One of the first moves of Japan’s new ruling party has been a proposal to pay Japanese families to have more children. The proposal would pay families approximately $3,400 per child per year, but it is unlikely to work. Although Japan’s falling birthrate is one of the lowest in the world, 1.3 children per couple, which is well below the replacement level of 2.1, Japan is far from unique in this area. Many European countries have been experiencing birth rates significantly below replacement levels for decades, and a number have instituted cash for kids programs with little success. Both Russia ($9,200) and Italy (as much as 10,000 Euros) have similar baby bonus programs, yet they continue to have some of the lowest birth rates in Europe.
Given the pervasiveness of this problem in Europe, European countries have been researching the phenomenon of declining birth rates for years and this research indicates the that problem of declining birth rates is not one that can be solved with an extra few thousand a year. The problems are monetary, but they are also cultural. Causes vary between countries, but typically include gender inequality, lack of workplace flexibility and lack of affordable, high quality child care. Addressing these factors is feasible, but not without significant money and, most likely, serious opposition.
For example, Norway’s solution is both expensive and radical yet has resulted in one of the highest birthrates in Europe. Norway guarantees 54 weeks of paid maternity leave, 6 weeks of paternity leave and is considering mandating paternity leave so that the career costs of having a child are shared more equally between the genders. It is hard to imagine a country like Japan, or even the US adopting such a plan, but it appears to be working. In contrast, the bonuses of Russia and Italy are not.
Given these facts, which Japan is most certainly aware of, why is Japan proposing a solution unlikely to work? Is it simply a publicity stunt? A way for the government to appear to be addressing the issue of declining birth rates without having to tackle the real causes of Japan’s infertility? Is it possible to imagine a Japan where there is true part-time work, where both fathers and mothers are expected to share the burdens of child rearing and where the state provides the needed support services? Maybe Japan doesn’t have to make all these changes, but it seems unlikely that the current plan will make much of a difference.
Posted by Marcia Zug on September 8, 2009 at 02:59 PM
Comments
Regarding the status of women in Japan it is also worth noting that rape statistics in Japan show a decline of about two-thirds in the number of rapes reported, from 1972 to 1995 (coinciding with a similar decline in other crimes like murder). The subclass of rape that constituted gang rape, which had been quite a large share of the total declined by an even larger percentage (about 75%).
While reporting issues limit the usefulness of international comparison, the decline accompanied by declines in other violent crimes suggest that the risk of being raped by a stranger is real, and not just a reporting issue.
Also, while international comparisons have limited value, the number of rapes for 100,000 people in Japan is about twenty times lower than in the U.S. according to official statistics, and at least some of that is a real difference, even if some of the difference may be due to reporting issues.
Arranged marriage rates in Japan, meanwhile, are way down in the last generation or so, although the practice hasn’t entirely vanished.
Posted by: ohwilleke | Sep 9, 2009 7:31:17 PM
Singapore goes one step further and actually arranges dating and social events for singles, as a way of encouraging marriage and children.
Posted by: FormerVap | Sep 9, 2009 9:27:43 AM
Requesting people have large families = family value
Paying people bonus to have large families = socialism
Paying corporate executives bonuses to do their job = capitalism
Posted by: anon | Sep 9, 2009 8:57:15 AM
I am always skeptical when people trot out Norway as the way to increase birth rate. If you really want to increase birth rate, you should cut gender equality and reduce female income, not increase it. Places like the Congo and Afghanistan have much higher birthrates than Norway, but they don’t fit the liberal fantasy model. Come to think of it, the U.S. has a higher birthrate than Norway, too; and our workplace equality laws and support for working mothers is significantly less generous than Norway. The increase-support-for-working-mothers because Norway does it meme seems like cherry-picking at its worst.
Posted by: anon | Sep 9, 2009 2:27:39 AM
Fertility rates have been declining worldwide for over 40 years, and this decline is most severe in industrialized countries where rates are often below 1.5. For a time, increased female labor participation rates was adjudged the cause of this, but more recently, female labor participation rates over 60% have been associated with higher fertility rates, especially when coupled with mother friendly social policies as in Scandinavia. France is the prime example of successful use of pro-natalism policies. Historically, France was a fertility laggard in Europe. In 1994, France had moderately low fertility rates and adopted a change in compensation for mothers for their third child. Since then, the fertility rate has climbed more than 20% to almost replacement level. Whether this rate increase can be attributed solely to increased compensation or is the result of higher rates among an increasing immigrant population is contested empirically.
This background suggests that Japan, with a female labor participation rate below 40%, will see little change from this plan. Changing tax policies to encourage secondary earners to enter the labor force would likely increase results, but this would take time. Japan, Italy and Russia – all countries with strong family ties and – are essentially experiencing negative population growth.
Posted by: jhengis | Sep 8, 2009 11:59:48 PM
I agree that it won’t have a big impact (the economist in me says that any incentive has some impact, even if it is a small one).
The cause of lower fertility in Japan is that fewer women are choosing to marry, and that those who do marry are tending to marry later. Japanese fertility rates for married couples remain very little changed and Japanese fertility rate for unmarried women are the among the lowest in the world (notably, despite extremely low rates of oral contraception use; condoms are the dominant form of contraception for unmarried people in Japan).
Notably, this has more to do with expanding women’s rights in Japan, not declining ones. Career options for unmarried Japanese women are dramatically better than they used to be. But, the role of Japanese women within marriages and the lot of Japanese women who have children out of wedlock isn’t much different.
I suspect that the Scandinavian approach isn’t very attractive, politically either. Scandinavian’s have a strong welfare state that makes up for very weak marriage bonds. Scandinavians have non-marital chiildren at rates similar to those of African-American communities in the United States. Japan has resisted creating the kind of welfare state other developed countries have (and kept aggregate taxation down along with it), but shifting responsibility for satisfying the needs met by the welfare state to employers and family; families are even expected to pay rent on deceased ancestor’s graves. Without addressing questions of which approach is best, it would require an immense overhaul of Japanese society to accomplish, and massive change is rarely politically popular.
Imagine a public service announcement in the U.S. urging women with careers to get pregnant while single. Now, imagine it in a place where single women have pregnancy rates comparable to nuns. There would be street riots. But, in effect, that is what the Scandinavian approach would be doing through incentives rather than PSAs.
Japan got into its current state within marriage with a massive P.R. campaign and employer incentives (post-WWII when the modern Japanese social order was being constructed) encouraging women to become homemakers. Long work hours for men working full time used to be a major factor as well, although now the Japanese work similar numbers of hours per week to Americans. Remaking this laborously constructed model of marriage isn’t a quick or easy task.
Posted by: ohwilleke | Sep 8, 2009 4:17:33 PM