Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-7drmj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-05T08:03:46.093Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The impact of demographic change in the balance between formal and informal old-age care in Spain. Results from a mixed microsimulation–agent-based model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 August 2020

Jeroen Spijker*
Affiliation:
Centre d'Estudis Demogràfics, Bellaterra, Spain
Daniel Devolder
Affiliation:
Centre d'Estudis Demogràfics, Bellaterra, Spain
Pilar Zueras
Affiliation:
Centre d'Estudis Demogràfics, Bellaterra, Spain
*
*Corresponding author. Email: jspijker@ced.uab.es
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Changes in population and family structures are altering the provision of care for dependent older people. In Southern European countries like Spain, such care is still largely provided by family, typically spouses and adult daughters. However, an increasing proportion of women have entered the labour force, thereby affecting their availability. To study the demand and supply balance of informal care and to quantify the need for formal care when there is a deficit, we have developed a mixed microsimulation–agent-based model (ABM). Based on nuptiality, fertility and mortality levels of cohorts born at ten-year intervals between 1908 and 1968, the model starts with a microsimulation of the lifecycle of individuals and their close relatives until death. The ABM then determines the amount of time available or needed to care for family members, starting from age 50. Estimates are derived from Spanish survey data on employment, disability and time of care received. Surprisingly, results show that the family care deficit was greater in the older cohorts due to higher mortality and thus a greater impact of widowhood. However, for future elderly persons, we foresee that persistent below-replacement fertility and, paradoxically, the prolongation of the lifespan of couples will increase the demand for formal care as there will be more couples with both members incapacitated but without children to take care of them.

Information

Type
Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Table 1. Demographic trends in Spanish cohorts born in 1908, 1928, 1948 and 1968

Figure 1

Figure 1. The proportion of the population in the highest dependency state (difficulties with two or more activities of daily living (2+ ADL)) by sex, age and educational level (2008).

Source: Authors’ calculations based on data from the 2008 EDAD (Spanish Survey on Disabilities, Personal Autonomy and Situations of Dependency).
Figure 2

Table 2. Distribution of the population aged 16–69 by labour force participation according to sex, educational level and dependency level (2008)

Figure 3

Table 3. Weekly hours of care, according to age, labour force participation and dependency status

Figure 4

Figure 2. The probability at birth of egos of living in a situation of dependency from the age of 50 onwards, by sex, for the 1908–1968 birth cohorts.

Note: Prop.: proportion.Source: Authors’ calculations based on the results of the DemoCare simulation model. The 95 per cent confidence interval bands are obtained by the bootstrap method, based on 400 runs of the model, discarding the extreme 2.5 per cent minimum or maximum values at each age. Each curve is also the average value over the 400 runs. The 400 runs correspond to 20 runs of the kinship model and, for each one of them, 20 runs of the agent-based model module, varying the ‘seeds’ of the random number generator.
Figure 5

Figure 3. The proportion of the demand for care of dependent egos covered by informal care (i.e. by partner and children), according to sex, age and year of birth (1908, 1928, 1948, 1968).

Source: Authors’ calculations based on the results of the DemoCare simulation model. Mean values and 95 per cent confidence interval bands are obtained as explained in Figure 2.
Figure 6

Figure 4. The proportion of care needed by dependent egos that can be covered by the partner and children, according to their age and year of birth (1908, 1928, 1948 and 1968).

Notes: Curves are based on average values at each age over 400 runs. ‘Formal Care’ refers to the number of hours of care that cannot be covered by direct family members and is considered to be mostly paid care. The sum of the proportion of care by the partner and children is equal to the proportion of informal care in Figure 3.Source: Authors’ calculations based on the results of the DemoCare simulation model.
Figure 7

Figure 5. The proportion of care needed by dependent egos that can be covered by partner and children, according to sex, age and year of birth (1908 and 1968).

Source: SeeFigure 4.
Figure 8

Figure 6. The proportion of the total demand for care of dependent egos covered by informal care and formal care according to the presence or lack of a partner and/or children, by ego's age and birth cohort (1908, 1928, 1948 and 1968).

Notes: Curves are based on average values at each age over 400 runs. FC: demand for formal care, whereby ‘FC: no relatives’ is the demand of hours of formal care corresponding to dependent egos with no partner and no children, hence with no supply of family hours of care; ‘FC: childless’ is the deficit of hours of care for dependent egos who have a partner but are childless; ‘FC: partner + children’ is the deficit for dependent egos who have had a partner and children. Informal Care: the proportion of the demand for care by dependent egos supplied by the family (ego's partner and children), corresponding to the values plotted in previous figures.Source: Authors’ calculations based on the results of the DemoCare simulation model.
Figure 9

Figure 7. Breakdown of potential family care supply according to number of kin and factors associated with loss of potential care: comparison between 1908, 1928, 1948 and 1968 birth cohorts for dependent egos who have a partner and at least one child.

Notes: Curves are based on average values at each age over 400 runs. ‘Care supply available’ is the proportion of time available for caring for ego, either from the partner, which corresponds to ‘Partner to Ego’, or from the children, corresponding to ‘Children to Ego’. ‘Mortality’ relates to those egos who have lost their partner (top part of graphs) or some of their children (bottom part). ‘Dependency’ refers to the situation of dependence of ego's partner (top) or children (bottom), which may prevent ego from being cared for. ‘Work’ assumes that employment of ego's partner or child reduces their possibility of caring, and ‘Competition’ to the reduction in the offer of care due to other kin needs for care. ‘TFR1+’ is the mean number of children of egos who had at least one child, computed as the total fertility rate (TFR)/(1 – c), where c is the childlessness level. ‘S1’ is the sum of time for care by partner and children available for ego (the sum of ‘Partner to Ego’ and ‘Children to Ego’ components). ‘Mean number of relatives’ for the legend of the y-axis is the number of children born alive plus one, as the model assumes that every ego has had a partner.Source: Authors’ calculations based on the results of the simulation model DemoCare.
Figure 10

Figure 8. Breakdown of potential family care supply according to number of kin and factors associated with loss of potential care in the 1948 and 1968 birth cohorts for dependent egos who have a partner and at least one child, by sex.

Notes and source: SeeFigure 7 except for ‘Age Dep.’, which is the effect of the dependency of children due to their age (younger than 16); ‘Comp. ego's partner’ is the time given by children to ego's partner, competing with ego's needs; ‘Comp. other relatives’ is the time given by ego's children to other relatives (their partner, siblings and own children). Observe that the meaning of ‘Dependency’ for ego's children in this figure is only related to bad health as the time-use associated with caring for (pre-)school-aged children is considered separately through Age Dep. (cf. Figure 7). Likewise, ‘Competition’ in Figure 7 corresponds to the sum of ‘Comp. ego's partner’ and ‘Comp. other relatives’ in this figure.
Supplementary material: File

Spijker et al. supplementary material

Spijker et al. supplementary material

Download Spijker et al. supplementary material(File)
File 98.6 KB