An Assessment of Policies that Support Having Children from the Perspectives of Equity, Efficiency and Efficacy

Abstract

In a context where 46 countries now consider their fertility rate to be too low, attention is turning to the need for policy actions to increase fertility rates. This article discusses the reasons why action is required and why countries have been slow to take policy action. It then considers a wide range of possible policies and assesses them against a set of eleven social policy principles. The policies examined include tax-transfer policies, subsidised services, childcare and early childhood education, parent leave and working hours policies, employment policies for young people, public education campaigns and broader social arrangements. The conclusion drawn is that the focus of policy should not be pronatalism as such but support for families with children. Support for families with children means good family policy, good gender policy, good employment/human capital policy, good child development policy and, if there is a need to increase or sustain birth rates, it will also mean good birth policy.

The contribution of increases in family benefits to Australia’s early 21st-century fertility increase: An empirical analysis

“…According to McDonald (2006a), the simplicity, transparency, certainty, and immediacy of receipt of the payment should contribute to the scale and rapidity of its effect on fertility. However, as he acknowledges, empirical assessments have tended to find that the effects of such benefits on fertility have been small (Ermisch 1988;Gauthier and Hatzius 1997;Milligan 2005;McDonald 2006b;Gauthier 2007).…”

“…According to Heard (2006), McDonald's "gender equity" theory may be credited with encouraging a subtle shift in the feminist agenda in Australia away from advocacy of women's work as an alternative to raising a family towards the encouragement of women to combine both work and family (McDonald 2000a(McDonald , 2000b(McDonald , 2000cHeard 2006). The apparent revival of pronatalism and the waning of antinatalism in Australia's public debate may have enhanced the psychological benefits parents derive from childbearing (a "halo effect") (McDonald 2006a).…”

Should governments in Europe be more aggressive in pushing for gender equality to raise fertility? The second "NO"

“…If we consider the latter, the CFR (Completed Cohort Fertility Rate) is the more relevant indicator; it provides a better measure for a country's long-term fertility level, and it is usually higher than the TFR. The current CFR of most European countries is between 1.8 and 2.0 (for women born in 1965) (Council of Europe 2006), and thus clearly above the level of 1.5, which for some demographers marks the threshold at which governments should take fertility-increasing actions (McDonald 2006a). The proposed fertility crisis and the doomsday consequences derived from it might therefore not be as severe as claimed.…”

Should governments in Europe be more aggressive in pushing for gender equality to raise fertility? The first "YES"

“…to "Is fertility so low that the state is entitled to interfere?" As previously noted for the target level of fertility, the "limit" value under which fertility is assumed to be "much too low" is sometimes set at 1.3 (Kohler, Billari, and Ortega 2002), and sometimes at 1.5 (Lutz and Skirbekk 2005;McDonald 2006), while 1.8 is considered a tolerable, if not optimal value (Golini 2003).…”