage 37,33 *** 6,6 *** 1,6 * 0,69 Overidentification test 0,92 (p=0.82) Durbin-Wu-Hausman exogeneity test 1,62 (p=0.20) Hausman (Test for random effects) 225,6 ***(Reject) Wald Chi2 3204 *** 1073 *** 258 *** 2794 *** 251 *** R2 29% 6% 9% 3% 25% 0% 0% 5% Correlation (u,X) 0,118 -0,089 -0,104 0,077 *** Significant at 1 %; ** Significant at 5%; *Signifiant at 10 % a = Informal care, 1 for given care or else then 0, b=Intensive care if more than 15 hours of care Note that the marginal effect calculation is based on a unmarried man from region A who are not given care in the sample (Female=0, Married=0, self-health=0, RegionB=0, RegionC=0,RegionD=0,Informal Care=0, Intensive Care =0, rest of the variables are at means) First-stage (a) Second-stage First-stage (a) Intensive Caregiving LPM (R6) Pooled Probit (R7) LPM FE (R8) LPM IV Second-stage LPM IV First-stage (b) LPM FEIV First-stage (b) LPM IV (R9) LPM FEIV LPM FEIV (R10)
  22. 22. Table 6-6: Regression results of defined Intensive caregiving margin for full sample and between genders 08-12-2016 22 Marginal S.E. Marginal S.E. Coeff S.E. Coeff S.E. Full Sample Informal Care 0,019 ** 0,010 0,016 * 0,009 0,017 * 0,009 0,017 * 0,009 Intensive Care -0,037 ** 0,016 -0,050 ** 0,020 -0,085 *** 0,025 -0,086 *** 0,026 Observation 6479 6479 6479 6479 Individuals 3423 3423 3423 3423 Wald 1829,70 *** 1828,76 *** 1844,43 *** 1841,41 *** Men Informal Care 0,022 * 0,012 0,021 * 0,011 0,019 * 0,011 0,019 * 0,011 Intensive Care -0,031 0,026 -0,053 0,042 -0,059 0,062 -0,076 0,065 Observation 2846 2846 2846 2846 Individuals 1502 1502 1502 1502 Wald 356,64 *** 395,00 *** 354,45 *** 354,70 *** Female Informal Care 0,016 0,014 0,015 0,014 0,019 0,014 0,018 0,014 Intensive Care -0,025 0,019 -0,038 0,023 -0,078 *** 0,027 -0,074 *** 0,028 Observation 3622 3622 3622 3622 Individuals 1921 1921 1921 1921 Wald 1211,67 *** 1203,90 *** 1231,27 *** 1221,15 *** *** Significant at 1 %; ** Significant at 5%; *Signifiant at 10 % Note that the marginal effect calculation is based on a man from region A who are not given care in the sample and for the women regression an unmarried woman (a man in the mens sample) in region A (Informal care = 0, intensive care =0, Married=0, self-Health =0, Wave=0, RegionB=0, RegionC=0,RegionD=0) 5 Hours 10 Hours 15 Hours 20 Hours Intensive care
  23. 23. The Results Labour-market hours
  24. 24. Table 6-7: Regressions of informal caregiving hours on Working-hours 08-12-2016 Coeff S.E. Coeff S.E. Coeff S.E. Coeff S.E. Coeff S.E. Coeff S.E. Hours of care -0,036 0,030 0,007 0,039 - - 0,375 0,358 - - -0,013 1,042 Age 2,660 1,912 6,880 *** 2,414 1,249 0,974 0,518 2,137 0,419 1,926 6,887 *** 2,581 Age Squared -0,025 0,017 -0,058 *** 0,021 -0,011 0,009 -0,006 0,019 -0,001 0,017 -0,058 *** 0,023 Number of children -0,168 0,196 -0,159 0,597 -0,089 0,086 -0,153 0,187 0,048 0,211 -0,158 0,396 Number of chronical conditions 0,260 0,295 -0,176 0,461 0,118 0,130 0,361 0,281 0,152 0,419 -0,173 0,528 Married -1,883 *** 0,580 0,059 2,151 0,490 ** 0,249 -2,454 *** 0,562 0,527 0,842 0,069 1,462 Self-rated health 1,132 * 0,660 0,365 0,861 -0,105 0,324 1,731 ** 0,694 -0,580 1,003 0,353 1,149 Household's income percentile 0,362 *** 0,096 0,145 0,120 -0,003 0,042 0,485 *** 0,089 -0,034 0,075 0,144 0,148 EURO-D -0,109 0,113 -0,319 ** 0,156 0,124 ** 0,056 -0,055 0,128 0,144 0,167 -0,316 0,222 Wave2 dummy 0,279 0,344 -1,128 1,166 -0,445 *** 0,226 0,352 0,447 -0,733 1,028 -1,138 1,326 Years of education 0,069 0,066 - - 0,019 0,026 0,079 0,055 - - - - Female -8,521 *** 0,498 - - 1,425 *** 0,203 -9,038 *** 0,662 - - - - Public -2,000 *** 0,589 1,686 1,144 0,225 0,267 -3,204 *** 0,577 1,266 0,928 1,712 1,657 Region B -2,270 ** 0,965 - - -0,634 ** 0,308 -2,112 *** 0,683 - - - - Region C -3,460 *** 0,943 - - -0,290 0,299 -3,299 *** 0,635 - - - - Region D -0,904 0,939 - - -0,714 ** 0,324 -0,905 0,723 - - - - Constant -29,920 53,168 -164,439 *** 70,568 -35,836 27,046 28,428 59,442 -17,614 56,423 -164,766 ** 76,132 Parent 1 - - - - -0,856 *** 0,240 - - - - - - Mother Age - - - - 0,008 ** 0,004 - - - - - - Mother Health - - - - 1,020 *** 0,238 - - 0,594 0,444 - - Mother Distance - - - - -0,704 *** 0,265 - - - - - - Father Age - - - - - - - - - - - - Father Health - - - - 0,533 ** 0,273 - - - - - - Father Distance - - - - - - - - - - - - Observations 4655 4655 4655 4655 4655 4655 Individuals 2577 2577 2577 F-Test first stage 1,48 5,73 0,49 Overidentification test 4,56 (p=0,34) Durbin-Wu-Hausman exogeneity test 1,64 (p=0,20) Hausman (Test for random effects) 36,84 *** (Reject) Wald Chi2 392 *** 551 *** 144 R2 1% 2% 7% 1% 1% Correlation (u,X) -0,105 -0,125 -0,101 Rho 0,683 *** Significant at 1 %; ** Significant at 5%; *Signifiant at 10 % Note that the marginal effect calculation is based on a man from region A in the sample (female=0, RegionB=0, RegionC=0,RegionD=0, rest of the variables are at means) Second-stage First-Stage Second-StageFirst-stage Pooled OLS (R17) OLS FE (R18) OLS IV OLS IV (R19) OLS FEIV OLS FEIV (R20) 24
  25. 25. Table 6-8: Regressions of informal caregiving hours on Working-hours 08-12-2016 Coeff S.E. Coeff S.E. Coeff S.E. Coeff S.E. Coeff S.E. Coeff S.E. Hours of care 0,041 0,070 -0,057 * 0,031 - - 0,565 0,782 - - 0,411 0,328 Age 4,120 2,794 0,788 2,402 -0,456 0,841 2,814 2,897 3,052 1,871 -2,273 3,186 Age Squared -0,037 0,025 -0,009 0,022 0,004 0,008 -0,025 0,026 -0,026 0,017 0,018 0,029 Number of children -0,140 0,265 -0,247 0,291 -0,131 ** 0,075 -0,159 0,279 -0,051 0,162 -0,133 0,262 Number of chronical conditions 0,649 0,417 -0,177 0,395 0,067 0,112 0,755 * 0,388 0,158 0,249 -0,071 0,403 Married -0,045 0,832 -3,361 *** 0,816 -0,043 0,229 -0,245 0,785 1,098 ** 0,453 -4,703 *** 0,824 Self-rated health 1,328 1,015 1,259 0,839 -0,034 0,299 2,253 ** 1,027 -0,156 0,575 1,706 * 0,929 Household's income percentile 0,258 *** 0,130 0,543 *** 0,141 -0,005 0,036 0,333 *** 0,125 -0,042 0,080 0,788 *** 0,130 EURO-D -0,397 *** 0,192 0,122 0,134 0,036 0,056 -0,274 0,194 0,184 ** 0,094 0,112 0,164 Wave2 dummy -0,187 0,508 0,895 ** 0,450 -0,234 0,190 -0,170 0,631 -0,714 * 0,423 1,179 * 0,629 Years of education 0,004 0,095 0,131 0,092 -0,006 0,022 0,037 0,077 0,052 0,049 0,098 0,081 Female - - - - - - - - - - - - Public -4,569 *** 0,868 0,246 0,768 -0,081 0,236 -5,875 *** 0,812 0,540 0,499 -0,614 0,826 Region B -1,081 1,237 -3,917 *** 1,514 0,296 0,256 -1,413 0,925 -2,205 *** 0,634 -2,954 ** 1,222 Region C -1,077 1,210 -6,132 *** 1,485 0,328 0,246 -1,081 0,910 -1,381 ** 0,620 -5,726 *** 1,078 Region D -1,676 1,203 -0,306 1,487 0,235 0,271 -2,099 ** 0,959 -2,362 *** 0,661 0,458 1,272 Constant -73,355 77,787 16,265 66,850 13,249 23,435 -39,287 80,817 -85,119 51,823 100,569 88,345 Parent 1 - - - - - - - - - -1,838 *** 0,450 - - Mother Age - - - - 0,008 ** 0,003 - - - - - - Mother Health - - - - 0,786 *** 0,209 - - 1,214 *** 0,399 - - Mother Distance - - - - -0,533 ** 0,244 - - - - - - Father Age - - - - - - - - - - - - Father Health - - - - - - - - 1,216 ** 0,499 - - Father Distance - - - - - - - - - - - - Observations 2465 2190 2465 2465 2190 2190 F-Test first stage 1.69 ** 3,57 *** Overidentification test 0,767 (p=0.68) 6,05 ** (p=0.05) Durbin-Wu-Hausman exogeneity test 0,46 (p=0.49) 2,74 * (p=0.10) Wald Chi2 41 *** 104 *** 71 *** 150,1 *** R2 1% 1% 3% *** Significant at 1 %; ** Significant at 5%; *Signifiant at 10 % Male (First) Male (Second) Female (First) Female (Second)Male Female Pooled OLS (R21) Pooled OLS (R22) OLS IV OLS IV (R23) OLS IV OLS IV (R24) 25
  26. 26. The Results The effect of a parent passing away
  27. 27. 08-12-2016 27 Table 6-10: Results of the treatment effect of a parent passing away on the labour-market participation Robust Robust Agecohort Coef. Std. Err. Coef. Std. Err. 51-58 ATET -0,019 0,019 -0,009 0,030 Mean 0,875 *** 0,010 0,153 *** 0,017 Observation (N): 1870 739 59-64 ATET -0,075 * 0,043 0,040 ** 0,022 Mean 0,668 *** 0,028 0,047 *** 0,011 Observation 601 618 ***significant at 1%: **significant at 5%: *singificant at 10% Not EmployedEmployed 1 = 0 1 = 1 1 = 0 1 = 1
  28. 28. • Overall, a small negative relationship between informal caregiving and labour-market outcomes • An significant existence of a intensive margin • That gender differencies exists • That the assumption of exogeneity couldn’t be rejected • That the likelihood of ”early” retirement increases for individual older than 58 experience a parent passing away Conclusion
  29. 29. Questions & Discussion
  30. 30. Figure 2-1: The Global model of care. It illustrates the three components determine the demand and supply of care. Source: Own illustration 08-12-2016 30
  31. 31. Table 6-9: Regional regression results of the analysis of informal caregiving hours on working-hours 08-12-2016 31 Marginal Robust S. E. Marginal Robust S. E. Marginal Robust S. E. Marginal Robust S. E. Hours of care -0,119 * 0,066 -0,021 0,065 0,047 0,043 -0,047 0,071 Age 1,484 5,104 -2,212 4,055 5,353 3,323 3,020 2,712 Age Squared -0,012 0,046 0,017 0,037 -0,050 * 0,030 -0,028 0,024 Number of children -1,859 ** 0,797 0,046 0,393 0,108 0,343 -0,278 0,287 Number of chronical conditions -0,804 0,931 1,106 * 0,578 0,206 0,442 -0,195 0,467 Married 0,087 2,284 -2,452 ** 1,134 -1,605 1,063 -2,413 *** 0,787 Self-rated health 3,583 * 2,092 0,013 1,251 -0,102 1,008 2,514 ** 1,125 Household's income percentile 0,136 0,264 0,328 ** 0,166 0,479 *** 0,168 0,494 *** 0,153 EURO-D 0,754 ** 0,373 -0,048 0,211 -0,207 0,166 -0,442 ** 0,198 Wave2 dummy 2,188 ** 1,072 1,617 ** 0,746 -0,587 0,565 -0,843 0,558 Years of education 0,219 0,202 -0,055 0,104 0,263 ** 0,111 -0,034 0,115 Female -5,925 *** 1,817 -9,171 *** 0,931 -11,022 *** 0,829 -5,256 *** 0,745 Observations 799 1201 1536 1119 Individuals 430 676 862 609 Wald 70,35 *** 119,8 *** 243,52 *** 114,5 *** *** Significant at 1 %; ** Significant at 5%; *Signifiant at 10 % Region A Region B Region C Region D

×