Comparative Study of Effectiveness Pronatalist Policies in South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Singapore 2015-2023

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30983/humanisma.v9i1.9235

Keywords:

Asia-Pacific, Comparative Study, Declining, Fertility, Pronatalist Policy

Abstract

This study analyzed the impact of pronatalist policies on fertility rates in four Asian countries, consist of Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan during the period 2015-2023. Following a trend previously observed in Europe, these countries experienced a significant decline in fertility along with increasing economic activity in recent years. The selected timeframe reflects a period of active implementation of pronatalist policies since 2015. This research employs a comparative quantitative approach using multiple linear regression analysis to assess the relationship between policy variables and fertility rates. Secondary data are used, based on indicators derived from Sleebos’ (2003) framework, which includes financial incentives, child care, parental leave, family-friendly workplaces, welfare state, and tax systems. The findings, linear with previous study, indicate a positive and significant relationship between several pronatalist policies and fertility rates. This study focuses on mapping the current effectiveness of these policies in countries with similiar socio-economic contexts and highlights the complex interplay between policy design and each country’s unique social, cultural, and economic conditions.

References

Article

Aarssen, Lonnie W. 2005. “Why Is Fertility Lower in Wealthier Countries? The Role of Relaxed Fertility-Selection,” Population and Development Review, 31.1: 113–26 <https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2005.00054.x>

Buttner, Thomas, and Wolfgang Lutz. 1990. “Estimating Fertility Responses to Policy Measures in the German Democratic Republic,” Population and Development Review, 16.3: 539 <https://doi.org/10.2307/1972835>

Castles, Francis G. 2003. “The World Turned Upside Down: Below Replacement Fertility, Changing Preferences and Family-Friendly Public Policy in 21 OECD Countries,” Journal of European Social Policy, 13.3: 209–27 <https://doi.org/10.1177/09589287030133001>

Choo, Dahae, and Hugo Jales. 2021. “Childbearing and the Distribution of the Reservation Price of Fertility: The Case of the Korean Baby Bonus Program,” Journal of Asian Economics, 77: 101395 <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asieco.2021.101395>

Demeny, P. (1986). Pronatalist policies in low-fertility countries: Patterns, performance, and prospects. Population and Development Review, 12, 335. https://doi.org/10.2307/2807916

Furstenberg, Frank F. 2010. “On a New Schedule: Transitions to Adulthood and Family Change,” The Future of Children, 20.1: 67–87 <https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.0.0038>

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

Huang, Jr-Tsung. 2007. “PERSONAL TAX EXEMPTION: THE EFFECT ON FERTILITY IN TAIWAN,” The Developing Economies, 13.1: 32–48

Hugo, Graeme. 2000. “Declining Fertility and Policy Intervention in Europe: Some Lessons for Australia?,” Journal of Population Research, 17.2: 175–98 <https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03029464>

Kim, Taewook. 2023. “The Impact of Working Hours on Pregnancy Intention in Childbearing-Age Women in Korea, the Country with the World’s Lowest Fertility Rate,” PLOS ONE, 18.7: e0288697 <https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288697>

Knize, Veronika J. 2021. “What Gender-Neutral Activation? Understanding the Gender Sanction Gap in Germany’s Welfare System,” Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 29.4: 1286–1313<https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxab037>

Koo, Eunjung. 2019. “Women’s Subordination in Confucian Culture: Shifting Breadwinner Practices,” Asian Journal of Women’s Studies, 25.3: 417–36 <https://doi.org/10.1080/12259276.2019.1648065>

Lee, Youngcho. 2022. “Norms about Childcare, Working Hours, and Fathers’ Uptake of Parental Leave in South Korea,” Community, Work & Family, 26.4: 466–91 <https://doi.org/10.1080/13668803.2022.2031889>

Malak, Natalie, and Terry Yip. 2016. “Baby Bonus, Anyone? Examining Heterogeneous Responses to a Pro-Natalist Policy,” SSRN Electronic Journal <https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2846802>

Miyajima, Takeru, and Hiroyuki Yamaguchi. 2017. “I Want to but I Won’t: Pluralistic Ignorance Inhibits Intentions to Take Paternity Leave in Japan,” Frontiers in Psychology, 8 <https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01508>

Oláh, L. S., Kotowska, I. E., & Richter, R. (2021). The new roles of men and women and implications for families and societies. Families and Societies Working Paper Series.

Pendleton, Brian F. 1978. “An Historical Description and Analysis of Pronatalist Policies in Italy, Germany and Sweden,” Policy Sciences, 9.1: 45–70 <https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00137978>

Raymo, J. M., & Park, H. (2020). Childbearing and changing gender roles in East Asia. Demographic Research, 42, 1349–1372.

Rindfuss, Ronald R., David K. Guilkey, S. Philip Morgan, and ØYstein Kravdal. 2010. “Child‐Care Availability and Fertility in Norway,” Population and Development Review, 36.4: 725–48 <https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2010.00355.x>

Sleebos, Joelle. 2003. Low Fertility Rates in OECD Countries: Facts and Policy Responses, pp. 1–62

Son, Keonhi, and Tobias Böger. 2021. “The Inclusiveness of Maternity Leave Rights over 120 Years and across Five Continents,” Social Inclusion, 9.2: 275–87 <https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v9i2.3785>

Tan, Jolene. 2023. “Perceptions towards Pronatalist Policies in Singapore,” Journal of Population Research, 40.3 <https://doi.org/10.1007/s12546-023-09309-8>

Online Reference

Bloomenthal, Andrew. 2011. “Four Asian Tigers: What They Are, Economic Strengths Explained,” Investopedia <https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/four-asian-tigers.asp> [accessed 19 February 2025]

Cheng, Mira. 2024. “Global Fertility Rates to Plunge in Decades Ahead, New Report Says,” CNN <https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/20/health/global-fertility-rates-lancet-study/index.html> [accessed 19 February 2025]

Dalton, Emma. 2022. “Japan’s Stubborn Gender Inequality Problem,” East Asia Forum <https://eastasiaforum.org/2022/06/28/japans-stubborn-gender-inequality-problem/> [accessed 19 February 2025]

Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore. 2024. “Tax Savings for Married Couples and Families,” IRAS <https://www.iras.gov.sg/taxes/individual-income-tax/basics-of-individual-income-tax/tax-reliefs-rebates-and-deductions/tax-savings-for-married-couples-and-families/> [accessed 19 February 2025]

Jeong, Jin-Ho, and Ji-Eun Seo. 2023. “In Korea, More Women Are Becoming Breadwinners,” Korea JoongAng Daily <https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/2023/01/09/business/economy/Korea-singleincome-mother/20230109173901073.html> [accessed 19 February 2025]

Mamchii, Oleksandra. 2024. “Richest Countries in Asia,” Best Diplomats <https://bestdiplomats.org/richest-countries-in-asia/> [accessed 19 February 2025]

Ministry of Manpower Singapore. 2021. “A Gender-Inclusive Workforce,” Ministry of Manpower <https://stats.mom.gov.sg/Pages/a-gender-inclusive-workforce.aspx >

NIPPON. 2022. “Japan Sees 90% Drop in Daycare Waiting Lists over the Last Five Years,” Nippon.Com <https://www.nippon.com/en/japan-data/h01428/> [accessed 19 February 2025]

OECD (2023). Family Database – SF2.1: Parental leave systems. https://www.oecd.org/social/family/database.htm

Report

Del Boca, Daniela. 2002. Low Fertility and Labour Force Participation of Italian Women: Evidence and Interpretations <http://ideas.repec.org/p/oec/elsaaa/61-en.html>

Duclos, Edith, Pierre Lefebvre, and Phillip Merrigan. 2001. “A ‘Natural Experiment’ on the Economics of Storks: Evidence on the Impact of Differential Family Policy on Fertility Rates in Canada,” CREFE Working Papers

Gender Equality Committee Taiwan. 2024. Telephone Poll on Gender Equality Perceptions

Kohara, Miki, and Bipasha Maity. 2020. Review of Economics of the Household The Impact of Work-Life Balance Policies on the Time Allocation and Fertility The Impact of Work-Life Balance Policies on the Time Allocation and Fertility Preference of Japanese Women

Legatum Institute. 2023. Source and Indicators

Ministry of Economy and Finance. (2022). KOREAN TAXATION.

Taiwan Government. (2024). Exemption and Deduction.

UNDESA. 2021. World Population Policies In International Affairs <https://doi.org/10.2307/2615426>

Downloads

Published

2025-05-19

How to Cite

Mahira Sandria Rahmatiana, & Adhi Cahya Fahadayna. (2025). Comparative Study of Effectiveness Pronatalist Policies in South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Singapore 2015-2023 . HUMANISMA : Journal of Gender Studies, 9(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.30983/humanisma.v9i1.9235

Issue

Vol. 9 No. 1 (2025): June 2025

Section

Articles

Citation Check

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Mahira Sandria Rahmatiana, Adhi Cahya Fahadayna

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0. that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.