Introduction
For 60 years [the members of Kibbutz Afikim] went through life in a sleep. They didn't know and didn't want to know anything about National Insurance, life insurance, health insurance, tax brackets, or pensions. Now they discovered they had no pension, they didn't have the foggiest notion how they would manage in old age, and there was no one to study the information and decide for them. (Inbari Reference Inbari2009: 267)
Historically, the Kibbutzim in Israel were established as collective, socialist communities (Near Reference Near1992). However, since the 1980s, the Kibbutz movement has undergone profound social processes, which to some extent reflect broader political and economic processes that have taken place in Israeli society in general (Ben-Rafael and Topel Reference Ben-Rafael and Topel2009). One of the outcomes of these processes has been a structural change in some of the Kibbutzim, where the traditional collective format was replaced with what is known as a privatised Kibbutz (Gan Reference Gan, Palgi and Reinharz2011; Harpak Reference Harpak2006; Palgi and Orhan Reference Palgi and Orhan2007; Rahmani Reference Rahmani2007; Salam Reference Salam2003). The significant differences between the two forms of Kibbutz, traditional (non-privatised) and privatised, stem from a shift in ideology and are primarily expressed changes in the organisational and social values.
Different sociological theories of law focus on the relationship between social values and the role of law within society. As early as the nineteenth century, the German scholar Savigny (Reference Savigny1831) argued that law ultimately reflects the ‘spirit’ of the nation, and serves as a sort of mirror of its culture and social structure (a metaphor used later on by Prof. Kermit L. Hall in the well-known book on American legal history, The Magic Mirror, 1989). Despite different critiques and developments, the theoretical recognition of the relationship between social structure, values and the law continue to serve as an important sociological theoretical foundation in modern jurisprudence (e.g. Friedman Reference Friedman1985, Reference Friedman1990; Mautner Reference Mautner2008; Mezey Reference Mezey2001).
The purpose of the present research was to take advantage of the historical window of opportunity offered by the Kibbutzim in Israel today, to examine how and to what extent the structural and values-based changes they are experiencing is reflected in the role of the law within them. More specifically, the study presented below examined the relationship between the Kibbutz social structure and the awareness, knowledge and usages of legal planning tools for old age.
Literature review
The Kibbutz
The Kibbutz is a special type of community within Israeli society that was created before the founding of the state, in the early 20th century (Near Reference Near1992). It is viewed as one of the only successful attempts to create a true and long-lasting communal-socialist community. The characteristics and values of the traditional Kibbutz are grounded in the interwinement of Zionist, communal and socialist ideologies, which aspired to create a just and egalitarian society in the process of the creation of the Israeli state (Hazan Reference Hazan1984). The most important values for the Kibbutz were equality, property communion and a social justice. These principles expressed the collectivist identity and the main foundation upon which the Kibbutz was founded and managed (Rosner and Getz Reference Rosner and Getz1996). In their daily life, Kibbutz members were part of an all-encompassing social contract: in all aspects of life they gave all they could – regardless of age – and each received according to their needs (Ben-Rafael and Gajst Reference Ben-Rafael and Gajst1993; Cameo Reference Cameo2000).
In the mid-1980s, in light of economic and political crises in the state of Israel, the Kibbutz movement suffered its own economic and social crisis, which involved ideological issues as well (Halperin Reference Halperin1999; Rosolio Reference Rosolio1999). In response to the economic crisis, structural changes were introduced, most notably in the form of privatisation and the introduction of differential allowances and retrenchment in the services and care provided by the community (Topel Reference Topel2005). These structural changes were the real-life expression of a change in the ideology and principles that had guided Kibbutz life until then. These changes were also expressed in the formal regulations of association of the Kibbutzim. The three most significant formal components of these changes were:
• The introduction of differential salaries: abandonment of the principle of equal pay, that is, division of financial funds based not on egalitarian principle but on the member's actual contribution, job status, public activity and years on the Kibbutz (Israel Ministry of Industry, Trade and Labor 2005).
• The ability to acquire private property by Kibbutz members: abandonment of the principle of communal property (with no private ownership to any member of the Kibbutz), and a shift to a legal regime in which transfer of private ownership – in general, and of residential apartments to individual members – in specific, is allowed.
• The restriction of mutual economic and social security guarantees: abandonment of the formally unlimited commitment to mutual economic and social security guarantees, that is, by the new rules, which financially set formal limits to the Kibbutz members' entitlement to income support, with reference to national standards such as minimum-wage.
Throughout the last decade, out of 262 Kibbutzim associated with the Kibbutz movement, only 60 (23%) have maintained their ‘traditional’ socialist structure, while the rest (77%) have been ‘privatised’ to different degrees. These formal changes, i.e. the introduction of differential pay, the right to own personal property and the limits on financial support, caused a significant social change and the breakdown of social equality. On the newly transformed privatised Kibbutzim, there are today wide differences in the wages that the members earn. Kibbutz members have salaries according to the work they do, homes that they own, personal bank accounts, and, perhaps, other property, as well – things that were all considered ‘heretical’ in the past. Moreover, the members of privatised Kibbutzim now had to handle not only their daily needs by themselves, but their future needs and social security in old age, as well.
Indeed, one of the key groups that was directly affected by the structural and organisational changes of the Kibbutzim was that of the older members. The structural changes on the privatised Kibbutzim totally changes the historical ‘social-contract’ (which promised the best possible care until death, regardless of the amount of need in old age) and for the first time set limits to the scope of financial support in old age (Lapidot, Appelbaum and Yehudai Reference Lapidot, Appelbaum and Yehudai2006). To a certain degree it could be told that the older Kibbutz members in the privatised Kibbutizm ‘woke up’ to totally new reality which they have not envisioned, and maybe even not dreamt in their most dark dreams: living in a non-collective, non-egalitarian environment with limited mutual support, while at the same time having no personal belongings, no personal property and nothing to leave to their children (Leviatan, Adar and Goldenberg Reference Leviatan, Adar and Goldenberg2006; Rosenthal Reference Rosenthal1998).
Legal planning for old age
In his article, Doron (Reference Doron2003) presented a multidimensional model of the relationships between law and old age. One of these dimensions involves legal planning and prevention for old age. This dimension refers to the ability of mature adults to prepare a variety of legal documents that enable them to ensure fulfilment of their interests, rights and personal preferences in the case of retirement, loss of metal capacity, loss of functional independence, or severe illness and death in old age.
As described by Doron (Reference Doron2003), the planning and prevention tools for old age may be divided roughly into two main types: prevention and planning tools in the realm of health and personal care (e.g. advanced health-care directives); and prevention and planning tools in the realm of financial and property management (e.g. durable power of attorneys or trusts). More specifically, for the purposes of this research, the following planning tools for old age are of importance:
• ‘Private’ old-age pension: either occupational-based or private-based financial instrument for securing social-security in old age.
• Advanced health-care directives/enduring power of attorney for health-care decisions: health-care and medical planning tools for medical decision-making in case of loss of mental capacity.
• Private long-term care insurance: financial planning tool to cover potential costs involved with community-based or institutional-based long-term care in case of loss of functioning ability in old age and need of assistance in daily activities.
• Wills: an after-death property planning tool which allows control of the passage of property rights after one's death according to personal wishes and preferences.
• ‘Biological will’/organ donation: a near/after-death personal planning tool for approving the donation of one's organs.
These five, relatively well-known legal instruments, provide adults in general, and older people in particular, with some ability to secure their personal wishes and preferences regarding various aspects of their economic and mental welfare in old age or even after death will be honoured (Gabriel and Bowling Reference Gabriel and Bowling2004).
Unlike North America, there is only a small body of research in Israel regarding the actual usage of legal planning tools for old age. Doron and Gal's research (Reference Doron and Gal2003) was the first, and still the only study to examine the awareness, knowledge and actual usage of legal planning tools for old age in Israel. Their research focused on the following three legal planning tools: wills, advanced health-care directives, and trust funds, all as used among Hebrew-speaking Jews aged 50 and older. The findings showed that the use of legal planning tools for old age in Israel (especially with regard to trusts and advanced health-care directives) was much lower compared to the United States of America (USA), and that there were significant differences between the awareness to such planning tools as opposed to their actual usage in practice.
Within the Kibbutz movement in Israel, no research has been conduced in the past with regard to legal planning tools. Moreover, in the past, individual Kibbutz members generally refrained from using any formal legal instruments as part of their daily lives. They managed their affairs within the collective-Kibbutz society, which abided by internally and democratically decided regulations and rules of conduct. If and to the extent that disagreement between members arose, they were resolved by means of internal mediation, arbitrations or specialised Kibbutz committees that were established specifically for these purposes. Historically then, for better and for worse, Kibbutz members were taken care of by their communities, and the socialist practice made personal legal planning tools redundant (Asaf and Doron Reference Asaf, Doron, Palgi and Reinharz2011).
However, as described above, many Kibbutzim have undergone significant formal legal changes. These recent cultural and social changes surrounding the privatisation of the Kibbutzim were accompanied also by changes in the means used to settle legal conflicts and in the role of the formal legal system. While there is still no empirical foundation to support this claim, it seems from some published case law that there is an increase in usage of the formal court system by Kibbutz members regarding issues of pensions, property, inheritance and bequests (e.g. Farcha v. Kibbutz GvatFootnote 1).
It is within this unique social and historical reference point that this study was situated and initiated: a time of structural and social transition, and a time that both ‘traditional’ as well as ‘privatised’ Kibbutzim exist in Israel. The present study used this contextual opportunity to examine the relationship between the Kibbutz’ socio-legal structure (‘traditional’/non-privatised versus ‘privatised’) and the different elements of awareness, knowledge and use of legal planning tools for old age among older Kibbutz members (aged 50 and older). The overarching hypothesis was that members of ‘privatised’ Kibbutzim will report higher rates of awareness, knowledge and usages of legal planning tools for old age compared to members of ‘traditional’ Kibbutzim, as part of the ideological shift from a communal responsibility- to individual responsibility-based community.
Methods
Sample
For the purpose of this research, quantitative methodology was employed. The research population consisted of members of traditional and privatised Kibbutzim in Israel. The participants were men and women aged 50 and older from 15 different Kibbutzim, six traditional and nine privatised (all in the northern region of Israel). All participants lived and worked in the Kibbutz community and consented to take part in the research. The Kibbutzim themselves were very different, both in their historical background (when and why they were established), and their economic foundations (agriculture, industry or services). The sample was a non-probability convenience sample, consisting of 295 respondents, of them 137 (46%) from traditional Kibbutzim and 158 (54%) from privatised Kibbutzim. There was an equal division between men and women in the research sample. Participants were 50–88 years old (mean 65.61, standard deviation (SD) = 8.40), with about half (N = 145, 49%) being 50–64 years old (mean 58.68, SD = 4.04), and the other half (N = 150, 51%) being 65 and older (mean 72.32, SD = 5.60). Most of the participants were of Israeli (N = 184, 62%) Ashkenazi (American-European, N = 80, 27%) origin, had a relatively high level of education (more than 12 years or more of formal education, N = 191, 65%), and reported that they were in good condition in terms of finances (N = 210, 72%) and health (N = 225, 76%). In general, the groups of participants from traditional and privatised Kibbutzim shared similar characteristics, with the exception of education (the participants from the traditional Kibbutzim reported having relatively higher education, Z = 2.02, p < 0.05), and caring for parents (more participants from the privatised Kibbutzim had experience in caring for their parents, Z = 2.58, p < 0.05). Table 1 displays a summary of the personal socio-demographic traits of the research participants by type of Kibbutz.
Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics for the research sample
Notes: USA: United States of America. USSR: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Significance levels: * p < 0.05, NS: not significant.
Variables and instruments
The research variables were measured by means of a self-report, structured questionnaire with closed questions, which was created for the purpose of this research. The questionnaire consisted of two parts: the first examined awareness, knowledge and use of legal planning tools (based on Doron and Gal Reference Doron and Gal2003). ‘Knowledge’ (as defined by Meager et al. Reference Meager, Tyers, Perryman, Rick and Willison2002: 11, in a study on the knowledge of employment rights), requires ‘a theoretical or practical understanding of a subject’. ‘Awareness’ (or ‘general knowledge’), on the other hand, differs from ‘knowledge’, as it requires that the individual will only have ‘some idea’ or ‘had heard’ of the legal right.
Therefore, awareness of legal planning and prevention tools for old age was represented by the dependent variable of awareness and was examined by means of five questions (one for each different legal planning tool), in which the participants were asked whether they had ‘heard about’ the tool (e.g. ‘Have you heard about the term “pension”?’; ‘Have you heard about the term ‘advance health-care directives?’). The answers were scored 1 (yes) or 0 (no). An overall awareness score was calculated for each participant by adding these scores, ranging between 0 and 5. Knowledge of legal planning and prevention tools as well as actual usage of these tools were measured in a similar manner, but by directly asking if they ‘know’ and if they ‘used’ each legal tool (e.g. ‘Do you know what is or what will be the actual value of your monthly pension?’; ‘Have you ever checked whether your pension payments are according to your legal rights?’; ‘Do you know if your Kibbutz has purchased a private long-term care insurance for you?’; ‘Have you prepared a will?’; ‘Have you signed an ADI Form – the Israeli organ donation form?’). Knowledge of legal planning tools was composed as the sum of 15 items (range 0–15) and use of legal planning tools was the sum of 11 items (range 0–11). Last, the socio-demographic variables of age, gender, education, care of parents, ethnic origin, financial situation and health were examined.
Procedure
After the construction of the research instrument and examination of its validity by experts in the field, and receiving the approval of Haifa University's ethics committee, it was tested by a pilot research project conducted with 20 participants from the research population. The participants in the pilot were not included in the research sample. After the pilot was completed, contact people in each Kibbutz distributed the questionnaires manually in double envelopes to 24 Kibbutz members according to the criteria of age and gender. They informed the participants that their responses would be anonymous and promised them confidentiality. They were given one month to complete and return the questionnaires and at the end of that period the questionnaires were returned to the researchers in closed envelopes. In total, 360 questionnaires were distributed and 295 were returned (95% response rate in the traditional Kibbutzim and 73% response rate at the privatised Kibbutzim, which both are considered relatively high response rates for this type of research according to Baruch Reference Baruch1999; the difference may be attributed to the stronger sense of commitment for participation and contribution to the community in the traditional Kibbutzim).
Data analysis
Data were examined with both non-parametric and parametric statistics. First, non-parametric statistics was employed to examine differences in items of awareness, knowledge and use of legal planning tools, by means of Mann–Whitney U tests (Z). Second, total scores for awareness, knowledge and use of the legal tools were computed, and due to their psychometric properties, analysed with parametric statistics, by means of multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) and multiple hierarchical regressions.
Findings
Awareness, knowledge and use of legal planning tools, by personal background variables
First, the major item of awareness, knowledge and use of each of the five legal planning tools was examined by major demographic variables. Each item was coded dichotomously (0 = no, 1 = yes), and differences by demographic variables were calculated with Mann–Whitney U tests (Z in Table 2). For purposes of clarity, non-significant Z values are not presented. Table 2 summarises the findings regarding awareness, knowledge and use of legal tools, by socio-demographic variables.
Table 2. Summary of findings regarding awareness, knowledge and use of legal tools, by background variable
Significance levels: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, empty cell: no significant difference.
For the majority of legal planning tools, no significant differences were found in terms of awareness, knowledge and usage of the tools in accordance to personal background variables. As seen from Table 2, the main exceptions were found firstly in the case of advanced health-care directives for which awareness differed according to experience in caring for older parents (higher awareness when caring for older parents); knowledge varied according to experience in caring for older parents and education (higher knowledge when caring for older parents and with higher education); and use varied according to age group (higher among the older group). Secondly, difference was found in long-term nursing care insurance, with lower awareness, knowledge and use found among respondents of European and former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) origin than among respondents of Israeli and American origin. Finally, a difference was found in the sphere of organ donations, according to one's self-reported health condition (for which those with good health conditions were more willing to donate than those with moderate/bad health conditions).
Awareness, knowledge and use of legal planning tools, by type of Kibbutz
Second, the major item examining use of each of the five legal planning tools was examined by type of Kibbutz. As before, as each item was coded dichotomously (0 = no, 1 = yes), differences by type of Kibbutz were calculated with Mann–Whitney U tests (Z in Table 3). For purposes of clarity non-significant Z values are not presented.
Table 3. Use of legal planning tools, by Kibbutz type
Note: N = 295.
Significance levels: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, NS: not significant.
The results are presented in Table 3. They indicate a significant difference between the two types of Kibbutz in the use of the tools of pensions (Z = 3.05, p < 0.01), which was higher in the traditional Kibbutz type, and in the use of long-term care insurance (Z = 8.97, p < 0.001), which was higher in the privatised Kibbutz type. Differences between the two types of Kibbutz were not found in the use of the other legal tools. It should be noted that despite the difference between types of Kibbutz regarding the tool of pensions, the overall majority of the participants used this tool, with slightly more doing so in the traditional Kibbutzim. The difference regarding long-term nursing care insurance is more striking, as most of the respondents from privatised Kibbutzim compared with only a minority of the members of traditional Kibbutzim used this tool.
Third, differences by type of Kibbutz were examined with the overall scores for awareness, knowledge and use of the legal tools. It should be noted that the overall mean score for awareness was 4.52 [SD = 0.62, range 0–5, skewness = −0.98 (standard error (SE) = 0.14), kurtosis = 0.37 (SE = 0.28)], the overall mean score for knowledge was 7.02 [SD = 3.25, range 0–15, skewness = 0.13 (SE = 0.14), kurtosis = −0.55 (SE = 0.28)], and the overall mean score for use was 6.58 [SD = 1.86, range 0–11, skewness = −0.19 (SE = 0.14), kurtosis = −0.29 (SE = 0.28)]. According to these values, the overall scores for awareness, knowledge and use of the legal tools were regarded as continuous variables. Thus, differences by Kibbutz type were examined by MANOVA, as shown in Table 4.
Table 4. Awareness, knowledge and use of legal planning tools, by Kibbutz type
Notes: N = 295. SD: standard deviation. Hotelling's T = 0.15, Wilks’ Lambda = 0.87, F(3, 291) = 14.89, p < 0.001.
Significance levels: * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001.
The results in Table 4 show that significant differences were found in awareness, knowledge and use of legal planning tools by Kibbutz type, with members of privatised Kibbutzim having higher awareness and knowledge, and making greater use of the tools. An additional MANOVA by Kibbutz type and age group showed that only Kibbutz type was significant, while age group or the interaction between Kibbutz type and age group were non-significant.
Finally, multiple hierarchical regressions were conducted to examine the extent to which major demographic and background variables, and Kibbutz type over and above them, predict the overall scores for awareness, knowledge and use of legal planning tools. These three regressions are presented in Table 5. In all three, background variables were entered at first step as dummy variables: Age group: 0 = 50–64, 1 = 65–90; Education: 0 = up to 12 years of education, 1 = 13 and more years of education; Caring for older parents: 0 = no, 1 = yes; Gender: 0 = female, 1 = male; Ethnic origin: 0 = Europe and former USSR, 1 = Israel, Americas, Asia and Africa; Financial status and health status: 0 = fair–poor, 1 = good–very good. Kibbutz type was entered at second step: 0 = traditional, 1 = privatised.
Table 5. Analysis of variance of overall scores on use of legal planning tools, by Kibbutz type and age group
Note: SD: standard deviation.
Significance levels: * p < 0.05, NS: not significant.
The results in Table 5 show that 9 per cent of the variance in the overall score for awareness of legal planning tools was significantly explained by caring for older parents and Kibbutz type, where the level of awareness was higher among those who had cared for older parents and members of privatised Kibbutzim. Eighteen per cent of the variance in the overall score on knowledge about legal planning tools was significantly explained by education and Kibbutz type, where the level of knowledge was higher among those with over 13 years of education and members of privatised Kibbutzim. Similarly, 6 per cent of the variance in the overall score on use of legal planning tools was significantly explained by education and Kibbutz type, where the use of the tools was higher among those with over 13 years of education, and among members of privatised Kibbutzim.
Discussion and conclusions
The overarching hypothesis of this study was that members of ‘privatised’ Kibbutzim will express higher scores in awareness, knowledge and usage of legal planning tools for old age. In general, the finding of this study confirmed this hypothesis: a significant difference was found between the members of the two types of Kibbutz in terms of three variables – awareness, knowledge and use of legal planning tools. The members of the privatised Kibbutzim had greater awareness and more knowledge of the legal planning tools for old age, and also used them more than the members of the traditional Kibbutzim did.
The significant differences between the members of traditional and privatised Kibbutzim with regard to awareness, knowledge and use of legal planning tools for old age may be attributed to the ideological and structural changes that have taken place, in terms of the personal responsibility that members have assumed or been forced to assume as compared with organisational responsibility, and to the processes of personal empowerment that have occurred in recent years, particularly in privatised Kibbutzim.
Separate examination of each of the differences reveals that the most significant difference between the two types of Kibbutz was in the level of knowledge. The score on knowledge in the traditional Kibbutzim was low compared with the moderate score in the privatised Kibbutzim. Although the level of general awareness was also low in both types of Kibbutz, it was still higher, as a percentage, in the privatised Kibbutzim. The score on use was moderate in both types of Kibbutz, but here too, the score in the privatised Kibbutzim was a few per cent higher than in the traditional Kibbutzim.
These findings fit well with the historical and value context described in the literature review: in traditional Kibbutzim, the management and social services providers generally operate according to the regulations of the association and the law, so that working and retired members automatically receive all their rights, such as pension, social security payments and long-term nursing care insurance – as part of their integral ‘basket’ of universal services provided by the Kibbutz under a collective ideology. Individual members do not arrange or concern themselves with such matters.
In comparison, in the privatised Kibbutzim there is a higher level of awareness and knowledge, as their members feel less secure about their future. They are required to manage agreements and contracts that they were not involved with in the past, such as budgetary pensions, different types of taxes, social security allowances and long-term nursing care insurance. The ideological umbrella as well as the legal environment encourages or even compels the individuals to be more aware, know more and use more legal planning tools.
These findings are supported, in part, by the findings of Rosenboim, Shavit and Shoam (Reference Rosenboim, Shavit and Shoham2010), that compared financial decision-making and risk aversion between members of a collective community (Kibbutz members) and individualistic community (urban residents) in Israel. The findings showed that Kibbutz members were more risk averse and discounted the future more heavily than city residents. In analysing these findings, the authors claimed that: ‘as financial needs of the Kibbutz members (including living allowance, medical care, pension plan, and education) are supplied by the Kibbutz, the safety net (the cushion) that the Kibbutz provides to the members reduces their financial experience and knowledge’ (Rosenboim, Shavit and Shoam Reference Rosenboim, Shavit and Shoham2010: 35).
The main conclusion that arises from these findings is that social structures (communal/individual) cannot be ignored in trying to understand or explain levels of usage, knowledge and awareness of legal planning tools for old age. In the specific case of the Kibbutz movement in Israel, as described above, the changes in social structure of the community reflected the changes in social values (Clark Reference Clark1991). Furthermore, this relationship is bi-directional: the new legal structure did not play only a passive role in reflecting the new social values. It also played an active role: the new legal structure, in turn, has also affected the members of its communities, their lifestyle and, evidently, the way in which they viewed and used the law in their personal lives (Ben-Rafael and Topel Reference Ben-Rafael and Topel2009; Chen Reference Chen2001; Sadan Reference Sadan1997; Vanhuysse Reference Vanhuysse2006).
The findings of this research point to the fact that despite the broader changes in Israeli society and in neighbouring Kibbutzim, the members of the traditional Kibbutz maintain their self-perception of their community as a safe social system, which is expressed by allowing themselves to continue ‘not to know’. They continue to rely on the Kibbutz establishment and communal structure for their future. In comparison, on privatised Kibbutzim, the members are not only assumed to take responsibility for their lives, they actually fulfil this new responsibility. In other words, the re-structuring affects the way in which Kibbutz members discover new legal options and acquire new knowledge (Ben Rafael and Topel Reference Ben-Rafael and Topel2009; Sadan Reference Sadan1997). Based on a sense of personal need, aware of their new situation, and having studied and collected information, these individuals, as the findings have shown, do indeed employ the legal tools for planning and prevention in old age.
Moving beyond the limited and narrow experience of the Kibbutzim, one can argue that these findings support a much broader theoretical understanding regarding the relationships between social structures and socio-legal policies in old age. For example, Clark (Reference Clark1991) has argued that when comparing Canada (as a more collectivist value-based society) with the USA (as a more individualistic value-based society), these value differences will be reflected in the different social policies adopted towards older persons. On similar lines, but more specifically within the legal sphere, Doron's (Reference Doron2002) comparison between US adult guardianship reform and European guardianship reform has also mirrored the inter-relationships between social values and legal structures (i.e. US legislation adopting an individualistic ‘substitute-decision’ approach as compared to a ‘shared’ or ‘assisted decision-making’ approach adopted by European countries).
If indeed the Kibbutz movement in Israel in specific, and other communal societies around the world in general, continues to shift towards more individualist-based structured societies, it could be anticipated that these societies will experience a growth in the demand, enactment and usage of individualistic legal planning tools for old age. Hence, further research would be needed to better understand the more specific and complex relationships between different socio-legal tools and changes in social structure in other historical and cultural contexts.
Limitations
It should be kept in mind that the present research was conducted with a convenience sample in which the participants were selected randomly. Therefore, the ability to generalise the findings is limited. Furthermore, it is important to remember that the Kibbutz is a unique lifestyle and therefore the ability to compare the use of legal tools for prevention and planning for old age among Kibbutz members with the use in other communities in other locations is also limited. Specifically, as privatisation processes differ from one community to another, time passage since the beginning of privatisation may be of importance and this variable should be included in future research. At least one study (Rosenboim, Shavit and Shoham Reference Rosenboim, Shavit and Shoham2010: 35) found that Kibbutz members from Kibbutzim that are at the beginning of the privatisation process display a lower risk aversion than the Kibbutz members from Kibbutzim within the process for several years. This result may indicate that with regard to legal planning tools for old age, Kibbutz members at the beginning of the privatisation process will be less aware, less knowledgeable and have lower usage rates than Kibbutz members with longer experience of the privatisation process. Finally, this research did not include urban residents in the sample; hence there was no benchmark to compare the results with awareness, knowledge or usage of non-Kibbutz members.
