Intergenerational Solidarity in Romanian Transnational Families

  • Mihaela Hărăguș
  • Viorela Telegdi-Csetri
Part of the Palgrave Macmillan Studies in Family and Intimate Life book series (PSFL)


This chapter studies how intergenerational solidarity is remodelled in conditions of geographical distance between Romanian parents and their migrant adult children. We investigate associational, affectual, and functional intergenerational solidarity and the ways in which support is provided in transnational families: through direct provision with co-presence, direct provision at a distance, coordination, and delegation. The focus of our research is on elderly parents left behind, and for our investigation we use the qualitative methodology of semi-structured interviews. Results show that intergenerational relations remain multidimensional and certain dimensions continue to be fulfilled through direct provision only, such as associational and affectual solidarity. Functional solidarity can additionally circulate across the family network, and associational solidarity becomes particularly important through its potential for other forms of intergenerational solidarity.


  1. Baldassar, L. 2014. Too Sick to Nove: Distant “Crisis” Care in Transnational Families. International Review of Sociology 24: 391–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldassar, L., and L. Merla. 2014. Locating Transnational Care Circulation in Migration and Family Studies. In Transnational Families, Migration and the Circulation of Care: Understanding Mobility and Absence in Family Life, ed. L. Baldassar and L. Merla, 25–61. New York/Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Baldassar, L., and R. Wilding. 2014. Middle Class Transnational Caregiving: The Circulation of Care Between Family and Extended Kin Networks in the Global North. In Transnational Families, Migration and the Circulation of Care: Understanding Mobility and Absence in Family Life, ed. L. Baldassar and L. Merla, 235–253. New York/Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Baldassar, L., C. Baldock, and R. Wilding. 2007. Families Caring Across Borders: Migration, Ageing and Transnational Caregiving. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baldassar, L., M. Nedelcu, L. Merla, and R. Wilding. 2016. ICT-Based Co-presence in Transnational Families and Communities: Challenging the Premise of Face to-Face Proximity in Sustaining Relationships. Global Networks 16: 133–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bengtson, V.L. 2001. Beyond the Nuclear Family: The Increasing Importance of Multigenerational Bonds. Journal of Marriage and Family 63: 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bengtson, V.L., and R.E.L. Roberts. 1991. Intergenerational Solidarity in Aging Families: An Example of Formal Theory Construction. Journal of Marriage and Family 53: 856–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bordone, V., and H.A.G. de Valk. 2016. Intergenerational Support Among Migrant Families in Europe. European Journal of Ageing 13: 259–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown, R. 2016. Multiple Modes of Care: Internet and Migrant Caregiver Networks in Israel. Global Networks 16: 237–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dykstra, P.A., T. van den Broek, C. Mureșan, M. Hărăguș, P.-T. Hărăguș, A. Abramowska-Kmon, and I. Kotowska. 2013. State-of-the-Art Report Intergenerational Linkages in Families. FamiliesAndSocieties Working Paper Series 1/2013.Google Scholar
  11. Kilkey, M., and L. Merla. 2014. Situating Transnational Families’ Care-Giving Arrangements: The Role of Institutional Contexts. Global Networks 14: 210–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Krzyżowski, Ł. 2014. (Trans)national Intergenerational Care Contract. Attitudes and Practises of Transnational Families Toward Elderly Care. Studia Humanistyczne Agh 13: 103–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Merla, L. 2015. Salvadoran Migrants in Australia: An Analysis of Transnational Families’ Capability to Care Across Borders. International Migration 53: 153–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mureșan, C., and P.-T. Hărăguş. 2015. Norms of Filial Obligation and Actual Support to Parents in Central and Eastern Europe. Romanian Journal of Population Studies IX: 49–82.Google Scholar
  15. Nedelcu, M. 2012. Migrants’ New Transnational Habitus: Rethinking Migration Through a Cosmopolitan Lens in the Digital Age. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 38: 1339–1356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nedelcu, M., and M. Wyss. 2016. “Doing Family” Through ICT-Mediated Ordinary Co-presence: Transnational Communication Practices of Romanian Migrants in Switzerland. Global Networks 16: 202–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Saraceno, C., and W. Keck. 2010. Can We Identify Intergenerational Policy Regimes Europe? European Societies 12: 675–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Singh, S., and A. Cabraal. 2014. “Boomerang Remittances” and Circular Care: A Study of Indian Transnational Families in Australia. In Transnational Families, Migration and the Circulation of Care: Understanding Mobility and Absence in Family Life, ed. L. Baldassar and L. Merla, 220–235. New York/Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Szydlik, M. 2016. Sharing Lives. Adult Children and Parents. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mihaela Hărăguș
    • 1
  • Viorela Telegdi-Csetri
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Population StudiesBabeș-Bolyai UniversityCluj-NapocaRomania

Personalised recommendations