For the last ten years there is a discussion in the media and in social policy whether or not there will be a "war of generations" or an "intergenerational conflict". One important question which arises in this context is whether or not families will be willing or able to support and care for the older family members (Der Spiegel, 2005). Another question refers to the fact whether or not older people are an economic burden for the society (Motel-Klingebiel & Tesch-Römer, 2004; Schmähl, 2002). The answers to these questions from researchers in the field of social gerontology and/or social policy are clear. For example, in 2000 Attias-Donfut and Arber concluded in a book 'The Myth of Generational Conflict' that at the turn of the century, European societies did not show signs of generational conflict (see also Shanas, 1979). An equal statement was made by Baltes (2005) who points out that there is a psychological barrier which prevents a war of generations. When it comes to familiy solidarity and care and support for the elderly also most researchers and policy makers are - a least for the near future - quite optimistic (Kohli & Künemund, 2003).

But what are the reasons for a fear of intergenerational conflict and the collapse of family solidarity? What kind of developments can we expect for the future? What can social policy do to strengthen family solidarity and avoid a "war" of generations? Is a welfare state able to support a growing older population that is equitable to all generations and ages?

The aim of the chapter is to find answers to these questions by mapping out the generational contract within and outside the family in Germany. To do this I will first outline important socio-demographic trends. Secondly I examine the implications of these trends for solidarity within the family (micro level) in terms of economic, social and cultural exchanges. In a third step I describe the macro generational contract and then turn to the consequences the socio-demographic development will have for the relationship between the generations. Fourthly, in bringing these two levels together the issues will be looked at through a policy lens: I will formulate the challenges the German society has to face in the future for the micro and the macro level and try to outline the current policy debate.

First of all two important definitions: There are a number of definitions and meanings of "generation". It has been used to distinguish cohorts (people born in the same year or group of years), lineage (parent, grandparent, child), the length in years between parent and child or 'historical time' where people lived through the same 'historical' periods such as the Second World War. For an examination of intergenerational relationships on a micro level I refer to the definition of lineage and on macro level I refer to the definition of "generation" as members of different birth cohorts.

Due to declining birth rates and a longer life expectancy the population in Germany is ageing: 23% of the population is over the age of 60 at the moment (Eurostat, 2003). The fastest rate of growth is among those over 80 years of age. According to the data from the European Commission 3.6% of the German population is older than 80 years of age. Because the risk of becoming dependent and in need of care is especially high in advanced age, this group of older people is more likely to require health and welfare services. To sum up the demographic development, we can say that we observe a so called "threefold ageing" ("dreifaches Altern"; Tews, 1993): rising absolute number of older people, their relative proportion on the population as a whole and a rising number of the very elderly or "old-old". In addition, within the group of older people increasingly one finds a cultural differentiation. Germany is facing the fact that people with different ethnic backgrounds (especially migrant workers from Turkey or south of Europe) are aeging in these countries (Schopf & Naegele, 2005).

As one result families have now a "beanpole structure": a move from a pyramid shape with few living grandparents and many children to multiple generations of grandparents and great-grandparents, rather than large families of children and siblings within the same generation (BMFSFJ, 2003). An elongated changing structure means that support and help can go up and down the line but divorce, remarriage and childbearing complicate these generational patterns, as such exchanges are no longer dependent on biological or marriage ties. The changes to the family make any definition fraught with difficulty. Families are not necessarily a group of people any more who are connected biologically. Rather the family can be seen "... as an interdependent group system that may consist of the biological or adoptive and/or influential others" (p. xi, Smith, 1995). In other words: Families are becoming more complex.

Due to the two other megatrends "individualization" and "pluralisation" (Beck, 1986) we also observe changes in the behavior, attitudes and life style of people in Germany which also have consequences for the families and for the intergenerational relationship on the macro level. These changes - "individualization" refers to independence, privacy and post-materialist values and "pluralisation" to different form of living - are mirrored in a growing number of

• persons who live alone all their life (life long singles),

• never married and/or childless couples,

• divorces and remarriages,

• family members living at regional distances to each other and last but not least

• women in the labour force

Consequently, the issue of who takes care of members across the generations and within the family given the traditional carer role of women is of growing importance. But the trends mentioned above do not only have an effect on family relationships. Because a continuation of the demographic development - growing number of older people and declining number of younger people - is expected a for the future, problems for the social security systems and for public households are foreseeable (see below).

In the following I would like to examine the "status quo" with regard to support and help within families but also with regard to non-kin intergenerational contacts. First I turn to family relationships. In Germany there is much evidence that supports the fact that in older age caregiving and support rest within the family (Lowenstein & Ogg, 2003; Eurofamcare, 2005; BMFSJ, 2005; Szydlik, 2000).

A good example for intergenerational family support comes from the EU funded study OASIS were Germany was compared to other countries in relation to measures of solidarity, conflict and ambivalence (Lowenstein & Ogg, 2003). In this study adult children were asked whether or not they have provided (and received) any number of types of help to (and from) parents during the last year. As shown in table 1, the adult help rates are high in Germany: 83% of children reported that they have helped/supported parents in at least one of the listed domains during the past 12 months. Emotional support is clearly the dominant type of support between adult children and their older parents: 74% of adult children in Germany who have at least one parent aged 75 and above have provided emotional support to them. 53% of German parents do likewise in return. However, it should be noted that the children and parent perspective cannot be compared directly, because some parents may get (or give) help from (or to) several children. In addition, the parents included in the OASIS study are relatively old, so their ability to help their children is limited in some domains. Beside emotional support, financial support flows from older to younger generations. The finding supports the crowding-in hypothesis suggested by Kohli (1999) and Künemund and Rein (1999): Generous pensions may enable the older generation in Germany to contribute and reciprocate in family exchange, thereby encouraging, rather than discouraging, family ties and contacts.

But what expectations on adult children to provide support for elderly parents (filial norms) do people have in Germany? Based on a scale developed by Lee, Peek and Coward (1998) support for filial norms is measured in the OASIS study as the number of agreements with four statements

1. Adult children should live close to their parents so that they can help each other.

2. Adult children should be willing to sacrifice some of the things they want for their own children in order to support their aging parents.

3. Older people should be able to depend on their adult children to help them do the things they need to do.

4. Parents are entitled to some return for the sacrifices they have made.

Two statements refer to what adult children ought to do, and two articulate elderly parents' expectations. The results show, there is a minority who did not accept filial obligation norms, i.e. they did not agree with any of the four statements. A closer look at the actual expression of norms reveals the following results (see table 2): If the option of cohabition is concerned, 40,2% of German adult children support this statement. 55,2% of Germans are affirmative about the proposition that older people should be able to depend upon their children for help. On the other hand, 35,5% agree that children should provide support even at the expense of the wellbeing of their own children and 26,1% think that parents are entitled to some return.

In this context it is important to note, that Germany belongs to a more familistic tradition - here there are formal family obligations to provide support to parents and children. It must be taken into consideration that, from the perspective of potential users, professional care services just represent a "second choice" and that generally, especially with older persons, there is inhibition against, or even rejection of, professional care (Giese & Wiegel, 2000), so that they are used only if there are not other options (Schneekloth & Müller, 2000).

When it comes to preferences about the providers of long term help the OASIS data show that in comparison to other European countries Germany take an intermediate position. In this context it has to be kept in mind that subjective norms and care opportunities influence these preferences.

Norms are relatively easy to capture in surveys of intergenerational relations and solidarity. A more difficult concept to measure is that of ambivalence. Ambivalence can be defined as 'mixed feelings' for example, a parent feeling neither emotionally close nor distant from a child'. Szydlik (2000) points out that intergenerational relationships are in principle both:

The OASIS study found that ambivalent (and conflict) relationships were reflected during periods of transition in family life, particularly where older people were moving toward dependency and where older parents and adult children were attempting to negotiate roles. For Germany, the data show that the majority of parent-child relationships were either ambivalent or distant.

The kind and amount of help and support which is exchanged between the generations is influenced by different factors such as having children and/ or family members, geographical distance between family members, living arrangements and household composition, number of family members being in need of support and employment. For example, especially instrumental support can be given far easier when family members are living in the same household or in co-residence. At the same time the Austrian sociologists Rosenmayr and Köckeis (1965) formulated the hypothesis "Intimacy at a distance". According to them intergenerational co-residence reflects economic or occupational requirements, rather than emotional closeness between generations. Compelled by economic necessity, co-residence may be fraught with tensions. Instead, separate households may foster a high level of contact and assistance between generations.

In more recent German study (Kohli, Kuenemund, Motel & Szydlik, 2000), children (as well as other relatives) maintained separate households with generally dispersed families with only one child close by (within four miles). Regular contact (weekly or more) was maintained, crucially through the motor car and the telephone, confirming the hypothesis of "Intimacy at a distance". With the introduction of mobile technology, geographical proximity may no longer play the over-riding factor in contact and support between generations. It can be argued that globalization in this sense has compressed space and time yet the provision of 'hands-on' care remains a task constrained by distance.

One factor which can also hinder younger family members from support and care for their old relatives is gainful employment. However, German studies show that more and more (female) caregivers try to combine both - employment and eldercare (for an overview see Reichert, 2003). For example, 34% of all carers in employable age, i.e. between 15 and 64 years, are working full or part time (BMFSFJ, 2005).

Last but not least Blinkert and Klie (2000) found evidence for the fact that social class is also an important indicator for the willingness to provide family care. They come to the conclusion that this willingness is the highest among persons with a traditional working class background. As an explanation for this result Blinkert and Klie refer to the opportunity costs which result from the care of a family member: These costs vary in different social classes being relatively low in the working class.

One of the major changes in the study of intergenerational relations over the last twenty years has been the acknowledgement of the role of non kin. For those living alone without family non kin in the form of friends and neighbours play a crucial role (Reichert et al., 2003). However, the support from friends and neighbours is often of a different kind to that from families: Whereas friends mainly provide emotional support, neighbours help with instrumental task of every day life such as dealing with mail and packages or picking up groceries or "checking on" the nearby elderly resident.

Some studies show that friends were crucial in the support networks of middle class older people particularly in relation to confiding, and specially if they were childless and lacked intergenerational potential (Minnemann & Lehr, 1994; Wagner, Schütze & Lang, 1996). Friends however tend to be those within a peer group and of roughly the same age. The emergence of 'fictive kin' of different generations is a contemporary feature. A term used to refer to individuals that are unrelated by either birth or marriage, who have an emotionally significant relationship with another individual that would take on the characteristics of a family relationship. Such examples would be godparents or old family friends whom children call "aunt" and "uncle". We know very little about their contribution to and from older people.

In all, friendships are important elements in quality of life (Reichert & Weidekamp-Maicher. 2005). The absence of social relationships or low level of engagement is likely to have a detrimental influence on quality of life, on the health status and on well-being (Lehr & Thomae, 1987). Central to quality of life is the value attached to interdependence and being part of a community where reciprocal help and support is available. German older people do not only place great emphasis on emotional assistance and meaningful connections (Ferring & Filipp, 1999) but also on the maintenance of "threatened" values such as reciprocity, autonomy and self-sufficiency (Minnemann, 1994a).

Despite different household configurations neighbours also provide valuable support and play key roles in Germany in terms of providing intensive help as well as coordination of services. In some cases neighbours even become caregivers who provide personal even intimate care although many neighbours and friends see limits when it comes to nonkin caregiving. For example, most German nonkin caregivers are not willing to provide personal care or care for an older person who suffers from dementia (Reichert et al., 2003).

The importance of friends and neighbours in contemporary life of older people has led some commentators (Phillipson, Bernard, Phillips & Ogg, 2000) to comment that relationships are much more 'voluntaristic', giving people choice in their relationships. The implications for social policy in fostering such roles is critical if people are to have a choice of supports in later life. The challenge for the future therefore is to support intra generational as well as inter generational relationships.

In Germany - mainly as a reaction to the demographic development - , there also have been a lot of changes in the social security system and a strong cut in the social welfare budget. Against this background there has been a fundamental public discussion about the consequences of these changes and the shortage of resources - e.g., in the health care sector - for the relationship between generations (Schmähl, 2002). At one extreme the opinion is held that, in the long term, the younger generation will have no opportunities to shape things themselves, either in political or economic terms, since elderly people would be living at the expense of the young and would deprive them of their prospects (Gronemeyer, 1997). According to this view, the resulting conflict between old and young is determined by the fact that, in the experience of the young, older people, as the ones now ruling have used up everything that should have served as the basis of life in the future of the young. As a consequence a "war between generations" or the dissolution of the "intergenerational contract" seems possible.

The term "intergenerational contract" has been adopted to indicate the mutual, and in particular, material dependency and obligations of the different generations. It describes the agreement, either based on social values and norms or determined by law, whereby the middle generation provides financially both for children who are not yet in work and for elderly people who are no longer in work, in return for which they may hope for a similar provision to be made for them in old age. Although the intergenerational contract has traditionally been developed on an individual model it is crucial that this links 'generations'. Therefore, the modern form of intergenerational contract is a redistribution between social generations in the lifecycle, a good example for this is the financing of pension schemes. The relationship between age groups in society depends on the extent to which intergenerational solidarity is actually practiced and recognized as a social norm. However, like mentioned already, the lack of resources within welfare states and the challenges for states and families to balance care between them brings the issue of generational contract to the fore. Therefore in Germany there has been a discussion in the last years on how the solidarity of the generations can be safeguarded in future at times of demographic change and changing family structures. Or in other words: whether or not the so-called "intergenerational contract" will work in the future.

In the light of rising proportion of older people in the population as a whole, there is increasing talk of older people being an economic burden on younger people, which is reflected in terms like "the burden of old age". Pensions and saving for future generations of older people is a current topic of debate, one which can be seen to lead to potential conflict between generations. The same is true for the discussion on the costs of health and social care: The growing number of older persons is held responsible for what is called the "costs explosion" in this sector. In Germany this has led not only to a rise in the contribution in the health insurance but also to significant cuts in its benefits. In this connection, the dependency ratio of people older than 65 years to 20 to 64 years old is mentioned. It will increase from 27% in 2004 to 55% by 2050 (www.destatis.de). Therefore, the ambivalence discussed earlier on the micro-level of intergenerational relationships continues on the macro-level. Here too conflicts can arise in which the legitimacy of established distribution rations between generations is called into question (Motel-Klingebiel,& Tesch-Römer, 2004).

However, quantitative shifts in the relationship between age groups do not automatically mean that the intergenerational contract is in danger. Firstly, only if the generation capable of gainful employment were to assume that the younger generation was going to denounce the intergenerational contract would this lead to a major conflict between generations (Naegele & Schmidt, 1998). Secondly, it should be kept in mind that the problem of distribution in the welfare state can not be attributed to demographic change alone (Naegele & Schmidt, 1998, Schmähl, 2001). Thirdly, very often the political debate on economic activity is limited to employment. Elderly people are also economically active in many different ways:

• They add value by making financial resources available which they have accumulated in the course of their lives, and which can be used to finance investments.
• They carry out important work for their family members (see above)
• They are consumers
• They participate in the financing of public services, e.g., financing schools, higher education institutions etc. through their tax payments.

In addition, people fail to recognize that people pass through the different phases of life in the course of time and thus at times they are "net contributors" and at times "net beneficiaries" (Schmähl, 2001). Throughout it is important to consider a lifecourse perspective, which links all the phases of life. Although this has traditionally been developed on an individual model it is crucial that this links ?generations?. If the ambivalence is not to dissolve into a breakdown of solidarity between generations it is the particular tasks of politics to prevent insecurities on the part of the younger age groups, for example, with regard to old age pensions and to strengthen the confidence of the 20 to 50 year olds in the lasting validity of the solidarity pact (Rürup, 1999).

In this section I turn my attention to looking at some aspects of the policy debate. This debate is played out in the examples of community care policy for older people and through the work-life balance agenda ? to mention only two examples.

Care and independence: Independence has been the mantra that has been followed through a combination of ?community care? policy. This has been supported through recent policies such as the long term care insurance, alongside privatisation and a modernisation agenda in Germany over the last ten years. The concept of independence however has consequences for both family and intergenerational issues of solidarity. As I mentioned at the beginning of the chapter gender has a significant role to play in maintaining generational and family solidarity, which can be threatened by changes at state level to benefits and long term care designed to foster the concept of independence. The current debate on the funding for long term care has consequences for the family.

In Germany, the introduction of the long term care insurance gives indeed more independence to the frail older person to choose between institutional care, formal community-based services, a cash payment, or a combination of the latter two. Still with its aim to promote (informal) community care instead of institutional care and by paying cash allowance that the frail older person can use as he or she wishes the long term care insurance also puts pressure on families to care especially on women. Thus, one might argue, their freedom of choice and independence is restricted, or in other words: they feel a stronger commitment to care for family members from which it is hard to escape. This opinion it favoured by feminists who argue that the core problem of long term care in the community is the exploitation of women. In essence this has meant dependence on women in the family mocking the notion of independence for older people and the relatives that support them. The concept of interdependence is missing from policy debates. However this has not led to a breakdown in solidarity and the government, conscious that this needs to be strengthened, have introduced a number of initiatives to support the growing number of women who combine work with care of older people.

Work life balance: The ?Work-life Balance? debate has centred around the case for supporting carers either looking after older people or children. Despite the? sandwich generation? (ie. being ?caught in the middle? between parent care and child care) being an atypical experience at present (Evandrou & Glaser, 2004) for future cohorts this could be a realistic prospect. The implications for intergenerational solidarity and conflict may yet emerge unless policy takes a lifecourse approach and supports the women who have multiple breaks in their working lives to care for relatives. This counts especially for Germany: here the socio-political discussion on ?Work-life-Balance? still revolves round combining work and childcare. Hardly any effort is being made by politics to extent this issue to the support and care for older persons (Reichert & Naegele, 1999).

To make sure that there will not be ?a war of generations? ? neither on the micro- nor on the macro level ? the German society is confronted with different challenges. Some of the most important challenges are listed below:

New definition of family: There is no doubt that the definition of family and generation is changing. In Germany we not only have the nuclear family. Instead, we observe that families are becoming more complex and can take on many different forms (e.g., single mothers and fathers, patchwork-families, family members ?live apart together?, four and five generation families, divorced spouses who are still committed to each other). Social policy has to react to this development because such complexities have challenged the notion of a family contract. However it has to be noted that the role of policy in making order out of complexity can help or hinder families. Diverse does not mean dysfunctional. Changing family structure does not determine family function. Although evidence suggests that relationships within families are (still) strong, the notion that older generations would certainly be cared for by younger members of their families is no longer guaranteed. The German long term care insurance also took into consideration that it might not be family members who want or who are able to provide care for an older person. As mentioned above the care receiver also has the freedom of choice whether he or she wants to be cared for by family members, by friends and neighbours and/or by community care services. However social policy has to find more innovative ways to strengthen inter- and intragenerational solidarity because ?care for older people? is just one of many fields of generational solidarity. For example, older people support the younger generation and also their own generation within and outside the family in many different ways. This fact is not considered sufficiently by social policy and by young people. Also the increasing use of assistive technology in reproduction also poses particular issues for defining the family and for assessing the potential of generational transfers.

Role of social services and state: From the earlier mentioned OASIS (Lowenstein & OGG, 2003) study it also appears that policy should support a redefinition of the role of the family in care provision, allowing a mix in informal family care and formal service provision, but with the state as a more central role than a present. Access to services increased their use and was welcomed by all generations, with elderly people rather reluctant to receive family help than adult children were to provide it. Receiving help from the formal sector enable them to maintain their independence and autonomy. Services should, therefore, be more accessible to older people. Because of the interconnections between the formal and informal sectors the ambivalence which ? like mentioned already - also characterize the family relationships has to be addressed by social services. It will therefore be especially important in the future to organize formal social service and their financing in such a way that they form a framework conducive to stabilizing the relations between the generations based on solidarity. It also has to be kept in mind that social services are used by different generations, i.e. also by the very young generation of children and adolescents. Although we can expect ? due to the low birth rate ? a decreasing need for services for children and adolescents this development has to be accompanied by a qualitative increase and greater differentiation of requirements in particular.

Ethnic minority families: The increasing numbers of ethnic minority older people also challenge the concept of the ?intergenerational? contract. In Germany many migrant families are afflicted ? although slowly - by changes in family relationships and family oriented values and norms which endanger the traditionally strong intergenerational solidarity (BMFSFJ, 2001). In consequence, social policy has to focus on migrant families, too. For example, social services will have to face the challenge to provide differentiated assistance in the integration of migrants.

New definition of (inter)generational contract: An important challenge in the future is also defining what sort of (inter)generational contract and what sort of social policy we need to support a contract. The younger generation has many concerns (e.g., financial burden for with regard to old-age pension systems, damaged environmental resources, not enough opportunities for political expression) which have to be taken serious by policy. We need a policy which does not pass on pressing problems of today to subsequent generations. Rather policy has to be guided by the principle of intergenerational equity, i.e., ?no generation (?should) be deliberately or disadvantaged by another.? (www.srzg.de/was_wir_tun/positionspapier_generationenge.html)

Solidarity with the younger generation and the own generation outside the family: The change in intergenerational relationships within the families and the move away from traditional norms, means that in the future relationships outside families ? especially in old age ? will become increasingly important. Such relations can be fostered partly trough voluntary work. Voluntary work of older people for younger people and vice versa and for the own generation can be regarded as a supplementary resource, for example, for social services and this also applies to the exchange between generations.

Diversity of older people: Social policy has to increasingly recognize and react to the many different groups of older people (e.g., single women with out children living together, gay and lesbian relationships, older people with learning disabilities, older people with no or only fragile, social networks) and their different live situations and needs and wishes. Whether or not all these groups of older people receive support and care will depend on the future definition of ?family? because this in turn will influence political actions and measures available to them. Further, the facilitation of inter- and intragenerational support outside the family has to become an important socio-political goal (see above). However the engagement of every individual to do something for someone else is asked in this context, too.

The potential of older people: It should be mentioned again that it will become necessary to use the potential and competencies of older people not only for voluntary work but also in general. Never before have older people been on average in such good physical, psychological and intellectual condition, as materially secure and as active as they are today (Naegele & Rohleder, 2001). These increased resources and skills of older people, and their considerable amount of spare time has led to a debate they should be put to use in society. However, older people today already make a substantial contribution towards the cohesion of society. Additionally, considerations of productivity in old age must be matched to the many different life situations in old age. For example, many older people can not be or only to a limited extent socially productive for health reasons. Therefore, the social political framework conditions have to satisfy the needs of both the individual and the society in equal measures.

In addition to these challenges I would like to mention the following ones:

• Supporting women to juggle work and family life and to maintain a role as kin keepers without overload and defining the role of men in this context. Setting up measures to make it more possible to combine work and family life presents a special challenge for politicians, but also for industry.
• Avoiding generational war over issue such as financial support in retirement; health rationing etc.
• Maintaining the productivity of younger older people.

Attias-Donfut, C. & Arber, S. (2000) Equity and Solidarity across the Generations. In C. Attias-Donfut & S. Arber (eds.), The Myth of generational Conflict: The family and state in ageing societies. Routledge. London.

Bäcker, G., Bispink, R., Hofemann, K. & Naegele, G. (2000). Sozialpolitik und soziale Lage in Deutschland. Band 1. Westdeutscher Verlag: Opladen.

Baltes, P. B. (2005). Zukunft ist Alter. Paper presented in Schauspielhaus Zürich, Switzerland. 24.04.2005.

Beck, U. (1986). Risikogesellschaft. Suhrkamp: Frankfurt.

Blinkert, B. & Klie, Th. (2000). Pflegekulturelle Orientierungen und soziale Milieus: Ergebnisse einer Untersuchung über die sozial-strukturelle Verankerung von Solidarität. Sozialer Fortschritt, 10, 237-245.

Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen & Jugend (BMFSFS) (eds.) (2001. Alter und Gesellschaft. Dritter Altenbericht. Stellungnahme der Bundesregierung. Berlin.

Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen & Jugend (BMFSFS) (eds.) (2003). Die Familie im Spiegel der amtlichen Statistik. Berlin.

Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen & Jugend (BMFSFS) (eds.) (2005). Möglichkeiten und Grenzen selbständiger Lebensführung in Privathaushalten. Ergebnisse der Studie MuG III. Berlin.

Daatland, S.O. & Herlofson, K. (2003). ?Lost solidarity? or ?changed solidarity?: a comparative European view of normative family solidarity. Aging and Society, 23, 537-360.

Der Spiegel (2005). Wohin mit Oma? Pflege-Notstand in Deutschland, 19, 09.05.2005.

Esping-Anderson, G. (1999). Social foundations of postindustrial economics. Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Evandrou, M. & Glaser, K. C (2004) Family, work and quality of life: changing economic and social roles through the lifecourse, Ageing and Society 24, 5 p771-791.

Ferring, D. & Filipp, S.H. (1999). Soziale Netze im Alter. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 31, 127-137.

Giese, R. & Wiegel, D. (2000). Die häusliche Pflege und die Wirksamkeit von SGB XI-Gesetzliche Qualitätssicherung aus der Perspektive der Pflegehaushalte. Zeitschrift für Sozialreform, 46, 1023-1047.

Gronemeyer, R. (1997). Die Entfernung vom Wolfsrudel. Über den drohenden Krieg der Jungen gegen die Alten. Roro: Frankfurt.

Herlofson, K. & Daatland, S.O. (2001). The limits of intergenerational responsibility: values and preferences towards elder care in a comparative perspective. Paper presented at the 5^th European Congress of Sociology, Helsinki.

Hoff, A. (2005). Intergenerationale Familienbeziehungen im Wandel. In C. Tesch-Römer, H. Engstler & S. Wurm (eds.), Sozialer Wandel und individuelle Entwicklung in der zweiten Lebenshälfte. VS-Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften: Wiesbaden.

Kohli, M. (1999). Private and public transfers between generations: Linking the family and the state. European Societies, 1.

Kohli, M., Kuenemund, H., Motel, A. & Szydlik, M. (2000)  Generationenbeziehungen. In M. Kohli & H. Kuenemund (eds.). Die zweite Lebenshälfte. Gesellschaftliche Lage und Partizipation im Spiegel des Alters-Survey. Opladen: Leske & Budrich.

Kuenemund, H. & Rein, M. (1999). There is more to receiving than needing: theoretical arguments and empirical explorations of crowding in and crowding out. Ageing and Society, 19, 93-121.

Lorenz-Meyer, D. (2004) The Ambivalence of Parental Care Among Young German Adults In Pillemar, K. and Lüscher, K. (eds.) Intergenerational Ambivalences: New Perspectives on Parent-Child Relations in Later Life. Contemporary Perspectives in Family Research Vol 4. Elsevier Science Ltd. Oxford.

Lüscher K. & Lettke, F. (2004). Intergenerational Ambivalence: Methods, Measures, and Results of the Konstanz Study. In K. Pillemer & K. Lüscher (eds.). Intergenerational Ambivalences: Perspectives on Parent-Child Relations in Later Life. p. 153-179. Elsevier: Amsterdam.

Meyer, M. (2004). Eurofamcare. National Background Report for Germany. Institut für angewandte Pflegeforschung, University of Bremen. www.eurofamcare.de

Minnemann, E. (1994). Die Bedeutung sozialer Beziehungen für Lebenszufriedenheit im Alter. Roderer: Regensburg.

Minnemann, E. & Lehr, U. (1994). Der ältere Mensch in Familie und Gesellschaft. In E. Olbrich, K. Sames & A. Schramm (eds.). Kompendium für Gerontologie. Ein interdisziplinäres Handbuch für Forschung, Klinik und Praxis. Ecomed: Landsberg.

Motel-Klingebiel, A. & Tesch-Römer, A. (2004). Generationengerechtigkeit in der sozialen Sicherung. Anmerkungen sowie ausgewählte Literatur aus Sicht der angewandten Alternsforschung. DZA-Papier, Nr. 42: Berlin.

Naegele, G. & Schmidt, W. (1998). Anmerkungen zur Zukunft der Generationenbeziehungen. In L. Veelken, E. Gösken & M. Pfaff (eds.), Jung und Alt: Beiträge und Perspektiven zu intergenerativen Beziehungen, p. 89-122. Vincentz: Hannover.

Naegele, G. & Rohleder, Chr. (2001). Bürgerschaftliches Engagement und Freiwilligenarbeit im Alter ? individuelle Verpflichtung oder gesellschaftliche Gestaltungsaufgabe? Theorie und Praxis der Sozialen Arbeit.

Naegele, G. & Walker, A. (in press). Social protection: Incomes, poverty and the reform of the pension systems. Ageing and Society.  

Lowenstein and J. Ogg (Eds.) OASIS: Old Age and Autonomy: The role of Service Systems and Intergenerational Family Solidarity. Final Report, University of Haifa

Pahl, R. (2002) Towards a more significant sociology of friendships, European Journal of Sociology Vol 43: no 3, p410-423.

Phillipson, C, Bernard, M, Phillips, J. & Ogg, J (2000). The Family and Community Life of older People. Routledge: London.

Phillipson, C. Alhaq, E., Ullah, S. & Ogg, J. (2000b). Bangladeshi families in Bethnal Green, London. Older People, Ethnicity and Social Exclusion. In A. Warnes, L. Warren & M. Nolan (eds.), Care Services for Later Life: Transformations and Critiques, p. 273-290. Jessica Kingsley.

Reichert, M. (2003). Vereinbarkeit von Erwerbstätigkeit und Pflege: Ein Überblick zum neuesten Forschungsstand. In M. Reichert, N. Maly-Lukas & Chr. Schönknecht (eds.), Älter werdende und ältere Frauen heute - zur Vielfalt ihrer Lebenssituation, p. 123-148. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

Reichert, M. & Naegele, G. (1999). Balancing work and care in Germany. In V. Lechner & M. Neal (eds), Work and caring for the elderly: An international perspective. Washington: Taylor & Francis.

Reichert, M., Carell, A., Pearson, M. & Nocon, A. (2003). Informelle außerfamiliäre Unterstützungsnetzwerke älterer Menschen mit Hilfe- und Pflegebedarf. Eine deutsch-britische Vergleichsstudie. Lit-Verlag: Münster.

Reichert, M. & Weidekamp-Maicher, M. (2005). Germany: Quality of life in old age II. In A. Walker (ed.), Growing older in Europe, p. 159-178. Open University Press: Maidenhead.

Rosenmayr, L. & Köckeis, E. (1965). Umwelt und Familie alter Menschen. Luchterhand: Neuwied.

Rürup, B. (1999). Hält der Generationenvertrag? Soziale Sicherung im Alter. In A. Niederfranke, G. Naegele, E. Frahm (eds.), Funkkolleg Altern 2. Lebenslagen und Lebenswelten, soziale Sicherung und Altenpolitik. Westdeutscher Verlag: Opladen.

Schmähl, W. (2002). Leben die ?Alten? auf Kosten der ?Jungen?? Anmerkungen zur Belastungsverteilung zwischen ?Generationen? in einer alternden Bevölkerung aus ökonomischer Perspektive. Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie, 35, 304-314.

Schneekloth, U. & Müller, U. (2000). Wirkungen der Pflegeversicherung. Forschungsprojekt im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Gesundheit, durchgeführt von I+G Gesundheitsforschung, München und Infratest Sozialforschung. Nomos: München.

Schopf, C. & Naegele, G. (2005). Alter und Migration ? Ein Überblick. Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie, 6, 384-395.

Shanas, E. (1979). Social myth as hypothesis: the case of family relations of older people. The Gerontologist, 19, 3-9.

Szydlik, M. (2000). Lebenslange Solidarität? Leske & Budrich: Opladen.

Tews, H.P. (1993). Neue und alte Aspekte des Strukturwandels des Alters. In G. Naegele & H.P. Tews (eds.), Lebenslagen im Strukturwandel des Alters, p. 15-42. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

Wagner, M., Schütze, Y. & Lang, F. (1996). Soziale Beziehungen alter Menschen. In K.U. Mayer & P.B. Baltes (eds.), Die Berliner Altersstudie, p. 301-319. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

www.destatis.de

www.srzg.de/was_wir_tun/positionspapier_generationenge.html