IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v20y2023i6p4790-d1091611.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effect of Family Fertility Support Policies on Fertility, Their Contribution, and Policy Pathways to Fertility Improvement in OECD Countries

Author

Listed:
  • Ting-Ting Zhang

    (School of Public Finance and Taxation, Capital University of Economics and Business, Beijing 100070, China)

  • Xiu-Yun Cai

    (School of Public Finance and Taxation, Capital University of Economics and Business, Beijing 100070, China)

  • Xiao-Hui Shi

    (School of Economics and Management, Shanxi Normal University, Taiyuan 030092, China)

  • Wei Zhu

    (Institute of Industrial and Economic Policy, Beijing Economic and Technological Development Zone (BDA), Beijing 100070, China)

  • Shao-Nan Shan

    (School of Business, Shenyang University, Shenyang 110064, China)

Abstract

The cost of childbirth has been confirmed as a vital factor in families’ fertility decision-making, and family welfare policies are capable of compensating for the increase in household living expenses regarding childbirth, such that the country’s fertility situation can be optimized. In this study, the fertility promotion effects of family welfare policies in OECD(Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries are investigated through regression analysis, grey correlation (GRA), and the fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis fsQCA method. As indicated by the results: (1) Family welfare policies notably boost fertility, and the boosting effect is long-lasting. However, this boost will be weakened in countries where fertility rates remain below 1.5. (2) The contribution of welfare policy measures to the fertility-promotion effect varies by country. The contribution of cash benefits is highest in over half of the countries worldwide, the contribution of relevant services and in-kind expenditure is highest in 29% of the countries, and that of tax incentive expenditure is highest in 14% of the countries. (3) The policy mix to boost fertility also varies according to the social context, with three policy groups derived using the fsQCA method. To be specific, the core antecedent conditions comprise cash benefits, relevant services, and in-kind expenditure. On that basis, China should pay attention to the following three points when formulating family welfare policies to tackle their demographic challenges. First, a system of family welfare policies should be developed as early as possible in the context of increasingly severe demographic issues since the incentive effect of family welfare policies will be weakened in countries with chronically low fertility rates. Second, the effects of improvements vary by country, and China should comprehensively consider its national circumstances when formulating and dynamically adjusting the mix of government fertility support policies in accordance with its social development. Third, employment is the main means of securing family income and takes on critical significance to sustaining families. Unemployment exerts a significant disincentive effect, such that it is imperative to reduce youth unemployment and enhance the quality of youth employment. On that basis, the disincentive effect of unemployment on fertility can be reduced.

Suggested Citation

  • Ting-Ting Zhang & Xiu-Yun Cai & Xiao-Hui Shi & Wei Zhu & Shao-Nan Shan, 2023. "The Effect of Family Fertility Support Policies on Fertility, Their Contribution, and Policy Pathways to Fertility Improvement in OECD Countries," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(6), pages 1-25, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:6:p:4790-:d:1091611
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/6/4790/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/6/4790/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Walker, James R, 1995. "The Effect of Public Policies on Recent Swedish Fertility Behavior," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 8(3), pages 223-251, August.
    2. Ragchaasuren Galindev, 2011. "Leisure goods, education attainment and fertility choice," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 157-181, June.
    3. Luciano Fanti & Luca Gori, 2010. "Public Education, Fertility Incentives, Neoclassical Economic Growth And Welfare," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(1), pages 59-77, January.
    4. Ann Horvath-Rose & H. Peters & Joseph Sabia, 2008. "Capping Kids: The Family Cap and Nonmarital Childbearing," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 27(2), pages 119-138, April.
    5. Laurent Toulemon & Ariane Pailhé & Clémentine Rossier, 2008. "France: High and stable fertility," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 19(16), pages 503-556.
    6. Laura S. Hussey, 2010. "Welfare Generosity, Abortion Access, and Abortion Rates: A Comparison of State Policy Tools," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 91(1), pages 266-283, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hippolyte d'Albis & Angela Luci Greulich & Grégory Ponthière, 2015. "Avoir un enfant plus tard: Enjeux sociodémographiques du report des naissances," Post-Print halshs-01245523, HAL.
    2. Hippolyte D'Albis & Angela Greulich & Grégory Ponthière, 2015. "AVOIR UN ENFANT PLUS TARD Enjeux sociodémographiques du report des naissances," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-01298929, HAL.
    3. repec:hal:journl:hal-01298929 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Karsten Hank, 2001. "Changes in Swedish Women’s Individual Activity Status and the Subsequent Risk of Giving Birth in the 1980s and 1990s," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 4(4), pages 125-132.
    5. Massimiliano Bratti & Konstantinos Tatsiramos, 2012. "The effect of delaying motherhood on the second childbirth in Europe," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 25(1), pages 291-321, January.
    6. Gunnar Andersson, 2000. "The Impact of Labour-Force Participation on Childbearing Behaviour: Pro-Cyclical Fertility in Sweden during the 1980s and the 1990s," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 16(4), pages 293-333, December.
    7. Ho-Po Crystal Wong, 2015. "The Quantity and Quality Adjustment of Births when Having More is Not Subsidized: the Effect of the TANF Family Cap on Fertility and Birth Weight," Working Papers 15-04, Department of Economics, West Virginia University.
    8. Nicoletta Balbo & Francesco C. Billari & Melinda Mills, 2013. "Fertility in Advanced Societies: A Review of Research," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 29(1), pages 1-38, February.
    9. Gordey Yastrebov, 2016. "Intergenerational Social Mobility in Soviet and Post-Soviet Russia," HSE Working papers WP BRP 69/SOC/2016, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    10. Tomáš Sobotka, 2008. "Overview Chapter 6: The diverse faces of the Second Demographic Transition in Europe," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 19(8), pages 171-224.
    11. Ching-Yang Lin, 2014. "Timing of Motherhood and Economic Growth," Working Papers EMS_2014_01, Research Institute, International University of Japan.
    12. David Canning & Declan French & Michael Moore, 2016. "The Economics of Fertility Timing: An Euler Equation Approach," CHaRMS Working Papers 16-03, Centre for HeAlth Research at the Management School (CHaRMS).
    13. Yeon Jeong Son, 2018. "Do childbirth grants increase the fertility rate? Policy impacts in South Korea," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 713-735, September.
    14. Massimiliano Bratti, 2003. "Labour force participation and marital fertility of Italian women: The role of education," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 16(3), pages 525-554, August.
    15. Thomas Baudin, 2015. "Religion and fertility: The French connection," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 32(13), pages 397-420.
    16. Ridao-Cano, Cristobal & McNown, Robert, 2005. "The effect of tax-benefit policies on fertility and female labor force participation in the United States," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 27(9), pages 1083-1096, December.
    17. Lisa Van Landschoot & Jan Van Bavel & Helga de Valk, 2014. "Estimating the contribution of mothers of foreign origin to total fertility," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 30(12), pages 361-376.
    18. William A. V. Clark & Daichun Yi & Xin Zhang, 2020. "Do House Prices Affect Fertility Behavior in China? An Empirical Examination," International Regional Science Review, , vol. 43(5), pages 423-449, September.
    19. Nicola Sartor & Laurence J. Kotlikoff & Willi Leibfritz, 1999. "Generational Accounts for Italy," NBER Chapters, in: Generational Accounting around the World, pages 299-324, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Rees, Ray & Scholz, Sebastian, 2010. "Optimal Fertility Decisions in a Life Cycle Model," Discussion Papers in Economics 11316, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    21. Thomas Aronsson & James R. Walker, 1997. "The Effects of Sweden's Welfare State on Labor Supply Incentives," NBER Chapters, in: The Welfare State in Transition: Reforming the Swedish Model, pages 203-266, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:6:p:4790-:d:1091611. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.