IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/poprpr/v39y2020i3d10.1007_s11113-019-09539-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Targeting and Mistargeting of Family Policies in High-Income Pacific Asian Societies: A Review of Financial Incentives

Author

Listed:
  • Mengni Chen

    (Center for Demographic Research, Université Catholique de Louvain)

  • Stuart Gietel-Basten

    (The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology)

  • Paul S. F. Yip

    (The University of Hong Kong)

Abstract

Very low fertility rates can be found in many high-income Pacific Asian societies, such as Hong Kong, South Korea, Japan, Singapore, and Taiwan. Governments in these territories have already taken pronatalist policies but with only modest effects, especially when measured by overall total fertility rate. Mistargeting has been cited as a potential explanation for this impact. To explore this notion in greater depth, we first identify the potential target groups that are most influential in changing the TFR for the five societies, based on a stochastic model and fertility elasticity analyses. Then we examine the targeting of current pronatalist policies, especially financial incentives and marriage policies. The analyses show that marriage rates, especially among women aged 25–29 are the most influential factor in shaping contemporary TFRs. Third and higher order births are insignificant in changing the fertility trajectories for all the five places. Besides, there are also territory-specific patterns. For Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore, first births (especially among women aged 30–34) are the second most influential factor; for South Korea, second births (especially among women aged 30–34) actually play a very important role, next only to marriage; for Japan, first- and second births are much less influential while marriage is an overwhelmingly essential factor of fertility. Furthermore, the review of financial incentives in these places reveals the mismatch between the targeting suggested by our analysis and the targeting implied by current policy measures. The mistargeting, piecemeal measures and the low level of financial support may be partly responsible for the ineffectiveness of the governmental action.

Suggested Citation

  • Mengni Chen & Stuart Gietel-Basten & Paul S. F. Yip, 2020. "Targeting and Mistargeting of Family Policies in High-Income Pacific Asian Societies: A Review of Financial Incentives," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 39(3), pages 389-413, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:poprpr:v:39:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s11113-019-09539-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s11113-019-09539-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11113-019-09539-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11113-019-09539-w?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Joost de Laat & Almudena Sevilla-Sanz, 2011. "The Fertility and Women's Labor Force Participation puzzle in OECD Countries: The Role of Men's Home Production," Feminist Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(2), pages 87-119.
    3. Stuart Basten & Georgia Verropoulou, 2013. "'Maternity migration' and the increased sex ratio at birth in Hong Kong SAR," Population Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 67(3), pages 323-334, November.
    4. Anne Gauthier, 2007. "The impact of family policies on fertility in industrialized countries: a review of the literature," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 26(3), pages 323-346, June.
    5. Man-Yee Kan & Ekaterina Hertog, 2017. "Domestic division of labour and fertility preference in China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 36(18), pages 557-588.
    6. Mengni Chen & Paul S. F. Yip, 2017. "The Discrepancy Between Ideal and Actual Parity in Hong Kong: Fertility Desire, Intention, and Behavior," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 36(4), pages 583-605, August.
    7. Peter McDonald, 2006. "An Assessment of Policies that Support Having Children from the Perspectives of Equity, Efficiency and Efficacy," Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, vol. 4(1), pages 213-234.
    8. repec:cai:poeine:pope_203_0417 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Mengni Chen & Chris J Lloyd & Paul S F Yip, 2018. "A new method of identifying target groups for pronatalist policy applied to Australia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-13, February.
    10. Doo-Sub Kim & Alessandra De Rose & Giuseppe Gabrielli & Anna Paterno, 2015. "Effects Of The Economic Crisis On Fertility:A Comparison Between South Korea And Italy," RIEDS - Rivista Italiana di Economia, Demografia e Statistica - The Italian Journal of Economic, Demographic and Statistical Studies, SIEDS Societa' Italiana di Economia Demografia e Statistica, vol. 69(2), pages 223-234, July-Sept.
    11. Gavin W. Jones, 2007. "Delayed Marriage and Very Low Fertility in Pacific Asia," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 33(3), pages 453-478, September.
    12. Li Ma, 2016. "Female labour force participation and second birth rates in South Korea," Journal of Population Research, Springer, vol. 33(2), pages 173-195, June.
    13. Bradshaw, Jonathan, 2012. "The case for family benefits," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 590-596.
    14. Beth Turnbull & Melissa L Graham & Ann R Taket, 2016. "Social Exclusion of Australian Childless Women in Their Reproductive Years," Social Inclusion, Cogitatio Press, vol. 4(1), pages 102-115.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jolene Tan, 2023. "Perceptions towards pronatalist policies in Singapore," Journal of Population Research, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 1-27, September.
    2. Jolene Tan, 2022. "Heterogeneity among the never married in a low-fertility context," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 47(24), pages 727-776.

    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. Jolene Tan, 2023. "Perceptions towards pronatalist policies in Singapore," Journal of Population Research, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 1-27, September.
    2. Inha Oh & Won-Sik Hwang & Hong Jun Yoon, 2019. "The Role of Work-Family Balance Policy for Enhancing Social Sustainability: A Choice Experiment Analysis of Koreans in their Twenties and Thirties," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(14), pages 1-15, July.
    3. Erin Hye-Won Kim, 2017. "Division of domestic labour and lowest-low fertility in South Korea," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 37(24), pages 743-768.
    4. Zhiyun Li & Hualei Yang & Xianchen Zhu & Lin Xie, 2021. "A Multilevel Study of the Impact of Egalitarian Attitudes Toward Gender Roles on Fertility Desires in China," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 40(4), pages 747-769, August.
    5. Sojung Lim, 2021. "Socioeconomic differentials in fertility in South Korea," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 44(39), pages 941-978.
    6. Ivica Urban & Martina Pezer, 2020. "Compensation for Households with Children in Croatia, Slovenia and Austria," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 147(1), pages 203-235, January.
    7. Adam Ka-Lok Cheung & Erin Hye-Won Kim, 2022. "Domestic Outsourcing in an Ultra-Low Fertility Context: Employing Live-in Domestic Help and Fertility in Hong Kong," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 41(4), pages 1597-1618, August.
    8. Mengni Chen & Paul S. F. Yip, 2017. "The Discrepancy Between Ideal and Actual Parity in Hong Kong: Fertility Desire, Intention, and Behavior," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 36(4), pages 583-605, August.
    9. Nobuyuki NAKAMURA & Aya SUZUKI, 2023. "Impact of foreign domestic workers on the fertility decision of households: evidence from Hong Kong," JODE - Journal of Demographic Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 89(1), pages 105-135, March.
    10. Sam Hyun Yoo & Tomáš Sobotka, 2018. "Ultra-low fertility in South Korea: The role of the tempo effect," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 38(22), pages 549-576.
    11. Kristen Harknett & Francesco Billari & Carla Medalia, 2014. "Do Family Support Environments Influence Fertility? Evidence from 20 European Countries," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 30(1), pages 1-33, February.
    12. Jac Thomas & Francisco Rowe & Paul Williamson & Eric S. Lin, 2022. "The effect of leave policies on increasing fertility: a systematic review," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-16, December.
    13. Ansgar Hudde, 2018. "Societal Agreement on Gender Role Attitudes and Childlessness in 38 Countries," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 34(5), pages 745-767, December.
    14. Joshua R. Goldstein & Tomáš Sobotka & Aiva Jasilioniene, 2009. "The end of 'lowest-low' fertility? (with supplementary materials)," MPIDR Working Papers WP-2009-029, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.
    15. Jennifer Glass & Carolyn E. Waldrep, 2023. "Child Allowances and Work-Family Reconciliation Policies: What Best Reduces Child Poverty and Gender Inequality While Enabling Desired Fertility?," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 42(5), pages 1-57, October.
    16. Nick Parr, 2011. "The contribution of increases in family benefits to Australia’s early 21st-century fertility increase: An empirical analysis," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 25(6), pages 215-244.
    17. Ross Guest & Nick Parr, 2013. "Family policy and couples’ labour supply: an empirical assessment," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 26(4), pages 1631-1660, October.
    18. Barbara S. Okun & Liat Raz‐Yurovich, 2019. "Housework, Gender Role Attitudes, and Couples' Fertility Intentions: Reconsidering Men's Roles in Gender Theories of Family Change," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 45(1), pages 169-196, March.
    19. Tatiana Karabchuk, 2016. "The subjective well-being of women in Europe: children, work and employment protection legislation," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 15(2), pages 219-245, November.
    20. Natálie Švarcová & Petr Švarc, 2009. "The Financial Impact of Government Policies on Families with Children in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia," Czech Economic Review, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, vol. 3(1), pages 048-068, March.

    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:kap:poprpr:v:39:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s11113-019-09539-w. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.