Advertisement

Journal of Population Economics

, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp 309–346 | Cite as

The intra-family division of bequests and bequest motives: empirical evidence from a survey on Japanese households

  • Junya Hamaaki
  • Masahiro Hori
  • Keiko Murata
Original Paper
  • 77 Downloads

Abstract

The division of bequests among family members differs sharply between Japan and the USA. Whereas in the USA, bequests tend to be divided equally among decedents’ children, they tend to be divided unequally in Japan. We start by arguing that certain legal and institutional aspects, which are not present in Japan, lead to equal bequests in the USA. We then investigate unequal patterns of bequest division in Japan to understand parental bequest motives. Utilizing institutional characteristics that are specific to Japan allows us to examine parental motives. We find that while the patterns of bequest division look generally consistent with most of the parental bequest motives suggested in the literature, such as the dynastic and the strategic motive, parents do not necessarily bequeath more to economically disadvantaged children.

Keywords

Bequests Dynastic motive Altruism Strategic motive Japan 

JEL classification

D13 D31 D64 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper forms part of the authors’ microdata-based research on household consumption in Japan at the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI). We thank two anonymous referees and the responsible editor, Alessandro Cigno, for their useful comments and suggestions. We are also grateful to Charles Yuji Horioka, Misuzu Azuma, Mizuki Nakama, and Shigeki Kunieda for their helpful comments on the earlier draft of this paper. We thank Koichiro Iwamoto, Takeshi Niizeki, Fumihiko Suga, and other ESRI colleagues for their comments and support. A special thanks goes to Mariko Nishimura for her kind advice on inheritance-related matters in the USA and to Ralph Paprzycki for his excellent English editing service. The views expressed in this paper are personal and do not represent those of any of the institutions with which we are affiliated.

Funding

This study was funded by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers 16K17136 (Hamaaki) and 15K03398 (Murata).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Apps P, Rees Rs (2007) Cooperative household models, IZA Discussion Paper Series, No. 3127Google Scholar
  2. Arrondel L, Masson A, Pestieau P (1997) Bequest and inheritance: empirical issues and France-U.S. comparison. In: Erreygers G, Vandevelde T (eds) Is inheritance legitimate? Ethical and economic aspects of wealth transfers. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, pp 89–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barro RJ (1974) Are government bonds net wealth? J Polit Econ 82(6):1095–1117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Becker GS (1974) A theory of social interactions. J Polit Econ 82(6):1063–1094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Behrman JR, Rosenzweig MR (2004) Parental allocations to children: new evidence on bequest differences among siblings. Rev Econ Stat 86(2):637–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernheim BD, Severinov S (2003) Bequests as signals: an explanation for the equal division puzzle. J Polit Econ 111(4):733–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bernheim BD, Shleifer A, Summers LH (1985) The strategic bequest motive. J Polit Econ 93(6):1045–1076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown M (2006) Informal care and the division of end-of-life transfers. J Hum Resour 41(1):191–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chang Y-M, Luo Z (2015) Endogenous division rules as a family constitution: strategic altruistic transfers and sibling competition. J Popul Econ 28(1):173–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cheng Z, Woolley F (2001) A Cournot-Nash model of family decision making. Econ J 111(474):722–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cigno A (1993) Intergenerational transfers without altruism: family, market and state. Eur J Polit Econ 9(4):505–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cigno A (2006) A constitutional theory of the family. J Popul Econ 19(2):259–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cigno A, Giannelli GC, Rosati FC, Vuri D (2007) Is there such a thing as a family constitution? A test based on credit rationing. Rev Econ Househ 4(3):183–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cox D (1987) Motives for private income transfers. J Polit Econ 95(3):508–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cox D, Rank MR (1992) Inter-vivos transfers and intergenerational exchange. Rev Econ Stat 74(2):305–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dunn TA, Phillips JW (1997) The timing and division of parental transfers to children. Econ Lett 54(2):135–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Farmer A, Horowitz AW (2010) Mobility, information, and bequest: the ‘other side’ of the equal division puzzle. J Popul Econ 23(1):121–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hochguertel S, Ohlsson H (2009) Compensatory inter vivos gifts. J Appl Econ 24(6):993–1023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hori, Masahiro, Koichiro Iwamoto, Junya Hamaaki, and Keiko Murata (2013a) Family and lifestyle survey: objectives, features of the 2011 survey, and questionnaire, PIE/CIS Discussion Paper Series, No. 588Google Scholar
  20. Hori, Masahiro, Koichiro Iwamoto, Takeshi Niizeki, Junya Hamaaki, and Keiko Murata (2013b) The second ‘family and lifestyle survey’: objectives, features of the survey, and questionnaire, PIE/CIS Discussion Paper Series, No. 607Google Scholar
  21. Horioka CY (1984) The applicability of the life-cycle hypothesis of saving to Japan. Kyoto University Economics Review 54(2):31–56Google Scholar
  22. Horioka CY (2002) Are the Japanese selfish, altruistic or dynastic? Jpn Econ Rev 53(1):26–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Horioka CY (2014) Are Americans and Indians more altruistic than the Japanese and Chinese? Evidence from a new international survey of bequest plans. Rev Econ Househ 12(3):411–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Horioka, Charles Yuji, Emin Gahramanov, Aziz Hayat, and Xueli Tang (2016) Why do children take care of their elderly parents? Are the Japanese any different? NBER Working Paper, No. 22245Google Scholar
  25. Joulfaian D (2004) Gift taxes and lifetime transfers: time series evidence. J Public Econ 88(9–10):1917–1929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Joulfaian D (2005) Choosing between gifts and bequests: how taxes affect the timing of wealth transfers. J Public Econ 89(11–12):2069–2091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Joulfaian D, McGarry K (2004) Estate and gift tax incentives and inter vivos giving. Natl Tax J 57(2):429–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Light A, McGarry K (2004) Why parents play favorites: explanations for unequal bequests. Am Econ Rev 94(5):1669–1681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McElroy MB, Horney MJ (1981) Nash-bargained household decisions: toward a generalization of the theory of demand. Int Econ Rev 22(2):333–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McGarry K (1999) Inter vivos transfers and intended bequests. J Public Econ 73(3):321–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McGarry K (2000) Behavioral responses to the estate tax: inter vivos giving. Natl Tax J 53(4):913–932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Menchik PL (1980) Primogeniture, equal sharing, and the U.S. distribution of wealth. Q J Econ 94(2):299–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Menchik PL (1988) Unequal estate division: is it altruism, reverse altruism, or simply noise? In: Kessler D, Masson A (eds) Modeling the accumulation and distribution of wealth. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 105–116Google Scholar
  34. Norton EC, Taylor DH, Jr. (2005) Inter-vivos transfers and exchange, J Aging Soc Policy, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 63–82Google Scholar
  35. Norton EC, Van Houtven CH (2006) Inter-vivos transfers and exchange. Southern Econ J 73(1):157–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ohlsson, Henry (2007) The equal division puzzle—empirical evidence on intergenerational transfers in Sweden, Uppsala Universitet, Working Paper 2007:10Google Scholar
  37. Poterba J (2001) Estate and gift taxes and incentives for inter vivos giving in the US. J Public Econ 79(1):237–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Slavík C, Wiseman K (2018) Tough love for lazy kids: dynamic insurance and equal bequests. Rev Econ Dynam 27:64–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wilhelm MO (1996) Bequest behavior and the effect of heirs’ earnings: testing the altruistic model of bequests. Am Econ Rev 86(4):874–892Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Economic and Social Research Institute, Cabinet OfficeChiyoda-kuJapan
  2. 2.Faculty of EconomicsHosei UniversityMachida CityJapan
  3. 3.Asian Public Policy Program, School of International and Public PolicyHitotsubashi UniversityChiyoda-kuJapan
  4. 4.Graduate School of ManagementTokyo Metropolitan UniversityHachioji CityJapan

Personalised recommendations