Financial and Practical Kin Support in Sweden: Normative Guidelines and Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Sweden de-familialization is since several decades an established policy in the sense that the state has acquired a significant responsibility for the welfare of individuals, independent of the family he/she belongs to. In debates concerning the relations between support from the welfare state and the family one recurring statement is that in taking over the family responsibility, the state has contributed to the weakening of support between family generations in Swedish families. Results from a survey covering 2666 randomly chosen individuals from 18 years regarding intergenerational support partly supports this assumption. What then about practical support? To which extent is there a flow of practical support between kin and which are the determinants behind such support? The focus of the article will be on giving and reception of practical support to and by members of the family belonging to different generations. The questions asked are the role of needs, emotional closeness and family of origin for giving and receiving practical support. Financial support will also be discussed based on results from the same study. Indicators of closeness will be used in the analysis as well as experiences of disruption in families. Further, which motives are regarded as legitimate for giving and receiving support between kin members of different family types. We draw on theory of moral economy, reciprocity and gift giving in the analysis. Following the arguments within the framework of ‘moral economy’ we distinguish different motives behind material and practical support exchanged between family members. Transfers of material and practical support can be linked to needs of such support. It can also be linked to a normative obligation - a family member feels obliged to help. Further it can be linked to desires to keep the family together, which basically can be regarded as an aspect of obligation. Finally it can be linked to motives to sustain personal relationships through strengthening emotional ties.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".