Composite Indicators for the Family Change: ‘Familism' vs ‘Individualism' in the International Context

The aim of this paper is to propose a composite indicator to measure ‘familism’, conformed by two main dimensions: values on one hand (duty to take care of the family, importance of the family, sacrifices for the family...) and behaviours, on the other (predominance of married couples instead of cohabitant couples, high frequency of contact among members, family support…). In contrast to this idea of ‘familism’ we find that of individualism, that defends the independence of family members, tolerance to new family models, cohabitation instead of marriage,… , that implies less frequency of interaction among relatives and more governmental intervention towards children and elderly care. We observe that a higher degree of ‘familism’ does not always match with a lower degree of individualism when both dimensions, attitudes and behaviours, are considered. For instance, we find countries which are individualist in values but not in behaviours (such as Spain), whilst others, such as Japan, are ‘familist’ both in values and behaviours and finally, others, such as Sweden, are individualist with regards to both perspectives. We propose two different methodological approaches to the question. First, we use microdata from the Family, Work and Gender Roles module of the International Social Survey Programme-ISSP (years 1994, 2002 and 2012), in which 45 countries have participated. Information for the three rounds is collected for 17 countries with very different family values and welfare systems (for instance, Sweden, Japan, Russia, Spain, United Kingdom or the United States). From this data source, we create a first index on familism that can be related to individual sociodemographic characteristics. Second, we complete it through the inclusion of macro data (such as the divorce rate per country), in order to refine comparison at a country level by adding new variables to the previous index.

Composite Indicators for the Family Change: ‘Familism' vs ‘Individualism' in the International Context

The aim of this paper is to propose a composite indicator to measure ‘familism’, conformed by two main dimensions: values on one hand (duty to take care of the family, importance of the family, sacrifices for the family...) and behaviours, on the other (predominance of married couples instead of cohabitant couples, high frequency of contact among members, family support…). In contrast to this idea of ‘familism’ we find that of individualism, that defends the independence of family members, tolerance to new family models, cohabitation instead of marriage,… , that implies less frequency of interaction among relatives and more governmental intervention towards children and elderly care. We observe that a higher degree of ‘familism’ does not always match with a lower degree of individualism when both dimensions, attitudes and behaviours, are considered. For instance, we find countries which are individualist in values but not in behaviours (such as Spain), whilst others, such as Japan, are ‘familist’ both in values and behaviours and finally, others, such as Sweden, are individualist with regards to both perspectives. We propose two different methodological approaches to the question. First, we use microdata from the Family, Work and Gender Roles module of the International Social Survey Programme-ISSP (years 1994, 2002 and 2012), in which 45 countries have participated. Information for the three rounds is collected for 17 countries with very different family values and welfare systems (for instance, Sweden, Japan, Russia, Spain, United Kingdom or the United States). From this data source, we create a first index on familism that can be related to individual sociodemographic characteristics. Second, we complete it through the inclusion of macro data (such as the divorce rate per country), in order to refine comparison at a country level by adding new variables to the previous index.

Phases Dynamic Balancer

Most of the current domestic installations are single phase, with contracted power equal to or less than 15 kW and with a potential difference of 230 V. When consumption is expected to be higher you choose to use three different alternating currents with a difference voltage of 400 V between them, which are called phases. This enables the subdivision of the installation in different single-phase circuits, fed independently with the neutral installation. These couples have, in turn, a difference in voltage of 230 V. The neutral is common for all three phases so that, if the system is balanced, no current flows through it. The problem with these installations is that they are designed to work in an offset manner, using phase loads, and simultaneously an equal amount of energy consumed by the three phases of the network. Connection to each of the phases makes independent single-phase loads or disturbance of the operation of the original phase circuit and, consequently, the corresponding increases in consumption, heating of engines, etc.