The Intergenerational Impact of China's New Rural Pension Scheme
Jing You,Miguel Nino-Zarazua
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/padr.12248
2019-01-01
Population and Development Review
Abstract:Population and Development ReviewVolume 45, Issue S1 p. 47-95 SUPPLEMENTOpen Access The Intergenerational Impact of China's New Rural Pension Scheme Jing You, Jing You orcid.org/0000-0002-0152-0724 Search for more papers by this authorMiguel Niño-Zarazúa, Miguel Niño-Zarazúa orcid.org/0000-0003-4713-3890 Search for more papers by this author Jing You, Jing You orcid.org/0000-0002-0152-0724 Search for more papers by this authorMiguel Niño-Zarazúa, Miguel Niño-Zarazúa orcid.org/0000-0003-4713-3890 Search for more papers by this author First published: 10 July 2019 https://doi.org/10.1111/padr.12248Citations: 3AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Old-age pensions have become an important component of systems aimed at protecting the elderly against poverty. The expansion of pension schemes can partly be attributed to important demographic changes that have pressured welfare institutions to respond to the demands of a growing elderly population. Bolivia's Renta Dignidad, India's Indira Gandhi National Old Age Pension Scheme, Mexico's 70 y Mas, and South Africa's Old Age Pension are notable examples of this new wave of old-age pension schemes in the global South. Only a few studies have examined the effects of old-age pension schemes on household income (Bertrand et al. 2003), assets and investment decisions (Landerretche and Martinez 2013), and labor market outcomes (Galiani, Gertler, and Bando 2014; Ardington et al., 2009), including those among adults living with pensioners (de Oliviera et al. 2017; Ardington et al. 2009). There is growing evidence that old-age pensions can influence retirement incentives and intertemporal behavior in labor supply and savings decisions, and can also affect wealth distribution across generations (Castañeda, Díaz-Giménez, and Ríos-Rull 2003; De Nardi and Yang 2014; Saez and Zucman 2016; Cowell et al. 2016). In Scandinavian countries, the effect of welfare regimes in smoothing inequality is often considered to be an important underlying mechanism that explains the increasing trend in intergenerational mobility in those countries (Jansson 2014; Landersø and Heckman 2017; Modalsli 2017). Among welfare policies, old-age pensions are strongly associated with intergenerational transmission of wealth. The study described here examines whether, and the extent to which, China's New Rural Pension Scheme (NRPS) has affected the intergenerational transmission of wealth in a country where the population has aged rapidly. We used a nationally representative panel survey, the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS), which collected data in 2011 and 2013, to answer these questions. The literature provides some plausible mechanisms underpinning the causal relationship between pension schemes and wealth transmission across generations. Feldstein (1974) and Gale (1998) suggested a substitution effect between pension savings and wealth of family members in a standard life-cycle model. Factors that can influence that rate of substitution include illiquidity of pension wealth and borrowing constraints, precautionary savings, and the functioning of insurance markets (Hubbard, Skinner, and Zeldes 1995), differential returns to pensions and other financial savings (Attanasio and Brugiavini 2003), and the value of benefits (Gustman and Steinmeier 2015). Other studies have argued for a jointly determined retirement age and savings effect in which pension wealth does not substitute for other forms of wealth but adds to total wealth, leading to higher savings before retirement in the presense of a pension (Gustman and Steinmeier 2001). High savings rates—even with public pensions, particularly in fast-growing economies like China—have been attributed, under an intertemporal decision framework, to habitual preferences (Attanasio and Weber 2010). Anticipating pension benefits can also change individual retirement incentives and intertemporal behavior in labor supply and savings, leading households to enjoy different wealth levels at retirement (Blundell, French, and Tetlow 2016; Chetty et al. 2014; De Nardi and Yang 2014; Saez and Zucman 2016). Intergenerational mobility models introducing bequest motives have predicted that in fast-growing economies in which the older generation suffered from very poor living conditions—as in the case of China—older individuals tend to save and bequeath considerable wealth to their children (Attanasio et al. 2016). In fact, empirical studies find both "crowding in" (Brandt and Deindl 2013) and "crowding out" (Rowlingson, Joseph, and Overton 2017) effects of public support on parental private financial support to adult children (i.e., downstream transfers). Social security policies affecting parental income or wealth can also crowd out children's transfers to parents (i.e., upstream transfers), as reported in the cases of China (Cai, Giles, and Meng 2006), Taiwan (Gerardi and Tsai 2014), and Mexico (Amuedo-Dorantes and Juarez 2015). However, earlier studies showed that children often transfer more time and/or money to parents in exchange for greater parental income or a greater wealth transfer (Bernheim, Shleifer, and Summers 1985; Cox and Rank 1992; Altonji, Hayashi, and Kotlikoff 1997). This can lead to "crowding in" of children's transfers to parents at the higher level of parental pension incomes, as shown in Chen et al. (2017). Intergenerational mobility models also predict that wealth inequality can persist into the next generation by bequests (De Nardi 2004) and parental investment in children's education and health (Becker et al. 2018).1 One may expect that old-age pensions create windfalls for retirees, which would beget more wealth for the next generation through the above two channels. In particular, when a pension serves as an income transfer to a financially constrained household, pension entitlements could lead to improvements in children's well-being (Duflo 2000; Gutierrez, Juarez, and Rubli 2016) and to increases in their education, which in turn can contribute to intergenerational welfare improvement (Mu and Du 2015). This study contributes to the literature in a number of ways. First, we examine the distributional effects of parental pension status on filial wealth accumulation and its association with parental wealth. The existing literature has studied outcomes of pensions mainly in cross-sectional settings, including recipients' consumption (Zheng and Zhong 2016), private savings (Feng, He, and Sato 2011), labor supply (Galiani, Gertler, and Bando 2016), living arrangements (Hamoudi and Thomas 2014), and their extended family members' labor mobility decisions (Chen 2016). While the impact of pensions can extend to the next generation, as discussed earlier, to our knowledge no empirical studies have explored the individual-level intergenerational dependence or mobility of wealth that is induced by pensions. To identify the causal effect of the pension, we adopt a fuzzy regression discontinuity (RD) design, which exploits not only the age eligibility threshold but also the exogenous variation in the rollout of the pension scheme. This differs from a standard RD, in that we utilize information on both treated compliers and never-participants for comparison, as it is possible that nonprogram communities could have benefited by the reassignment of the program (Ravallion 2007). Taking never-participants into account yields larger treatment effects. Second, we address two different forms of heterogeneity that are likely to affect the impact of the pension. One is related to heterogeneous behavioral responses to pensions, depending on observed characteristics. For example, Engen, Gale, and Scholz (1996) have shown that saving incentives induced by pension schemes can raise private savings when households finance contributions by reductions in consumption, increases in labor supply, or tax cuts. However, private savings cannot rise if households use existing assets to contribute to a pension scheme. This creates variations in wealth outcomes, depending on pensioners' existing economic endowments. Household data from the United Kingdom and Italy suggest that the substitution effect between pension and nonpension wealth is particularly high for workers between ages 35 and 45, as their liquidity is often more constrained than that of older cohorts (Attanasio and Brugiavini 2003). From the perspective of family members who have parents participating in or receiving pensions, their transfers to parents are related nonlinearly to parental or household income in both developed and developing countries (Cox, Hansen, and Jimenez 2004). This situation seems to be driven by children's motivations (Chen et al. 2017) and economic conditions, notably income volatility (Albarran and Attanasio 2003). The other form of heterogeneity is related to unobserved characteristics such as individuals' time preferences and perceived value of pension benefits, which can influence the timing of their benefit claims and life-cycle wealth accumulation (Gustman and Steinmeier 2015). To address not only the heterogeneous effects of pensions on adult children's wealth across the entire distribution, but also the endogeneity problem arising from self-selection into program treatment—conditional upon observed and unobserved characteristics at individual and community levels—we apply instrumental quantile regressions to our fuzzy RD design. We also compute our estimates separately, depending on the age of eligibility. The empirical findings shed new light on recent welfare policy in China. Our individual-level analysis provides the "net" policy impact of the NRPS after taking individual behavioral responses into account. The estimated impact of the program on intergenerational mobility helps us understand the effects of social protection policies in China and adds to the limited knowledge base for middle- and low-income countries that are currently considering introducing or expanding old-age pension schemes. Population aging and the NRPS in rural China At the end of 2000, China had 88.1 million people aged 65 and older—7 percent of the country's total population.2 This placed China in the United Nations' "aging society" category. At an average annual growth rate of 4 percent, the elderly population would have continued to grow in size, to 222 million by the end of 2015, representing 16 percent of China's total population. This proportion is twice the 2015 world average of 8 percent (OECD 2015). The United Nations has projected that by 2050, people aged 60 and older will make up more than 30 percent of China's total population (UNRISD 2016), again substantially higher than the projected world average of 18 percent (OECD 2015). China's rural population has long been excluded from social protection. This was especially true for the rural elderly population, which had not been entitled to participate in any pension scheme until 2009, when the government piloted the NRPS. Even though the government began to introduce the rural minimum living standard guarantee scheme (rural Dibao) in 2001, the coverage rate increased only slightly, from 0.4 percent in 2001 to 8.6 percent in 2015; moreover, this scheme was not targeted at the elderly, but rather at the poor and vulnerable.3 The 2010 census showed that 46 percent of those past retirement age still relied on their own labor, while roughly 44 percent were supported by their families (see Table 1). Table 1. Percentage distribution of rural elderly men and women in China, by source of livelihood, according to age-group 45–59 60–79 80+ Source of livelihood Total Men Women Total Men Women Total Men Women Labor income 88.2% 94.5% 81.9% 46.1% 55.2% 36.9% 4.8% 7.2% 3.3% Pension 0.8% 0.7% 0.9% 4.7% 7.1% 2.2% 4.1% 7.% 1.6% Unemployment insurance 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Minimum living standard 0.8% 1.0% 0.6% 4.2% 4.8% 3.5% 6.9% 8.2% 6.1% Wealth income 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% Family 9.0% 2.8% 15.4% 43.1% 30.9% 55.5% 81.9% 74.1% 87.0% Other 0.9% 0.8% 1.0% 1.8% 1.7% 1.8% 2.1% 2.5% 1.9% Total no. 13,467,601 6,788,560 6,679,041 8,882,232 4,473,415 4,408,817 1,203,637 483,574 720,063 SOURCE: Authors' calculations and compilation of data from the 2010 census. The Chinese government piloted the NRPS in about 10 percent of counties in 2009, aiming to cover all rural adults by 2020. The rural population aged 16–59 who are not covered by other pension schemes and are not in school are eligible to join the program at their places of household registration and on a voluntary basis. Participants have to contribute for at least 15 years to receive the benefits. At the time of program implementation, the rural elderly were entitled to receive benefits without making any contributions, as long as all of their eligible adult children had joined the NRPS. These terms encouraged most rural adults to join the scheme. Individual annual contributions initially ranged between 100 and 500 yuan (about US$15 and US$75 according to the average market exchange rate in 2016), but because the provincial governments can set higher contribution rates than those provided by the central government, the maximum annual contribution approached 3,600 yuan (about US$542) in 2016. The benefits comprise (1) total savings in the private account before turning 60 (including individual contributions, government subsidies and accrued interest and (2) the pension payout from the central government, which was 55 yuan initially in 2009 and increased to 115 yuan in 2016.4 Studies have reported that the NRPS has improved consumption among beneficiaries (Zheng and Zhong 2016), especially for elders with only one child (Liu et al. 2015). Cheng et al. (2018b) report that the pension improved recipients' nutrient intake, access to health care, use of inpatient services, and leisure time and reduced their reliance on their adult children, especially sons. Ding (2017) also found improved life satisfaction as a result of the pension, whereas Eggleston, Sun, and Zhan (2016) showed that it facilitated adult children's migration and off-farm work. We are not aware of previous studies examining the welfare effects of participation (rather than receipt) for those still having to contribute for decades, but only on determinants of their participation decisions. Those with fewer sons were more likely to join (Ebenstein and Leung 2010), while younger rural residents joined less often and at lower contribution rates (Lei, Zhang, and Zhao 2013). Rates of uptake also varied by age, value of durable assets, health status, and local enforcement of the program and by the size of the government payout (Zhao et al. 2016). These factors were found to threaten the long-term sustainability of the scheme (Bairoliya et al. 2017). Data Data sources CHARLS is a nationally representative panel dataset collected by the School of National Development at Peking University in 2011 and 2013. Populations aged 45 or older were interviewed using a stratified sampling framework, with units selected with probability proportional to size. The baseline survey included 17,708 individuals aged 45 or older, out of 10,257 households in 450 communities in 150 counties from 28 provinces. The follow-up survey covered 18,605 individuals out of 10,803 households in the same communities. Our sample included individuals who were interviewed in both waves and who resided in rural communities (as defined by the National Bureau of Statistics of China), and thus were eligible to receive the pension. They had at least one biological child (aged 18 or older) with valid information and reported information on pensions in the 2011 wave, which allowed us to disentangle the dynamic impact of the pension scheme. The selected individuals were defined as the parental generation. Each individual came from one household. These individuals were paired with their adult children, whom we refer to here as the filial generation. Table 2 cross-tabulates the samples by parental age. There were 1,990 parents aged 45–60 and 3,390 parents older than 60. There were 4,733 parent-child pairs for the former group and 12,876 intergenerational pairs for the latter. The NRPS had been introduced to about 43 percent of the sampled communities by 2011, slightly lower than the national coverage (60 percent) in the same year,5 but this proportion increased to 53 percent in 2013. Table 2. Sample size of the constructed panel Sample size 45 ≤ age < 60a Age ≥60a Filial generation 4,733 12,876 Parental generation 1,990 3,390 Treatedb 1,792 (1,098 in 2011) 3,114 (1,397 in 2011) Participants/recipientsc 1,369 (421 in 2011) 2,367 (666 in 2011) Nonparticipants/nonrecipients 423 747 Nontreated 198 276 Community 237 237 Treatedd 126 (103 in 2011) 192 (102 in 2011) Untreated 101 45 Province 25 25 a Age-cohorts are defined by parental age. b Being "treated" (or "nontreated") means that the individuals lived in communities where the reform was (or was not) put into effect. c Being "participants" or "recipients" indicates those who lived in communities where the reform was put into effect and joined, or who received benefits of, the pension scheme. d County governments did not separately pilot the NRPS according to age. The different numbers of treated communities between the two cohorts are the result of different sample sizes and living arrangements—16 percent of parents aged 60 or above coresided with their children, as opposed to 49 percent of those younger than 60. SOURCE: Authors' calculations, based on the CHARLS (2011 and 2013). In 2013, about 90 percent of parents lived in treated communities, while 76 percent of parents living in treated communities joined or received payments from the NRPS. This is equivalent to an overall enrollment rate (number of participants and recipients divided by the number of surveyed parents aged 45 or above) of 69.4 percent. This is higher than the identical enrollment rate from another nationally representative household survey, the China Family Panel Study (CFPS), which found enrollment rates of 51.3 percent in 2012 and 60.6 percent in 2014. Another survey in five provinces, which was conducted by the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences in 2012 using a similar multilevel sampling procedure as the CHARLS and the CFPS, showed that 74 percent sampled individuals aged 16–92 were enrolled in the NRPS in 2011 (Chang et al. 2014). These survey-based rates were relatively closer to the national rate of 63.8 percent in 2010, as expected,6 but are much lower than the national rate in 2013, when the NRPS was rapidly expanded.7 The CHARLS survey provided sampling probabilities reflecting their sampling procedures and non-response rates during interview. We used the inverse sampling probabilities as the weights in all regressions, in order to correct for possible sampling biases during our sample selection. Given that roughly one parent aged below 60 had two children and one aged above 60 had three children, we clustered standard errors at parental level. Livelihood profile and arrangements among the rural Chinese elderly Tables 3 and 4 compare various aspects of life between generations by parental age. As the key indicator, wealth was defined as net worth—that is, the sum of housing assets, fixed assets (including the value of productive and household business assets), the value of consumer durables, financial assets (such as savings, equity, and loans), and other forms of assets (such as jewelry), net of all debts. Pension wealth and human capital were not included, following Cowell et al. (2016) and Saez and Zucman (2016). Table 3. Selected characteristics of the parental generation (by parental age) 45 ≤ age <60 Age ≥60 Mean age (in years) 53.6 69.8 % male 42.0 54.0 Years of education 5.6 2.9 No. of biological children (alive) 2.1 3.1 Wealth (individual/per capita) (in yuan) 79,454 72,721 % having negative net wealth 16.5 6.1 % in ill health last month 12.6 14.3 % disabled 7.9 16.5 % expecting old-age support from children 71.9 73.9 % expecting old-age support from pension 12.5 15.2 % with a spouse who prefer to live with adult children 64.9 60.3 % without a spouse who prefer to live with adult children 78.3 71.4 % actually living with children 49.0 16.4 Of which, % with economic dependency 55.2 34.3 Annual contribution to the NRPSa (in yuan) 171 177 Annual net income (in yuan) 4,625 1,603 Share of annual contribution in annual net incomeb 3.7 11.1 % treatedc 90.1 91.6 % participant/recipientd 68.8 69.8 (25.6% in 2011) (25.4% in 2011) Total mean transfer from parents to children in last year (in yuan) 3,287 867 % of parents making transfer 25.1 21.6 Mean size of transfer among parents making one 13,102 4,011 Money transferred to children (in yuan) 2,992 769 % of parents making transfer 72.9 56.4 Mean size of transfer among parents making one 16,361 6,309 Regular money transferred to children, typically monthly support for living expenses (in yuan) 593 75 % of parents making transfer 22.9 27.9 Mean size of transfer among parents making one 14,153 2,193 In-kind goods transferred to children (in yuan) 295 98 % of parents making transfer 52.1 62 Mean size of transfer among parents making one 2,260 731 In-kind goods transferred regularly to children (in yuan) 26 16 % of parents making transfer 21.9 25.2 Mean size of transfer among parents making one 897 464 Total mean transfer from children to parents in last year (in yuan) 2,787 3,077.006 % of parents making transfer 56.5 83.4 Mean size of transfer among parents making one 4,934 3,736 Money transferred from children (in yuan) 2,237 2,190 % of parents making transfer 67.5 65.8 Mean size of transfer among parents making one 5,871 3,327 Money transferred regularly from children (in yuan) 589 596 % of parents making transfer 27.6 34.0 Mean size of transfer among parents making one 5,035 2,663 In-kind goods transferred from children (in yuan) 550 887 % of parents making transfer 44.7 65.8 Mean size of transfer among parents making one 1,232 1,348 In-kind goods transferred regularly from children (in yuan) 123.4 205.8 % of parents making transfer 26.2 28.3 Mean size of transfer among parents making one 1,057 1,107 Net transfer (in yuan)e −500 2,210 Mean positive net transfer 5,082 3,610 % with positive net transfer 47.2 77.7 Mean negative net transfer −20,695 −10,944 % with negative net transfer 14.0 5.4 Total transfer to parents in last year (in yuan) 365 43 % of parents making transfer 34.0 6.0 Mean size of transfer among parents making one 1,076 720 Mean amount of money transferred to parents (in yuan) 240 22 % making transfer 22.3 3.5 Mean size of transfer among those making one 1,029 627 Mean amount of in-kind goods transferred to parents (in yuan) 126 21 % making transfer 24.1 4.6 Mean size of transfer among those making one 522 465 Total transfer from parents in last year (in yuan) 26 3 % making transfer 2.4 0.3 Mean size of transfer among those making one 1,065 988 Money transferred from parents (in yuan) 23 2 % making transfer 1.2 0.2 Mean size of transfer among those making one 1,875 1,252 In-kind goods transferred from parents (in yuan) 3 0.4 % making transfer 1.7 0.1 Mean size of transfer among those making one 200 350 a The average annual contribution to the NRPS is calculated only among those who have paid the premium. b Calculated as the ratio of the two rows above. c "Treated" means that the individuals lived in communities where the NRPS was (or was not) put into effect; "nontreated" means living in communities where the NRPS was not put into effect. d Being "participants" indicates those who lived in communities where the NRPS was put into effect and was joined; being "recipients" indicates those who received benefits of the NRPS. e Net transfers are calculated as the total transfers from children minus total transfers to children. SOURCE: Authors' calculations, based on the CHARLS 2011 and 2013. Table 4. Life profile of filial generation (by parental age) 45 ≤ age < 60 Age ≥60 Age (in years) 25.8 39.1 % male 52.7 53.1 Years of education 8.4 6.4 % married 69.4 94.9 No. of biological children (alive) 1.2 2 Wealth (individual/per capita) (in yuan) 125,234 89,260 % having negative net wealth 6.0 3.0 Annual net income (in yuan) 4,414 1,579 Total transfer to parents in last year (in yuan) 1,170 810 % making transfer 38.2 59.2 Mean size of transfer among those making one 3,067 1,367 Amount of money transferred to parents (in yuan) 939 576 % making transfer 62.8 71.6 Mean size of transfer among those making one 3,919 1,359 Amount of money transferred to parents regularly (in yuan) 222 157 % making transfer 26.2 31.0 Mean size of transfer among those making one 3,540 1,193 Amount of in-kind goods transferred to parents (in yuan) 231 233 % making transfer 73.2 68.1 Mean size of transfer among those making one 828 579 In-kind goods transferred regularly to parents (in yuan) 52 54 % making transfer 25.1 25.7 Mean size of transfer among those making one 739 523 Total transfer from parents in past year (in yuan) 1,380 228 % making transfer 13.9 9.0 Mean size of transfer among those making one 9,910 2,539 Amount of money transferred from parents (in yuan) 1,256 202 % making transfer 68.4 49.7 Mean size of transfer among those making one 13,196 4,527 Amount of money transferred regularly from parents, yuan 249 20 % making transfer 22.8 26.4 Mean size of transfer among those making one 11,458 1,667 Value of in-kind goods transferred from parents (in yuan) 124 26 % making transfer 51.3 62 Mean size of transfer among those making one 1,736 464 Value of in-kind goods transferred regularly from parents (in yuan) 11 4 % making transfer 21.2 23.6 Mean size of transfer among those making one 713 315 Net transfer (in yuan)d 210 −581 Mean positive net transfer 15,659 6,130 % with positive net transfer 8.2 3.1 Mean negative net transfer −3,138 −1,366 % with negative net transfer 34.2 56.2 SOURCE: Authors' calculations, based on the CHARLS 2013. For assets jointly owned by household members, we split the value equally by dividing it by household size. For assets—typically housing, fixed assets, and financial assets—we divided the value by the individual household members' share.8 Debts were calculated analogously for each household member. Finally, we constructed estimates of individual net wealth for both generations. Table A1 in Appendix A presents descriptive statistics on the variables of interest. The parental generation earned less income than the filial generation, due in part to age effects and to the amount of human capital held by the filial generation. Adult children owned more wealth as a result of the higher value of housing assets. Only 6 percent and 16.5 percent of parents and 3–6 percent of adult children reported negative net wealth. This fraction is smaller than in Sweden (26 percent) (Black et al. 2015), and similar to Germany (9 percent) and the United States (14 percent) (Cowell et al. 2016). Within each generation, the older the age, the less income and wealth owned, which is consistent with an age effect. Nearly two-thirds of parents preferred to live with adult children (see Table 3), and this preference was much stronger among parents without a spouse (71–78 percent). The rate of actual coresidence with children was lower than the stated preferences, but it was still higher than one-third in the two elderly cohorts (see Table 3). A total of 90 percent of participants (and 72 percent of recipients) paid for the NRPS by themselves rather than relying on their children (see Figure 1). More than 70 percent of parents expected financial support from children in old age, as shown in Table 3, regardless of their age compared with the eligibility age of 60 years old, while only 13–15 percent considered pension income as their main source of financial support. Figure 1Open in figure viewerPowerPoint Distribution of means of old-age support in the parental generation, by age-group SOURCE: Authors' calculations, based on the CHARLS 2013. Table 3 shows that the average annual payment to the NRPS in 2013 was 171 yuan (approximately US$28) among 45–59 year old participants and 177 yuan among participants 60 and older, similar to the national average of 177 yuan.9 Indeed, 79 percent of parents affiliated with the NRPS and aged between 45 and 59 (and 75 percent of those aged 60 or older) paid the lowest contribution rate of 100 yuan (approximately US$16); 75 percent of parents who had already received the monthly benefits in 2013 reported receiving the lowest level of payout, 55 yuan (approximately US$9). Transfers within the extended family are extensive as well as intensive. Roughly one-quarter of parents made transfers to children over the previous year. The amount of these transfers was substantial, representing 71 percent of parental net income among those younger than 60 (about 3,287 yuan, out of 4,625 yuan net income), and mainly in cash. Those aged 60 and older transferred l