Introduction
In the beginning of the twenty-first century, scientific policy at the European level stimulated comparative ageing research in Europe. This impetus was the practical political result of ongoing processes in academic disciplines as well as in society, all of which have shaped the comparative agenda. Increasing interest in comparing the achievement level of European welfare states, the impact of different socio-economic conditions on the living situation of the ageing populations, but also a higher degree of data availability for the purpose of comparison have all given such a research agenda the appropriate frame of reference. Very generously, the key action “Ageing Population” within the Fifth Framework Programme of the European Union (and to a much lesser extent also the Sixth Framework Programme) has provided funding for ageing research in Europe. This funding has lead prototypically to projects with participants from several European countries and associated nations, representing societies from Northern, Southern, Western, Eastern, and Central Europe. Quite a number of these projects conducted surveys or studies across participating countries. Hence, data sets were created which allow comparisons between nations, societies, and cultures.
However, although the scientists brought together in these research projects were specialists in their fields of gerontology, they often found themselves asking questions on the why and how of comparative ageing research (among them were the two authors of this paper). We believe that the current state of comparative ageing research can be likened to a garden full of wild flowers: empirical data sets are flourishing well, but the fields may be in need of some theoretical cultivation. To this extent, the present situation seems to reflect once more the crucial rift between theoretical reasoning and empirical research which has always characterized the social gerontological field and has been deplored on numerous occasions (e.g. Bengtson et al.
1999). In this conceptual paper, we would like to initiate a theoretical discourse about the possibilities, prerequisites and limits of comparative ageing research. Reflecting our own disciplinary background, we emphasize concepts and theories from psychology, sociology, and political science, but we believe that our arguments are feasible to comparative ageing research in other academic disciplines as well.
This paper has four parts. First, we discuss the aims, ambitions and current state of comparative ageing research in general. Second, some theoretical conceptions are sketched which might serve as a basis (or at least as “role models”) for comparative ageing research. Thirdly, we present some examples of theoretically based comparative ageing research. Finally, we examine epistemological and methodological problems and limitations of comparative designs.
Aims, ambitions and current state of comparative ageing research
The phase of old age is part of the life course, and ageing processes are a subgroup of developmental changes. Individual development over the life course, and especially age related changes in late phases of life, are not fully explained by endogenous factors like biological maturation and functional decline. Hence, within different disciplines like life-span psychology and life-course sociology, but also epidemiology, conceptions of development and ageing have been established which point to the societal, cultural and historic embeddedness of change processes in adulthood and old age (e.g. Baltes
1987,
1997; Ben-Shlomo and Kuh
2002; Brandtstädter
1998; Kuh et al.
2003; Mortimer and Shanahan
2003; Settersten
2006). In addition, ageing research encompasses how developmental changes over the life course materialize in social positions and the social capital of specific age groups and how this impact in turn transforms given institutional settings within society. Comparing different societies and cultures seems especially fruitful for the analysis of societal and cultural factors in life course development (Fry
1996).
Comparative ageing research may be directed towards two—complementary or conflicting—main goals (Przeworski and Teune
1970; Ragin
1987; Daatland and Motel-Klingebiel
2006). From a nomothetic perspective, the aim of comparisons is the search for similarities and communalities in different societies and cultures. Questions relating to the similarity of ageing phenomena or determinants of change processes are examples of this perspective. Ultimately, this perspective aims to identify “anthropological universals” in ageing which materialize regardless of historical time and geographical space. Examples for universals might be seen in biological processes which proceed similarly across cultures and societies (e.g. skin wrinkles and greying hair). On the other hand, from an idiographic perspective researchers are looking for societal and cultural specificity and distinctiveness. In this perspective, differences between societies and cultures in respect to ageing processes are emphasized. The goal of this perspective is the identification of a societal and cultural frame for unique patterns of ageing processes. In this perspective, ageing is not an autonomous, time bound process, but is intertwined with societal institutions and cultural norms. Examples of culture specific patterns of ageing are retirement regulations and family solidarity in late life.
Despite the obvious differences, both perspectives refer to societal and cultural aspects of ageing. Although the constructs of “society” and “culture” are not independent of each other, they point to different systems. With the concept “culture” we refer to everyday practices, knowledge and belief systems as well as behaviour patterns which are used by members of a given population (cf. Berry
2000). With the concept of “society” we refer to those structures, institutions, and law systems which regulate as social facts and matters the behaviour of members of a given population. Societal structures and cultural belief systems are bound together in a complex nexus of interactions which do not always correspond harmoniously (e.g. cultural beliefs about ageing and old age could be in conflict with institutional retirement rules). However, both societal structures as well as cultural belief systems are relevant to ageing and old age. It should be kept in mind, however, that the definitions of culture and society also depend on the theoretical context (and might slightly vary from the definitions discussed here).
A framework for comparative ageing research can be found in cultural anthropology. The basic premise of anthropology is to study “humans at all times in all places” (Fry
1988). As humans are neither exclusively biological beings nor solely cultural constructions, human behaviour and development is shaped both by biology and culture. Hence, anthropological theory is holistic (emphasizing contexts), comparative (looking at a sample of the 3,000 ± cultures worldwide), and evolutionary (taking into account the long history of mankind). In so doing, anthropological theory is striving to identify both universals of ageing and unique experiences of ageing. The methodology of cross-cultural studies also originated in anthropology (Murdock and White
1969). An early example of anthropology is the work of Simmons (
1945), who analysed the status of ageing and old people in non-industrialized cultures. Simmons could not identify strong relations between economic, social, and political organization or religious beliefs with the status of old persons. Hence, this early work of cultural anthropology pointed to the influence of cultural and societal characteristics on the living situations of old people as complex, diverse, and context specific (Fry
1999).
Despite of these ambitions, the current state of comparative ageing research seems to be characterized by little theorizing as to whether (and why) there should be differences (or similarities) in ageing processes across countries, societies, or cultures. In the first issue of the European Journal of Ageing (December 2004), results from a variety of European projects have been published, and most of them have used the method of cross-cultural surveys (e.g. CLESA, ENABLE AGE, ESAW, EURODEP, FAMSUP, MOBILATE, OASIS, and SHARE). Although all of these projects involved four to eleven European countries, explicit a priori hypotheses about differences (or similarities) across societies and cultures are hardly to be found. More often, a posteriori reasoning is presented.
Just to give a few examples: Motel-Klingebiel et al. (
2004) analysed the influence of social inequality on subjective quality of life in five countries and reported only small country differences. In the discussion section, they stated that “these findings display a common characteristic of the societies analysed. This stability suggests specifically life course and not just cohort effects” (p. 13). Ferring et al. (
2004) explored life satisfaction in six European countries, and stated in the discussion section that “this study explores national, age, and gender differences in life satisfaction ratings. The findings ... are in line with previously reported findings” (p. 23) and later, the results were discussed with reference to the theoretical construct of societal “livability”. Minicuci et al. (
2004) reported on disability-free life expectancy in a cross-national perspective and explicated the hypothesis, that there might be a “North–South gradient” (higher levels of disability in the South, p. 38). Only in the discussion section was this “North–South gradient” explained by “socio-economic and cultural differences” (country differences in educational level, in the meaning of dependency, and the availability of family help, p. 42). Mollenkopf et al. (
2004) looked at mobility in later life in six European countries. Although country differences were found (see p. 52), there was no explicit theoretical account of these differences on the macro-level. Börsch-Supan et al. (
2005) presented a large study with eleven countries involving a wide variety of topics. Three topics were discussed in the paper, namely work disability insurance enrolment, volunteering, and self-assessed health. Although there were country differences in all dependent variables, there was little theoretical reasoning to account for them (in respect to disability insurance, the authors point to societal differences regarding the “ease and generosity” in eligibility rules, p. 248).
We should hasten to add that all of these examples have excellent theoretical sections on the particular phenomenon in question (i.e. quality of life, life satisfaction, disability, mobility, volunteering, and self-assessed health). However, theoretical arguments for selecting the countries represented in the projects as well as a priori hypotheses predicting and explaining cross-societal and cross-cultural differences (or similarities) are often lacking. Hence, in the following section, we would like to discuss how the theoretical foundation of comparative ageing research could be improved.
Theoretical conceptions relevant for comparative ageing research
Gerontologists have elaborated a variety of theories connecting societal macro- and individual micro-levels (i.e. individual life time and historical time) in
life course conceptions (Dannefer
1999; Kuh et al.
2003; Riley et al.
1999). However, there is no real comparable wealth of theoretical ideas available in respect of theories relating to
comparative ageing research (for an exception, see the above-mentioned work of cultural anthropology, e.g. Fry
1999,
2006). For the time being, however, we do not see a complete set of theories for comparative ageing research. Looking for a theoretical foundation of comparative research question, there are two possible solutions which are both connected with certain limitations: On the one hand, one could choose a genuine comparative theory (which normally does not explicitly refer to old age and ageing), or on the other hand one could choose a genuine ageing theory (however, most of them have a limited cross-cultural potential).
In the following, we first discuss some criteria for theories used in comparative ageing research. We then sketch some general comparative theories which may be modified in respect to ageing and old age in order to guide comparative ageing research. After that, we discuss how genuine ageing theories may be modified in order to allow their use in comparative ageing research.
Criteria for theories used in comparative ageing research
In general, scientific theories strive to organize empirical findings in a frugal manner and allow empirical tests of concrete hypotheses (Salthouse
2006). Theories serve to organize future research in specifying relevant questions which should be answered in empirical research. In particular, theories also serve to answer questions regarding the causal nexus of ageing phenomena and the mechanisms by which a cause exerts its effect. In respect to comparative ageing research, this means that theories should not only be helpful in identifying the relevant ageing phenomena which can be assumed to vary (or stay constant) across cultures and societies. More important is the function of theories in explicating causal mechanisms for variation (or stability) of ageing processes across cultures and societies. Hence, if variation across societies and cultures is assumed, a theory should be able to link macro-level constructs, i.e. characteristics of cultures and societies, to micro-level outcomes, i.e. behaviour of ageing individuals, by specifying mediating and moderating factors on the meso-levels of societal institutions and cultural norms and belief systems. If similarity (or even universality) of ageing processes is assumed, a theory should be able to explain this invariance by pointing to general mechanisms which operate universally even in the face of cultural and societal specificity.
Hence, we see four general criteria a comparative ageing theory should fulfil in order to guide comparative ageing research. First, a comparative ageing theory should lead to research questions regarding differences or similarities in ageing processes across cultures and societies. Second, within a comparative ageing theory different levels of analysis should be distinguished (at least macro-levels like society and culture on the one hand and micro-levels like individual change processes on the other hand). Moreover, researchers should be enabled to describe societies or cultures along certain characteristics. Third, a comparative ageing theory should try to explicate how macro-level characteristics influence developmental conditions on the micro-level. Fourth, a comparative ageing theory should allow the formulation of empirically testable hypotheses.
Modifying comparative theories for ageing research
We selected three general comparative theories which meet the criteria outlined above: (a) theory of cultural syndromes, (b) theory of ecological systems, and (c) theory of welfare state comparison. As these theories originally did not intent to explain cultural and societal differences in ageing processes, we will elaborate ageing related implications.
Theory of cultural syndromes
The theory of “cultural syndromes” is a prototypical comparative theory directed at the explanation of differences between cultures (Triandis
1989,
1996), and is an example of the nomothetic perspective in comparative research. According to Triandis (
1994), culture is a system of meanings shared by persons speaking a common language dialect, living in a specific geographic region, during a particular historic period. “Cultural syndromes” consist of shared attitudes, beliefs, norms, values and self-definitions found among members of a society. The link between the cultural macro-level and the individual micro-level could be conceptualized in the form of unconscious “cultural standards”. Cultural standards are those forms of perception, thinking, evaluating, and acting which are considered to be “normal” and obvious among members of a certain culture (Thomas
2003). These culturally shared standards function as orientation rules of behaviour and become conscious only in the case of violation or transgression of those standards. Examples of those cultural standards are the seniority principle in greeting rituals or the rules of intergenerational solidarity within families (Daatland and Herlofson
2003).
Cultures can be described according to a variety of cultural syndromes. Examples are complexity, tightness/looseness, and individualism/collectivism. Cultural complexity refers to the extent of differentiation in societal systems, e.g. written language, economy, size of settlements. Tight cultures have many rules, norms, and ideas about what is correct behaviour in different kinds of situations; tolerant (or loose) cultures have fewer rules and norms. In tight cultures, transgressions of a norm will be sanctioned more quickly and strictly, while in loose cultures such transgressions will be tolerated. The dimension of individualism/collectivism refers to the understanding of society members as individual persons (individualism) or as part of a social group, caste or class (collectivism). Triandis (
1994) has suggested interactions between these three cultural syndromes. Individualism arises in complex and loose societies, collectivism in simple and strict societies. Hence, the (still rather) strict Japan of the twenty-first century has become less collectivistic due to the increase of societal complexity in the last decades. A similar approach for the description of cultural dimensions has been developed by Hofstede (
2001).
Quite a lot of research has been conducted on the relationship between cultural syndromes and identity or self-concept (Triandis and Suh
2002). At the level of the individual, the “individual self” (idiocentrism) and the “collective self” (allocentrism) correspond to the poles of individualism versus collectivism, respectively (Triandis and Trafimow
2001). The individual self is characterized by traits, states or behaviour pattern (e.g. “I am diligent”, “I am intelligent”, “I like to exercise”). The collective self is characterized by relations to other persons or social groups (e.g. “I am the daughter of X”, “I am the husband of Y”). Individual and collective self are represented separately in long-term memory, and the situational context determines whether elements of the individual or collective self are activated. Moreover, the relationship between individual and collective self depends on the culture. In collectivist cultures, the dimensions of allocentrism and idiocentrism are not correlated, while in individualistic cultures the correlation between the two is negative (Triandis and Trafimow
2001). This shows the complex relationship between cultural macro-level and individual micro-level of identity and self-concept. However, as the notion of “cultural syndromes” is not inherently concerned with development and ageing, it is necessary to make additional assumptions about the role of cultural syndromes in the ageing process (e.g. one could assume that in collectivist cultures the self-concept of ageing persons might be more stable than in individualist cultures).
Theory of ecological systems
The theory of ecological systems by Bronfenbrenner (
2000) is a significant approach in ecological research. Bronfenbrenner’s point of departure is the conception of interlocking ecological systems which are differentially relevant for human development and which change over historical time (Bronfenbrenner
1979; Bronfenbrenner and Morris
1998). Bronfenbrenner distinguishes between four hierarchical levels of ecological systems, with the lower levels embedded in the higher levels: micro-, meso-, exo- and macro-system. The micro-system contains the fabric of relations between the developing person and her or his immediate social and physical environment (e.g. family at home, class room with teacher and other students in school, frail old persons in a nursing home). The meso-system contains all micro-systems which are relevant to a person at a certain point in time (e.g. old age home and self-help group). The exo-system contains social and societal structures and institutions which frame the settings and exo-systems of an individual without membership of the person in all of these systems (e.g. supervision agencies for old age homes, social security system). The macro-system relates to the cultural basis of a society which is constituted by bodies of law as well as cognitive belief systems and normative value systems. In addition to these four hierarchical system levels Bronfenbrenner introduces a chronological axis (“chrono-system”) which regulates individual biographies according to critical life events and status passages (see Bronfenbrenner
1999).
Development is triggered by the interaction of an active individual and those persons, objects, and symbols in his or her immediate environment (“proximate processes”), with interactions taking place over an extended time period (Bronfenbrenner
2000, p. 130). Bronfenbrenner has published mainly on development in childhood and youth since the early 1960s (e.g. Bronfenbrenner
1970). In the current context, two aspects of Bronfenbrenner’s theory should be highlighted. First, the proximate processes located in the level of the micro-system are more important for individual development than structures and processes on the meso-, exo-, and macro-level. Exemplary evidence for this thesis can be found in child development: The maternal responsiveness of mothers is a better predictor for the problem behaviour of children than social class (Bronfenbrenner
2000, p. 131). Secondly, Bronfenbrenner points out that proximate processes relevant to development are influenced by context factors which might vary strongly between cultures and societies. Support for this thesis was found in the ground breaking studies comparing the USA, the (former) USSR and other societies regarding context factors on the macro-level, like quality of the school systems, social inequality, or the prevalence of victimization through crime (Bronfenbrenner et al.
1996). Even if Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory has not been applied often to development in adulthood and old age (for an exception, see Bronfenbrenner
1999), it seems heuristically fruitful to apply elements of this approach to comparative ageing research (e.g. analysing proximate environments like nursing homes across cultures and societies, hence taking into account cultural frames like norms of family solidarity or societal contexts like health and social care policies).
Theory of welfare state comparisons
Originating in political science, the approach of welfare state comparisons analyses the social security system of states and relates these to the action and behaviour of individuals. Hence, the question is how individuals fare over time in different types of welfare states. A first step in comparing welfare states has been the construction of „welfare state typologies”. In his books Esping-Andersen (
1990,
2000) identifies the process of decommodification of the wage earner in relation to three theoretical typologies for welfare regimes and social policy in advanced capitalist nations. In a completely “commodified” society, it is the individual’s position on the labour market alone which is connected to income and earning. Hence, in a commodified society the individual’s position on the labour market depends on individual characteristics (e.g. skills and health) and features of the market (e.g. demand). In contrast, “decommodification” means that an individual is entitled to earnings independent of his or her position on the labour market. Welfare production is uncoupled from market processes. The extent of decommodification relates to the degree of protection from labour market risks (e.g. unemployment and illness) through social security systems. For instance, the generosity of a pension system reduces the need for old people to take part in the labour market.
Originally, Esping-Andersen (
1990) described three different welfare state types: (a) the “liberal model”, often related to the USA, but also to Canada, Australia and increasingly the United Kingdom with only a low degree of decommodification, (b) the central European “conservative-corporatist model” with a medium degree of decommodification combined with internal status differentiation which is indicative of Germany, France, Austria, and Italy, (c) the “social democratic model”, as exemplified by the Scandinavian countries and particularly Sweden, where decommodification has been extended to universal solidarity. Decommodification is highly relevant for the living situation and the behaviour of ageing and old people. Pension systems, as part of decommodifying social policies, have an influence on labour market participation in middle adulthood. The employment rate of older workers (55 years and older) is quite high in “market liberal” countries like the UK as well as in “social democratic” countries like Sweden, and low in “conservative-corporatist” countries like Germany. The European project OASIS has shown in addition that Spain as a “Mediterranean welfare state model” shows even lower employment rates (Kondratowitz
2003). However, recent reappraisals of a “political economy of ageing” which was already widespread in gerontology in the eighties demonstrate that welfare state activities in the field of ageing have to take into account a much richer and more comprehensive theoretical modelling than the typology approach can offer (Walker
2005).
Although Esping-Andersen’s classifications remain the most commonly used in distinguishing types of modern welfare states and offer a solid starting point in such analysis, they have been increasingly criticised. Southern European welfare states of the “Mediterranean type” are not considered to be an independent model, and the Eastern European “transformation states” did not exist when Esping-Andersen developed his original position. Moreover, the role of the family and women in particular as highly important producers of welfare and the consequences of gendered division of labour in the care for children and elders have been neglected (Lessenich and Ostner
1998). This criticism has lead to new typologies, for instance to a model which differentiates welfare states according to “care regimes”. In this typology, welfare states are categorized by the extent to which they have established gender equality in the systems of employment and (child) care (Lewis
2002). This approach would enable the analysis of the cultural foundations of welfare production (Chamberlayne et al.
1999). Finally, the welfare state approach only partly spells out the mediating mechanism which relates the macro-level characteristics of a “welfare state model” to the individual behaviour of an ageing person. It would be a challenging task to accomplish in the future.
Modifying ageing theories for comparative research
Although we believe that the theories described above are potentially important for comparative ageing research, we are aware that these theories are by no means exhaustive in respect to possible theoretical questions raised in comparative ageing research. However, many successful theories in gerontology have been formulated without the focus on comparative ageing research (see for an overview, Bengtson and Schaie
1999). It could be even said that many, if not most theories of ageing explicitly or implicitly claim universal validity (e.g. theories regarding memory or intelligence development over the life course, biological theories of ageing), but the universality of ageing theories is not always tested using comparative research designs. Moreover, it could be productive to modify “general” ageing theories with respect to cultural and societal differences. Gerontological theories might be extended with additional assumptions in order to guide comparative ageing research. Three theories might serve as examples.
Disengagement theory
Despite the long history of criticism of disengagement theory, the approach of Cumming and Henry (
1961) still is an excellent example for theoretically linking macro-structure (retirement regulation) and micro-level (retirement behaviour, life satisfaction). Disengagement has been defined as “an inevitable process in which many of the relationships between a person and other members of society are severed, and those remaining are altered in quality” (Cumming and Henry
1961, p. 210). In other words, it involves the process of social and psychological withdrawal of an individual from society. Disengagement is theorized to result in a reduction of life activities and ego energy in old age. Although disengagement theory was formulated as a general, almost universal theory, there is also reference to differences across cultures and societies (e.g. “disengagement is a culture-free concept, but the form it takes will always be culture bound”, p. 218). Hence, in order to use disengagement theory for comparative ageing research it would be necessary to explicate the societal and cultural conditions which influence the processes of disengagement (e.g. type and formality of retirement regulations, existence and kind of social security systems).
Dual-process model of developmental regulation
The dual process model of developmental regulation (Brandtstädter
1998; Brandtstädter and Rothermund
2002) conceptualizes the management of developmental goals. Developmental goals motivate a person, give a structure to everyday life and are the basis for personal identity and meaning of life. The interaction between “tenacious goal pursuit” (or assimilative processes) and “flexible goal adjustment” (or accommodative processes) is phylogenetically rooted in the architecture of the human psyche. Hence, these processes can be interpreted as universals of human development (Brandtstädter and Rothermund
2002, p. 141). However, also in this approach development, culture, and action are intimately related. Culture constitutes action spaces which shape the opportunities and meanings of developmental actions (Brandtstädter
1998). For the pursuit of developmental goals and the management of blocked goals tenacity and flexibility are relevant in all cultures, but the specific forms of these regulatory processes and their dynamics may vary between cultures. Even if this model does not make explicit statements about cultural differences, one can formulate additional assumptions. It could be hat cultural beliefs and norms in respect to coping with blocked goals might differ across cultures (in individualistic cultures assimilative tendencies might be stronger, while in collectivistic cultures accommodative tendencies might prevail; cf. Tesch-Römer
2005).
Socio-emotional selectivity theory
Socio-emotional selectivity theory (Carstensen
1995; Carstensen et al.
2006) claims that the perception of time plays a fundamental role in the selection and pursuit of social goals. According to this theory, social motives fall into one of two general categories—those related to the acquisition of knowledge and those related to the regulation of emotion. When time is perceived as open-ended, knowledge-related goals are prioritized. In contrast, when time is perceived as limited, emotional goals assume primacy. The inextricable association between time left in life and chronological age ensures age-related differences in social goals. As social motives change over the life course, there is a stronger preference for intimate relations in later life. If one adds to this theory the assumption that these changes in motivation are “anthropological universals”, one could test this hypothesis cross-culturally. An example for an empirical test of socio-emotional selectivity theory in comparative research is the analysis of age differences in social preferences among Taiwanese and Mainland Chinese (differences between the two cultures disappear when differences in perceived time were statistically controlled for; Fung et al.
2001).
Resume
Summarizing, we believe that it is possible to improve the theoretical foundation of comparative ageing research. First, there are general comparative theories available which might be used in comparative ageing research (some examples are listed above). Second, it seems possible to extend existing gerontological theories for comparative ageing research. Next, we explicate the rationale for conducting comparative ageing research and illustrate this with some examples.
Rationale for conducting comparative ageing research and some examples
As mentioned before, scientific theories help to organize the empirical cycle: formulating research questions, describing phenomena in question, deriving and testing hypotheses, and organizing findings as parsimonious as possible. Taking together the arguments outlined so far, we believe that four steps are necessary in order to pursue comparative ageing research driven by theoretical conceptions. After describing the four steps of the research cycle in general, we will give some concrete examples from current publications.
After having described these steps in a general manner, we would like to illustrate them using published research. Those examples of comparative ageing research show in our view that a theoretical foundation for cross-cultural and cross-societal comparisons is highly productive. It should be kept in mind, however, that instead of these examples other instances of theoretically based ageing research could have been chosen as well.
Braam et al. (
2004) examined in the “EURODEP Concerted Action” whether the association between disability and depressive symptoms is modified by societal characteristics which differ across European countries. EURODEP started from the observation that disability is a main determinant of depressive symptoms in late life. Hence, it was asked if contextual factors like the availability of mental health care would modify this relationship (Step 1: research question). The macro-level units in this study were European countries. They were described according to four dimensions (health care, economic wealth, demographics, and religious tradition measured by 13 indicators). The countries were chosen in order to represent a “considerable cross-national variety of contextual factors” (p. 27). The micro-level units were individuals (Step 2: levels of analyses). Regarding the link between macro- and the micro-levels, the authors stated, that “the association between physical health and depression is less pronounced with better health care facilities available” (p. 33). Hence, the authors pointed to the mechanisms which are responsible for the modifying effect of health care infrastructure (Step 3: mechanism). Finally, the authors formulated hypotheses (or rather research questions, p. 27) and reported on confirmed (and falsified) hypotheses (p. 33; Step 4: hypotheses).
Attias-Donfut et al. (
2005) analysed the intergenerational flow of gifts and support in ten European countries. The starting point of the analysis of data from the “Survey of Health, Ageing, and Retirement in Europe” (SHARE) was the observation that cash gifts flow from the older to the younger generation while time gifts come from the younger to the older generation. It was asked if this pattern of intergenerational support is similar or different across European countries (Step 1: research question). The levels of analyses were countries on the macro-level, and individuals on the micro-level. The authors stated that along a North–South gradient there are national differences in culture (e.g. family norms), demographics (e.g. family structures), and political history (e.g. type and degree of welfare systems) which may influence the intergenerational exchange of support. The selection of ten European countries was justified by reference to the work of Esping-Andersen (Step 2: levels of analyses). In respect to financial transfers, the authors argued, that in countries with generous pension schemes older people should make more financial transfers because they have more resources to give (p. 162, Step 3: mechanism). Finally, the authors formulated and empirically tested hypotheses about similarities and differences between countries in intergenerational exchange of support (p. 162, 170). The authors predicted similarities across countries for direction of transfers, and differences between countries for rate of financial transfers and amounts of time and money exchanged (Step 4: Hypotheses).
Motel-Klingebiel et al. (
2005) looked at the relationship between family support and formal services provided by the welfare state, using data from the project “Old Age and Autonomy: The Role of Service Systems and Intergenerational Family Solidarity” (OASIS). They started with the question whether welfare states “crowd out” family support by providing social services (Step 1: research question). Levels of analyses were countries on the one hand, and individuals on the other hand. The five countries (Norway, England, Germany, Spain, Israel) were described according to Esping-Andersen’s typology of welfare state, adding the categories “residual welfare state” (for Spain) and “mixed model” (for Israel). The main dimension used in the description of macro-level units was the notion of “generosity” of welfare state provision (Step 2: levels of analyses). In analysing the macro-micro-link, the authors considered the availability of support from the state as well as from the family, highlighting the relevance of family structures as well as norms and preferences for intergenerational support (Step 3: mechanism). Finally, three alternative hypotheses were formulated regarding the relation between family support and formal services (substitution, mutual encouragement, mixed responsibility). These hypotheses were tested empirically, showing that family structures as well as preferences and norms in respect to support confirmed the hypothesis of mixed responsibility of family support and formal services (Step 4: hypotheses).
Outlook
In this conceptual paper we have tried to show that it is possible, rewarding, and productive to advance comparative ageing research by choosing an adequate theoretical foundation. Comparative ageing research aims at describing and explaining the differences and similarities in thinking, emotion, and behaviour of ageing and old individuals living in diverse cultures and societies. This type of research strives to test the universality or cultural specificity of hypotheses and theories. Hence, the contexts of human development over the life course are of central relevance in this context. To realize such a demanding program, research projects have to be well planned and sufficiently financed. Moreover, comparative projects should involve expertise from diverse fields and disciplines. In any case, however, researchers are well advised to cooperate with political scientists or anthropologists familiar with comparative research. Theoretical and methodological problems have to be discussed thoroughly, and decisions with their consequences have to be understood by all participating scientists. However, this requires more time and effort as normally invested (and a “normal” project can be time consuming and exhaustive, already). In addition, members of international research groups have to be aware of specific communication problems, which may reflect cultural differences as well. Nevertheless, the promise of theoretical advancement of gerontology as well as the hope for culture specific interventions is combined with personal fulfilment in learning about cultural differences and similarities. Summarizing, we believe that theoretically based comparative ageing research is a promising area and should be pursued even more than it is the case at present. We hope that we were able to point to some requirements for comparative ageing research and hope that an ensuring discourse will help to cultivate a flourishing and growing field.