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. 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.
    3. Ragchaasuren Galindev, 2011. "Leisure goods, education attainment and fertility choice," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 157-181, June.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    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. Svetlana Biryukova & Oxana Sinyavskaya & Irina Nurimanova, 2016. "Estimating effects of 2007 family policy changes on probability of second and subsequent births in Russia," HSE Working papers WP BRP 68/SOC/2016, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    5. 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.
    6. Wei-Bin Zhang, 2016. "Exchange Values of Gold, Land, Physical Capital, and Human Capital in a Neoclassical Growth Model," Economic Alternatives, University of National and World Economy, Sofia, Bulgaria, issue 3, pages 265-286, September.
    7. Edith Duclos & Pierre Lefebvre & Philip Merrigan, 2001. "A 'Natural Experiment' on the Economics of Storks: Evidence on the Impact of Differential Family Policy on Fertility Rates in Canada," Cahiers de recherche CREFE / CREFE Working Papers 136, CREFE, Université du Québec à Montréal.
    8. 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.
    9. Ariane Pailhé & Anne Solaz, 2012. "The influence of employment uncertainty on childbearing in France: A tempo or quantum effect?," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 26(1), pages 1-40.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Emmanuel Bovari & Victor Court, 2019. "Energy, knowledge, and demo-economic development in the long run: a unified growth model," Working Papers hal-01698755, HAL.
    13. 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.
    14. Yukawa, Shiho, 2012. "教養娯楽価格が出産に与える影響 [The Effect of Recreational Goods Price on Fertility]," MPRA Paper 35808, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Martin Dribe & Maria Stanfors, 2009. "Education, Work and Parenthood: Comparing the Experience of Young Men and Women in Sweden," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 32-42, March.
    18. Reich, Nora, 2008. "Das Bundeselterngeld- und Elternzeitgesetz in Deutschland: Analyse potenzieller Effekte auf Geburtenzahl und Fertilitätsstruktur," HWWI Policy Papers 1-10, Hamburg Institute of International Economics (HWWI).
    19. Daniel Ciganda, 2015. "Unstable work histories and fertility in France," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 32(28), pages 843-876.
    20. Pierre Pestieau & Gregory Ponthiere, 2013. "Childbearing Age, Family Allowances, and Social Security," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 80(2), pages 385-413, October.
    21. Ching-Yang Lin, 2014. "Timing of Motherhood and Economic Growth," Working Papers EMS_2014_01, Research Institute, International University of Japan.

    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.