Gu ín, Ma in; B and , Ma ina
A icle — Published Ve sion
In e gene a ional solida i y in a de eloping wel a e s a e:
The case o Sou h Ko ea
In e na ional Jou nal o Social Wel a e
P o ided in Coope a ion wi h:
John Wiley & Sons
Sugges ed Ci a ion: Gu ín, Ma in; B and , Ma ina (2024) : In e gene a ional solida i y in a
de eloping wel a e s a e: The case o Sou h Ko ea, In e na ional Jou nal o Social Wel a e, ISSN
1468-2397, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, Vol. 33, Iss. 4, pp. 912-930,
h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/ijsw.12643
This Ve sion is a ailable a :
h ps://hdl.handle.ne /10419/306116
S anda d-Nu zungsbedingungen:
Die Dokumen e au EconS o dü en zu eigenen wissenscha lichen
Zwecken und zum P i a geb auch gespeiche und kopie we den.
Sie dü en die Dokumen e nich ü ö en liche ode komme zielle
Zwecke e iel äl igen, ö en lich auss ellen, ö en lich zugänglich
machen, e eiben ode ande wei ig nu zen.
So e n die Ve asse die Dokumen e un e Open-Con en -Lizenzen
(insbesonde e CC-Lizenzen) zu Ve ügung ges ell haben soll en,
gel en abweichend on diesen Nu zungsbedingungen die in de do
genann en Lizenz gewäh en Nu zungs ech e.
Te ms o use:
Documen s in EconS o may be sa ed and copied o you pe sonal
and schola ly pu poses.
You a e no o copy documen s o public o comme cial pu poses, o
exhibi he documen s publicly, o make hem publicly a ailable on he
in e ne , o o dis ibu e o o he wise use he documen s in public.
I he documen s ha e been made a ailable unde an Open Con en
Licence (especially C ea i e Commons Licences), you may exe cise
u he usage igh s as speci ied in he indica ed licence.
h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
In e gene a ional solida i y in a de eloping wel a e s a e:
The case o Sou h Ko ea
Ma in Gu ín
1
| Ma ina B and
2
1
Depa men o Sociology and Economy o
he Wel a e S a e, Facul y o Human
Sciences, Uni e si y o Kassel, Kassel,
Ge many
2
Chai o Social S uc u e and Sociology
o Aging Socie ies, Facul y o Social
Sciences, TU Do mund Uni e si y,
Do mund, Ge many
Co espondence
Ma in Gu ín, Depa men o Sociology
and Economy o he Wel a e S a e,
Facul y o Human Sciences, Uni e si y o
Kassel, Ge many.
Email: ma in.gu [email protected]
Abs ac
Wi h ou analysis o he Ko ean socie y we in end o make an inno a i e con-
ibu ion o esea ch on in e gene a ional solida i y by examining how he
in oduc ion o wel a e policies has changed pa e ns o in e gene a ional soli-
da i y. Using agg ega ed da a om he Ko ean Longi udinal S udy o Aging,
he Ko ean Gene al Social Su ey, and he Ko ean Social Su ey, we examine
he changing cha ac e o in e gene a ional solida i y by ocusing on na ional
ends in bo h socie al p ac ice and in e gene a ional no ms om 2002 o
2018. Ou indings show ha pa e ns o Ko ean in e gene a ional solida i y
ha e modi ied in a ious espec s. The no ma i e dimension o he amilial/
ilial con ac has p o oundly changed along wi h he de eloping wel a e s a e,
shi ing om a dominan ly ilial pie y-cen ic cha ac e o mo e complemen-
a i y con ac -based no ms in which child en, wel a e s a e and socie y a e all
assigned esponsibili y o he well-being o pa en s. In e gene a ional “ unc-
ional”solida i y, howe e , in e ms o he exchange o money and p ac ical
suppo has no de- ilialized.
KEYWORDS
in e gene a ional solida i y, popula ion aging, socie al change, Sou h Ko ea, wel a e s a e
INTRODUCTION
Demog aphic changes p opelled by declining e ili y and
inc easing numbe s o olde people a e majo public con-
ce ns in de eloped and de eloping socie ies as coun ies
a e challenged o de e mine an adequa e mix o public
and p i a e esou ces o mee he g owing suppo needs
o aging socie ies. In ecen decades a signi ican body o
sociological and ge on ological li e a u e has a emp ed
o add ess his conce n by analyzing pa e ns o in e ge-
ne a ional solida i y be ween amily membe s ac oss a -
ious ypes o suppo (e.g., Albe ini & Kohli, 2013;
Isenga d e al., 2018). Olde pa en s a e s ongly depen-
den on mul i ace ed suppo a ying om inancial and
non- inancial suppo om p i a e esou ces, as well as
occasional help wi h household cho es, o o en ime-
demanding physical nu sing and ca e deli e ed by amily
membe s.
Recen de elopmen s in social wel a e sys ems, along-
side ans o ma ions in amily size and s uc u e, a e call-
ing he cu en socie al o ganiza ion o suppo in o
ques ion. Rapid changes in social suppo sys ems a e
Abb e ia ions: KGSS, Ko ean Gene al Social Su ey; KLoSA, Ko ean
Longi udinal S udy o Aging; KSS, Ko ean Social Su ey; OECD,
O ganiza ion o Economic Coope a ion and De elopmen .
Accep ed: 11 Janua y 2024
DOI: 10.1111/ijsw.12643
This is an open access a icle unde he e ms o he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion License, which pe mi s use, dis ibu ion and ep oduc ion in any medium, p o ided
he o iginal wo k is p ope ly ci ed.
© 2024 The Au ho s. In e na ional Jou nal o Social Wel a e published by Akademike ö bunde SSR (ASSR) and John Wiley & Sons L d.
912 In J Soc Wel . 2024;33:912–930.
wileyonlinelib a y.com/jou nal/ijsw
especially ele an o apidly aging coun ies wi h newly
de eloping wel a e s a es such as Sou h Ko ea, which
ace he immense ask o mee ing he u u e needs o
hei olde ci izens. Sou h Ko ea, he ocus o he cu en
s udy, has in ecen decades in oduced a a ie y o wel-
a e policies o p o ide ca e (ins umen al and medical),
and income secu i y o olde people (Kim & Choi, 2013;
Kim & Cook, 2011; Shin & Do, 2015). Al hough public
o ms o solida i y aim o ease he bu den o amilies by
aking o e a ce ain amoun o esponsibili y, his sup-
po is o en inadequa e (Chon, 2014; Gao e al., 2011;
Kim & Choi, 2011; Shin & Do, 2015) he e o e lea ing
he eliance on amilial suppo in ac . Ye , i emains
unclea how he in oduc ion o public suppo o olde
adul s a ec s cul u ally based amilial and ilial con ac s
and in e gene a ional dependencies wi hin amilies. Pa -
icula ocus hen is on adul child en who a e bo h cul-
u ally (in he o m o ilial pie y) and ins i u ionally
( h ough axes and social insu ance con ibu ions)
obliged o suppo hei olde pa en s. Thus, he ollow-
ing ques ion guides he p esen s udy: (how and in how
a )does he in oduc ion o wel a e policies go along wi h
changed pa e ns o in e gene a ional solida i y in a adi-
ional socie y? We add ess his ques ion by d awing on
da a om se en wa es o KLoSA and KSS, and wo
wa es o he KGSS, which collec ed in o ma ion on ans-
e s o help and money be ween adul child en and hei
pa en s in bo h di ec ions, as well as on Sou h Ko eans'
pe cep ions o ilial no ms.
This a icle is s uc u ed as ollows: In he nex sec-
ion, we p esen he s a e o esea ch on he links
be ween in e gene a ional solida i y and wel a e s a es.
Then we p esen an o e iew o he s a e o esea ch on
he e ol ing Sou h Ko ean wel a e s a e and in e gene a-
ional solida i y. The hi d pa o he a icle p esen s he
me hodology o ou analysis, which is ollowed by ou
empi ical esul s. The a icle closes wi h a discussion o
ou indings and we conclude wi h an ou look on u u e
esea ch.
INTERGENERATIONAL
SOLIDARITY AND THE
WELFARE STATE
Fo he pas ou decades, in e gene a ional ela ionships
ha e been an impo an ocus o sociological analysis.
Wi h he ongoing c isis o he so-called “mode n nuclea
amily,” esea che s ha e mo ed hei ocus owa d anal-
ysis o mul igene a ional bonds as he c ucial pilla o
amily sys ems. The ini ial ca alys o his de elopmen
was undoub edly he wo k o Beng son and colleagues,
and in pa icula he in e gene a ional solida i y model,in
which solida i y is de ined as a mul idimensional concep
(Beng son, 2001). A la ge sha e o s udies u ilize his
amewo k o examine he edis ibu ion o income and
se ices wi hin amilies, wi h hei ocus on unc ional
solida i y— he deg ee o mu ual help and exchanges o
inancial and ime esou ces (Sa aceno, 2008). O he
s ands o li e a u e ocus on he no ma i e dimension o
in e gene a ional solida i y in he amily, o example by
measu ing c oss-na ional di e ences in expec a ions
ega ding ilial obliga ions, and he de elopmen o hose
o e ime (Lowens ein & Daa land, 2006). Al hough hey
a e equen ly s udied independen ly, he h ee
closely- ela ed elemen s o in e gene a ional solida i y
a e essen ial componen s o unde s anding he mic oso-
cial a chi ec u e o in e gene a ional con ac s
(Beng son, 2001, p. 857).
T adi ionally, in e gene a ional ela ions ha e played
a cen al ole in adi ional Eu opean socie ies, whe e
la ge amilies and suppo om adul child en ha e
ep esen ed a undamen al sou ce o social and economic
insu ance o he olde pa en s (Aass e e al., 2013). Wi h
economic de elopmen and associa ed s uc u al (demo-
g aphic) challenges, socie ies began o in oduce wel a e
policies and ins i u ionalize a ious o ms o solida i y in
o de o add ess hem. Wel a e s a e policies, which ha e
de eloped o di e en deg ees and in dis inc i e ways in
Eu opean wel a e s a es, ha e in luenced and amed
in e gene a ional ela ions wi hin amilies, ha is, he
“p i a e gene a ional con ac ”(Rehe , 1998). This is no
only e lec ed in assump ions abou he amily's wel a e
and ca e esponsibili ies bu also by conc e e egula ions
h ough which in e gene a ional suppo is enabled
and/o en o ced (Dyks a & Hages ad, 2016;
Sa aceno, 2008).
Al hough wel a e s a e egula ions o m only one o
he ac o s in he “cul u al-con ex ual s uc u es” ha
a ec in e gene a ional ela ions (Szydlik, 2008), hey
play a pi o al ole in sus aining o al e ing exis ing wel-
a e and ca e a angemen s in amilies. By wha means
and wi h wha consequences wel a e s a es in luence
socie al p ac ice, ha is, in e gene a ional solida i y
wi hin amilies, is an ongoing subjec o deba e. In he
“c i ical phase,”au ho s a gued ha s ong wel a e s a es
educe he willingness o amily membe s o p o ide
inancial and ca e suppo o hei aged pa en s. Thus
hey posi ed ha an inc eased a ailabili y o public se -
ices o olde adul s “c owds ou ” amily obliga ions and
weakens in e gene a ional amily ies. In o he wo ds,
wel a e sys ems subs i u e o amily esponsibili ies
(Glaze , 1988; K eps, 1977). In con o mi y wi h his he-
sis, he mo e ecen wo k o Van den B oek and Dyks a
(2017) a gues ha adul child en a e less likely o p o ide
ca e in coun ies wi h ex ensi e esiden ial ca e se ings.
This is because he oppo uni y o “ ely on esiden ial
ca e unde mines adul child en's sense o u gency o s ep
INTERGENERATIONAL SOLIDARITY IN A DEVELOPING WELFARE STATE 913
in and p o ide ca e o hei pa en s”(ibid. p. 1624). In
s ong con as o ha , howe e , Künemund and Rein
(1999) p o ide e idence ha wel a e s a es do no pose a
“mo al isk,”bu inc ease a he han unde mine amily
solida i y. Fo ins ance, he in oduc ion o pension sys-
ems did no c owd ou amily suppo , bu changed he
di ec ion o inancial esou ces ha low in he opposi e
di ec ion o socie al ans e s (Kohli, 1993)— he “double
ci cui o ansmissions”(A ias-Don u , 1995). Al e na-
i ely, he “complemen a i y hesis”(Mo el-Klingebiel
e al., 2005) p o ides insigh s sugges ing ha he de elop-
men o solida i y does no ha e o lead/o a ec solida -
i y in one di ec ion only (by inc easing o dec easing),
bu ha wel a e s a e and amily can ake on di e en
oles in solida i y p o ision, and maybe e en “specialize”
in di e en asks (B and , 2013). He e, he heal hca e
and social se ices di ec ed o people in need o such
assis ance po en ially “c owd ou ” he echnically o med-
ically demanding and ime consuming suppo p o ided
by child en, bu hey “c owd in”o he o ms o suppo ,
such as spo adic help (B and , 2013). Las ly, he wel a e
s a e may a ec he amily in e gene a ional solida i y
no only by means o i s inc easing in e en ion, bu also
by i s own e enchmen . This has been ecen ly powe -
ully demons a ed in he wo k o Ulmanen and Szebe-
hely (2015), who p o ide e idence ha he decline in he
p o ision o esiden ial ca e se ices, wi hou ull subs i-
u ion by o he o ms o o mal a angemen s, leads o a
e- amiliza ion o amily ca e.
Resea ch shows ha in e gene a ional solida i y in
he o m o mu ual suppo be ween amily gene a ions
emains a p e ailing componen o Eu opean socie ies
(e.g., Albe ini e al., 2007; Deindl & B and , 2011). While
wel a e s a es ha e changed ce ain aspec s o in e ge-
ne a ional solida i y in he o m o di ec ionali y (pen-
sions) o in ensi y (ca e a angemen s), hey ha e no
undamen ally changed hei adi ional cha ac e . Thus
i is obse ed ha No he n and Sou he n Eu opean
coun ies s ill highly di e in he ac ual socie al p ac ice
o in e gene a ional solida i y (Deindl & B and , 2011).
And he pic u e o solida i y beha io would no be
comple e wi hou an unde s anding o he no ms o ilial
and pa en al esponsibili y ha p o ide guidelines o
amily beha io (Finch & Mason, 1990). Speci ically, soli-
da i y beha io is guided by socially sha ed expec a ions
ega ding adul child en's esponsibili ies owa d hei
olde pa en s, as well as opinions abou how esponsibili-
ies should be di ided be ween he wel a e s a e and
adul child en (o he amily in gene al) (Daa land &
He lo son, 2003; Dyks a & Fokkema, 2007). Resea ch
shows ha he no m o sha ed esponsibili y be ween he
wel a e s a e and he amily is mos p e alen in
Eu opean socie ies, al hough he e is conside able a ia-
ion ac oss coun ies in how esponsibili y should be
sha ed: In some coun ies he e is an expec a ion o equal
esponsibili y be ween he s a e and he amily, in o he s
he amily is seen as p ima ily esponsible and he wel-
a e s a e is assumed a suppo i e ole, and in o he s i is
he o he way a ound (Daa land & He lo son, 2003;
Flo idi e al., 2022; Lowens ein & Daa land, 2006;
Ma ckmann, 2017).
His o ical accoun s show ha no ms and pe cei ed
obliga ions a e esis an o change and pe sis despi e
wel a e s a e in e en ion (Daa land & He lo son, 2003).
Wel a e s a e in e en ions, howe e , can po en ially
a ec he sha e o esponsibili ies, o example, causing
hem o shi om one o he o he (Habe ke n &
Szydlik, 2010). As Daa land and He lo son (2003, p. 538)
a gue, “we need o know mo e abou wha people would
p e e i hey had mo e choice.”This will equi e longi u-
dinal obse a ions, pa icula ly hose ha co e pe iods
when wel a e s a e p o isions ha e changed signi ican ly.
Pa allel o hese deba es, esea che s ha e ocused
also on he associa ion be ween wel a e s a e policies and
he gende ed o ganiza ion o in e gene a ional suppo o
olde pa en s. The pa e ns o suppo om adul chil-
d en in Wes e n socie ies ha e adi ionally been (and
s ill s ongly a e) gende ed, whe e daugh e s ake on di -
e en asks han sons and a e in ol ed in he p o ision
o wel a e and ca e mo e o en and a a highe in ensi y
(Pinqua & Sö ensen, 2006). This gende inequali y in
in e gene a ional suppo may be educed o p ese ed
by speci ic wel a e policy a angemen s (Plan enga
e al., 2009). On he one hand, he legal obliga ions o
p o ide o co- inance he ca e o pa en s and cash-
o -ca e paymen s we e shown o esul in a mo e
unequal dis ibu ion o in ol emen in in ensi e suppo
a he expense o daugh e s (Schmid e al., 2012); social
se ices on he o he hand a e accompanied by less
in ol emen o daugh e s in in ensi e suppo
(Habe ke n e al., 2015). In none o hese cases do wel-
a e s a e egula ions a ec he likelihood o sons p o id-
ing ei he spo adic o in ensi e suppo (Flo idi
e al., 2022; Habe ke n e al., 2015; He lo son &
B and , 2020; Schmid e al., 2012).
Whe eas mos cu en esea ch a ound he p esen
issue ocuses on he in e play o social beha io and wel-
a e s a es in Wes e n coun ies ha a e in la e s ages o
de elopmen , a sys ema ic in es iga ion o how he in o-
duc ion o ins i u ionalized o ms o solida i y in luence
amily solida i y in wel a e s a es' ea ly s ages is lacking.
This is highly ele an since bo h s ages o de elopmen
a e connec ed wi h di e en assump ions. On he one
hand, he longe unc ioning wel a e s a es may gene a e
social us and g ea e con idence by subs i u ing he
amily's secu i y and ca e wi h he suppo ound in
he wide communi y (Aass e e al., 2013). Socie ies,
whe e he wel a e s a e is jus in he p ocess o
914 GURÍN and BRANDT
ins i u ionaliza ion and i s suppo is s ill po en ially
inadequa e, could be less con iden abou shi ing he
esponsibili ies away om he amily. Consequen ly, we
expec he unc ional and no ma i e solida i y he e o
change a dily and owa d o m o sha ed solida i y in
which he amily is p ima ily esponsible and he wel a e
s a e suppo ing ins ead o i s po en ially p omp ing sub-
s i u i e change. Addi ionally, li le is known abou he
in e play on adi ional and highly cul u ally-based socie-
ies wi h s ong amilial and ilial con ac s ha a e cu -
en ly de eloping hei wel a e s a es, and which a e de
ac o ideologically a ec ed by hose who al eady unde -
wen his ansi ion (bu see Knodel, 2014, o he case o
Thailand; Flo idi, 2020, o he compa ison o I aly and
Sou h Ko ea). Such cons ella ion may al e he assump-
ion men ioned abo e, wi h mo e p o ound changes in
bo h no ma i e and unc ional in e gene a ional solida -
i y o be expec ed. The ques ion whe he he in oduc ion
o he wel a e s a e in o socie ies wi h s ong in e gene a-
ional ilial con ac s lead o subs an ial modi ica ions o
hei solida i y pa e ns, o , lea e he adi ional di ec ion
and o m o in e gene a ional solida i y a he in ac , is
s ill unclea . This pape will add ess his knowledge gap
by examining how and in how a he in oduc ion o wel-
a e policies wen along changing pa e ns o in e gene a-
ional solida i y in a adi ional socie y such as
Sou h Ko ea.
THE SPECIAL CASE OF SOUTH
KOREA: TRADITIONAL SOCIETY
AND DEVELOPING
WELFARE STATE
Sou h Ko ea is a coun y wi h a new bu apidly and p o-
oundly de eloping wel a e s a e. I has un il ecen ly
been a adi ional socie y wi h a unique cul u al back-
g ound based on Con ucianism, he key ac o di e en i-
a ing Eas -Asian wel a e s a es om Wes e n socie ies
(Jones, 1993). This places he amily a he pi o al co ne -
s one o social o ganiza ion, cha ac e ized by mu ual
obliga ions and suppo wi hin he amily, in which he
du ies o child en owa d hei pa en s ( ilial pie y) a e o
pa icula impo ance (Yao, 2000). Filial pie y, wi h i s
s ong adhe ence o he p inciple ha he amily is
esponsible o ca e o elde ly pa en s, is a mo al impe a-
i e in Sou h Ko ea (Chan e al., 2011). Lin and Yi (2013)
a gue ha he no m o ilial pie y no only cons i u es he
co e elemen o in e gene a ional solida i y, i is also a
s anda d o beha io o in e gene a ional in e ac ion.
S ongly p esc ip i e in e gene a ional no ms explain he
adi ional upwa d di ec ionali y o solida i y: suppo o
olde people in he adi ional de ini ion in ol es he
uni-dimensional dependency o aged pa en s on
adul child en (ibid). Ca e o elde pa en s is conside ed
he du y and unques ioned esponsibili y o hei adul
child en. Thus, ilial pie y can be unde s ood as he c u-
cial engine o solida i y, he p o ision o p o ec ion and
insu ance agains ha dship, and as a cul u al mechanism
o he edis ibu ion o esou ces and se ices.
In adi ional Ko ean socie y, ilial pie y was o en
ealized in co- esidence wi h olde pa en s in h ee-
gene a ion households (Kim, 2016). In he pa ilineal/
pa ia chal amily sys em, he oldes child en and pa ic-
ula ly sons adi ionally had he p ima y esponsibili y o
suppo ail pa en s (Skinne , 1997). The e o e he oldes
child en we e mo e obliged and expec ed o suppo he
pa en s as i he e was in e gene a ional co- esidence and
unc ional exchanges, pa icula ly in ol ing he oldes
sons (Lin & Yi, 2013). Spouses o hese sons, who adi-
ionally become pa o he husband's amily, ha e been
mos ly esponsible o he p o ision o ca e and p ac ical
assis ance o pa en s-in-law (Kim e al., 2015). Indeed,
da a om he beginning o he 21s cen u y suppo he
p e alence o his adi ional and gende -based pa e n
o in e gene a ional con ac as mo e han one hi d o
hose who p o ided pe sonal ca e in he ac i i ies o daily
li ing and one- i h o hose gi ing p ac ical help in he
ins umen al ac i i ies o daily li ing we e daugh e s-
in-law (KIHASA, 2001).
T adi ional o ms o in e gene a ional solida i y ha e
his o ically been a s ong pilla o he Ko ean amily-
cen ic egime (Lee, 2018; Peng & Wong, 2010). Old-age
o ien ed social policies a e, howe e , oday he subjec
o in ensi e e o ms and among he as es -g owing a eas
o social expendi u e in Sou h Ko ea. To add ess ising
le els o old-age po e y and ollowing he example o
Wes e n socie ies, he e ol ing wel a e s a e began aking
pa ial esponsibili y o he wel a e o olde ci izens by
edis ibu ing esou ces owa d olde people wi h he
in oduc ion o a Na ional Pension Scheme in 1988, ol-
lowed by he inancial suppo o low-income indi iduals,
i s in 2008 wi h he Old-Age Pension Scheme ha was
la e ans o med in 2014 in o a mo e gene ous Basic
Pension Scheme. The p e ious conse a i e go e nmen
had doubled he le el o bene i s o his age- ela ed allow-
ance and, no wi hs anding he ac ha he o al co e age
was s ill ela i ely low (Lee e al., 2019), he e was a
s eady inc ease in bene icia ies since i s in oduc ion
( om 2.9 million ecipien s in 2008 o 5.1 in 2018). A sim-
ila end can be obse ed also o he na ional old-age
pension which inc eased om 1.8 o app oxima ely 3.2
million ecipien s in he same pe iod.
Addi ionally, wi h he aim o alloca e special inancial
bene i s o low-income indi iduals and amilies, he
Ko ean wel a e s a e e ised he basic social sa e y ne ,
INTERGENERATIONAL SOLIDARITY IN A DEVELOPING WELFARE STATE 915
enac ing in 1999 he Na ional Basic Li elihood Secu i y
Ac . This non-con ibu o y ans e in he o m o cash
and in-kind bene i s a ge s he olde popula ion li ing in
po e y; howe e , access o his is highly condi ioned by
he amily suppo obliga ion ule (Gao e al., 2011). This
egula ion was e o med in 2015 and 2020 o elimina e
wel a e blind spo s and mo e e ec i ely educe po e y
(Nam & Pa k, 2020). The wel a e s a e, in aking pa ial
esponsibili y o he well-being o i s olde ci izens, has
hus been s eadily depa ing om he policy pa h o a a-
di ionally “de elopmen al”cha ac e (Gough, 2004)o
“p oduc i is wel a e capi alism”(Kwon & Holliday,
2007), as can also be obse ed in he con inuously g ow-
ing wel a e s a e expendi u es which ha e mo e han
doubled since 2000 (see Figu e 1).
Mo eo e , demog aphic challenges ha e led o
explici amily policy e o ms also in he p o ision o ca e
(e.g., Kim & Cook, 2011; Kim & Kwon, 2021). The p o-
g essi e go e nmen in 2006 p oposed a basic plan o
he low- e ili y and aging socie y and de eloped social
ca e policies acco dingly. As a esul o a apid demo-
g aphic ansi ion, and wi h he aim o elie e he ca e
bu den on amily membe s, Sou h Ko ea in oduced
long- e m ca e insu ance in 2008 o co e in-home se -
ices, ins i u ional se ices as well as cash bene i s (how-
e e e y es ic ed). This “socializa ion o ca e”has
gained momen um wi h he apid inc ease in o -p o i
p o ide s (Baek e al., 2011; Choi, 2012). In pa allel wi h
he expansion o long- e m ca e se ices o e ed by he
ma ke , he e has been a s eady inc ease in he numbe
o olde people ecei ing long- e m ca e se ices, ising
om 38,000 in June 2008 o 520,043 (7.5% o olde peo-
ple) in Decembe 2016 (Chon, 2019). Howe e , i is
impo an o no e ha a signi ican numbe o olde
people a e also ecei ing o he s a e and communi y-
p o ided social se ices ou side long- e m ca e. In con-
clusion, wi h he aim o educe in e gene a ional depen-
dencies, policies in oduced by he Sou h Ko ean wel a e
s a e ha e no only s a ed o egula e in e gene a ional
obliga ions, bu also o adically de elop a new con ex in
which in e gene a ional suppo and solida i y a e
embedded.
Wi h he es ablishmen o a wel a e egime and he
in oduc ion o old-age social policies, he e has been
ongoing deba e o e he e osion o cul u al no ms o ilial
pie y as he adi ional in e gene a ional con ac has
s a ed o “wes e nize”(Choi & Jang, 2010)—mos d a-
ma ically in ega d o le els o co- esidence: while in
1980 only a ound 20 pe cen o olde Ko eans li ed inde-
penden ly o hei adul child en, his numbe g adually
inc eased o almos 37 pe cen by 1995 and eached
almos 60 pe cen by 2015 (Kim & Cook, 2011;Ku&
Kim, 2020). The es ablishmen and u he de elopmen
o public income suppo o olde people makes olde
adul s less elian on he p i a e incomes o adul chil-
d en. A he beginning o he 1990s child en ep esen ed
he mos impo an sou ce o income o olde Ko eans
(Choi, 1996)—72% o he o al income o olde pa en s.
By 2003 income om child en accoun ed o only one
hi d o olde adul s' o al income (Moon e al., 2006).
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1990 2000 2005 2010 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
I aly Japan Ko ea Sweden Uni ed S a es OECD o al
FIGURE 1 De elopmen o public social expendi u es in pe cen ages o GDP (yea s 1980–2019). Sou ce: OECD (2021).
916 GURÍN and BRANDT
Indeed, mo e ecen da a (Jung e al., 2016; Kang &
Sawada, 2009; Ku & Kim, 2020; Lee, 2022) con i m he
g adual subs i u ion o child en's sou ces o income by
social ans e s, which inc eased om 5% (in 1996) o
35% (2014). This has been no only he case o co- esiding
amilies, bu in pa icula o hose non-co- esiding,
which ha e adi ionally been highly dependen on p i-
a e sou ces o income. This li e a u e hypo hesizes ha
he wel a e s a e has been c owding ou in e gene a ional
solida i y.
The newly ins i u ionalized o ms o solida i y he e-
o e began o subs an ially a ec he need-oppo uni y
s uc u es o Ko ean amilies. So a howe e he e has
been no sys ema ic analysis o wha link his has o he
edis ibu ion o income and se ices wi hin amilies and
o in e gene a ional no ms. In he nex sec ions, a con-
cep ual amewo k will be in oduced, ollowed by an
analysis o pa e ns o unc ional solida i y and in e ge-
ne a ional no ms in mode n Ko ea. Wi h his analysis we
aim o con ibu e o he discussion o he es ablishmen
o a wel a e s a e and i s supposed e ec s on p i a e
in e gene a ional solida i y.
DATA AND METHODS
S a ing poin o ou analysis is he analy ical ame-
wo k o in e gene a ional solida i y (Beng son, 2001;
Beng son & Robe s, 1991) ocusing on wo o i s co e
elemen s—no ma i e and unc ional solida i y. In o de
o measu e he in e gene a ional edis ibu ion o bo h
esou ces and se ices, we decomposed unc ional soli-
da i y in o wo main o ms o assis ance: inancial and
p ac ical help. To g asp po en ial modi ica ions o in e -
gene a ional solida i y in sys ema ic way, we addi ion-
ally di e en ia ed h ee dimensions (see also Albe ini
e al., 2007): di ec ionali y— e e s o he di ec ion o he
solida i y ans e , which can ake wo o ms: o pa en s
(upwa d) o om pa en s (downwa d); likelihood
(o p e alence)—indica es whe he inancial ans e s
we e gi en/ ecei ed o no ; and las ly, in ensi y—which
examines he ex en o ans e s p o ided, ha is,
whe he egula o occasional, o in wha amoun .
These a e ele an in al e na i e pe spec i es on he
ex en o which in e gene a ional in e dependencies
ha e al e ed wi h he in oduc ion o wel a e policies in
Sou h Ko ea.
Da a
In he absence o a comp ehensi e da a se ha would
cap u e all h ee elemen s o in e gene a ional solida i y
simul aneously, we decided o use h ee sepa a e da a
se s o examine hese elemen s sepa a ely (see Tables
A1–A3 in he Appendix o sample cha ac e is ics). Wi h
ega d o no ma i e solida i y, we used he biannual
Ko ean Social Su ey (KSS) (KNSO, 2008,2012,2018),
which collec s da a om app oxima ely 20,000 house-
holds, o iden i y in e gene a ional no ms and de ec
changes in hem o e ime. Agg ega ed da a, which co e
he yea s 2002 o 2018, we e used o his pu pose.
1
To
measu e unc ional inancial solida i y ins ead, we used
he se en wa es o he Ko ean Longi udinal S udy o
Aging (KLoSA), which co e s he yea s 2006 o 2018 and
i s baseline sample (2006) consis ed o 10,248 esponden s
aged 45 yea s o olde . To keep he sample ep esen a i e
o he olde popula ion, a e eshmen sample o 920 indi-
iduals bo n be ween 1962 and 1963 was added in wa e
5 (2014). While his da a se p o ides a highly nuanced
accoun o inancial ans e s and i s ou concep ual
model (di ec ionali y, p e alence, in ensi y), i lacks
in o ma ion on unc ional p ac ical solida i y. Fo his
pu pose, we used he KGSS and i s wo wa es om 2006
and 2016, numbe ing 1052 esponden s. This ime ame
p o ided he oppo uni y o analyze pa e ns o in e ge-
ne a ional solida i y wi hin amilies be o e and immedi-
a ely a e he in oduc ion o wel a e policies (2008 o
he in oduc ion o long- e m ca e insu ance and he
Basic Pension Scheme). This allowed us o examine mod-
i ica ions in he deg ee and di ec ions o pa allel ins i u-
ionaliza ion o di e en o ms o solida i y in hei ea ly
s ages.
Measu es
In e gene a ional no ms
In adi ional Con ucian cul u e he p o ision o unc-
ional suppo is ega ded as solely he esponsibili y o
he amily. This s udy ope a ionalizes in e gene a ional
no ms as he socie al pe cep ion o he obliga ion o sup-
po elde ly (pa en s). The e a e wo le els which a e el-
e an in his ega d (Daa land, 2009). Fi s , ega ding he
amily, we a e in e es ed by which amily membe o gen-
e a ion solida i y is expec ed. On he socie al le el we ask
whe he he s a e and socie y should con ibu e o he
edis ibu ion o esou ces and ca e om he esponden s'
iew. The ollowing ques ion was used o measu e in e -
gene a ional no ms: Who do you hink should be held
1
The mic oda a could no be used in he p esen analysis, as access o
mic oda a is es ic ed o Ko ean esiden s only. We included also he
da a om he yea s 2002 and 2006, as hese a e also a ailable in he
Ko ean Social Su ey (2008).
INTERGENERATIONAL SOLIDARITY IN A DEVELOPING WELFARE STATE 917
esponsible o he suppo o elde ly pa en s?
2
The amily
no m was measu ed on a i e-i em scale. The choices
we e, ha he esponsibili y o he aged pa en lies wi h:
he oldes child (daugh e -in-law), he son (daugh e -in-
law), he daugh e (son-in-law), join esponsibili y o all
child en, o he esponsibili y o he able-bodied child.
The socie al no m was measu ed on a ou -i em scale.
The choices we e, ha he esponsibili y o he aged pa -
en lies wi h: he indi idual (elde ly pa en ); he amily
(de ined as one's own child en and spouses o hose chil-
d en); join ly he esponsibili y o he amily, go e nmen
and socie y; o he go e nmen and socie y.
Func ional inancial solida i y
The empi ical analyses o p e alence, di ec ionali y, and
in ensi y o inancial ans e s a e based on se en wa es
o KLoSA which p o ide in o ma ion abou he li ing
condi ions o he olde popula ion (pe sons a leas
45 yea s o age). We used all hose esponden s aged
45 and olde wi h a leas one adul child (o a leas
age 18) ei he li ing wi hin o ou side he pa en al
home a he ime o he in e iew. Responden s wi hou
child en (ali e) we e excluded. Since adi ionally he
eldes ( i s ) child has he p ima y esponsibili y o sup-
po aged pa en s, ou analyses ocus on he i s child
only.
3
To measu e inancial esou ces, we analyzed da a
om he ollowing ques ions. In ascending di ec ion o
non-co- esiding dyads: “In he las calenda yea (…),
while li ing sepa a ely, did you and you spouse ecei e
om (child)any egula inancial suppo /occasional
inancial suppo ?”; in descending di ec ion o non-
co- esiding dyads: “In he las calenda yea (…)while
li ing sepa a ely did you and you spouse gi e o (child)
any egula inancial suppo /occasional inancial sup-
po ?.”In case o co- esiding dyads, we analyzed da a
om hese ques ions om wa e 2 (2008) o wa e
7 (2018): “In he las calenda yea (…)did you and you
spouse ecei e any inancial suppo /gi e any inancial
suppo om/ o (child) while li ing oge he ?.”Fo all
hese mone a y exchanges, we also measu ed o al
amoun s and a e age amoun s ha child–pa en s dyads
mu ually p o ided.
Func ional p ac ical solida i y
We addi ionally used da a om KGSS as a complemen a y
ool o measu e ans e s o p ac ical suppo . KGSS enabled
us o measu e p ac ical suppo be ween pa en s and hei
i s adul child en
4
(child en wi h he “closes con ac ”)
aged 18 yea s and olde . In he KGSS, p ac ical suppo was
de ined as he p o ision o p ac ical help o pe sonal ca e
based on he ollowing ques ions: “How equen ly did adul
child p o ide p ac ical suppo o you o he las 12 mon hs?/
How equen ly did you p o ide p ac ical suppo o his adul
child o he las 12 mon hs?.”As in he p e ious case, we
included esponden s aged 45 and olde . As he ela ionship
be ween pa en s-in-law and daugh e s/sons-in-law is o
keen impo ance in he p o ision o p ac ical suppo in
Con ucian Sou h Ko ea, we addi ionally measu ed hese
suppo exchanges. Fo his pu pose, we used hese ques-
ions: “(I cu en ly ma ied) How equen ly did you do each
o he ollowing hings o you pa en (s)-in-law o he las
12 mon hs?/(I cu en ly ma ied) How equen ly did you
pa en (s)-in-law do each o he ollowing hings o you o he
las 12 mon hs?.”He e we included esponden s aged 18 o
50 ( he uppe limi due o he lowe esponse a e compa ed
o adul child–pa en dyads). Finally, o in es iga e he gen-
de ed o ganiza ion o p ac ical suppo , we used hese ques-
ions: “How equen ly did you do p o ide p ac ical suppo
o you own pa en (s) o he las 12 mon hs?/How equen ly
did you own pa en (s) p o ide p ac ical suppo o you o
he las 12 mon hs?,”wi h esponden s be ween 18 and
50 yea s old. Fo all six ques ions, esponden s a ed he
p o ision o p ac ical suppo on a i e-poin Like - ype
scale wi h he choices: e y o en, o en, some imes, seldom
and ne e . Acco dingly, we we e able o measu e he p e a-
lence and in ensi y o suppo p o ided whe e he alues
“ e y o en”an “o en”whe e de ined as egula ly p o ided
suppo and “some imes”and “seldom”as occasionally p o-
ided suppo . Un o una ely, es ic ions ela ed o he spe-
ci ic esea ch design and sample size, p e en ed us om
ca ying ou simila decomposi ion o ca ego ies as o
ans e s o p ac ical suppo , which would ha e di ec ly
mi o ed inancial ans e s (e.g., o dyads co- esiding o
no ). No wi hs anding his limi a ion, we decided o use
KGSS in his o ma as i p o ides a aluable in o ma ion
ha is ha dly epo ed by o he su eys.
Analysis
P e ious sociological li e a u e has a gued ha i has
been di icul , i no impossible, o d aw causal
2
T ansla ion by he au ho s. The wo d “부양”(buyang) means p o ision
o suppo in gene al, ha is, p o ision o bo h inancial as well as
p ac ical (ca e and help) suppo .
3
The obliga ion o look a e he wel a e o olde pa en s has lain
adi ionally on he shoulde s o he eldes sons. Howe e , since he
eldes daugh e s likewise ep esen an impo an sou ce o wel a e o
hei pa en s (and i may be he case ha hey a e he only sou ce o
such suppo ), we decided o include hem in he analyses.
4
We call hem he “ i s child,”as mos o hese child en a e he oldes ,
ha is, he oldes son o oldes daugh e .
918 GURÍN and BRANDT
conclusions abou he ole o he wel a e s a e on he
in e gene a ional solida i y (Szydlik, 2008). Wi h he da a
a ailable, we we e also unable o do so. Ou ambi ion
was hus o me ely in es iga e he link be ween he wo
and his we do by es ing he co ela ions be ween he
wel a e s a e and ans e s on a mac o le el (see also
B and , 2013). We employed a b oad measu e o he gen-
e osi y o social wel a e: Wel a e s a e was measu ed he e
as social expendi u e (in USD) pe capi a, consis ing o
bo h pension-based cash bene i s and in-kind bene i s. In
Table 1, which summa izes he end o social expendi-
u es, we also included numbe o beds in esiden ial
long- e m ca e acili ies—a equen ly used indica o
linked o in o mal (in e gene a ional) ca e, and one o
he only in e na ionally compa able ones (Wagne &
B and , 2017). Because o all he a o emen ioned
indica o s we obse e an inc easing endency, we decided
o include in he ollowing igu es and analyses
da a on social expendi u es only o ensu e eadabili y
(Figu es 2–5).
RESULTS
In his sec ion, we p esen a desc ip i e o e iew o
ends in in e gene a ional no ms and unc ional solida -
i y in Sou h Ko ea o show i and how hey ha e changed
alongside he in oduc ion o social policies de eloping
he ole o he s a e in he suppo o olde adul s in
Sou h Ko ea. We p esen he esul s in he ollowing
o de : i s he pa e ns o in e gene a ional no ms; inan-
cial ans e s be ween non-co- esiding adul child–pa en
dyads and be ween hose co- esiding; p ac ical ans e s
be ween adul pa en s and bo h hei own child en and
child en-in-law, and las ly he gende ed o ganiza ion o
hese o ms o suppo .
No ma i e solida i y
Figu e 2is an o e iew o solida i y no ms in
Sou h Ko ea be ween 2002 and 2018, based on he pe -
cen age dis ibu ion o indi iduals' pe cei ed sou ce o
esponsibili y o ca e o olde Ko eans. O e all, solida -
i y no ms ha e changed undamen ally alongside he
expansion o he wel a e s a e. In 2002, 70% o indi id-
uals assigned he p ima y esponsibili y o assu ing
olde adul s' wel a e o he amily (especially o he
child en). In con as , 18% iewed he combina ion o
amily, s a e and socie y as esponsible o he well-
being o pa en s, and me ely 10% said his was he sole
esponsibili y o pa en s hemsel es. To he wel a e
s a e (go e nmen ) as he sole ac o was a ibu ed
almos no esponsibili y. Since 2006, howe e , his
“ amily-cen ic”pa e n o solida i y no ms has changed
conside ably.
TABLE 1 Social policy indica o s (yea s 2005–2018).
Yea
Social expendi u e
(US $ pe capi a)
Pension-based cash
bene i s (Mill. KRW)
In-kind bene i s
(Mill. KRW)
Beds in esiden ial
LTC acili ies
2005 1644 8,912,620 904,791 29,963
2006 1961 9,944,643 1,150,608 40,589
2007 2090 11,218,829 1,496,287 51,310
2008
a
2289 15,058,990 1,380,501 70,215
2009 2550 17,783,121 1,389,149 90,775
2010 2639 19,755,803 1,257,200 118,867
2011 2700 21,367,532 1,261,270 125,305
2012 2931 24,051,817 1,550,843 133,629
2013 3190 25,797,461 1,593,564 139,939
2014
b
3407 29,650,242 1,635,420 151,200
2015
c
3653 34,968,090 1,572,189 160,115
2016 3836 37,498,586 1,901,581 167,899
2017 4041 40,607,625 2,385,418 170,926
2018 4427 44,336,224 2,707,332 177,318
a
In oduc ion o Old-Age Pension Scheme and Long-Te m Ca e Insu ance.
b
In oduc ion o Basic Pension Scheme.
c
Re o m o Na ional Basic Li elihood Secu i y Sys em.
Sou ce: OECD (2021).
INTERGENERATIONAL SOLIDARITY IN A DEVELOPING WELFARE STATE 919
s a es should adop policies ha a e esponsi e o he
(ca e) p e e ences o hei ci izens.
LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
E en i his s udy p o ides new e idence, i se es as jus
a s a o closing a esea ch gap, ha ing se e al limi a-
ions. Fi s , as ou ocus has been on he analysis o
changing o ms o in e gene a ional solida i y du ing he
in oduc ion and in he ea ly s ages o wel a e s a e de el-
opmen , we we e es ic ed o he s udy o a sho pe iod
o ime and we e unable o obse e and analyze u he
modi ica ions o undamen al pa h-depa u es om a-
di ional pa e ns o in e gene a ional solida i y which
may s ill lie in he u u e. Second, al hough he KLoSA
da a p o ide us wi h de ailed in o ma ion on a ious
ace s o inancial ans e s be ween aging Ko eans and
hei adul child en, in o ma ion on exchanges o p ac i-
cal suppo is lacking. Fo his eason, we used ano he
sou ce (KGSS) o examine his elemen o in e gene a-
ional solida i y. While bo h da a se s gi e a mo e com-
p ehensi e pic u e o solida i y exchanges in
Sou h Ko ea, we a e awa e o issues wi h ega d o da a
compa abili y. The KLoSA su ey also does no dis in-
guish he ype o inancial suppo p o ided, hus dis-
abling i s po en ial o ack possible subs i u ion e ec s.
Las ly, da a cons ain s allowed us o examine only agg e-
ga ed measu es on he mic o le el and connec ed hem
wi h ough wel a e s a e indica o s o e ime. As in e ge-
ne a ional solida i y wi hin amilies is condi ioned by
many ac o s on di e en le els (see Szydlik, 2008), ou
analysis would need conside able ex ensions in o de o
disen angle any causal ela ionships o in e gene a ional
solida i y wi h he de eloping wel a e s a e policies –i
ha we e e en empi ically possible gi en he complexi y
and he ole o o he links, such as indi idual beha io s,
poli ical his o y, and global ends such as indi idualiza-
ion, o cul u e (c . an Oo scho e al., 2008). Ou analy-
sis hus can only p o ide i s insigh s in o he
associa ion be ween he (in oduc ion o ) wel a e s a e
(policies) and in e gene a ional solida i y in a
non-Eu opean/Wes e n con ex . S ill, he link be ween
he in oduc ion o wel a e s a e measu es and o ms o
in e gene a ional solida i y seems qui e clea : he
inc easing in ol emen o he wel a e s a e goes hand-
in-hand wi h changes in no ma i e in e gene a ional sol-
ida i y. Simul aneously, ac ual socie al p ac ice in e ms
o unc ional exchanges seems o be mo e ine , and we
ind no end owa d an ac ual de- amiliza ion o he a-
di ional Ko ean socie y.
We hus belie e ha ou unique explo a i e analysis
deli e s i s insigh s in o he empi ical associa ion
be ween he wel a e s a e and in e gene a ional suppo
in Eas Asia which may se e as a s a ing poin o many
ui ul esea ch ideas and hypo heses. The heo e ical
and empi ical ounda ions o ou s udy hus in i e u -
he s udies o ocus on mo e in-dep h in es iga ions o
mechanisms and p edic i e changes ela ed o he ole
o wel a e s a e and no ma i e/ unc ional in e gene a-
ional solida i y. Such s udies could shed ligh on he
associa ion be ween social policies and in e gene a ional
ans e s such as wi h he occu ence o age- ela ed
changes in pa en 's needs (e.g., wi h disabili y). One o
he mos in e es ing ques ions is whe he he e osion o
in e gene a ional solida i y can p omp he in oduc ion
o wel a e policies o mee people's needs. Such a ques-
ion p omises o be consequen ial o social policy, so ha
u he in es iga ion o he mu ual in luence o (de elop-
ing) wel a e s a es and ( adi ional) in e gene a ional
amily ela ions will be highly ele an .
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This a icle has bene i ed om he help ul commen s o
Pa icia F e icks, Julia Höppne , Nekehia Tama a Ques-
hie, as well as he anonymous e iewe s, and he edi o s.
Open Access unding enabled and o ganized by P o-
jek DEAL.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
The au ho s decla e no con lic s o in e es .
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The da a ha suppo he indings o his s udy a e a ail-
able om he co esponding au ho upon easonable
eques .
ORCID
Ma in Gu ín h ps://o cid.o g/0000-0003-1911-9362
Ma ina B and h ps://o cid.o g/0000-0001-9350-845X
REFERENCES
Aass e, A., Si oni, M., & Bassi, V. (2013). Explaining a i udes
owa ds demog aphic beha iou . Eu opean Sociological Re iew,
29(2), 316–333.
Albe ini, M., & Kohli, M. (2013). The gene a ional con ac in he
amily: An analysis o ans e egimes in Eu ope. Eu opean
Sociological Re iew,29(4), 828–840.
Albe ini, M., Kohli, M., & Vogel, C. (2007). In e gene a ional ans-
e s o ime and money in Eu opean amilies: Common
pa e ns—Di e en egimes? Jou nal o Eu opean Social Policy,
17(4), 319–334.
A ias-Don u , C. (1995). Le double ci cui des ansmissions. In C.
A ias-Don u (Ed.), La solida i é en e géné a ions, Vieleillese,
Familles,
E a (pp. 41–82). Na han.
Baek, S. H., Sung, E. S., & Lee, S. H. (2011). Resea ch a icle: The
cu en coo dina es o he Ko ean ca e egime. Jou nal o Com-
pa a i e Social Wel a e,27(2), 143–154.
926 GURÍN and BRANDT
Beng son, V. L. (2001). Beyond he nuclea amily: The inc easing
impo ance o mul igene a ional bonds. Jou nal o Ma iage
and Family,63,1–15.
Beng son, V. L., & Robe s, R. E. L. (1991). In e gene a ional
solida i y in aging amilies: An example o o mal heo y
cons uc ion. Jou nal o Ma iage and he Family,53,
856–870.
B and , M. (2013). In e gene a ional help and public assis ance in
Eu ope: A case o specializa ion? Eu opean Socie ies,15(1), 26–56.
Caldwell, J. (1982). The heo y o e ili y decline. Academic P ess.
Chan, R. K. H., Soma, N., & Yamashi a, J. (2011). Ca e egimes and
esponses: Eas Asia expe iences compa ed. Jou nal o Compa -
a i e Social Wel a e,27(2), 175–186.
Choi, S.-J. (1996). The amily and ageing in Ko ea: A new conce n
and challenge. Ageing and Socie y,16,1–25.
Choi, S. J., & Jang, I. H. (2010). Social wel a e o olde pe sons in
aging socie y. Seoul Na ional Uni e si y P ess, Seoul (in
Ko ean).
Choi, Y. J. (2012). End o he e a o p oduc i is wel a e capi alism?
Di e ging wel a e egimes in Eas Asia. Asian Jou nal o Social
Science,40, 275–294.
Chon, Y. (2014). The expansion o he Ko ean wel a e s a e and i s
esul s—Focusing on long- e m ca e insu ance o he elde ly.
Social Policy and Adminis a ion,48(6), 704–720.
Chon, Y. (2019). The ma ke iza ion o childca e and elde ly ca e,
and i s esul s in Sou h Ko ea. In e na ional Social Wo k,62(4),
1260–1273.
Daa land, S. O. (2009). How o balance gene a ions: Solida i y
dilemmas in a Eu opean pe spec i e. In R. Edmondson & H.-J.
on Kond a owi z (Eds.), Valuing olde people: A humanis
app oach o ageing (pp. 123–138). Policy P ess.
Daa land, S. O., & He lo son, K. (2003). ‘Los solida i y’o ‘chan-
ged solida i y’: A compa a i e Eu opean iew o no ma i e sol-
ida i y. Ageing and Socie y,23(5), 537–560.
Deindl, C., & B and , M. (2011). Financial suppo and p ac ical
help be ween olde pa en s and hei middle-aged child en in
Eu ope. Ageing and Socie y,31, 645–662.
Dyks a, P. A., & Fokkema, T. (2007). No ms o ilial obliga ion in
The Ne he lands. Popula ion,67(1), 97–122.
Dyks a, P. A., & Hages ad, G. O. (2016). How demog aphic pa -
e ns and social policies shape in e dependence among li es in
he amily ealm. Popula ion Ho izons,13(2), 54–62.
Finch, J., & Mason, J. (1990). Filial obliga ions and kin suppo o
elde ly people. Ageing and Socie y,10(2), 151–175.
Flo idi, G. (2020). Social policies and in e gene a ional suppo in
I aly and Sou h Ko ea. Con empo a y Social Science,15(3),
330–345.
Flo idi, G., Queshie, N. T., Glase , K., & B and , M. (2022). Pa ne
ca e a angemen s and well-being in mid- and la e li e: The
ole o gende ac oss ca e con ex s. The Jou nals o Ge on ology.
Se ies B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences,77(2),
435–445.
Gao, Q., Yoo, J., Yang, S.-M., & Zhai, F. (2011). Wel a e esidual-
ism: A compa a i e s udy o he basic li elihood secu i y sys-
ems in China and Sou h Ko ea. In e na ional Jou nal o Social
Wel a e,20, 113–124.
Glaze , N. (1988). The limi s o social policy. Ha a d Uni e si y
P ess.
Gough, I. (2004). Eas Asia: The limi s o p oduc i is egimes. In I.
Gough, G. Wood, A. Ba ien os, P. Be an, P. Da is, & G. Room
(Eds.), Insecu i y and wel a e egimes in Asia, A ica, and La in
Ame ica: Social policy in de elopmen al con ex s (pp. 169–201).
Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
Habe ke n, K., Schmid, T., & Szydlik, M. (2015). Gende di e ences
in in e gene a ional ca e in Eu opean wel a e s a es. Ageing
and Socie y,35(2), 298–320.
Habe ke n, K., & Szydlik, M. (2010). S a e ca e p o ision, socie al
opinion and child en's ca e o olde pa en s in 11 Eu opean
coun ies. Ageing and Socie y,30, 299–323.
He lo son, K., & B and , M. (2020). Helping olde pa en s in
Eu ope: The impo ance o g andpa en hood, gende and ca e
egime. Eu opean Socie ies,22(2), 390–410.
Isenga d, B., König, R., & Szydlik, M. (2018). Money o space?
In e gene a ional ans e s in a compa a i e pe spec i e. Hous-
ing S udies,33(2), 178–200.
Jones, C. (1993). The Paci ic challenge: Con ucian wel a e s a es. In
C. Jones (Ed.), New pe spec i es on he wel a e s a e in Eu ope
(pp. 198–217). Rou ledge.
Jung, H., Pi og, M., & Lee, S. K. (2016). Do public pensions c owd
ou p i a e ans e s o he elde ly? E idence om Sou h Ko ea.
Jou nal o Pension Economics & Finance,15(4), 455–477.
Kang, S. J., & Sawada, Y. (2009). Did public ans e s c owd ou p i-
a e ans e s in Ko ea du ing he inancial c isis? The Jou nal
o De elopmen S udies,45(2), 276–294.
Kim, E. H.-W., & Cook, P. J. (2011). The con inuing impo ance o
child en in elie ing elde po e y: E idence om Ko ea. Age-
ing and Socie y,31, 953–976.
Kim, H., & Kwon, S. (2021). A decade o public long- e m ca e
insu ance in Sou h Ko ea: Policy lessons o aging coun ies.
Heal h Policy,125(1), 22–26.
Kim, H.-K. (2016). Familis indi idualiza ion o e e -single Ko ean
you hs in hei la e 30s: Indi idualiza ion and ans o med am-
ilism in he neolibe al e a. Ko ean Jou nal,56(1), 33–60.
Kim, J. W., & Choi, Y. J. (2011). Does amily s ill ma e ? Public
and p i a e ans e s in eme ging wel a e s a e sys ems in com-
pa a i e pe spec i e. In e na ional Jou nal o Social Wel a e,20,
353–366.
Kim, J. W., & Choi, Y. J. (2013). Fa ewell o old legacies? The in o-
duc ion o long- e m ca e insu ance in Sou h Ko ea. Ageing
and Socie y,33, 871–887.
Kim, K., Za i , S. H., Finge man, K. L., & Han, G. (2015). In e ge-
ne a ional exchanges o middle-aged adul s wi h hei pa en s-
in-law in Ko ea. Jou nal o Ma iage and Family,77, 791–805.
Knodel, J. (2014). Is in e gene a ional solida i y eally on he
decline? Cau iona y e idence om Thailand. Asian Popula ion
S udies,10(2), 176–194.
Kohli, M. (1993). Public solida i y be ween gene a ions: His o ical
and compa a i e elemen s. F ee Uni e si y o Be lin Resea ch
G oup on Ageing and he Li e Cou se, Resea ch Repo 39.
Ko ea Ins i u e o Heal h and Social A ai s (KIHASA). (2001).
Noin Jangi Yoyang Boho Noinui Subal Sil ae Mi Bokjiyokku
[Ca egi ing o he ail elde ly and wel a e needs o he ail
elde ly and amily ca egi e s]. KIHASA (in Ko ean).
Ko ean Na ional S a is ical O ice (KNSO). (2008). 2008 Social Su -
ey (Heal h-Family): Resul s. (In Ko ean).
Ko ean Na ional S a is ical O ice (KNSO). (2012). 2012 Social Su -
ey (Heal h-Family): Resul s. (In Ko ean).
Ko ean Na ional S a is ical O ice (KNSO). (2018). 2018 Social Su -
ey (Heal h-Family): Resul s. (In Ko ean).
K eps, J. M. (1977). In e gene a ion ans e s and he bu eauc acy.
In E. Shanas & M. Sussman (Eds.), Family, bu eauc acy and he
elde ly (pp. 21–34). Duke Uni e si y P ess.
INTERGENERATIONAL SOLIDARITY IN A DEVELOPING WELFARE STATE 927
Ku, I., & Kim, C.-O. (2020). Decomposi ion analyses o he end in
po e y among olde adul s: The case o Sou h Ko ea. The Jou -
nals o Ge on ology: Se ies B,75(3), 684–693.
Künemund, H., & Rein, M. (1999). The e is mo e o ecei ing han
needing: Theo e ical a gumen s and empi ical explo a ions o
c owding in and c owding ou . Ageing and Socie y,19,93–121.
Kwon, S.-M., & Holliday, I. (2007). The Ko ean wel a e s a e: A
pa adox o expansion in an e a o globalisa ion and economic
c isis. In e na ional Jou nal o Social Wel a e,16, 242–248.
Lee, D. (2018). The e olu ion o amily policy in Sou h Ko ea: F om
Con ucian amilism o neo- amilism. Asian Social Wo k and
Policy Re iew,12,46–53.
Lee, K. (2022). Old-age po e y in a pension la ecome : The impac
o basic pension expansions in Sou h Ko ea. Social Policy and
Adminis a ion,56,1–19.
Lee, S., Ku, I., & Shon, B. (2019). The e ec s o old-age public ans-
e on he well-being o olde adul s: The case o social pension
in Sou h Ko ea. The Jou nals o Ge on ology: Se ies B,74(3),
506–515.
Lin, J.-P., & Yi, C.-C. (2013). A compa a i e analysis o in e gene a-
ional ela ions in Eas Asia. In e na ional Sociology,28(3),
297–315.
Lowens ein, A., & Daa land, S. O. (2006). Filial no ms and amily
suppo in compa a i e c oss-na ional con ex : E idence om
he OASIS s udy. Ageing and Socie y,26, 203–223.
Ma ckmann, B. (2017). All is no ela i e: In e gene a ional no ms
in Eu ope. Eu opean Socie ies,19(4), 466–491.
Moon, H., Kim, H., Ahn, J., Kim, E., Lee, S., Jeon, Y., & Mason, A.
(2006). Popula ion ageing and income ans e . Join Resea ch
P ojec Repo 06-05-03. Ko ea De elopmen Ins i u e
(In Ko ean).
Mo el-Klingebiel, A., Tesch-Röme , C., & Kond a owi z, H.-J. .
(2005). Wel a e s a es do no c owd ou he amily: E idence
o mixed esponsibili y om compa a i e analyses. Ageing and
Socie y,25(6), 863–882.
Nam, J., & Pa k, J. (2020). The 2015 wel a e e o m o he Na ional
Basic Li elihood Secu i y Sys em in Sou h Ko ea: E ec s on
economic ou comes. In e na ional Jou nal o Social Wel a e,29,
219–232.
O ganisa ion o Economic Coope a ion and De elopmen (OECD).
(2021). OECD Social Expendi u e Da a Base (SOCX). OECD.
h p://s a s.oecd.o g/wbos/de aul .aspx?da ase code=SOCX_AGG
Pa k, H.-J. (2015). Legisla ing o ilial pie y: An indi ec
app oach o p omo ing amily suppo and esponsibili y o
olde people in Ko ea. Jou nal o Aging & Social Policy,27,
280–293.
Pa k, K.-S., Phua, V., McNally, J., & Sun, R. (2005). Di e si y and
s uc u e o in e gene a ional ela ionships: Elde ly pa en -
adul child ela ions in Ko ea. Jou nal o C oss-Cul u al Ge on-
ology,20, 285–305.
Peng, I., & Wong, J. (2010). Eas Asia. In F. G. Cas les, S. Leib ied,
J. Lewis, H. Obinge , & C. Pie son (Eds.), The Ox o d handbook
o he wel a e s a e (pp. 656–670). Ox o d Uni e si y P ess.
Pinqua , M., & Sö ensen, S. (2006). Gende di e ences in ca egi e
s esso s, social esou ces, and heal h: An upda ed me a-
analysis. The Jou nals o Ge on ology Se ies B: Psychological Sci-
ences and Social Sciences,61(1), P33–P45.
Plan enga, J., Reme y, C., Figuei edo, H., & Smi h, M. (2009).
Towa ds a Eu opean Union gende equali y index. Jou nal o
Eu opean Social Policy,19,19–33.
Rehe , D. S. (1998). Family ies in Wes e n Eu ope: Pe sis en con-
as s. Popula ion and De elopmen Re iew,24(2), 203–234.
Sa aceno, C. (2008). In oduc ion: In e gene a ional ela ions in
amilies—A mic o-mac o pe spec i e. In C. Sa aceno (Ed.),
Families, ageing and social policy: In e gene a ional solida i y
in Eu opean wel a e s a es (pp. 1–19). Edwa d Elga
Publishing.
Schmid, T., B and , M., & Habe ke n, K. (2012). Gende ed suppo
o olde pa en s: Do wel a e s a es ma e ? Eu opean Jou nal o
Ageing,9,39–50.
Shin, E., & Do, Y. K. (2015). Basic old-age pension and inancial
wellbeing o olde adul s in Sou h Ko ea. Ageing and Socie y,
35, 1055–1074.
Skinne , G. W. (1997). Family sys ems and demog aphic p ocesses.
In D. I. Ke ze & T. F icke (Eds.), An h opological demog aphy:
Towa d a new syn hesis (pp. 53–95). Uni e si y o Chicago
P ess.
Szydlik, M. (2008). In e gene a ional solida i y and con lic . Jou nal
o Compa a i e Family S udies,39,97–114.
Theobald, H., & Chon, Y. (2020). Home ca e de elopmen in Ko ea
and Ge many: The in e play o long- e m ca e and p o ession-
aliza ion policies. Social Policy and Adminis a ion,54(5),
615–629.
Ulmanen, P., & Szebehely, M. (2015). F om he s a e o he amily
o o he ma ke ? Consequences o educed esiden ial elde -
ca e in Sweden. In e na ional Jou nal o Social Wel a e,24(1),
81–92.
Van den B oek, T., & Dyks a, P. A. (2017). Residen ial ca e and
ca e o communi y-dwelling pa en s: Ou -selec ion, in-selec ion
and di usion o esponsibili y. Ageing and Socie y,37(8), 1609–
1631.
an Oo scho , W., Opielka, M., & P au-E inge , B. (2008). Cul u e
and wel a e s a e. Values and social policy in compa a i e pe -
spec i e, Edwa d Elga .
Wagne , M., & B and , M. (2017). Long- e m ca e p o ision and he
well-being o spousal ca egi e s: An analsis o 138 Eu opean
egions. The Jou nals o Ge on ology. Se ies B, Psychological Sci-
ences and Social Sciences,73(4), e24–e34.
Yao, X. (2000). An in oduc ion o con ucianism. Camb idge Uni e -
si y P ess.
How o ci e his a icle: Gu ín, M., & B and , M.
(2024). In e gene a ional solida i y in a de eloping
wel a e s a e: The case o Sou h Ko ea.
In e na ional Jou nal o Social Wel a e,33(4),
912–930. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/ijsw.12643
928 GURÍN and BRANDT
APPENDIX A
TABLE A1 Sample cha ac e is ics inancial help o (non-co- esiding and co- esiding) pa en (KloSA).
Non-co- esiding Co- esiding
Wa e 1 (2006) Wa e 7 (2018) Wa e 2 (2008) Wa e 7 (2018)
Age 64.8 71.0 58.1 65.0
Gende
Male 41.9 40.7 45.9 45.6
Female 58.1 59.3 54.1 54.4
Ma i al s a us
Ma ied/li ing wi h a pa ne 76.8 74.1 81.1 77.1
Sepa a ed 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.5
Di o ced 1.4 2.1 1.8 3.0
Widowed 21.0 23.1 16.6 19.4
Ne e ma ied 0 0.1 0 0
Educa ional backg ound
No o mal educa ion un il elemen a y 54.3 42.8 29.7 23.8
Middle school 17.5 17.8 15.2 11.9
High school 20.2 28.6 39.2 42.5
College/Uni e si y 8.0 10.8 15.9 21.7
Heal h
Ve y good 1.9 0.6 2.7 0.6
Good 7.8 4.3 12.6 8.5
Fai 31.4 36.1 45.1 40.8
Bad 28.8 36.4 24.5 35.3
Ve y bad 30.1 22.7 15.2 14.8
Li ing dis ance
Wi hin 30 min 19.1 16.9
Wi hin 1 h 24.9 26.8
Wi hin 2 h 16.7 23.1
Mo e han 2 h 39.0 33.1
npe sons 6657 5145 2435 1147
No e: Own calcula ions, unweigh ed pe cen ages, and means.
INTERGENERATIONAL SOLIDARITY IN A DEVELOPING WELFARE STATE 929
TABLE A2 Sample cha ac e is ics ime suppo o
pa en (KGSS).
2006 2016
Age 58.3 62.7
Gende
Male 45.4 41.8
Female 54.6 58.2
Ma i al s a us
Ma ied/li ing wi h a pa ne 78.2 70.9
Sepa a ed 0.8 1.3
Di o ced 3.3 4.2
Widowed 17.6 19.8
Ne e ma ied 2.0 3.8
Educa ional backg ound
No o mal educa ion un il elemen a y 29.4 29.7
Middle school 16.1 11.4
High school 28.2 29.7
College/Uni e si y 25.3 29.0
Heal h
Ve y good 16.3 15.8
Good 27.9 29.0
Fai 24.9 24.3
Bad 17.6 17.3
Ve y bad 13.3 13.5
Employed 55.5 52.0
npe sons 663 613
No e: Own calcula ions, unweigh ed pe cen ages, and means.
TABLE A3 Sample cha ac e is ics in e gene a ional
no ms (KSS).
2008 2018
Age 37.2 43.2
Gende
Male 48.5 48.4
Female 51.5 51.6
Ma i al s a us
Ma ied/li ing wi h a pa ne 66 60.6
Di o ced 3.2 4.7
Widowed 8 8.7
Ne e ma ied 22.8 25.2
Educa ional backg ound
No o mal educa ion un il elemen a y 17.2 14.9
Middle school 10.7 11.9
High school 36.9 31.7
College/Uni e si y 35.3 41.4
Heal h
Ve y good 9.6 8.7
Good 40.1 37.9
Fai 34.8 35.7
Bad 13.4 15
Ve y bad 2.1 2.8
npe sons 52,940 42,550
No e: Own calcula ions, unweigh ed pe cen ages, and means.
930 GURÍN and BRANDT
