Giving Unto Others: Private Financial Transfers and Hardship Among Families With Children
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12392 |
| Author | Colin Campbell,Natasha V. Pilkauskas,Christopher Wimer |
| Published date | 01 June 2017 |
| Date | 01 June 2017 |
N V. P University of Michigan
C C East Carolina University∗
C W Columbia University∗∗
Giving Unto Others: Private Financial Transfers and
Hardship Among Families With Children
Prior research shows that nancial assistance
from family and friends is an important source
of support for families with children. Research
on nancial transfers has largely focused on
the recipients of transfers, however. In this
study, using longitudinal data from the Fragile
Families and Child Wellbeing Study (n∼16,000
person-waves), the authors examine the asso-
ciation between the provision of nancial
assistance to family and friends and material
hardship. The results from pooled regression
and xed effects models indicate that provid-
ing nancial transfers is associated with an
increased risk of hardship. The most econom-
ically disadvantaged groups, single mothers,
those in the bottom income tertile, and Black
mothers are the most likely to experience hard-
ship after giving a transfer. These ndings have
important implications for understanding why
families may have difculty meeting basic and
essential needs and how social networks may
Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, Universityof
Michigan, 735 S. State Street, Ann Arbor,MI 48019
(npilkaus@umich.edu).
∗Department of Sociology, East Carolina University,
Brewster 407A, Greenville, NC 27858.
∗∗Center on Poverty and Social Policy, Columbia
University,1255 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY
10027.
Key Words: economic well-being, fragile families, kin,
low-income families, poverty, social support.
exacerbate the challenges of escaping poverty
and establishing economic self-sufciency.
Despite substantial progress during the past
50 years in the ght against poverty (Fox,
Wimer, Garnkel, Kaushal, & Waldfogel, 2015;
Wimer, Fox, Garnkel, Kaushal, & Waldfogel,
2016), poverty rates in the United States remain
troublingly high (DeNavas-Walt & Proctor,
2015; Short, 2015), especially among fami-
lies with children. Many families experience
material hardship or an inability to meet basic
or essential needs such as purchasing food or
housing (Nelson, 2011; Short, 2005). Material
hardships are common (Neckerman, Garnkel,
Teitler, Waldfogel, & Wimer, 2016), measure
real deprivations (Federman et al., 1996), and
have been linked with outcomes such as depres-
sion, poor health, and child behavior problems
(Gershoff, Aber, Raver, & Lennon, 2007; Hein
& Iceland, 2009; Yoo, Slack, & Holl, 2009).
Understanding the roots of families’ inabilities
to meet basic and essential needs is critical for
understanding how to further reduce poverty
and hardship.
One understudied potential contributor to
material hardships suffered by families involves
their networks of kin and nonkin. Long lines of
research support the notion that these networks
are critical for allowing low-income families
to survive and get by in the face of chronic
shortages of resources, especially when public
Journal of Marriage and Family 79 (June 2017): 705–722 705
DOI:10.1111/jomf.12392
706 Journal of Marriage and Family
safety nets may be inadequate or declining (Edin
& Lein, 1997; Halpern-Meekin, Edin, Tach, &
Sykes, 2015; Seefeldt & Sandstrom, 2015;
Stack, 1974). Families may support each other
strategically knowing that support networks
often operate reciprocally such that support
given today can be expected to yield potential
sources of support given back tomorrow (Offer,
2012). Similarly, families may support each
other because of shared norms or notions of kin,
without the expectation of reciprocity (e.g., an
incarcerated family member; Braman, 2007).
Research on kin networks and nancial transfers
in kin and nonkin networks has largely focused
on the recipients of support (e.g., Couch, Daly,
& Wolf, 1999; Fingerman, Miller, Birditt, &
Zarit, 2009; Hurd, Smith, & Zissimopoulos,
2011). We know little about the provision of
nancial support to others and even less about
how providing support may affect the material
well-being of the givers of transfers.
Using longitudinal data from the Frag-
ile Families and Child Wellbeing Study
(FFCWS; http://www.fragilefamilies.princeton
.edu/documentation), this article investigates
whether the provision of private nancial
transfers is related to an increased risk of the
experience of material hardship. Although we
cannot examine why people provide transfers,
these data are especially useful because they
provide us with longitudinal information on
both the provision of private nancial trans-
fers and material hardship. These data also
provide us with a large, representative sample
of low-income families in large urban areas.
Low-income families’ networks may be in
greater need of nancial support than those of
higher income families, especially when public
safety nets are unavailable or insufcient. We
focus on families with young children because
the experience of material hardship may be par-
ticularly detrimental to children’s development
(Gershoff et al., 2007; Hein, London, & Scott,
2011; Zilanawala & Pilkauskas, 2012). Specif-
ically, we examine the following questions: (a)
Is providing private nancial transfers linked
with material hardship among families with
young children? (b) Do the associations vary by
type of material hardship (food, housing, bill,
utility, or medical)? (c) Are there differences
in the associations by household income level,
race and ethnicity, or relationship status? To the
extent that the provision of nancial support is
harmful to the families that give and if lower
income or more nancially precarious popula-
tions are most at risk, this research will help
us understand low-income families’ ability to
establish self-sufciency.
B
Private Financial Transfers and Material
Hardship
Why might the provision of private nancial
transfers (PFTs) be linked to material hardships?
Both altruism theory and reciprocal exchange
theory suggest that families might provide
transfers even if it is detrimental to their own
well-being. Altruism theory posits that family
members provide nancial transfers to aid kin
because of intrinsic or normative values around
supporting kin (Becker, 1974). Thus, concern
for one’s own kin may lead families to provide
PFTs even when it may increase their own risk
of experiencing material hardship. Reciprocal
exchange theory suggests that PFT provision
functions as an exchange (Bernheim, Shleifer, &
Summers, 1985). In this framework, individuals
may be obliged to reciprocate PFTs because
of previous transfers or may provide transfers
even if it has some detrimental impacts on
economic well-being because they expect to
receive support later if needed.
Although reciprocal exchange theory empha-
sizes the exchange nature of the relationship,
these exchanges are inherently social and shaped
by social inuence and norms (Blau, 1964). This
is particularly clear in work on kinscripts, a
related perspective that examines how family
dynamics are shaped by shared beliefs, contexts,
and histories (Stack & Burton, 1993). Accord-
ing to research on kinscripts and consistent with
reciprocal exchange theory, individuals may be
compelled to provide assistance even when they
cannot afford the expense because of cultural
norms, family relationships, and an expectation
to prioritize broader family well-being.
Research evidence supports both the altruism
and reciprocal exchange perspectives (Light &
McGarry, 2004). In Stack’s (1974) foundational
ethnographic study of a disadvantaged African
American community, families adapted to a lack
of resources through large and complex support
networks based on friendship and family.Stack’s
work highlighted that exchanges were an inte-
gral part of daily life that allowed families to
cope with poverty but also created hardship. In
To continue reading
Request your trial