Joint Programming Initiative

More Years, Better Lives

The Potential and Challenges of Demographic Change

Generations and Gender Survey (GGS)
Generations and Gender Survey (GGS)

Topic
Education and Learning
Health and Performance
Social Systems and Welfare
Work and Productivity
Housing, Urban Development and Mobility
Public Attitudes towards Older Age
Social, Civic and Cultural Engagement
Wellbeing
Intergenerational Relationships
Relevance for this Topic
Country Europe
URL
More Topics

Governance

Contact information

Tom Emery, GGP Project Manager (For contact purposes)
Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute (NIDI)
Lange Houtstraat 19
2511 CV The Hague
Netherlands
Phone: + 31 (0)70 3565262
Email: Ggp(at)nidi.nl
Url: http://www.ggp-i.org/

Timeliness, transparency

The time between data collection and publication depends on the country, but on average it takes about 2 to 3 years.

Type of data


Survey

Type of Study

Longitude survey: long-term study of the same sample


The GGS follows a panel design, collecting the information of the same individuals at three-year intervals.

Data gathering method

Telephone interview (CATI)

Face-to-face interview (CAPI, PAPI)

Self-administered questionnaire


The data gathering method varied by country.

Type of data


Survey

Type of Study

Longitude survey: long-term study of the same sample


The GGS follows a panel design, collecting the information of the same individuals at three-year intervals.

Data gathering method

Telephone interview (CATI)

Face-to-face interview (CAPI, PAPI)

Self-administered questionnaire


The data gathering method varied by country.

Type of data


Survey

Type of Study

Longitude survey: long-term study of the same sample


The GGS follows a panel design, collecting the information of the same individuals at three-year intervals.

Data gathering method

Telephone interview (CATI)

Face-to-face interview (CAPI, PAPI)

Self-administered questionnaire


The data gathering method varied by country.

Type of data


Survey

Type of Study

Longitude survey: long-term study of the same sample


The GGS follows a panel design, collecting the information of the same individuals at three-year intervals.

Data gathering method

Telephone interview (CATI)

Face-to-face interview (CAPI, PAPI)

Self-administered questionnaire


The data gathering method varied by country.

Type of data


Survey

Type of Study

Longitude survey: long-term study of the same sample


The GGS follows a panel design, collecting the information of the same individuals at three-year intervals.

Data gathering method

Telephone interview (CATI)

Face-to-face interview (CAPI, PAPI)

Self-administered questionnaire


The data gathering method varied by country.

Type of data


Survey

Type of Study

Longitude survey: long-term study of the same sample


The GGS follows a panel design, collecting the information of the same individuals at three-year intervals.

Data gathering method

Telephone interview (CATI)

Face-to-face interview (CAPI, PAPI)

Self-administered questionnaire


The data gathering method varied by country.

Type of data


Survey

Type of Study

Longitude survey: long-term study of the same sample


The GGS follows a panel design, collecting the information of the same individuals at three-year intervals.

Data gathering method

Telephone interview (CATI)

Face-to-face interview (CAPI, PAPI)

Self-administered questionnaire


The data gathering method varied by country.

Type of data


Survey

Type of Study

Longitude survey: long-term study of the same sample


The GGS follows a panel design, collecting the information of the same individuals at three-year intervals.

Data gathering method

Telephone interview (CATI)

Face-to-face interview (CAPI, PAPI)

Self-administered questionnaire


The data gathering method varied by country.

Type of data


Survey

Type of Study

Longitude survey: long-term study of the same sample


The GGS follows a panel design, collecting the information of the same individuals at three-year intervals.

Data gathering method

Telephone interview (CATI)

Face-to-face interview (CAPI, PAPI)

Self-administered questionnaire


The data gathering method varied by country.


Access to data


Basic tabulations and analysis are available online after registration. Only users with a research project can apply for microdata files. The received proposals will be reviewed for relevance to research. Registration and submission of signed agreements are required.

Conditions of access


Immediate free online data access, after registration. Access to microdata is granted for research purposes free of charge.


2-3 Months


Anonymised microdata for research purposes. Registered users can use the online data tools for basic tabulations and analysis. Currently, Wave 1 data are publicly available for 15 countries, and Wave 2 data for five countries.


STATA & SPSS


Data and documentation are available in English.

Access to data


Basic tabulations and analysis are available online after registration. Only users with a research project can apply for microdata files. The received proposals will be reviewed for relevance to research. Registration and submission of signed agreements are required.

Conditions of access


Immediate free online data access, after registration. Access to microdata is granted for research purposes free of charge.


2-3 Months


Anonymised microdata for research purposes. Registered users can use the online data tools for basic tabulations and analysis. Currently, Wave 1 data are publicly available for 15 countries, and Wave 2 data for five countries.


STATA & SPSS


Data and documentation are available in English.

Access to data


Basic tabulations and analysis are available online after registration. Only users with a research project can apply for microdata files. The received proposals will be reviewed for relevance to research. Registration and submission of signed agreements are required.

Conditions of access


Immediate free online data access, after registration. Access to microdata is granted for research purposes free of charge.


2-3 Months


Anonymised microdata for research purposes. Registered users can use the online data tools for basic tabulations and analysis. Currently, Wave 1 data are publicly available for 15 countries, and Wave 2 data for five countries.


STATA & SPSS


Data and documentation are available in English.

Access to data


Basic tabulations and analysis are available online after registration. Only users with a research project can apply for microdata files. The received proposals will be reviewed for relevance to research. Registration and submission of signed agreements are required.

Conditions of access


Immediate free online data access, after registration. Access to microdata is granted for research purposes free of charge.


2-3 Months


Anonymised microdata for research purposes. Registered users can use the online data tools for basic tabulations and analysis. Currently, Wave 1 data are publicly available for 15 countries, and Wave 2 data for five countries.


STATA & SPSS


Data and documentation are available in English.

Access to data


Basic tabulations and analysis are available online after registration. Only users with a research project can apply for microdata files. The received proposals will be reviewed for relevance to research. Registration and submission of signed agreements are required.

Conditions of access


Immediate free online data access, after registration. Access to microdata is granted for research purposes free of charge.


2-3 Months


Anonymised microdata for research purposes. Registered users can use the online data tools for basic tabulations and analysis. Currently, Wave 1 data are publicly available for 15 countries, and Wave 2 data for five countries.


STATA & SPSS


Data and documentation are available in English.

Access to data


Basic tabulations and analysis are available online after registration. Only users with a research project can apply for microdata files. The received proposals will be reviewed for relevance to research. Registration and submission of signed agreements are required.

Conditions of access


Immediate free online data access, after registration. Access to microdata is granted for research purposes free of charge.


2-3 Months


Anonymised microdata for research purposes. Registered users can use the online data tools for basic tabulations and analysis. Currently, Wave 1 data are publicly available for 15 countries, and Wave 2 data for five countries.


STATA & SPSS


Data and documentation are available in English.

Access to data


Basic tabulations and analysis are available online after registration. Only users with a research project can apply for microdata files. The received proposals will be reviewed for relevance to research. Registration and submission of signed agreements are required.

Conditions of access


Immediate free online data access, after registration. Access to microdata is granted for research purposes free of charge.


2-3 Months


Anonymised microdata for research purposes. Registered users can use the online data tools for basic tabulations and analysis. Currently, Wave 1 data are publicly available for 15 countries, and Wave 2 data for five countries.


STATA & SPSS


Data and documentation are available in English.

Access to data


Basic tabulations and analysis are available online after registration. Only users with a research project can apply for microdata files. The received proposals will be reviewed for relevance to research. Registration and submission of signed agreements are required.

Conditions of access


Immediate free online data access, after registration. Access to microdata is granted for research purposes free of charge.


2-3 Months


Anonymised microdata for research purposes. Registered users can use the online data tools for basic tabulations and analysis. Currently, Wave 1 data are publicly available for 15 countries, and Wave 2 data for five countries.


STATA & SPSS


Data and documentation are available in English.

Access to data


Basic tabulations and analysis are available online after registration. Only users with a research project can apply for microdata files. The received proposals will be reviewed for relevance to research. Registration and submission of signed agreements are required.

Conditions of access


Immediate free online data access, after registration. Access to microdata is granted for research purposes free of charge.


2-3 Months


Anonymised microdata for research purposes. Registered users can use the online data tools for basic tabulations and analysis. Currently, Wave 1 data are publicly available for 15 countries, and Wave 2 data for five countries.


STATA & SPSS


Data and documentation are available in English.


Coverage


Sample size of 9,000 respondents per country on average, per wave Wave 1: At least one wave has been conducted in 19 countries, with microdata on more than 157,000 individuals. Data available for the following countries: Australia: collection years: 2005/06; reference year: 2005; sample size: 8,161 individuals Austria: collection years: 2008/09; reference year: 2009; sample size: 5,000 individuals Belgium: collection years: 2008/19; reference year: 2009; sample size: 7,163 individuals Bulgaria: collection years: 2004/05; reference year: 2004; sample size: 12,858 individuals Estonia: collection years: 2004/05; reference year: 2005; sample size: 7,855 individuals France: collection year: 2005; reference year: 2005; sample size: 10,079 individuals Georgia: collection year: 2006; reference year: 2006; sample size: 10,000 individuals Germany: collection year: 2005; reference year 2005; sample size: 10,017 individuals Germany – Turkish sub-sample: collection year: 2006; reference year: 2006; sample size: 4,045 individuals Hungary: collection year: 2001/02; reference year: 2005; sample size: 13,540 individuals Italy: collection year: 2003/04; reference year: 2004; sample size: 9,570 individuals Lithuania: collection year: 2006; reference year: 2006; sample size: 10,036 individuals The Netherlands: collection year: 2002/04; reference year: 2003; sample size: 8,161 individuals Norway: collection year: 2007/08; reference year: 2007; sample size: 14,881 individuals Romania: collection year: 2005; reference year: 2005; sample size: 11,986 individuals Russian Federation: collection year: 2004/08; reference year: 2004; sample size: 11,261 individuals Wave 2: At least twelve countries have conducted two waves of the GGS. Data available for: Bulgaria: collection year: 2007 France: collection year: 2008 Georgia: collection year: 2009 Germany: collection year: 2008/09 Germany – Turkish sub-sample: collection year: 2006 The Netherlands: collection year: 2006/07 Wave 3: Conducted in France and the Netherlands.


2003 for the homogenized sample


Stratification methods varied by country.


Random sample (varies by country) representing the non-institutionalised population. The base used varied by country: Census data, Population Registries, Random Samples, Household Surveys, Postal addresses.


NUTS 3


Population aged 18-79


Central survey topics are fertility, partnership, transition to adulthood, economic activity, as well as the intergenerational and gender relations between people expressed in care relations or the organization of paid and unpaid work. The GGS focuses on relationships and how they change over time. This includes partners (both cohabiting and non –cohabiting) at the time of the survey, as well as a full relationship history. Data on this ranges from attitudes and relationship quality through to the distribution of household tasks and care giving. In addition, there is some information regarding sexual activity and family planning. There is also a full fertility history and information on resident, non-resident, step, adopted and deceased children. The intergenerational relationships are focused on the middle generation (adult children), but there are a number of indicators of relationships with parents. In addition to this, data is also collected on cohabitation intentions, relationship quality indicators, and questions relating to attitudes and values. To complement these, the survey also carries information on employment status and history, income, housing status and conditions, immigration status, ethnicity, education history and a number of other social indicators.


• Aasve, A., Arpino, B., & Goisis, A. “Grandparenting and mothers’ labour force participation: A comparative analysis using the Generations and Gender Survey”. Demographic Research 27 (2012): 53-84. • Albertini, M., & Mencarini, L. “Childlessness and Support Networks in Later Life: New Pressures on Familistic Welfare States?”. Journal of Family Issues 6 (2012):1-17. • Almets, K., et al. “Self-reported activity limitations among the population aged 20-79 in Estonia: a cross-sectional study”. European Journal of Public Health 21 (1) (2011): 49-55. • Balbo, N., & Mills, M. “The effects of social capital and social pressure on the intention to have a second or third child in France, Germany, and Bulgaria, 2004–05”. Population Studies 65 (3) (2011): 1-17. • Billingsley, S., Sakkeus, L., & Puur, A. “Jobs, Careers, and Becoming a Parent under State Socialist and Free Market Conditions”. Working Paper, 6(6), Stockholm University Linnaeus Center on Social Policy and Family Dynamics in Europe, SPaDE (2012). • Daatland, S., Herlofson, K., & Lima, I. “Balancing generations: on the strength and character of family norms in the West and East of Europe”. Ageing and Society 31 (2011): 1159-1179. • Daatland, S., Slagsvold, B., & Lima, A. "Population ageing, intergenerational solidarity and the family-welfare state balance: A comparative exploration. In: How Generations and Gender Shape Demographic Change: Towards policies based on better knowledge. United Nations (2009): 127-138. • de Jong Gierveld, J., & van Tilburg, T. “The De Jong Gierveld short scales for emotional and social loneliness: tested on data from 7 countries in the UN generations and gender surveys”. European Journal of Ageing 7 (2010):121–130. • Dykstra, P. “Older adult loneliness: myths and realities”. European Journal of Ageing. 6 (2) (2009): 91–100. • Dykstra, P. A., & Fokkema, T. “Norms of Filial Obligation in the Netherlands”. Population 67(1) (2012): 97-122. • Dykstra, P. Intergenerational relationships in ageing societies. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Working Group on Ageing. 3 (2009): 19. • Gierveld, J., Dykstra, P., & Schenk, N. “Living arrangements, intergenerational support types and older adult loneliness in Eastern and Western Europe”. Demographic Research 27 (2012): 167-200. • Heylen, L., Mortelmans, D., Hermans, M., & Boudiny, K. “The intermediate effect of geographic proximity on intergenerational support: A comparison of France and Bulgaria”. Demographic Research 27 (2012): 455-486. • Ivanova, K., Kalmijn, M., & Uunk, W. ”The Effect of Children on Men’s and Women’s Chances of Re-partnering in a European Context”. European Journal of Population/Revue europénne de Dèmographie 29 (2013): 1-28. • Jappens, M., & van Bavel, J. “Regional family cultures and child care by grandparents in Europe”. Demographic Research 27 (2012): 85-120. • Kreyenfeld, M., Andersson, G., & Pailhé, A. “Economic uncertainty and family dynamics in Europe (Introduction to special issue of Demographic Research)”. MPIDR Working Paper WP-2012-006, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research (2012). • Kreyenfeld, Mi., et al. "Fertility and union histories from German GGS data: some critical reflections." Rostock: Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research Working Paper 23 (2010). • Lappegård, T., & Veenstra, M. "Life-course, generation and gender. LOGG 2007." Document 34 (2010). • Lappegård, T., Kjeldstad, R., & Skarðhamar, T. “The division of housework. Does regional context matter?” Statistics Norway, Research Department, 689(689) (2012). • Moor, N., & Komter, A. "Family ties and depression across the life course: An Overview”. Demographic Research 27 (2012): 201-232. • Moor, N., & Komter, A. “ The impact of family structure and disruption on intergenerational emotional exchange in Eastern Europe”. European Journal of Ageing 9(2) (2012): 155-167. • Neyer, G., Lappegård, T., & Vignoli, D. “Gender equality and fertility: Which equality matters?” European Journal of Population/Revue europénne de Dèmographie, 29 (2012): 1-28. • Puur, A., Sakkeus, L., Poldma, A., & Herm, A. "Intergenerational family constellations in contemporary Europe: Evidence from the Generations and Gender Survey." Demographic Research 25 (4) (2011): 135-172. • Vikat, A., Beets, G., Billari, F., et al. “Generations and Gender Survey: Towards a better understanding of relationships and processes in the life course”. Demographic Research 17 (2007): 389-440. • Wiik, K. A., Keizer, R., & Lappegård, T. “Relationship Quality in Marital and Cohabiting Unions Across Europe”. Journal of Marriage and Family 74 (3) (2012): 389–398.

Coverage


Sample size of 9,000 respondents per country on average, per wave Wave 1: At least one wave has been conducted in 19 countries, with microdata on more than 157,000 individuals. Data available for the following countries: Australia: collection years: 2005/06; reference year: 2005; sample size: 8,161 individuals Austria: collection years: 2008/09; reference year: 2009; sample size: 5,000 individuals Belgium: collection years: 2008/19; reference year: 2009; sample size: 7,163 individuals Bulgaria: collection years: 2004/05; reference year: 2004; sample size: 12,858 individuals Estonia: collection years: 2004/05; reference year: 2005; sample size: 7,855 individuals France: collection year: 2005; reference year: 2005; sample size: 10,079 individuals Georgia: collection year: 2006; reference year: 2006; sample size: 10,000 individuals Germany: collection year: 2005; reference year 2005; sample size: 10,017 individuals Germany – Turkish sub-sample: collection year: 2006; reference year: 2006; sample size: 4,045 individuals Hungary: collection year: 2001/02; reference year: 2005; sample size: 13,540 individuals Italy: collection year: 2003/04; reference year: 2004; sample size: 9,570 individuals Lithuania: collection year: 2006; reference year: 2006; sample size: 10,036 individuals The Netherlands: collection year: 2002/04; reference year: 2003; sample size: 8,161 individuals Norway: collection year: 2007/08; reference year: 2007; sample size: 14,881 individuals Romania: collection year: 2005; reference year: 2005; sample size: 11,986 individuals Russian Federation: collection year: 2004/08; reference year: 2004; sample size: 11,261 individuals Wave 2: At least twelve countries have conducted two waves of the GGS. Data available for: Bulgaria: collection year: 2007 France: collection year: 2008 Georgia: collection year: 2009 Germany: collection year: 2008/09 Germany – Turkish sub-sample: collection year: 2006 The Netherlands: collection year: 2006/07 Wave 3: Conducted in France and the Netherlands.


2003 for the homogenized sample


Stratification methods varied by country.


Random sample (varies by country) representing the non-institutionalised population. The base used varied by country: Census data, Population Registries, Random Samples, Household Surveys, Postal addresses.


NUTS 3


Population aged 18-79


Central survey topics are fertility, partnership, transition to adulthood, economic activity, as well as the intergenerational and gender relations between people expressed in care relations or the organization of paid and unpaid work. The GGS focuses on relationships and how they change over time. This includes partners (both cohabiting and non –cohabiting) at the time of the survey, as well as a full relationship history. Data on this ranges from attitudes and relationship quality through to the distribution of household tasks and care giving. In addition, there is some information regarding sexual activity and family planning. There is also a full fertility history and information on resident, non-resident, step, adopted and deceased children. The intergenerational relationships are focused on the middle generation (adult children), but there are a number of indicators of relationships with parents. In addition to this, data is also collected on cohabitation intentions, relationship quality indicators, and questions relating to attitudes and values. To complement these, the survey also carries information on employment status and history, income, housing status and conditions, immigration status, ethnicity, education history and a number of other social indicators.


• Aasve, A., Arpino, B., & Goisis, A. “Grandparenting and mothers’ labour force participation: A comparative analysis using the Generations and Gender Survey”. Demographic Research 27 (2012): 53-84. • Albertini, M., & Mencarini, L. “Childlessness and Support Networks in Later Life: New Pressures on Familistic Welfare States?”. Journal of Family Issues 6 (2012):1-17. • Almets, K., et al. “Self-reported activity limitations among the population aged 20-79 in Estonia: a cross-sectional study”. European Journal of Public Health 21 (1) (2011): 49-55. • Balbo, N., & Mills, M. “The effects of social capital and social pressure on the intention to have a second or third child in France, Germany, and Bulgaria, 2004–05”. Population Studies 65 (3) (2011): 1-17. • Billingsley, S., Sakkeus, L., & Puur, A. “Jobs, Careers, and Becoming a Parent under State Socialist and Free Market Conditions”. Working Paper, 6(6), Stockholm University Linnaeus Center on Social Policy and Family Dynamics in Europe, SPaDE (2012). • Daatland, S., Herlofson, K., & Lima, I. “Balancing generations: on the strength and character of family norms in the West and East of Europe”. Ageing and Society 31 (2011): 1159-1179. • Daatland, S., Slagsvold, B., & Lima, A. "Population ageing, intergenerational solidarity and the family-welfare state balance: A comparative exploration. In: How Generations and Gender Shape Demographic Change: Towards policies based on better knowledge. United Nations (2009): 127-138. • de Jong Gierveld, J., & van Tilburg, T. “The De Jong Gierveld short scales for emotional and social loneliness: tested on data from 7 countries in the UN generations and gender surveys”. European Journal of Ageing 7 (2010):121–130. • Dykstra, P. “Older adult loneliness: myths and realities”. European Journal of Ageing. 6 (2) (2009): 91–100. • Dykstra, P. A., & Fokkema, T. “Norms of Filial Obligation in the Netherlands”. Population 67(1) (2012): 97-122. • Dykstra, P. Intergenerational relationships in ageing societies. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Working Group on Ageing. 3 (2009): 19. • Gierveld, J., Dykstra, P., & Schenk, N. “Living arrangements, intergenerational support types and older adult loneliness in Eastern and Western Europe”. Demographic Research 27 (2012): 167-200. • Heylen, L., Mortelmans, D., Hermans, M., & Boudiny, K. “The intermediate effect of geographic proximity on intergenerational support: A comparison of France and Bulgaria”. Demographic Research 27 (2012): 455-486. • Ivanova, K., Kalmijn, M., & Uunk, W. ”The Effect of Children on Men’s and Women’s Chances of Re-partnering in a European Context”. European Journal of Population/Revue europénne de Dèmographie 29 (2013): 1-28. • Jappens, M., & van Bavel, J. “Regional family cultures and child care by grandparents in Europe”. Demographic Research 27 (2012): 85-120. • Kreyenfeld, M., Andersson, G., & Pailhé, A. “Economic uncertainty and family dynamics in Europe (Introduction to special issue of Demographic Research)”. MPIDR Working Paper WP-2012-006, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research (2012). • Kreyenfeld, Mi., et al. "Fertility and union histories from German GGS data: some critical reflections." Rostock: Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research Working Paper 23 (2010). • Lappegård, T., & Veenstra, M. "Life-course, generation and gender. LOGG 2007." Document 34 (2010). • Lappegård, T., Kjeldstad, R., & Skarðhamar, T. “The division of housework. Does regional context matter?” Statistics Norway, Research Department, 689(689) (2012). • Moor, N., & Komter, A. "Family ties and depression across the life course: An Overview”. Demographic Research 27 (2012): 201-232. • Moor, N., & Komter, A. “ The impact of family structure and disruption on intergenerational emotional exchange in Eastern Europe”. European Journal of Ageing 9(2) (2012): 155-167. • Neyer, G., Lappegård, T., & Vignoli, D. “Gender equality and fertility: Which equality matters?” European Journal of Population/Revue europénne de Dèmographie, 29 (2012): 1-28. • Puur, A., Sakkeus, L., Poldma, A., & Herm, A. "Intergenerational family constellations in contemporary Europe: Evidence from the Generations and Gender Survey." Demographic Research 25 (4) (2011): 135-172. • Vikat, A., Beets, G., Billari, F., et al. “Generations and Gender Survey: Towards a better understanding of relationships and processes in the life course”. Demographic Research 17 (2007): 389-440. • Wiik, K. A., Keizer, R., & Lappegård, T. “Relationship Quality in Marital and Cohabiting Unions Across Europe”. Journal of Marriage and Family 74 (3) (2012): 389–398.

Coverage


Sample size of 9,000 respondents per country on average, per wave Wave 1: At least one wave has been conducted in 19 countries, with microdata on more than 157,000 individuals. Data available for the following countries: Australia: collection years: 2005/06; reference year: 2005; sample size: 8,161 individuals Austria: collection years: 2008/09; reference year: 2009; sample size: 5,000 individuals Belgium: collection years: 2008/19; reference year: 2009; sample size: 7,163 individuals Bulgaria: collection years: 2004/05; reference year: 2004; sample size: 12,858 individuals Estonia: collection years: 2004/05; reference year: 2005; sample size: 7,855 individuals France: collection year: 2005; reference year: 2005; sample size: 10,079 individuals Georgia: collection year: 2006; reference year: 2006; sample size: 10,000 individuals Germany: collection year: 2005; reference year 2005; sample size: 10,017 individuals Germany – Turkish sub-sample: collection year: 2006; reference year: 2006; sample size: 4,045 individuals Hungary: collection year: 2001/02; reference year: 2005; sample size: 13,540 individuals Italy: collection year: 2003/04; reference year: 2004; sample size: 9,570 individuals Lithuania: collection year: 2006; reference year: 2006; sample size: 10,036 individuals The Netherlands: collection year: 2002/04; reference year: 2003; sample size: 8,161 individuals Norway: collection year: 2007/08; reference year: 2007; sample size: 14,881 individuals Romania: collection year: 2005; reference year: 2005; sample size: 11,986 individuals Russian Federation: collection year: 2004/08; reference year: 2004; sample size: 11,261 individuals Wave 2: At least twelve countries have conducted two waves of the GGS. Data available for: Bulgaria: collection year: 2007 France: collection year: 2008 Georgia: collection year: 2009 Germany: collection year: 2008/09 Germany – Turkish sub-sample: collection year: 2006 The Netherlands: collection year: 2006/07 Wave 3: Conducted in France and the Netherlands.


2003 for the homogenized sample


Stratification methods varied by country.


Random sample (varies by country) representing the non-institutionalised population. The base used varied by country: Census data, Population Registries, Random Samples, Household Surveys, Postal addresses.


NUTS 3


Population aged 18-79


Central survey topics are fertility, partnership, transition to adulthood, economic activity, as well as the intergenerational and gender relations between people expressed in care relations or the organization of paid and unpaid work. The GGS focuses on relationships and how they change over time. This includes partners (both cohabiting and non –cohabiting) at the time of the survey, as well as a full relationship history. Data on this ranges from attitudes and relationship quality through to the distribution of household tasks and care giving. In addition, there is some information regarding sexual activity and family planning. There is also a full fertility history and information on resident, non-resident, step, adopted and deceased children. The intergenerational relationships are focused on the middle generation (adult children), but there are a number of indicators of relationships with parents. In addition to this, data is also collected on cohabitation intentions, relationship quality indicators, and questions relating to attitudes and values. To complement these, the survey also carries information on employment status and history, income, housing status and conditions, immigration status, ethnicity, education history and a number of other social indicators.


• Aasve, A., Arpino, B., & Goisis, A. “Grandparenting and mothers’ labour force participation: A comparative analysis using the Generations and Gender Survey”. Demographic Research 27 (2012): 53-84. • Albertini, M., & Mencarini, L. “Childlessness and Support Networks in Later Life: New Pressures on Familistic Welfare States?”. Journal of Family Issues 6 (2012):1-17. • Almets, K., et al. “Self-reported activity limitations among the population aged 20-79 in Estonia: a cross-sectional study”. European Journal of Public Health 21 (1) (2011): 49-55. • Balbo, N., & Mills, M. “The effects of social capital and social pressure on the intention to have a second or third child in France, Germany, and Bulgaria, 2004–05”. Population Studies 65 (3) (2011): 1-17. • Billingsley, S., Sakkeus, L., & Puur, A. “Jobs, Careers, and Becoming a Parent under State Socialist and Free Market Conditions”. Working Paper, 6(6), Stockholm University Linnaeus Center on Social Policy and Family Dynamics in Europe, SPaDE (2012). • Daatland, S., Herlofson, K., & Lima, I. “Balancing generations: on the strength and character of family norms in the West and East of Europe”. Ageing and Society 31 (2011): 1159-1179. • Daatland, S., Slagsvold, B., & Lima, A. "Population ageing, intergenerational solidarity and the family-welfare state balance: A comparative exploration. In: How Generations and Gender Shape Demographic Change: Towards policies based on better knowledge. United Nations (2009): 127-138. • de Jong Gierveld, J., & van Tilburg, T. “The De Jong Gierveld short scales for emotional and social loneliness: tested on data from 7 countries in the UN generations and gender surveys”. European Journal of Ageing 7 (2010):121–130. • Dykstra, P. “Older adult loneliness: myths and realities”. European Journal of Ageing. 6 (2) (2009): 91–100. • Dykstra, P. A., & Fokkema, T. “Norms of Filial Obligation in the Netherlands”. Population 67(1) (2012): 97-122. • Dykstra, P. Intergenerational relationships in ageing societies. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Working Group on Ageing. 3 (2009): 19. • Gierveld, J., Dykstra, P., & Schenk, N. “Living arrangements, intergenerational support types and older adult loneliness in Eastern and Western Europe”. Demographic Research 27 (2012): 167-200. • Heylen, L., Mortelmans, D., Hermans, M., & Boudiny, K. “The intermediate effect of geographic proximity on intergenerational support: A comparison of France and Bulgaria”. Demographic Research 27 (2012): 455-486. • Ivanova, K., Kalmijn, M., & Uunk, W. ”The Effect of Children on Men’s and Women’s Chances of Re-partnering in a European Context”. European Journal of Population/Revue europénne de Dèmographie 29 (2013): 1-28. • Jappens, M., & van Bavel, J. “Regional family cultures and child care by grandparents in Europe”. Demographic Research 27 (2012): 85-120. • Kreyenfeld, M., Andersson, G., & Pailhé, A. “Economic uncertainty and family dynamics in Europe (Introduction to special issue of Demographic Research)”. MPIDR Working Paper WP-2012-006, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research (2012). • Kreyenfeld, Mi., et al. "Fertility and union histories from German GGS data: some critical reflections." Rostock: Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research Working Paper 23 (2010). • Lappegård, T., & Veenstra, M. "Life-course, generation and gender. LOGG 2007." Document 34 (2010). • Lappegård, T., Kjeldstad, R., & Skarðhamar, T. “The division of housework. Does regional context matter?” Statistics Norway, Research Department, 689(689) (2012). • Moor, N., & Komter, A. "Family ties and depression across the life course: An Overview”. Demographic Research 27 (2012): 201-232. • Moor, N., & Komter, A. “ The impact of family structure and disruption on intergenerational emotional exchange in Eastern Europe”. European Journal of Ageing 9(2) (2012): 155-167. • Neyer, G., Lappegård, T., & Vignoli, D. “Gender equality and fertility: Which equality matters?” European Journal of Population/Revue europénne de Dèmographie, 29 (2012): 1-28. • Puur, A., Sakkeus, L., Poldma, A., & Herm, A. "Intergenerational family constellations in contemporary Europe: Evidence from the Generations and Gender Survey." Demographic Research 25 (4) (2011): 135-172. • Vikat, A., Beets, G., Billari, F., et al. “Generations and Gender Survey: Towards a better understanding of relationships and processes in the life course”. Demographic Research 17 (2007): 389-440. • Wiik, K. A., Keizer, R., & Lappegård, T. “Relationship Quality in Marital and Cohabiting Unions Across Europe”. Journal of Marriage and Family 74 (3) (2012): 389–398.

Coverage


Sample size of 9,000 respondents per country on average, per wave Wave 1: At least one wave has been conducted in 19 countries, with microdata on more than 157,000 individuals. Data available for the following countries: Australia: collection years: 2005/06; reference year: 2005; sample size: 8,161 individuals Austria: collection years: 2008/09; reference year: 2009; sample size: 5,000 individuals Belgium: collection years: 2008/19; reference year: 2009; sample size: 7,163 individuals Bulgaria: collection years: 2004/05; reference year: 2004; sample size: 12,858 individuals Estonia: collection years: 2004/05; reference year: 2005; sample size: 7,855 individuals France: collection year: 2005; reference year: 2005; sample size: 10,079 individuals Georgia: collection year: 2006; reference year: 2006; sample size: 10,000 individuals Germany: collection year: 2005; reference year 2005; sample size: 10,017 individuals Germany – Turkish sub-sample: collection year: 2006; reference year: 2006; sample size: 4,045 individuals Hungary: collection year: 2001/02; reference year: 2005; sample size: 13,540 individuals Italy: collection year: 2003/04; reference year: 2004; sample size: 9,570 individuals Lithuania: collection year: 2006; reference year: 2006; sample size: 10,036 individuals The Netherlands: collection year: 2002/04; reference year: 2003; sample size: 8,161 individuals Norway: collection year: 2007/08; reference year: 2007; sample size: 14,881 individuals Romania: collection year: 2005; reference year: 2005; sample size: 11,986 individuals Russian Federation: collection year: 2004/08; reference year: 2004; sample size: 11,261 individuals Wave 2: At least twelve countries have conducted two waves of the GGS. Data available for: Bulgaria: collection year: 2007 France: collection year: 2008 Georgia: collection year: 2009 Germany: collection year: 2008/09 Germany – Turkish sub-sample: collection year: 2006 The Netherlands: collection year: 2006/07 Wave 3: Conducted in France and the Netherlands.


2003 for the homogenized sample


Stratification methods varied by country.


Random sample (varies by country) representing the non-institutionalised population. The base used varied by country: Census data, Population Registries, Random Samples, Household Surveys, Postal addresses.


NUTS 3


Population aged 18-79


Central survey topics are fertility, partnership, transition to adulthood, economic activity, as well as the intergenerational and gender relations between people expressed in care relations or the organization of paid and unpaid work. The GGS focuses on relationships and how they change over time. This includes partners (both cohabiting and non –cohabiting) at the time of the survey, as well as a full relationship history. Data on this ranges from attitudes and relationship quality through to the distribution of household tasks and care giving. In addition, there is some information regarding sexual activity and family planning. There is also a full fertility history and information on resident, non-resident, step, adopted and deceased children. The intergenerational relationships are focused on the middle generation (adult children), but there are a number of indicators of relationships with parents. In addition to this, data is also collected on cohabitation intentions, relationship quality indicators, and questions relating to attitudes and values. To complement these, the survey also carries information on employment status and history, income, housing status and conditions, immigration status, ethnicity, education history and a number of other social indicators.


• Aasve, A., Arpino, B., & Goisis, A. “Grandparenting and mothers’ labour force participation: A comparative analysis using the Generations and Gender Survey”. Demographic Research 27 (2012): 53-84. • Albertini, M., & Mencarini, L. “Childlessness and Support Networks in Later Life: New Pressures on Familistic Welfare States?”. Journal of Family Issues 6 (2012):1-17. • Almets, K., et al. “Self-reported activity limitations among the population aged 20-79 in Estonia: a cross-sectional study”. European Journal of Public Health 21 (1) (2011): 49-55. • Balbo, N., & Mills, M. “The effects of social capital and social pressure on the intention to have a second or third child in France, Germany, and Bulgaria, 2004–05”. Population Studies 65 (3) (2011): 1-17. • Billingsley, S., Sakkeus, L., & Puur, A. “Jobs, Careers, and Becoming a Parent under State Socialist and Free Market Conditions”. Working Paper, 6(6), Stockholm University Linnaeus Center on Social Policy and Family Dynamics in Europe, SPaDE (2012). • Daatland, S., Herlofson, K., & Lima, I. “Balancing generations: on the strength and character of family norms in the West and East of Europe”. Ageing and Society 31 (2011): 1159-1179. • Daatland, S., Slagsvold, B., & Lima, A. "Population ageing, intergenerational solidarity and the family-welfare state balance: A comparative exploration. In: How Generations and Gender Shape Demographic Change: Towards policies based on better knowledge. United Nations (2009): 127-138. • de Jong Gierveld, J., & van Tilburg, T. “The De Jong Gierveld short scales for emotional and social loneliness: tested on data from 7 countries in the UN generations and gender surveys”. European Journal of Ageing 7 (2010):121–130. • Dykstra, P. “Older adult loneliness: myths and realities”. European Journal of Ageing. 6 (2) (2009): 91–100. • Dykstra, P. A., & Fokkema, T. “Norms of Filial Obligation in the Netherlands”. Population 67(1) (2012): 97-122. • Dykstra, P. Intergenerational relationships in ageing societies. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Working Group on Ageing. 3 (2009): 19. • Gierveld, J., Dykstra, P., & Schenk, N. “Living arrangements, intergenerational support types and older adult loneliness in Eastern and Western Europe”. Demographic Research 27 (2012): 167-200. • Heylen, L., Mortelmans, D., Hermans, M., & Boudiny, K. “The intermediate effect of geographic proximity on intergenerational support: A comparison of France and Bulgaria”. Demographic Research 27 (2012): 455-486. • Ivanova, K., Kalmijn, M., & Uunk, W. ”The Effect of Children on Men’s and Women’s Chances of Re-partnering in a European Context”. European Journal of Population/Revue europénne de Dèmographie 29 (2013): 1-28. • Jappens, M., & van Bavel, J. “Regional family cultures and child care by grandparents in Europe”. Demographic Research 27 (2012): 85-120. • Kreyenfeld, M., Andersson, G., & Pailhé, A. “Economic uncertainty and family dynamics in Europe (Introduction to special issue of Demographic Research)”. MPIDR Working Paper WP-2012-006, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research (2012). • Kreyenfeld, Mi., et al. "Fertility and union histories from German GGS data: some critical reflections." Rostock: Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research Working Paper 23 (2010). • Lappegård, T., & Veenstra, M. "Life-course, generation and gender. LOGG 2007." Document 34 (2010). • Lappegård, T., Kjeldstad, R., & Skarðhamar, T. “The division of housework. Does regional context matter?” Statistics Norway, Research Department, 689(689) (2012). • Moor, N., & Komter, A. "Family ties and depression across the life course: An Overview”. Demographic Research 27 (2012): 201-232. • Moor, N., & Komter, A. “ The impact of family structure and disruption on intergenerational emotional exchange in Eastern Europe”. European Journal of Ageing 9(2) (2012): 155-167. • Neyer, G., Lappegård, T., & Vignoli, D. “Gender equality and fertility: Which equality matters?” European Journal of Population/Revue europénne de Dèmographie, 29 (2012): 1-28. • Puur, A., Sakkeus, L., Poldma, A., & Herm, A. "Intergenerational family constellations in contemporary Europe: Evidence from the Generations and Gender Survey." Demographic Research 25 (4) (2011): 135-172. • Vikat, A., Beets, G., Billari, F., et al. “Generations and Gender Survey: Towards a better understanding of relationships and processes in the life course”. Demographic Research 17 (2007): 389-440. • Wiik, K. A., Keizer, R., & Lappegård, T. “Relationship Quality in Marital and Cohabiting Unions Across Europe”. Journal of Marriage and Family 74 (3) (2012): 389–398.

Coverage


Sample size of 9,000 respondents per country on average, per wave Wave 1: At least one wave has been conducted in 19 countries, with microdata on more than 157,000 individuals. Data available for the following countries: Australia: collection years: 2005/06; reference year: 2005; sample size: 8,161 individuals Austria: collection years: 2008/09; reference year: 2009; sample size: 5,000 individuals Belgium: collection years: 2008/19; reference year: 2009; sample size: 7,163 individuals Bulgaria: collection years: 2004/05; reference year: 2004; sample size: 12,858 individuals Estonia: collection years: 2004/05; reference year: 2005; sample size: 7,855 individuals France: collection year: 2005; reference year: 2005; sample size: 10,079 individuals Georgia: collection year: 2006; reference year: 2006; sample size: 10,000 individuals Germany: collection year: 2005; reference year 2005; sample size: 10,017 individuals Germany – Turkish sub-sample: collection year: 2006; reference year: 2006; sample size: 4,045 individuals Hungary: collection year: 2001/02; reference year: 2005; sample size: 13,540 individuals Italy: collection year: 2003/04; reference year: 2004; sample size: 9,570 individuals Lithuania: collection year: 2006; reference year: 2006; sample size: 10,036 individuals The Netherlands: collection year: 2002/04; reference year: 2003; sample size: 8,161 individuals Norway: collection year: 2007/08; reference year: 2007; sample size: 14,881 individuals Romania: collection year: 2005; reference year: 2005; sample size: 11,986 individuals Russian Federation: collection year: 2004/08; reference year: 2004; sample size: 11,261 individuals Wave 2: At least twelve countries have conducted two waves of the GGS. Data available for: Bulgaria: collection year: 2007 France: collection year: 2008 Georgia: collection year: 2009 Germany: collection year: 2008/09 Germany – Turkish sub-sample: collection year: 2006 The Netherlands: collection year: 2006/07 Wave 3: Conducted in France and the Netherlands.


2003 for the homogenized sample


Stratification methods varied by country.


Random sample (varies by country) representing the non-institutionalised population. The base used varied by country: Census data, Population Registries, Random Samples, Household Surveys, Postal addresses.


NUTS 3


Population aged 18-79


Central survey topics are fertility, partnership, transition to adulthood, economic activity, as well as the intergenerational and gender relations between people expressed in care relations or the organization of paid and unpaid work. The GGS focuses on relationships and how they change over time. This includes partners (both cohabiting and non –cohabiting) at the time of the survey, as well as a full relationship history. Data on this ranges from attitudes and relationship quality through to the distribution of household tasks and care giving. In addition, there is some information regarding sexual activity and family planning. There is also a full fertility history and information on resident, non-resident, step, adopted and deceased children. The intergenerational relationships are focused on the middle generation (adult children), but there are a number of indicators of relationships with parents. In addition to this, data is also collected on cohabitation intentions, relationship quality indicators, and questions relating to attitudes and values. To complement these, the survey also carries information on employment status and history, income, housing status and conditions, immigration status, ethnicity, education history and a number of other social indicators.


• Aasve, A., Arpino, B., & Goisis, A. “Grandparenting and mothers’ labour force participation: A comparative analysis using the Generations and Gender Survey”. Demographic Research 27 (2012): 53-84. • Albertini, M., & Mencarini, L. “Childlessness and Support Networks in Later Life: New Pressures on Familistic Welfare States?”. Journal of Family Issues 6 (2012):1-17. • Almets, K., et al. “Self-reported activity limitations among the population aged 20-79 in Estonia: a cross-sectional study”. European Journal of Public Health 21 (1) (2011): 49-55. • Balbo, N., & Mills, M. “The effects of social capital and social pressure on the intention to have a second or third child in France, Germany, and Bulgaria, 2004–05”. Population Studies 65 (3) (2011): 1-17. • Billingsley, S., Sakkeus, L., & Puur, A. “Jobs, Careers, and Becoming a Parent under State Socialist and Free Market Conditions”. Working Paper, 6(6), Stockholm University Linnaeus Center on Social Policy and Family Dynamics in Europe, SPaDE (2012). • Daatland, S., Herlofson, K., & Lima, I. “Balancing generations: on the strength and character of family norms in the West and East of Europe”. Ageing and Society 31 (2011): 1159-1179. • Daatland, S., Slagsvold, B., & Lima, A. "Population ageing, intergenerational solidarity and the family-welfare state balance: A comparative exploration. In: How Generations and Gender Shape Demographic Change: Towards policies based on better knowledge. United Nations (2009): 127-138. • de Jong Gierveld, J., & van Tilburg, T. “The De Jong Gierveld short scales for emotional and social loneliness: tested on data from 7 countries in the UN generations and gender surveys”. European Journal of Ageing 7 (2010):121–130. • Dykstra, P. “Older adult loneliness: myths and realities”. European Journal of Ageing. 6 (2) (2009): 91–100. • Dykstra, P. A., & Fokkema, T. “Norms of Filial Obligation in the Netherlands”. Population 67(1) (2012): 97-122. • Dykstra, P. Intergenerational relationships in ageing societies. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Working Group on Ageing. 3 (2009): 19. • Gierveld, J., Dykstra, P., & Schenk, N. “Living arrangements, intergenerational support types and older adult loneliness in Eastern and Western Europe”. Demographic Research 27 (2012): 167-200. • Heylen, L., Mortelmans, D., Hermans, M., & Boudiny, K. “The intermediate effect of geographic proximity on intergenerational support: A comparison of France and Bulgaria”. Demographic Research 27 (2012): 455-486. • Ivanova, K., Kalmijn, M., & Uunk, W. ”The Effect of Children on Men’s and Women’s Chances of Re-partnering in a European Context”. European Journal of Population/Revue europénne de Dèmographie 29 (2013): 1-28. • Jappens, M., & van Bavel, J. “Regional family cultures and child care by grandparents in Europe”. Demographic Research 27 (2012): 85-120. • Kreyenfeld, M., Andersson, G., & Pailhé, A. “Economic uncertainty and family dynamics in Europe (Introduction to special issue of Demographic Research)”. MPIDR Working Paper WP-2012-006, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research (2012). • Kreyenfeld, Mi., et al. "Fertility and union histories from German GGS data: some critical reflections." Rostock: Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research Working Paper 23 (2010). • Lappegård, T., & Veenstra, M. "Life-course, generation and gender. LOGG 2007." Document 34 (2010). • Lappegård, T., Kjeldstad, R., & Skarðhamar, T. “The division of housework. Does regional context matter?” Statistics Norway, Research Department, 689(689) (2012). • Moor, N., & Komter, A. "Family ties and depression across the life course: An Overview”. Demographic Research 27 (2012): 201-232. • Moor, N., & Komter, A. “ The impact of family structure and disruption on intergenerational emotional exchange in Eastern Europe”. European Journal of Ageing 9(2) (2012): 155-167. • Neyer, G., Lappegård, T., & Vignoli, D. “Gender equality and fertility: Which equality matters?” European Journal of Population/Revue europénne de Dèmographie, 29 (2012): 1-28. • Puur, A., Sakkeus, L., Poldma, A., & Herm, A. "Intergenerational family constellations in contemporary Europe: Evidence from the Generations and Gender Survey." Demographic Research 25 (4) (2011): 135-172. • Vikat, A., Beets, G., Billari, F., et al. “Generations and Gender Survey: Towards a better understanding of relationships and processes in the life course”. Demographic Research 17 (2007): 389-440. • Wiik, K. A., Keizer, R., & Lappegård, T. “Relationship Quality in Marital and Cohabiting Unions Across Europe”. Journal of Marriage and Family 74 (3) (2012): 389–398.

Coverage


Sample size of 9,000 respondents per country on average, per wave Wave 1: At least one wave has been conducted in 19 countries, with microdata on more than 157,000 individuals. Data available for the following countries: Australia: collection years: 2005/06; reference year: 2005; sample size: 8,161 individuals Austria: collection years: 2008/09; reference year: 2009; sample size: 5,000 individuals Belgium: collection years: 2008/19; reference year: 2009; sample size: 7,163 individuals Bulgaria: collection years: 2004/05; reference year: 2004; sample size: 12,858 individuals Estonia: collection years: 2004/05; reference year: 2005; sample size: 7,855 individuals France: collection year: 2005; reference year: 2005; sample size: 10,079 individuals Georgia: collection year: 2006; reference year: 2006; sample size: 10,000 individuals Germany: collection year: 2005; reference year 2005; sample size: 10,017 individuals Germany – Turkish sub-sample: collection year: 2006; reference year: 2006; sample size: 4,045 individuals Hungary: collection year: 2001/02; reference year: 2005; sample size: 13,540 individuals Italy: collection year: 2003/04; reference year: 2004; sample size: 9,570 individuals Lithuania: collection year: 2006; reference year: 2006; sample size: 10,036 individuals The Netherlands: collection year: 2002/04; reference year: 2003; sample size: 8,161 individuals Norway: collection year: 2007/08; reference year: 2007; sample size: 14,881 individuals Romania: collection year: 2005; reference year: 2005; sample size: 11,986 individuals Russian Federation: collection year: 2004/08; reference year: 2004; sample size: 11,261 individuals Wave 2: At least twelve countries have conducted two waves of the GGS. Data available for: Bulgaria: collection year: 2007 France: collection year: 2008 Georgia: collection year: 2009 Germany: collection year: 2008/09 Germany – Turkish sub-sample: collection year: 2006 The Netherlands: collection year: 2006/07 Wave 3: Conducted in France and the Netherlands.


2003 for the homogenized sample


Stratification methods varied by country.


Random sample (varies by country) representing the non-institutionalised population. The base used varied by country: Census data, Population Registries, Random Samples, Household Surveys, Postal addresses.


NUTS 3


Population aged 18-79


Central survey topics are fertility, partnership, transition to adulthood, economic activity, as well as the intergenerational and gender relations between people expressed in care relations or the organization of paid and unpaid work. The GGS focuses on relationships and how they change over time. This includes partners (both cohabiting and non –cohabiting) at the time of the survey, as well as a full relationship history. Data on this ranges from attitudes and relationship quality through to the distribution of household tasks and care giving. In addition, there is some information regarding sexual activity and family planning. There is also a full fertility history and information on resident, non-resident, step, adopted and deceased children. The intergenerational relationships are focused on the middle generation (adult children), but there are a number of indicators of relationships with parents. In addition to this, data is also collected on cohabitation intentions, relationship quality indicators, and questions relating to attitudes and values. To complement these, the survey also carries information on employment status and history, income, housing status and conditions, immigration status, ethnicity, education history and a number of other social indicators.


• Aasve, A., Arpino, B., & Goisis, A. “Grandparenting and mothers’ labour force participation: A comparative analysis using the Generations and Gender Survey”. Demographic Research 27 (2012): 53-84. • Albertini, M., & Mencarini, L. “Childlessness and Support Networks in Later Life: New Pressures on Familistic Welfare States?”. Journal of Family Issues 6 (2012):1-17. • Almets, K., et al. “Self-reported activity limitations among the population aged 20-79 in Estonia: a cross-sectional study”. European Journal of Public Health 21 (1) (2011): 49-55. • Balbo, N., & Mills, M. “The effects of social capital and social pressure on the intention to have a second or third child in France, Germany, and Bulgaria, 2004–05”. Population Studies 65 (3) (2011): 1-17. • Billingsley, S., Sakkeus, L., & Puur, A. “Jobs, Careers, and Becoming a Parent under State Socialist and Free Market Conditions”. Working Paper, 6(6), Stockholm University Linnaeus Center on Social Policy and Family Dynamics in Europe, SPaDE (2012). • Daatland, S., Herlofson, K., & Lima, I. “Balancing generations: on the strength and character of family norms in the West and East of Europe”. Ageing and Society 31 (2011): 1159-1179. • Daatland, S., Slagsvold, B., & Lima, A. "Population ageing, intergenerational solidarity and the family-welfare state balance: A comparative exploration. In: How Generations and Gender Shape Demographic Change: Towards policies based on better knowledge. United Nations (2009): 127-138. • de Jong Gierveld, J., & van Tilburg, T. “The De Jong Gierveld short scales for emotional and social loneliness: tested on data from 7 countries in the UN generations and gender surveys”. European Journal of Ageing 7 (2010):121–130. • Dykstra, P. “Older adult loneliness: myths and realities”. European Journal of Ageing. 6 (2) (2009): 91–100. • Dykstra, P. A., & Fokkema, T. “Norms of Filial Obligation in the Netherlands”. Population 67(1) (2012): 97-122. • Dykstra, P. Intergenerational relationships in ageing societies. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Working Group on Ageing. 3 (2009): 19. • Gierveld, J., Dykstra, P., & Schenk, N. “Living arrangements, intergenerational support types and older adult loneliness in Eastern and Western Europe”. Demographic Research 27 (2012): 167-200. • Heylen, L., Mortelmans, D., Hermans, M., & Boudiny, K. “The intermediate effect of geographic proximity on intergenerational support: A comparison of France and Bulgaria”. Demographic Research 27 (2012): 455-486. • Ivanova, K., Kalmijn, M., & Uunk, W. ”The Effect of Children on Men’s and Women’s Chances of Re-partnering in a European Context”. European Journal of Population/Revue europénne de Dèmographie 29 (2013): 1-28. • Jappens, M., & van Bavel, J. “Regional family cultures and child care by grandparents in Europe”. Demographic Research 27 (2012): 85-120. • Kreyenfeld, M., Andersson, G., & Pailhé, A. “Economic uncertainty and family dynamics in Europe (Introduction to special issue of Demographic Research)”. MPIDR Working Paper WP-2012-006, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research (2012). • Kreyenfeld, Mi., et al. "Fertility and union histories from German GGS data: some critical reflections." Rostock: Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research Working Paper 23 (2010). • Lappegård, T., & Veenstra, M. "Life-course, generation and gender. LOGG 2007." Document 34 (2010). • Lappegård, T., Kjeldstad, R., & Skarðhamar, T. “The division of housework. Does regional context matter?” Statistics Norway, Research Department, 689(689) (2012). • Moor, N., & Komter, A. "Family ties and depression across the life course: An Overview”. Demographic Research 27 (2012): 201-232. • Moor, N., & Komter, A. “ The impact of family structure and disruption on intergenerational emotional exchange in Eastern Europe”. European Journal of Ageing 9(2) (2012): 155-167. • Neyer, G., Lappegård, T., & Vignoli, D. “Gender equality and fertility: Which equality matters?” European Journal of Population/Revue europénne de Dèmographie, 29 (2012): 1-28. • Puur, A., Sakkeus, L., Poldma, A., & Herm, A. "Intergenerational family constellations in contemporary Europe: Evidence from the Generations and Gender Survey." Demographic Research 25 (4) (2011): 135-172. • Vikat, A., Beets, G., Billari, F., et al. “Generations and Gender Survey: Towards a better understanding of relationships and processes in the life course”. Demographic Research 17 (2007): 389-440. • Wiik, K. A., Keizer, R., & Lappegård, T. “Relationship Quality in Marital and Cohabiting Unions Across Europe”. Journal of Marriage and Family 74 (3) (2012): 389–398.

Coverage


Sample size of 9,000 respondents per country on average, per wave Wave 1: At least one wave has been conducted in 19 countries, with microdata on more than 157,000 individuals. Data available for the following countries: Australia: collection years: 2005/06; reference year: 2005; sample size: 8,161 individuals Austria: collection years: 2008/09; reference year: 2009; sample size: 5,000 individuals Belgium: collection years: 2008/19; reference year: 2009; sample size: 7,163 individuals Bulgaria: collection years: 2004/05; reference year: 2004; sample size: 12,858 individuals Estonia: collection years: 2004/05; reference year: 2005; sample size: 7,855 individuals France: collection year: 2005; reference year: 2005; sample size: 10,079 individuals Georgia: collection year: 2006; reference year: 2006; sample size: 10,000 individuals Germany: collection year: 2005; reference year 2005; sample size: 10,017 individuals Germany – Turkish sub-sample: collection year: 2006; reference year: 2006; sample size: 4,045 individuals Hungary: collection year: 2001/02; reference year: 2005; sample size: 13,540 individuals Italy: collection year: 2003/04; reference year: 2004; sample size: 9,570 individuals Lithuania: collection year: 2006; reference year: 2006; sample size: 10,036 individuals The Netherlands: collection year: 2002/04; reference year: 2003; sample size: 8,161 individuals Norway: collection year: 2007/08; reference year: 2007; sample size: 14,881 individuals Romania: collection year: 2005; reference year: 2005; sample size: 11,986 individuals Russian Federation: collection year: 2004/08; reference year: 2004; sample size: 11,261 individuals Wave 2: At least twelve countries have conducted two waves of the GGS. Data available for: Bulgaria: collection year: 2007 France: collection year: 2008 Georgia: collection year: 2009 Germany: collection year: 2008/09 Germany – Turkish sub-sample: collection year: 2006 The Netherlands: collection year: 2006/07 Wave 3: Conducted in France and the Netherlands.


2003 for the homogenized sample


Stratification methods varied by country.


Random sample (varies by country) representing the non-institutionalised population. The base used varied by country: Census data, Population Registries, Random Samples, Household Surveys, Postal addresses.


NUTS 3


Population aged 18-79


Central survey topics are fertility, partnership, transition to adulthood, economic activity, as well as the intergenerational and gender relations between people expressed in care relations or the organization of paid and unpaid work. The GGS focuses on relationships and how they change over time. This includes partners (both cohabiting and non –cohabiting) at the time of the survey, as well as a full relationship history. Data on this ranges from attitudes and relationship quality through to the distribution of household tasks and care giving. In addition, there is some information regarding sexual activity and family planning. There is also a full fertility history and information on resident, non-resident, step, adopted and deceased children. The intergenerational relationships are focused on the middle generation (adult children), but there are a number of indicators of relationships with parents. In addition to this, data is also collected on cohabitation intentions, relationship quality indicators, and questions relating to attitudes and values. To complement these, the survey also carries information on employment status and history, income, housing status and conditions, immigration status, ethnicity, education history and a number of other social indicators.


• Aasve, A., Arpino, B., & Goisis, A. “Grandparenting and mothers’ labour force participation: A comparative analysis using the Generations and Gender Survey”. Demographic Research 27 (2012): 53-84. • Albertini, M., & Mencarini, L. “Childlessness and Support Networks in Later Life: New Pressures on Familistic Welfare States?”. Journal of Family Issues 6 (2012):1-17. • Almets, K., et al. “Self-reported activity limitations among the population aged 20-79 in Estonia: a cross-sectional study”. European Journal of Public Health 21 (1) (2011): 49-55. • Balbo, N., & Mills, M. “The effects of social capital and social pressure on the intention to have a second or third child in France, Germany, and Bulgaria, 2004–05”. Population Studies 65 (3) (2011): 1-17. • Billingsley, S., Sakkeus, L., & Puur, A. “Jobs, Careers, and Becoming a Parent under State Socialist and Free Market Conditions”. Working Paper, 6(6), Stockholm University Linnaeus Center on Social Policy and Family Dynamics in Europe, SPaDE (2012). • Daatland, S., Herlofson, K., & Lima, I. “Balancing generations: on the strength and character of family norms in the West and East of Europe”. Ageing and Society 31 (2011): 1159-1179. • Daatland, S., Slagsvold, B., & Lima, A. "Population ageing, intergenerational solidarity and the family-welfare state balance: A comparative exploration. In: How Generations and Gender Shape Demographic Change: Towards policies based on better knowledge. United Nations (2009): 127-138. • de Jong Gierveld, J., & van Tilburg, T. “The De Jong Gierveld short scales for emotional and social loneliness: tested on data from 7 countries in the UN generations and gender surveys”. European Journal of Ageing 7 (2010):121–130. • Dykstra, P. “Older adult loneliness: myths and realities”. European Journal of Ageing. 6 (2) (2009): 91–100. • Dykstra, P. A., & Fokkema, T. “Norms of Filial Obligation in the Netherlands”. Population 67(1) (2012): 97-122. • Dykstra, P. Intergenerational relationships in ageing societies. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Working Group on Ageing. 3 (2009): 19. • Gierveld, J., Dykstra, P., & Schenk, N. “Living arrangements, intergenerational support types and older adult loneliness in Eastern and Western Europe”. Demographic Research 27 (2012): 167-200. • Heylen, L., Mortelmans, D., Hermans, M., & Boudiny, K. “The intermediate effect of geographic proximity on intergenerational support: A comparison of France and Bulgaria”. Demographic Research 27 (2012): 455-486. • Ivanova, K., Kalmijn, M., & Uunk, W. ”The Effect of Children on Men’s and Women’s Chances of Re-partnering in a European Context”. European Journal of Population/Revue europénne de Dèmographie 29 (2013): 1-28. • Jappens, M., & van Bavel, J. “Regional family cultures and child care by grandparents in Europe”. Demographic Research 27 (2012): 85-120. • Kreyenfeld, M., Andersson, G., & Pailhé, A. “Economic uncertainty and family dynamics in Europe (Introduction to special issue of Demographic Research)”. MPIDR Working Paper WP-2012-006, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research (2012). • Kreyenfeld, Mi., et al. "Fertility and union histories from German GGS data: some critical reflections." Rostock: Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research Working Paper 23 (2010). • Lappegård, T., & Veenstra, M. "Life-course, generation and gender. LOGG 2007." Document 34 (2010). • Lappegård, T., Kjeldstad, R., & Skarðhamar, T. “The division of housework. Does regional context matter?” Statistics Norway, Research Department, 689(689) (2012). • Moor, N., & Komter, A. "Family ties and depression across the life course: An Overview”. Demographic Research 27 (2012): 201-232. • Moor, N., & Komter, A. “ The impact of family structure and disruption on intergenerational emotional exchange in Eastern Europe”. European Journal of Ageing 9(2) (2012): 155-167. • Neyer, G., Lappegård, T., & Vignoli, D. “Gender equality and fertility: Which equality matters?” European Journal of Population/Revue europénne de Dèmographie, 29 (2012): 1-28. • Puur, A., Sakkeus, L., Poldma, A., & Herm, A. "Intergenerational family constellations in contemporary Europe: Evidence from the Generations and Gender Survey." Demographic Research 25 (4) (2011): 135-172. • Vikat, A., Beets, G., Billari, F., et al. “Generations and Gender Survey: Towards a better understanding of relationships and processes in the life course”. Demographic Research 17 (2007): 389-440. • Wiik, K. A., Keizer, R., & Lappegård, T. “Relationship Quality in Marital and Cohabiting Unions Across Europe”. Journal of Marriage and Family 74 (3) (2012): 389–398.

Coverage


Sample size of 9,000 respondents per country on average, per wave Wave 1: At least one wave has been conducted in 19 countries, with microdata on more than 157,000 individuals. Data available for the following countries: Australia: collection years: 2005/06; reference year: 2005; sample size: 8,161 individuals Austria: collection years: 2008/09; reference year: 2009; sample size: 5,000 individuals Belgium: collection years: 2008/19; reference year: 2009; sample size: 7,163 individuals Bulgaria: collection years: 2004/05; reference year: 2004; sample size: 12,858 individuals Estonia: collection years: 2004/05; reference year: 2005; sample size: 7,855 individuals France: collection year: 2005; reference year: 2005; sample size: 10,079 individuals Georgia: collection year: 2006; reference year: 2006; sample size: 10,000 individuals Germany: collection year: 2005; reference year 2005; sample size: 10,017 individuals Germany – Turkish sub-sample: collection year: 2006; reference year: 2006; sample size: 4,045 individuals Hungary: collection year: 2001/02; reference year: 2005; sample size: 13,540 individuals Italy: collection year: 2003/04; reference year: 2004; sample size: 9,570 individuals Lithuania: collection year: 2006; reference year: 2006; sample size: 10,036 individuals The Netherlands: collection year: 2002/04; reference year: 2003; sample size: 8,161 individuals Norway: collection year: 2007/08; reference year: 2007; sample size: 14,881 individuals Romania: collection year: 2005; reference year: 2005; sample size: 11,986 individuals Russian Federation: collection year: 2004/08; reference year: 2004; sample size: 11,261 individuals Wave 2: At least twelve countries have conducted two waves of the GGS. Data available for: Bulgaria: collection year: 2007 France: collection year: 2008 Georgia: collection year: 2009 Germany: collection year: 2008/09 Germany – Turkish sub-sample: collection year: 2006 The Netherlands: collection year: 2006/07 Wave 3: Conducted in France and the Netherlands.


2003 for the homogenized sample


Stratification methods varied by country.


Random sample (varies by country) representing the non-institutionalised population. The base used varied by country: Census data, Population Registries, Random Samples, Household Surveys, Postal addresses.


NUTS 3


Population aged 18-79


Central survey topics are fertility, partnership, transition to adulthood, economic activity, as well as the intergenerational and gender relations between people expressed in care relations or the organization of paid and unpaid work. The GGS focuses on relationships and how they change over time. This includes partners (both cohabiting and non –cohabiting) at the time of the survey, as well as a full relationship history. Data on this ranges from attitudes and relationship quality through to the distribution of household tasks and care giving. In addition, there is some information regarding sexual activity and family planning. There is also a full fertility history and information on resident, non-resident, step, adopted and deceased children. The intergenerational relationships are focused on the middle generation (adult children), but there are a number of indicators of relationships with parents. In addition to this, data is also collected on cohabitation intentions, relationship quality indicators, and questions relating to attitudes and values. To complement these, the survey also carries information on employment status and history, income, housing status and conditions, immigration status, ethnicity, education history and a number of other social indicators.


• Aasve, A., Arpino, B., & Goisis, A. “Grandparenting and mothers’ labour force participation: A comparative analysis using the Generations and Gender Survey”. Demographic Research 27 (2012): 53-84. • Albertini, M., & Mencarini, L. “Childlessness and Support Networks in Later Life: New Pressures on Familistic Welfare States?”. Journal of Family Issues 6 (2012):1-17. • Almets, K., et al. “Self-reported activity limitations among the population aged 20-79 in Estonia: a cross-sectional study”. European Journal of Public Health 21 (1) (2011): 49-55. • Balbo, N., & Mills, M. “The effects of social capital and social pressure on the intention to have a second or third child in France, Germany, and Bulgaria, 2004–05”. Population Studies 65 (3) (2011): 1-17. • Billingsley, S., Sakkeus, L., & Puur, A. “Jobs, Careers, and Becoming a Parent under State Socialist and Free Market Conditions”. Working Paper, 6(6), Stockholm University Linnaeus Center on Social Policy and Family Dynamics in Europe, SPaDE (2012). • Daatland, S., Herlofson, K., & Lima, I. “Balancing generations: on the strength and character of family norms in the West and East of Europe”. Ageing and Society 31 (2011): 1159-1179. • Daatland, S., Slagsvold, B., & Lima, A. "Population ageing, intergenerational solidarity and the family-welfare state balance: A comparative exploration. In: How Generations and Gender Shape Demographic Change: Towards policies based on better knowledge. United Nations (2009): 127-138. • de Jong Gierveld, J., & van Tilburg, T. “The De Jong Gierveld short scales for emotional and social loneliness: tested on data from 7 countries in the UN generations and gender surveys”. European Journal of Ageing 7 (2010):121–130. • Dykstra, P. “Older adult loneliness: myths and realities”. European Journal of Ageing. 6 (2) (2009): 91–100. • Dykstra, P. A., & Fokkema, T. “Norms of Filial Obligation in the Netherlands”. Population 67(1) (2012): 97-122. • Dykstra, P. Intergenerational relationships in ageing societies. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Working Group on Ageing. 3 (2009): 19. • Gierveld, J., Dykstra, P., & Schenk, N. “Living arrangements, intergenerational support types and older adult loneliness in Eastern and Western Europe”. Demographic Research 27 (2012): 167-200. • Heylen, L., Mortelmans, D., Hermans, M., & Boudiny, K. “The intermediate effect of geographic proximity on intergenerational support: A comparison of France and Bulgaria”. Demographic Research 27 (2012): 455-486. • Ivanova, K., Kalmijn, M., & Uunk, W. ”The Effect of Children on Men’s and Women’s Chances of Re-partnering in a European Context”. European Journal of Population/Revue europénne de Dèmographie 29 (2013): 1-28. • Jappens, M., & van Bavel, J. “Regional family cultures and child care by grandparents in Europe”. Demographic Research 27 (2012): 85-120. • Kreyenfeld, M., Andersson, G., & Pailhé, A. “Economic uncertainty and family dynamics in Europe (Introduction to special issue of Demographic Research)”. MPIDR Working Paper WP-2012-006, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research (2012). • Kreyenfeld, Mi., et al. "Fertility and union histories from German GGS data: some critical reflections." Rostock: Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research Working Paper 23 (2010). • Lappegård, T., & Veenstra, M. "Life-course, generation and gender. LOGG 2007." Document 34 (2010). • Lappegård, T., Kjeldstad, R., & Skarðhamar, T. “The division of housework. Does regional context matter?” Statistics Norway, Research Department, 689(689) (2012). • Moor, N., & Komter, A. "Family ties and depression across the life course: An Overview”. Demographic Research 27 (2012): 201-232. • Moor, N., & Komter, A. “ The impact of family structure and disruption on intergenerational emotional exchange in Eastern Europe”. European Journal of Ageing 9(2) (2012): 155-167. • Neyer, G., Lappegård, T., & Vignoli, D. “Gender equality and fertility: Which equality matters?” European Journal of Population/Revue europénne de Dèmographie, 29 (2012): 1-28. • Puur, A., Sakkeus, L., Poldma, A., & Herm, A. "Intergenerational family constellations in contemporary Europe: Evidence from the Generations and Gender Survey." Demographic Research 25 (4) (2011): 135-172. • Vikat, A., Beets, G., Billari, F., et al. “Generations and Gender Survey: Towards a better understanding of relationships and processes in the life course”. Demographic Research 17 (2007): 389-440. • Wiik, K. A., Keizer, R., & Lappegård, T. “Relationship Quality in Marital and Cohabiting Unions Across Europe”. Journal of Marriage and Family 74 (3) (2012): 389–398.

Coverage


Sample size of 9,000 respondents per country on average, per wave Wave 1: At least one wave has been conducted in 19 countries, with microdata on more than 157,000 individuals. Data available for the following countries: Australia: collection years: 2005/06; reference year: 2005; sample size: 8,161 individuals Austria: collection years: 2008/09; reference year: 2009; sample size: 5,000 individuals Belgium: collection years: 2008/19; reference year: 2009; sample size: 7,163 individuals Bulgaria: collection years: 2004/05; reference year: 2004; sample size: 12,858 individuals Estonia: collection years: 2004/05; reference year: 2005; sample size: 7,855 individuals France: collection year: 2005; reference year: 2005; sample size: 10,079 individuals Georgia: collection year: 2006; reference year: 2006; sample size: 10,000 individuals Germany: collection year: 2005; reference year 2005; sample size: 10,017 individuals Germany – Turkish sub-sample: collection year: 2006; reference year: 2006; sample size: 4,045 individuals Hungary: collection year: 2001/02; reference year: 2005; sample size: 13,540 individuals Italy: collection year: 2003/04; reference year: 2004; sample size: 9,570 individuals Lithuania: collection year: 2006; reference year: 2006; sample size: 10,036 individuals The Netherlands: collection year: 2002/04; reference year: 2003; sample size: 8,161 individuals Norway: collection year: 2007/08; reference year: 2007; sample size: 14,881 individuals Romania: collection year: 2005; reference year: 2005; sample size: 11,986 individuals Russian Federation: collection year: 2004/08; reference year: 2004; sample size: 11,261 individuals Wave 2: At least twelve countries have conducted two waves of the GGS. Data available for: Bulgaria: collection year: 2007 France: collection year: 2008 Georgia: collection year: 2009 Germany: collection year: 2008/09 Germany – Turkish sub-sample: collection year: 2006 The Netherlands: collection year: 2006/07 Wave 3: Conducted in France and the Netherlands.


2003 for the homogenized sample


Stratification methods varied by country.


Random sample (varies by country) representing the non-institutionalised population. The base used varied by country: Census data, Population Registries, Random Samples, Household Surveys, Postal addresses.


NUTS 3


Population aged 18-79


Central survey topics are fertility, partnership, transition to adulthood, economic activity, as well as the intergenerational and gender relations between people expressed in care relations or the organization of paid and unpaid work. The GGS focuses on relationships and how they change over time. This includes partners (both cohabiting and non –cohabiting) at the time of the survey, as well as a full relationship history. Data on this ranges from attitudes and relationship quality through to the distribution of household tasks and care giving. In addition, there is some information regarding sexual activity and family planning. There is also a full fertility history and information on resident, non-resident, step, adopted and deceased children. The intergenerational relationships are focused on the middle generation (adult children), but there are a number of indicators of relationships with parents. In addition to this, data is also collected on cohabitation intentions, relationship quality indicators, and questions relating to attitudes and values. To complement these, the survey also carries information on employment status and history, income, housing status and conditions, immigration status, ethnicity, education history and a number of other social indicators.


• Aasve, A., Arpino, B., & Goisis, A. “Grandparenting and mothers’ labour force participation: A comparative analysis using the Generations and Gender Survey”. Demographic Research 27 (2012): 53-84. • Albertini, M., & Mencarini, L. “Childlessness and Support Networks in Later Life: New Pressures on Familistic Welfare States?”. Journal of Family Issues 6 (2012):1-17. • Almets, K., et al. “Self-reported activity limitations among the population aged 20-79 in Estonia: a cross-sectional study”. European Journal of Public Health 21 (1) (2011): 49-55. • Balbo, N., & Mills, M. “The effects of social capital and social pressure on the intention to have a second or third child in France, Germany, and Bulgaria, 2004–05”. Population Studies 65 (3) (2011): 1-17. • Billingsley, S., Sakkeus, L., & Puur, A. “Jobs, Careers, and Becoming a Parent under State Socialist and Free Market Conditions”. Working Paper, 6(6), Stockholm University Linnaeus Center on Social Policy and Family Dynamics in Europe, SPaDE (2012). • Daatland, S., Herlofson, K., & Lima, I. “Balancing generations: on the strength and character of family norms in the West and East of Europe”. Ageing and Society 31 (2011): 1159-1179. • Daatland, S., Slagsvold, B., & Lima, A. "Population ageing, intergenerational solidarity and the family-welfare state balance: A comparative exploration. In: How Generations and Gender Shape Demographic Change: Towards policies based on better knowledge. United Nations (2009): 127-138. • de Jong Gierveld, J., & van Tilburg, T. “The De Jong Gierveld short scales for emotional and social loneliness: tested on data from 7 countries in the UN generations and gender surveys”. European Journal of Ageing 7 (2010):121–130. • Dykstra, P. “Older adult loneliness: myths and realities”. European Journal of Ageing. 6 (2) (2009): 91–100. • Dykstra, P. A., & Fokkema, T. “Norms of Filial Obligation in the Netherlands”. Population 67(1) (2012): 97-122. • Dykstra, P. Intergenerational relationships in ageing societies. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Working Group on Ageing. 3 (2009): 19. • Gierveld, J., Dykstra, P., & Schenk, N. “Living arrangements, intergenerational support types and older adult loneliness in Eastern and Western Europe”. Demographic Research 27 (2012): 167-200. • Heylen, L., Mortelmans, D., Hermans, M., & Boudiny, K. “The intermediate effect of geographic proximity on intergenerational support: A comparison of France and Bulgaria”. Demographic Research 27 (2012): 455-486. • Ivanova, K., Kalmijn, M., & Uunk, W. ”The Effect of Children on Men’s and Women’s Chances of Re-partnering in a European Context”. European Journal of Population/Revue europénne de Dèmographie 29 (2013): 1-28. • Jappens, M., & van Bavel, J. “Regional family cultures and child care by grandparents in Europe”. Demographic Research 27 (2012): 85-120. • Kreyenfeld, M., Andersson, G., & Pailhé, A. “Economic uncertainty and family dynamics in Europe (Introduction to special issue of Demographic Research)”. MPIDR Working Paper WP-2012-006, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research (2012). • Kreyenfeld, Mi., et al. "Fertility and union histories from German GGS data: some critical reflections." Rostock: Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research Working Paper 23 (2010). • Lappegård, T., & Veenstra, M. "Life-course, generation and gender. LOGG 2007." Document 34 (2010). • Lappegård, T., Kjeldstad, R., & Skarðhamar, T. “The division of housework. Does regional context matter?” Statistics Norway, Research Department, 689(689) (2012). • Moor, N., & Komter, A. "Family ties and depression across the life course: An Overview”. Demographic Research 27 (2012): 201-232. • Moor, N., & Komter, A. “ The impact of family structure and disruption on intergenerational emotional exchange in Eastern Europe”. European Journal of Ageing 9(2) (2012): 155-167. • Neyer, G., Lappegård, T., & Vignoli, D. “Gender equality and fertility: Which equality matters?” European Journal of Population/Revue europénne de Dèmographie, 29 (2012): 1-28. • Puur, A., Sakkeus, L., Poldma, A., & Herm, A. "Intergenerational family constellations in contemporary Europe: Evidence from the Generations and Gender Survey." Demographic Research 25 (4) (2011): 135-172. • Vikat, A., Beets, G., Billari, F., et al. “Generations and Gender Survey: Towards a better understanding of relationships and processes in the life course”. Demographic Research 17 (2007): 389-440. • Wiik, K. A., Keizer, R., & Lappegård, T. “Relationship Quality in Marital and Cohabiting Unions Across Europe”. Journal of Marriage and Family 74 (3) (2012): 389–398.


Linkage


The data is submitted by national participants in an already pre-harmonised form. Subsequently, the data is centrally harmonised according to the GGP rules. ISCED is used for education variables and ISCO codings are used for employment. Geographically, NUTS2 & NUTS3 are available for those countries for which they are applicable.


For some variables, country specific coding is available in parallel to the harmonised coding. No other country specific variables exist that do not relate to GGP. The respondents ID allows for identifying individuals across waves. For Wave 1: Australia: The GGS in Australia was "piggybacking" on Wave 5 of the Household Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey.

Linkage


The data is submitted by national participants in an already pre-harmonised form. Subsequently, the data is centrally harmonised according to the GGP rules. ISCED is used for education variables and ISCO codings are used for employment. Geographically, NUTS2 & NUTS3 are available for those countries for which they are applicable.


For some variables, country specific coding is available in parallel to the harmonised coding. No other country specific variables exist that do not relate to GGP. The respondents ID allows for identifying individuals across waves. For Wave 1: Australia: The GGS in Australia was "piggybacking" on Wave 5 of the Household Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey.

Linkage


The data is submitted by national participants in an already pre-harmonised form. Subsequently, the data is centrally harmonised according to the GGP rules. ISCED is used for education variables and ISCO codings are used for employment. Geographically, NUTS2 & NUTS3 are available for those countries for which they are applicable.


For some variables, country specific coding is available in parallel to the harmonised coding. No other country specific variables exist that do not relate to GGP. The respondents ID allows for identifying individuals across waves. For Wave 1: Australia: The GGS in Australia was "piggybacking" on Wave 5 of the Household Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey.

Linkage


The data is submitted by national participants in an already pre-harmonised form. Subsequently, the data is centrally harmonised according to the GGP rules. ISCED is used for education variables and ISCO codings are used for employment. Geographically, NUTS2 & NUTS3 are available for those countries for which they are applicable.


For some variables, country specific coding is available in parallel to the harmonised coding. No other country specific variables exist that do not relate to GGP. The respondents ID allows for identifying individuals across waves. For Wave 1: Australia: The GGS in Australia was "piggybacking" on Wave 5 of the Household Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey.

Linkage


The data is submitted by national participants in an already pre-harmonised form. Subsequently, the data is centrally harmonised according to the GGP rules. ISCED is used for education variables and ISCO codings are used for employment. Geographically, NUTS2 & NUTS3 are available for those countries for which they are applicable.


For some variables, country specific coding is available in parallel to the harmonised coding. No other country specific variables exist that do not relate to GGP. The respondents ID allows for identifying individuals across waves. For Wave 1: Australia: The GGS in Australia was "piggybacking" on Wave 5 of the Household Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey.

Linkage


The data is submitted by national participants in an already pre-harmonised form. Subsequently, the data is centrally harmonised according to the GGP rules. ISCED is used for education variables and ISCO codings are used for employment. Geographically, NUTS2 & NUTS3 are available for those countries for which they are applicable.


For some variables, country specific coding is available in parallel to the harmonised coding. No other country specific variables exist that do not relate to GGP. The respondents ID allows for identifying individuals across waves. For Wave 1: Australia: The GGS in Australia was "piggybacking" on Wave 5 of the Household Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey.

Linkage


The data is submitted by national participants in an already pre-harmonised form. Subsequently, the data is centrally harmonised according to the GGP rules. ISCED is used for education variables and ISCO codings are used for employment. Geographically, NUTS2 & NUTS3 are available for those countries for which they are applicable.


For some variables, country specific coding is available in parallel to the harmonised coding. No other country specific variables exist that do not relate to GGP. The respondents ID allows for identifying individuals across waves. For Wave 1: Australia: The GGS in Australia was "piggybacking" on Wave 5 of the Household Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey.

Linkage


The data is submitted by national participants in an already pre-harmonised form. Subsequently, the data is centrally harmonised according to the GGP rules. ISCED is used for education variables and ISCO codings are used for employment. Geographically, NUTS2 & NUTS3 are available for those countries for which they are applicable.


For some variables, country specific coding is available in parallel to the harmonised coding. No other country specific variables exist that do not relate to GGP. The respondents ID allows for identifying individuals across waves. For Wave 1: Australia: The GGS in Australia was "piggybacking" on Wave 5 of the Household Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey.

Linkage


The data is submitted by national participants in an already pre-harmonised form. Subsequently, the data is centrally harmonised according to the GGP rules. ISCED is used for education variables and ISCO codings are used for employment. Geographically, NUTS2 & NUTS3 are available for those countries for which they are applicable.


For some variables, country specific coding is available in parallel to the harmonised coding. No other country specific variables exist that do not relate to GGP. The respondents ID allows for identifying individuals across waves. For Wave 1: Australia: The GGS in Australia was "piggybacking" on Wave 5 of the Household Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey.


Data quality


Revision 4.1 of Wave 1 Data correcting minor errors from the Major 4.0 Release is now available.


National participants are in charge of the implementation of the survey and funding in their own countries. Therefore, sample design, mode of data collection, panel maintenance procedures, and spacing of panel waves might vary.


Issues of consistency are addressed in the Harmonisation guide available online at: www.ggp-i.org/index.php

Data quality


Revision 4.1 of Wave 1 Data correcting minor errors from the Major 4.0 Release is now available.


National participants are in charge of the implementation of the survey and funding in their own countries. Therefore, sample design, mode of data collection, panel maintenance procedures, and spacing of panel waves might vary.


Issues of consistency are addressed in the Harmonisation guide available online at: www.ggp-i.org/index.php

Data quality


Revision 4.1 of Wave 1 Data correcting minor errors from the Major 4.0 Release is now available.


National participants are in charge of the implementation of the survey and funding in their own countries. Therefore, sample design, mode of data collection, panel maintenance procedures, and spacing of panel waves might vary.


Issues of consistency are addressed in the Harmonisation guide available online at: www.ggp-i.org/index.php

Data quality


Revision 4.1 of Wave 1 Data correcting minor errors from the Major 4.0 Release is now available.


National participants are in charge of the implementation of the survey and funding in their own countries. Therefore, sample design, mode of data collection, panel maintenance procedures, and spacing of panel waves might vary.


Issues of consistency are addressed in the Harmonisation guide available online at: www.ggp-i.org/index.php

Data quality


Revision 4.1 of Wave 1 Data correcting minor errors from the Major 4.0 Release is now available.


National participants are in charge of the implementation of the survey and funding in their own countries. Therefore, sample design, mode of data collection, panel maintenance procedures, and spacing of panel waves might vary.


Issues of consistency are addressed in the Harmonisation guide available online at: www.ggp-i.org/index.php

Data quality


Revision 4.1 of Wave 1 Data correcting minor errors from the Major 4.0 Release is now available.


National participants are in charge of the implementation of the survey and funding in their own countries. Therefore, sample design, mode of data collection, panel maintenance procedures, and spacing of panel waves might vary.


Issues of consistency are addressed in the Harmonisation guide available online at: www.ggp-i.org/index.php

Data quality


Revision 4.1 of Wave 1 Data correcting minor errors from the Major 4.0 Release is now available.


National participants are in charge of the implementation of the survey and funding in their own countries. Therefore, sample design, mode of data collection, panel maintenance procedures, and spacing of panel waves might vary.


Issues of consistency are addressed in the Harmonisation guide available online at: www.ggp-i.org/index.php

Data quality


Revision 4.1 of Wave 1 Data correcting minor errors from the Major 4.0 Release is now available.


National participants are in charge of the implementation of the survey and funding in their own countries. Therefore, sample design, mode of data collection, panel maintenance procedures, and spacing of panel waves might vary.


Issues of consistency are addressed in the Harmonisation guide available online at: www.ggp-i.org/index.php

Data quality


Revision 4.1 of Wave 1 Data correcting minor errors from the Major 4.0 Release is now available.


National participants are in charge of the implementation of the survey and funding in their own countries. Therefore, sample design, mode of data collection, panel maintenance procedures, and spacing of panel waves might vary.


Issues of consistency are addressed in the Harmonisation guide available online at: www.ggp-i.org/index.php


Applicability


As a longitudinal dataset, the GGS broadens the explanatory scope of the collected data. To make causal inferences, the analyst needs data where the hypothesized cause is observed before the outcome in a person's lifetime. The panel design provides the possibility to use the broad range of information pertaining to the time of interview in explaining the demographic behaviour recorded between the panel waves. This is particularly important for variables, such as incomes and opinions, that cannot normally be collected retrospectively. Population scholars increasingly share the view that single-discipline perspectives for studying population and family behaviour are incapable of producing major gains in our understanding. The multidisciplinary approach in the GGP is reflected in the breadth of theories underlying the questions included in the survey instrument. Among the theories reflected in the questionnaire are the theory of reasoned action, the theory of the importance of attitudes and norms in social behaviour, theories of the impact of social networks, and theories of gender and gendered behaviour. The GGS integrates the broader context within which people make their behavioural choices into the data design and develops a contextual database. This is grounded on the assumption that individual behaviour, such as childbearing and the formation and disruption of co-residential unions, is influenced not only by personal traits, living conditions, and beliefs, but also by the context within which people live, including their families, networks, communities, and societies. From its inception, the GGS has been a joint multi-national research effort. European countries have many features in common, therefore, it pays for countries to join forces and seek answers together. The knowledge emanating from a joint effort will better shed light on how each country's policies actually influence population and family change. In order to enable individual countries to compare themselves with others as fully as possible, the GGP aims for a high level of comparability of data and methodologies. The GGS addresses gender issues throughout its wide range of topics. It uses stratified, nationally representative samples that include approximately equal numbers of men and women. It collects most of its data from a couple’s perspective, that is, the respondents provide a large amount of information, also about their current partner if they have one. The gender issues are taken into account throughout the questionnaire in formulating the response items and including thematic blocks of questions. All this allows to study the system of gender relationships in a country and its link with demographic behaviour. The GGS covers relationships between generations, also from the viewpoint of the population above the reproductive ages, which allows analysts and policy-makers to address the pertinent issues of population ageing in developed countries.The study of the family ties reported by the Gender and Generations Survey allows for the various types of exchange among generations. Therefore, even when it was not designed for the study of ageing, it allows for the identification of childcare by grandparents, as well as networks providing support to the elderly. The main drawback of the GGS is that the processing of data takes considerable time. Thus, the number of countries that allow the analysis of more than one wave is still scarce. Given this, users and potential users should monitor the website and sign up for the mailing list to ensure they are informed of all new data releases. Efforts are being undertaken to improve this process within the resource constraints of the project.

Applicability


As a longitudinal dataset, the GGS broadens the explanatory scope of the collected data. To make causal inferences, the analyst needs data where the hypothesized cause is observed before the outcome in a person's lifetime. The panel design provides the possibility to use the broad range of information pertaining to the time of interview in explaining the demographic behaviour recorded between the panel waves. This is particularly important for variables, such as incomes and opinions, that cannot normally be collected retrospectively. Population scholars increasingly share the view that single-discipline perspectives for studying population and family behaviour are incapable of producing major gains in our understanding. The multidisciplinary approach in the GGP is reflected in the breadth of theories underlying the questions included in the survey instrument. Among the theories reflected in the questionnaire are the theory of reasoned action, the theory of the importance of attitudes and norms in social behaviour, theories of the impact of social networks, and theories of gender and gendered behaviour. The GGS integrates the broader context within which people make their behavioural choices into the data design and develops a contextual database. This is grounded on the assumption that individual behaviour, such as childbearing and the formation and disruption of co-residential unions, is influenced not only by personal traits, living conditions, and beliefs, but also by the context within which people live, including their families, networks, communities, and societies. From its inception, the GGS has been a joint multi-national research effort. European countries have many features in common, therefore, it pays for countries to join forces and seek answers together. The knowledge emanating from a joint effort will better shed light on how each country's policies actually influence population and family change. In order to enable individual countries to compare themselves with others as fully as possible, the GGP aims for a high level of comparability of data and methodologies. The GGS addresses gender issues throughout its wide range of topics. It uses stratified, nationally representative samples that include approximately equal numbers of men and women. It collects most of its data from a couple’s perspective, that is, the respondents provide a large amount of information, also about their current partner if they have one. The gender issues are taken into account throughout the questionnaire in formulating the response items and including thematic blocks of questions. All this allows to study the system of gender relationships in a country and its link with demographic behaviour. The GGS covers relationships between generations, also from the viewpoint of the population above the reproductive ages, which allows analysts and policy-makers to address the pertinent issues of population ageing in developed countries.The study of the family ties reported by the Gender and Generations Survey allows for the various types of exchange among generations. Therefore, even when it was not designed for the study of ageing, it allows for the identification of childcare by grandparents, as well as networks providing support to the elderly. The main drawback of the GGS is that the processing of data takes considerable time. Thus, the number of countries that allow the analysis of more than one wave is still scarce. Given this, users and potential users should monitor the website and sign up for the mailing list to ensure they are informed of all new data releases. Efforts are being undertaken to improve this process within the resource constraints of the project.

Applicability


As a longitudinal dataset, the GGS broadens the explanatory scope of the collected data. To make causal inferences, the analyst needs data where the hypothesized cause is observed before the outcome in a person's lifetime. The panel design provides the possibility to use the broad range of information pertaining to the time of interview in explaining the demographic behaviour recorded between the panel waves. This is particularly important for variables, such as incomes and opinions, that cannot normally be collected retrospectively. Population scholars increasingly share the view that single-discipline perspectives for studying population and family behaviour are incapable of producing major gains in our understanding. The multidisciplinary approach in the GGP is reflected in the breadth of theories underlying the questions included in the survey instrument. Among the theories reflected in the questionnaire are the theory of reasoned action, the theory of the importance of attitudes and norms in social behaviour, theories of the impact of social networks, and theories of gender and gendered behaviour. The GGS integrates the broader context within which people make their behavioural choices into the data design and develops a contextual database. This is grounded on the assumption that individual behaviour, such as childbearing and the formation and disruption of co-residential unions, is influenced not only by personal traits, living conditions, and beliefs, but also by the context within which people live, including their families, networks, communities, and societies. From its inception, the GGS has been a joint multi-national research effort. European countries have many features in common, therefore, it pays for countries to join forces and seek answers together. The knowledge emanating from a joint effort will better shed light on how each country's policies actually influence population and family change. In order to enable individual countries to compare themselves with others as fully as possible, the GGP aims for a high level of comparability of data and methodologies. The GGS addresses gender issues throughout its wide range of topics. It uses stratified, nationally representative samples that include approximately equal numbers of men and women. It collects most of its data from a couple’s perspective, that is, the respondents provide a large amount of information, also about their current partner if they have one. The gender issues are taken into account throughout the questionnaire in formulating the response items and including thematic blocks of questions. All this allows to study the system of gender relationships in a country and its link with demographic behaviour. The GGS covers relationships between generations, also from the viewpoint of the population above the reproductive ages, which allows analysts and policy-makers to address the pertinent issues of population ageing in developed countries.The study of the family ties reported by the Gender and Generations Survey allows for the various types of exchange among generations. Therefore, even when it was not designed for the study of ageing, it allows for the identification of childcare by grandparents, as well as networks providing support to the elderly. The main drawback of the GGS is that the processing of data takes considerable time. Thus, the number of countries that allow the analysis of more than one wave is still scarce. Given this, users and potential users should monitor the website and sign up for the mailing list to ensure they are informed of all new data releases. Efforts are being undertaken to improve this process within the resource constraints of the project.

Applicability


As a longitudinal dataset, the GGS broadens the explanatory scope of the collected data. To make causal inferences, the analyst needs data where the hypothesized cause is observed before the outcome in a person's lifetime. The panel design provides the possibility to use the broad range of information pertaining to the time of interview in explaining the demographic behaviour recorded between the panel waves. This is particularly important for variables, such as incomes and opinions, that cannot normally be collected retrospectively. Population scholars increasingly share the view that single-discipline perspectives for studying population and family behaviour are incapable of producing major gains in our understanding. The multidisciplinary approach in the GGP is reflected in the breadth of theories underlying the questions included in the survey instrument. Among the theories reflected in the questionnaire are the theory of reasoned action, the theory of the importance of attitudes and norms in social behaviour, theories of the impact of social networks, and theories of gender and gendered behaviour. The GGS integrates the broader context within which people make their behavioural choices into the data design and develops a contextual database. This is grounded on the assumption that individual behaviour, such as childbearing and the formation and disruption of co-residential unions, is influenced not only by personal traits, living conditions, and beliefs, but also by the context within which people live, including their families, networks, communities, and societies. From its inception, the GGS has been a joint multi-national research effort. European countries have many features in common, therefore, it pays for countries to join forces and seek answers together. The knowledge emanating from a joint effort will better shed light on how each country's policies actually influence population and family change. In order to enable individual countries to compare themselves with others as fully as possible, the GGP aims for a high level of comparability of data and methodologies. The GGS addresses gender issues throughout its wide range of topics. It uses stratified, nationally representative samples that include approximately equal numbers of men and women. It collects most of its data from a couple’s perspective, that is, the respondents provide a large amount of information, also about their current partner if they have one. The gender issues are taken into account throughout the questionnaire in formulating the response items and including thematic blocks of questions. All this allows to study the system of gender relationships in a country and its link with demographic behaviour. The GGS covers relationships between generations, also from the viewpoint of the population above the reproductive ages, which allows analysts and policy-makers to address the pertinent issues of population ageing in developed countries.The study of the family ties reported by the Gender and Generations Survey allows for the various types of exchange among generations. Therefore, even when it was not designed for the study of ageing, it allows for the identification of childcare by grandparents, as well as networks providing support to the elderly. The main drawback of the GGS is that the processing of data takes considerable time. Thus, the number of countries that allow the analysis of more than one wave is still scarce. Given this, users and potential users should monitor the website and sign up for the mailing list to ensure they are informed of all new data releases. Efforts are being undertaken to improve this process within the resource constraints of the project.

Applicability


As a longitudinal dataset, the GGS broadens the explanatory scope of the collected data. To make causal inferences, the analyst needs data where the hypothesized cause is observed before the outcome in a person's lifetime. The panel design provides the possibility to use the broad range of information pertaining to the time of interview in explaining the demographic behaviour recorded between the panel waves. This is particularly important for variables, such as incomes and opinions, that cannot normally be collected retrospectively. Population scholars increasingly share the view that single-discipline perspectives for studying population and family behaviour are incapable of producing major gains in our understanding. The multidisciplinary approach in the GGP is reflected in the breadth of theories underlying the questions included in the survey instrument. Among the theories reflected in the questionnaire are the theory of reasoned action, the theory of the importance of attitudes and norms in social behaviour, theories of the impact of social networks, and theories of gender and gendered behaviour. The GGS integrates the broader context within which people make their behavioural choices into the data design and develops a contextual database. This is grounded on the assumption that individual behaviour, such as childbearing and the formation and disruption of co-residential unions, is influenced not only by personal traits, living conditions, and beliefs, but also by the context within which people live, including their families, networks, communities, and societies. From its inception, the GGS has been a joint multi-national research effort. European countries have many features in common, therefore, it pays for countries to join forces and seek answers together. The knowledge emanating from a joint effort will better shed light on how each country's policies actually influence population and family change. In order to enable individual countries to compare themselves with others as fully as possible, the GGP aims for a high level of comparability of data and methodologies. The GGS addresses gender issues throughout its wide range of topics. It uses stratified, nationally representative samples that include approximately equal numbers of men and women. It collects most of its data from a couple’s perspective, that is, the respondents provide a large amount of information, also about their current partner if they have one. The gender issues are taken into account throughout the questionnaire in formulating the response items and including thematic blocks of questions. All this allows to study the system of gender relationships in a country and its link with demographic behaviour. The GGS covers relationships between generations, also from the viewpoint of the population above the reproductive ages, which allows analysts and policy-makers to address the pertinent issues of population ageing in developed countries.The study of the family ties reported by the Gender and Generations Survey allows for the various types of exchange among generations. Therefore, even when it was not designed for the study of ageing, it allows for the identification of childcare by grandparents, as well as networks providing support to the elderly. The main drawback of the GGS is that the processing of data takes considerable time. Thus, the number of countries that allow the analysis of more than one wave is still scarce. Given this, users and potential users should monitor the website and sign up for the mailing list to ensure they are informed of all new data releases. Efforts are being undertaken to improve this process within the resource constraints of the project.

Applicability


As a longitudinal dataset, the GGS broadens the explanatory scope of the collected data. To make causal inferences, the analyst needs data where the hypothesized cause is observed before the outcome in a person's lifetime. The panel design provides the possibility to use the broad range of information pertaining to the time of interview in explaining the demographic behaviour recorded between the panel waves. This is particularly important for variables, such as incomes and opinions, that cannot normally be collected retrospectively. Population scholars increasingly share the view that single-discipline perspectives for studying population and family behaviour are incapable of producing major gains in our understanding. The multidisciplinary approach in the GGP is reflected in the breadth of theories underlying the questions included in the survey instrument. Among the theories reflected in the questionnaire are the theory of reasoned action, the theory of the importance of attitudes and norms in social behaviour, theories of the impact of social networks, and theories of gender and gendered behaviour. The GGS integrates the broader context within which people make their behavioural choices into the data design and develops a contextual database. This is grounded on the assumption that individual behaviour, such as childbearing and the formation and disruption of co-residential unions, is influenced not only by personal traits, living conditions, and beliefs, but also by the context within which people live, including their families, networks, communities, and societies. From its inception, the GGS has been a joint multi-national research effort. European countries have many features in common, therefore, it pays for countries to join forces and seek answers together. The knowledge emanating from a joint effort will better shed light on how each country's policies actually influence population and family change. In order to enable individual countries to compare themselves with others as fully as possible, the GGP aims for a high level of comparability of data and methodologies. The GGS addresses gender issues throughout its wide range of topics. It uses stratified, nationally representative samples that include approximately equal numbers of men and women. It collects most of its data from a couple’s perspective, that is, the respondents provide a large amount of information, also about their current partner if they have one. The gender issues are taken into account throughout the questionnaire in formulating the response items and including thematic blocks of questions. All this allows to study the system of gender relationships in a country and its link with demographic behaviour. The GGS covers relationships between generations, also from the viewpoint of the population above the reproductive ages, which allows analysts and policy-makers to address the pertinent issues of population ageing in developed countries.The study of the family ties reported by the Gender and Generations Survey allows for the various types of exchange among generations. Therefore, even when it was not designed for the study of ageing, it allows for the identification of childcare by grandparents, as well as networks providing support to the elderly. The main drawback of the GGS is that the processing of data takes considerable time. Thus, the number of countries that allow the analysis of more than one wave is still scarce. Given this, users and potential users should monitor the website and sign up for the mailing list to ensure they are informed of all new data releases. Efforts are being undertaken to improve this process within the resource constraints of the project.

Applicability


As a longitudinal dataset, the GGS broadens the explanatory scope of the collected data. To make causal inferences, the analyst needs data where the hypothesized cause is observed before the outcome in a person's lifetime. The panel design provides the possibility to use the broad range of information pertaining to the time of interview in explaining the demographic behaviour recorded between the panel waves. This is particularly important for variables, such as incomes and opinions, that cannot normally be collected retrospectively. Population scholars increasingly share the view that single-discipline perspectives for studying population and family behaviour are incapable of producing major gains in our understanding. The multidisciplinary approach in the GGP is reflected in the breadth of theories underlying the questions included in the survey instrument. Among the theories reflected in the questionnaire are the theory of reasoned action, the theory of the importance of attitudes and norms in social behaviour, theories of the impact of social networks, and theories of gender and gendered behaviour. The GGS integrates the broader context within which people make their behavioural choices into the data design and develops a contextual database. This is grounded on the assumption that individual behaviour, such as childbearing and the formation and disruption of co-residential unions, is influenced not only by personal traits, living conditions, and beliefs, but also by the context within which people live, including their families, networks, communities, and societies. From its inception, the GGS has been a joint multi-national research effort. European countries have many features in common, therefore, it pays for countries to join forces and seek answers together. The knowledge emanating from a joint effort will better shed light on how each country's policies actually influence population and family change. In order to enable individual countries to compare themselves with others as fully as possible, the GGP aims for a high level of comparability of data and methodologies. The GGS addresses gender issues throughout its wide range of topics. It uses stratified, nationally representative samples that include approximately equal numbers of men and women. It collects most of its data from a couple’s perspective, that is, the respondents provide a large amount of information, also about their current partner if they have one. The gender issues are taken into account throughout the questionnaire in formulating the response items and including thematic blocks of questions. All this allows to study the system of gender relationships in a country and its link with demographic behaviour. The GGS covers relationships between generations, also from the viewpoint of the population above the reproductive ages, which allows analysts and policy-makers to address the pertinent issues of population ageing in developed countries.The study of the family ties reported by the Gender and Generations Survey allows for the various types of exchange among generations. Therefore, even when it was not designed for the study of ageing, it allows for the identification of childcare by grandparents, as well as networks providing support to the elderly. The main drawback of the GGS is that the processing of data takes considerable time. Thus, the number of countries that allow the analysis of more than one wave is still scarce. Given this, users and potential users should monitor the website and sign up for the mailing list to ensure they are informed of all new data releases. Efforts are being undertaken to improve this process within the resource constraints of the project.

Applicability


As a longitudinal dataset, the GGS broadens the explanatory scope of the collected data. To make causal inferences, the analyst needs data where the hypothesized cause is observed before the outcome in a person's lifetime. The panel design provides the possibility to use the broad range of information pertaining to the time of interview in explaining the demographic behaviour recorded between the panel waves. This is particularly important for variables, such as incomes and opinions, that cannot normally be collected retrospectively. Population scholars increasingly share the view that single-discipline perspectives for studying population and family behaviour are incapable of producing major gains in our understanding. The multidisciplinary approach in the GGP is reflected in the breadth of theories underlying the questions included in the survey instrument. Among the theories reflected in the questionnaire are the theory of reasoned action, the theory of the importance of attitudes and norms in social behaviour, theories of the impact of social networks, and theories of gender and gendered behaviour. The GGS integrates the broader context within which people make their behavioural choices into the data design and develops a contextual database. This is grounded on the assumption that individual behaviour, such as childbearing and the formation and disruption of co-residential unions, is influenced not only by personal traits, living conditions, and beliefs, but also by the context within which people live, including their families, networks, communities, and societies. From its inception, the GGS has been a joint multi-national research effort. European countries have many features in common, therefore, it pays for countries to join forces and seek answers together. The knowledge emanating from a joint effort will better shed light on how each country's policies actually influence population and family change. In order to enable individual countries to compare themselves with others as fully as possible, the GGP aims for a high level of comparability of data and methodologies. The GGS addresses gender issues throughout its wide range of topics. It uses stratified, nationally representative samples that include approximately equal numbers of men and women. It collects most of its data from a couple’s perspective, that is, the respondents provide a large amount of information, also about their current partner if they have one. The gender issues are taken into account throughout the questionnaire in formulating the response items and including thematic blocks of questions. All this allows to study the system of gender relationships in a country and its link with demographic behaviour. The GGS covers relationships between generations, also from the viewpoint of the population above the reproductive ages, which allows analysts and policy-makers to address the pertinent issues of population ageing in developed countries.The study of the family ties reported by the Gender and Generations Survey allows for the various types of exchange among generations. Therefore, even when it was not designed for the study of ageing, it allows for the identification of childcare by grandparents, as well as networks providing support to the elderly. The main drawback of the GGS is that the processing of data takes considerable time. Thus, the number of countries that allow the analysis of more than one wave is still scarce. Given this, users and potential users should monitor the website and sign up for the mailing list to ensure they are informed of all new data releases. Efforts are being undertaken to improve this process within the resource constraints of the project.

Applicability


As a longitudinal dataset, the GGS broadens the explanatory scope of the collected data. To make causal inferences, the analyst needs data where the hypothesized cause is observed before the outcome in a person's lifetime. The panel design provides the possibility to use the broad range of information pertaining to the time of interview in explaining the demographic behaviour recorded between the panel waves. This is particularly important for variables, such as incomes and opinions, that cannot normally be collected retrospectively. Population scholars increasingly share the view that single-discipline perspectives for studying population and family behaviour are incapable of producing major gains in our understanding. The multidisciplinary approach in the GGP is reflected in the breadth of theories underlying the questions included in the survey instrument. Among the theories reflected in the questionnaire are the theory of reasoned action, the theory of the importance of attitudes and norms in social behaviour, theories of the impact of social networks, and theories of gender and gendered behaviour. The GGS integrates the broader context within which people make their behavioural choices into the data design and develops a contextual database. This is grounded on the assumption that individual behaviour, such as childbearing and the formation and disruption of co-residential unions, is influenced not only by personal traits, living conditions, and beliefs, but also by the context within which people live, including their families, networks, communities, and societies. From its inception, the GGS has been a joint multi-national research effort. European countries have many features in common, therefore, it pays for countries to join forces and seek answers together. The knowledge emanating from a joint effort will better shed light on how each country's policies actually influence population and family change. In order to enable individual countries to compare themselves with others as fully as possible, the GGP aims for a high level of comparability of data and methodologies. The GGS addresses gender issues throughout its wide range of topics. It uses stratified, nationally representative samples that include approximately equal numbers of men and women. It collects most of its data from a couple’s perspective, that is, the respondents provide a large amount of information, also about their current partner if they have one. The gender issues are taken into account throughout the questionnaire in formulating the response items and including thematic blocks of questions. All this allows to study the system of gender relationships in a country and its link with demographic behaviour. The GGS covers relationships between generations, also from the viewpoint of the population above the reproductive ages, which allows analysts and policy-makers to address the pertinent issues of population ageing in developed countries.The study of the family ties reported by the Gender and Generations Survey allows for the various types of exchange among generations. Therefore, even when it was not designed for the study of ageing, it allows for the identification of childcare by grandparents, as well as networks providing support to the elderly. The main drawback of the GGS is that the processing of data takes considerable time. Thus, the number of countries that allow the analysis of more than one wave is still scarce. Given this, users and potential users should monitor the website and sign up for the mailing list to ensure they are informed of all new data releases. Efforts are being undertaken to improve this process within the resource constraints of the project.


  • The information about this dataset was compiled by the author:
  • Diana Lopez-Falcon
  • (see Partners)