126
networks; however, it is especially important as a shaping factor of the
No-family configuration. In summary, in spite of the strong country effects,
these findings show that it is crucial to take into account different factors as
the main predictors of family networks. For some types of networks, gen-
erational background and the life stage are key factors, while for others the
role of gender is determinant.
Lastly, as a final comment it is important to stress that these results
reveal that future analyses of personal and family networks must take into
account the specific economic, social, cultural, and political pathways of
the different European societies. Looking back to the possible influences
of different welfare states and family lives cultures, we can see in this
chapter that in expanding or changing welfare regimes such as Portugal
and Lithuania, where intergenerational/informal responsibilities are tra-
ditionally expected to compensate for weak state and market provision
and lower living standards, familialism still seems to promote a stronger
process of suffusion between personal and family networks. In both
countries, difficult or unstable living conditions and the need to share
housing (multigenerational households, collective housing) also seems to
have reinforced the relevance of co-residence and intergenerational rela-
tionships. However, Portugal’s specific pathway over the last two decades,
stressing gender equality and individual autonomy in conjugal and fam-
ily life, differs from a more pro-traditional familial backlash in Lithuania,
also leading to differences between these two countries: individuals’ fam-
ily networks in Portugal are more open to a wider array of affinities such
as friends, while individuals in Lithuania focus almost exclusively on co-
resident kin ties. Switzerland, on the other hand, presents a completely
different national scenario. High living standards and a liberal welfare
state underscoring market provision, individual autonomy, and interde-
pendency in marriage and within the nuclear family rather than a broader
dependency across generations and households, leads, on the one hand,
to a strong focus of family networks on the central dyads of the nuclear
family and, on the other hand, to a growing focus on partners as a core
nucleus of family meaning.
Acknowledgements The authors of the chapter wish to acknowledge sponsors
that made it possible to carry out this investigation, the results of which are
K. Wall et al.