Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Governmental Support for Families and Obstacles to Fertility in East Asia and Other Industrialized Regions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Low Fertility, Institutions, and their Policies

Abstract

This chapter examines low fertility and government responses in East Asia and other industrialized regions. It does so from two angles: first by examining individuals’ perceived obstacles to fertility on the basis of survey data, and second by examining governmental support for families via a series of indicators. Through this two-pronged approach, the aim is to identify possible mismatches between the demand for family support on the one hand and the supply on the other. In other words, we are interested in the divergence between what people perceive as being needed and what governments actually do for families. The data for the first part of the chapter reveal the dominance of the cost of children as a key obstacle to fertility. In contrast, the analysis of governmental support reveals the relatively low level of financial support for families in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan as compared with levels in some European countries. Results also reveal that although all three East Asian governments have placed an increasing priority on work-family reconciliation measures in recent decades, large obstacles to the combination of work and family, especially for women, nonetheless persist. The implications of these findings for fertility are discussed in the last part of the chapter.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    As in Japan, results related to health also receive a high level of support. We do not focus on these health-related responses because they have no direct connection with government support for families.

  2. 2.

    The 2010–2014 wave of the World Value Survey provides a similar ranking: 55 % of respondents in South Korea agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “When a mother works for pay, the children suffer.” The comparable figures for Japan and Taiwan were 15 and 16 %, respectively, in line with the figures observed in some European countries (own computation).

  3. 3.

    In the UK, the high figure for this indicator represents a deliberate effort by the government to reduce child poverty. Programs tend, therefore, to be largely targeted at low- or medium-income families.

  4. 4.

    Public expenditures for families have increased in recent years in both Japan and South Korea (time-series are not available for Taiwan). For example, in Japan, public expenditures on families increased from 0.5 % of GDP in 1980 to 1.4 % in 2011. In South Korea, the increase was from 0.1 % of GDP in 2000 to 1.2 % in 2012 (OECD 2015b). Despite these increases, the level remains below that observed in most other industrialized countries.

  5. 5.

    More precisely, one adult is assumed to be earning 100 % of the average wage, and the other 67 %. The children are assumed to be 4 and 6 years old, respectively.

  6. 6.

    Some countries draw a distinction between parental leave, which refers to the leave of absence immediately following maternity leave and which can last up to three years, and childcare leave, which in some countries is a subsidy for stay-at-home parents. In most countries, however, the two terms are synonymous.

  7. 7.

    The countries that had achieved both objectives were Belgium, France, Denmark, Slovenia, Sweden, and the UK.

  8. 8.

    There are data on various indicators of quality, such as staff-to-child ratios, but there is no single comprehensive indicator that allows easy comparison across countries.

  9. 9.

    The actual statements were: (1) “it would make it easier for me to have the number of children I intend to have;” (2) “It would enable me to have my next child sooner;” (3) “I would reconsider the possibility of having a(nother) child;’ and (4) “I would probably decide to have a(nother) child.”

References

  • Ademea, W., & Ladaique, M. (2009). How expensive is the welfare state? Gross and net indicators in the OECD Social Expenditure Database (SOCX). OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers No. 92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/220615515052. Accessed June 17, 2015.

  • An, M.-Y. (2013). Childcare expansion in East Asia: Changing shape of the institutional configurations in Japan and South Korea. Asian Social Work and Policy Review, 7, 28–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, T., & Kohler, H.-P. (2013). Education fever and the East Asian fertility puzzle: A case study of low fertility in South Korea. Asian Population Studies, 9(2), 196–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradshaw, J., & Finch, N. (2002). A comparison of child benefit packages in 22 countries. Department for Work and Pensions Research Report No. 174. Leeds: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, F. -L. (2012a). The changing attitude towards children and elderly arrangement after financial crisis—A comparison study of Taiwan and South Korea. Paper presented at the Joint East Asian Social Policy Research Network and the UK Social Policy Association Annual Conference 2012. http://www.social-policy.org.uk/lincoln2012/Chen%20P7.pdf. Accessed June 17, 2015.

  • Chen, Y.-H. (2012b). Trends in low fertility and policy responses in Taiwan. The Japanese Journal of Population, 10(1), 78–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choe, M. K., Bumpass, L., Tsuya, N. O., & Rindfuss, R. R. (2014). Nontraditional family-related attitudes in Japan: Macro and micro determinants. Population and Development Review, 40(2), 241–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esping-Andersen, G., Garfinkel, I., Han, W.-J., Magnuson, K., Wagner, S., & Waldfogel, J. (2012). Child care and school performance in Denmark and the United States. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(3), 576–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esvelt, I., Fokkema, T., & Miettinen, A. (2008). Anticipated impact of family policies on fertility behaviour among the childless and among one-child parents. In C. Hohn, D. Avramov, & I. E. Kotowska (Eds.), People, population change and policies: Lessons from the Population Policy Acceptance Study (Vol. 1, pp. 369–390). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • EuroHealthNet (2005). EuroHealthNet response to the communication from the commission on confronting demographic change: A new solidarity between the generations. COM (2005) 94 final. http://eurohealthnet.eu/sites/eurohealthnet.eu/files/publications/eurohealthnet_response_to_demographic_change.pdf. Accessed June 17, 2015.

  • European Commission (2005). Confronting demographic change: A new solidarity between the generations. Green Paper COM/2005/0094 final. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2006). The demographic future of Europe—from challenge to opportunity. COM (2006) 571 final. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2008). Family life and the needs of an ageing population. Flash EB Series #247. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2013). Barcelona objectives: The development of childcare facilities for young children in Europe with a view to sustainable and inclusive growth. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee, and the Committee of the Regions. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feng, J. Y., & Han, W.-J. (2010). Maternity leave in Taiwan. Family Relations, 59(3), 291–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fokkema, T., & Esvelt, I. (2006). Child-friendly policies. Population Policy Acceptance Study (PPAS) Dialogue Working Paper No. 7. http://www.bib-demografie.de/SharedDocs/Publikationen/EN/Research/DIALOG/dialog_ps_no7.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=4. Accessed June 19, 2015.

  • Frejka, T., Jones, G. W., & Sardon, J.-P. (2010). East Asian childbearing patterns and policy developments. Population and Development Review, 36, 576–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gauthier, A. H. (2007). The impact of family policies on fertility in industrialized countries: A review of the literature. Population Research and Policy Review, 26(3), 323–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, N. D., Smith, N., & Verner, M. (2008). The impact of Nordic countries’ family friendly policies on employment, wages and children. Review of Economics of the Household, 6(1), 65–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ILO (International Labor Organization) (2015). Social security expenditure database. http://www.ilo.org/dyn/sesame/IFPSES.SOCIALDBEXP. Accessed July 14, 2015.

  • ISSP (International Social Survey Program) (2012). Survey on family and changing gender roles IV. http://www.gesis.org/issp/modules/issp-modules-by-topic/family-and-changing-gender-roles/2012/. Accessed November 25, 2015.

  • Jones, R. S. (2008). Public social spending in Korea in the context of rapid population ageing. OECD Economics Department Working Papers. No. 615, Paris: OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/241545746547. Accessed June 19, 2015.

  • Jones, R. S. (2011). Education reform in Japan. OECD Economics Department Working Papers. No. 888, Paris: OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5kg58z7g95np-en. Accessed June, 19 2015.

  • Kamaras, F., Kocourkova, J., & Moors, H. (1999). The impact of social policies. In R. Palomba & H. Moors (Eds.), Population, family and welfare: A comparative survey of European attitudes (Vol. II). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaneko, R., Sasai, T., Kamano, S., Iwasawa, M., Mita, F., & Moriizumi, R. (2008). Marriage and fertility in Japan today: Overview of the results of the thirteenth Japanese National Fertility Survey, married couples. The Japanese Journal of Population, 6(1), 51–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M. (2009a). Transition to below replacement fertility and policy response in Taiwan. The Japanese Journal of Population, 7(1), 71–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S.-S. (2009b). Low fertility and policy responses in Korea. The Japanese Journal of Population, 7(1), 57–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y., & Eun, K. (2005). Attitudes towards married women’s employment in Korea and Japan: Implications from latent class analysis. Development and Society, 34(1), 125–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, J. (2012). Does cram schooling matter? Who goes to cram schools? Evidence from Taiwan. International Journal of Educational Development, 32(1), 46–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marmot, M., Bell, R., Bloomer, E., & Goldblatt, P. (2012). WHO European review of social determinants of health and the health divide. The Lancet, 380(9846), 1011–1029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Institute of Population and Social Security Research (2011). The Fourteenth Japanese National Fertility Survey of 2010: Highlights of the survey results on married couples. www.ipss.go.jp/site-ad/index_english/nfs14/Nfs14_Couples_Eng.pdf. Accessed June 17, 2015.

  • OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) (2015a). OECD Family Database. www.oecd.org/social/family/database.htm. Accessed June 18, 2015.

  • OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) (2015b). Social Expenditure Database (SOCX). http://www.oecd.org/social/soc/expenditure.htm. Accessed June 17, 2015.

  • OECD (2012). Sustaining Korea’s convergence to the highest-income countries. In OECD Economic Surveys: Korea 2012 (pp. 45–86). Paris: OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eco_surveys-kor-2012-4-en. Accessed June 19, 2015.

  • Ogawa, N., Mason, A., Chawla, A., Matsukura, R., & Tung, A.-C. (2009). Declining fertility and the rising cost of children. What can NTA say about low fertility in Japan and other Asian countries? Asian Population Studies, 5(3), 289–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Republic of China (2015). National Statistics: Population and Housing: Table 14 Fertility rates for women of childbearing age. http://eng.stat.gov.tw/public/data/dgbas03/bs2/yearbook_eng/y014.pdf. Accessed June 17, 2015.

  • Rhee, O. (2007). Childcare policy in Korea: Current status and major issues. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 1(1), 59–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suzuki, T. (2012). Low fertility and governmental intervention in Japan and Korea. The Japanese Journal of Population, 10(1), 60–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Economist (2009). Demography, growth, and the environment: Falling fertility. The Economist. http://www.economist.com/node/14744915. Accessed June 17, 2015.

  • Thévenon, O., & Gauthier, A. H. (2011). Family policies in developed countries: A ‘fertility-booster’ with side-effects. Community, Work and Family, 14(2), 197–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westley, S. B., Choe, M. K., Retherford, R. D. (2010). Very low fertility in Asia: Is there a problem? Can it be solved? Asia Pacific Issues No. 94. Honolulu: East-West Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Value Survey (2010–2014). Online data analysis. http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSOnline.jsp. Accessed June 19, 2015.

  • Yun, H., Kim, I., Kwon, H. (2014). Nine observations on Korea child care support and their policy implications. KDI Focus No. 34. Sejong City: Korea Development Institute.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute (NIDI) and the University of Groningen, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Anne H. Gauthier

Authors
  1. Anne H. Gauthier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anne H. Gauthier .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA

    Ronald R. Rindfuss

  2. East-West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA

    Minja Kim Choe

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gauthier, A.H. (2016). Governmental Support for Families and Obstacles to Fertility in East Asia and Other Industrialized Regions. In: Rindfuss, R., Choe, M. (eds) Low Fertility, Institutions, and their Policies. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32997-0_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32997-0_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-32995-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-32997-0

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation