Several countries in the world have been facing declining birth rates. Two years ago, the average world’s Total Fertility Rate (TFR) was 2.4 per one woman. In the case of Thailand, it has officially entered an ageing society with ageing persons accounting for 20% of the population; while the TFR was at 1.47. To make matters more daunting, a quarter of pregnancy was unplanned and more than half of mothers who gave birth were 15-29 years old.
But why did Thailand’s fertility rate not increase according to plans and policies? When in the baby boom period fifty years ago, Thailand’s Fertility Rate was 6 per person, one of the highest in the world.
Why do Thai people no longer welcome birth?
A research about work and family balance by Monsikarn et al. found that younger generations do not desire children for fear of the absence of personal life, the inability to ensure quality of life to children, and effects of raising children on one’s work life. The researchers discovered that the leverage point exists – it is workplace flexibility. For example, being a business owner gives one the agency to control one’s own timetable, but such flexibility is not affordable to just anyone, not to mention the 1.9 million baht average cost of raising a child.
Generally, pronatalist policies are informed by social norms. In Central Europe, society has long held negative views on working mothers with infants. In response, many countries in Europe have implemented parental leave policies despite the fact that those policies are difficult to quantify their effects (UNFPA, 2019).
In addition to parental leave, pronatalist policies can come in the form of financial provision which is designed for families with dependent members: children or older persons. Such financial provision aims to reduce expenses and poverty risks. In the case of Thailand, families with a child below 6 years old are entitled to receive 600 baht (18 USD) allowance per month provided that each family member’s average income does not exceed 100,000 baht (3,030 USD) per year. However, this policy rather promotes children’s quality of life than birthrates.
To drive fertility rates, some countries pay “Baby Bonus” which is a lump sum payment to parents of newborns to assist with the cost of child-rearing. Some countries that succeeded in increasing birth rates with this measure tended to not be active for too long due to high financial cost; many places: Australia, Quebec, and Spain have dropped the measure.
Looking at Thailand, public views about having children are unchanged despite the fact that many government agencies have implemented measures and policies attempting to increase the birth rates. Somehow this baby bust situation is not unique to Thailand; many countries: South Korea, Singapore, and Japan still expect declines in birthrates, while the rates slightly increased in Sweden and Spain.
South Korea
South Korea had clearly targeted their desired Total Fertility Rate in 2015, the goal was set: within 5 years, the country would raise the TFR to 1.5 (at that point, it was 1.21). In 2020, when the deadline arrived, South Korea’s TFR fell down to 0.8, making it the country with the lowest TFR in the world.
Strengthened Childcare and Parental Leave Policy
The government of South Korea allocated a generous amount of budget to childcare — eightfold in 14 years – from 0.1% of GDP in 2000 to 0.9% of GDP in 2014. With the increased budget, many childcare centres were constructed, especially by parent associations and the private sector, which accounted for 85% of country-wide childcare centres. During 2005 – 2014, the number of childcare centres for 0-2 year-old children rose from 9% to 36% and the centres for 3-5 year-old children from 31% to 91%. South Korea also extended and revised parental leave policies. Mothers can take a maternity leave for 90 days (for both full-time and part-time workers). Fathers can take up to 10-days leave with full compensation. In addition to that, parents could take a one-year parental leave which can be splitted up into 3 months each time before their child exceeds 8 years old.
Still, the policy only applies for biological parents, and to make matters worse, employers can lawfully decline parental leave requests from employers who have worked for less than one year. In 2019, the percentage of mothers using the leave was just 24% as there was a low female employment rate. Women who are about to give birth are usually unemployed and birth insurance still excludes self-employed women.
South Korea has a ‘daddy month’ policy encouraging fathers to use their leave with full compensation (no more than KRW 2,500,000 for 3 months). In 2018, the country implemented a policy reducing long work hours; from 68 hours per week to 52 hours per week. With all these policies, South Korea still has a low Total Fertility Rate and at present, the long term effects of these policies cannot be estimated, it may take some time before they could create momentum.
Singapore
In 1960, Singapore’s Total Fertility Rate was high at 5.76 but fifteen years later it dropped to 2.07. Singapore wanted to raise its TFR which was below the replacement level. The government has implemented many measures to encourage child births including the Baby Bonus scheme. From 2001, parents of the first and second born will receive S$8,000 (5,700 USD) and the amount will peak at S$10,000 (7,130 USD) if there is a third child. The government has also launched a co-saving project for children, and a tax reduction mechanism of S$5,000 (3,565 USD) for parents. In addition, it has established a Working Mother’s Child Relief of which mothers of firstborns are entitled to 15% exemption of income tax and the reductions are progressive with subsequent children.
Parental Leave and Assisted Reproductive Technology
From 2008, mothers in Singapore can take a leave of 4 months while still getting paid and from 2017, fathers have been able to use a leave of 2 weeks. In addition to that, parents are entitled to another 12-day leave with half of their wages paid. The government has subsidised preschool children in licensed childcare centres with support of S$600 (430 USD) for 2-18 month-old children and S$300 (213 USD) for 18-72 month-old. Apart from that, the government has supported 320 private childcare centres from 2021-2025, to keep the price accessible for parents and reduce the cost. For couples who have trouble conceiving, the government also subsidises 75% of the cost of Assisted Reproductive Technology.
However, Singapore is still one of the countries with the lowest TFR. In 2020, their TFR was at 1.1, lower than OECD’s average at 1.6. The birth rates were low in every group of Singaporeans: Chinese, Malays, Indians. Some scholars believed that the situation could be worse if Singapore had not had these policies, while many others believed that the policies did not have “enough evidence” to claim their positive impacts on the birth rates.
Japan
Japan was a country that modernised itself at full speed but while its economy burgeoned, its Total Fertility Rate declined. In the early 1960s, their TFR fell down below 2; kept decreasing to 1.5 in the 1990s, and hit a record low at 1.3 during 2002-2005. The low birth rate is one of the main concerns of Japanese society as its populations are ageing fast with the highest average world population age at 48.6 years old.
From the beginning of 1990s, Japan has implemented policies and projects to drive childbirths. They attempted to shift to the concept that men are not only breadwinners but also caretakers. This extensive role was followed by a family policy budget allocation that increased fourfold from 0.36% in 1990-1991 to 1.31% in 2015 (albeit lower than the OECD average at 1.97%).
The country also had the Angel Plan 1994, a program to strengthen childcare policies, support childcare centres and childcare programs in companies. It reduced the number in childcare’s waiting list, lowered child-rearing costs and supported after-school programs. Still, three years ago, the ratio of children in public childcare was lower than the OECD’s average.
Japan’s parental leave came into effect in 1992 but the paid leave did not follow until 3 years later. This policy has been revisited and revised in order to increase payment and flexibility. In 2019, parents get paid 50% of their salary while taking leave and many policies aimed to encourage men to be more involved in childcare. Since 2010, any male or female parent can take leave for one year, plus two months if they use it at the same time. Still, in 2016, only 3.1% of men took the leave. On top of that, part-time workers or people who have been employed less than one year are not eligible for parental leave. This has become another limitation for people who are still reluctant about having children, particularly when there is no legal sanction for employers who do not comply with this measure.
Since 2000, Japan has had child benefits and in 2016 they had the “Plan for Dynamic Engagement of All Citizens” which targeted the desired TFR at 1.8, along with the “work style reforms” which aims to improve part-time working conditions, control work hours, and introduce measures to support marriage in companies, towns, and regions, provide childcare and higher education free of charge, increase mother’s employment, and adopt measures of “childrearing-friendly society” in companies and at regional levels.
These aforementioned family policies in Japan have been in effect for over 30 years but changes are still unidentifiable. On a surface level, these policies seem to fail to increase child births, but looking closer, the TFR slightly increased from 1.26 in 2005 to 1.3 in 2020. It is also worth noting that Japan’s TFR was the lowest in Asia 40 years ago but since 2006, it has become higher than other wealthy countries like Singapore, South Korea, China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong in comparison.
In East Asian countries, women might not be fully benefited from the policies due to the gender division of work rooted in patriarchy, plus the work pressure and a highly competitive education system. Long and rigid work hours combined with overworking culture makes it almost impossible for parents to simultaneously care for children and provide for family. This burden often falls on women, as East Asian countries have the most gender asymmetry in work among OECD countries.
With gender-segregated workforce, unstable work contracts, and an “education fever” pressuring children to succeed and enter universities, parents shoulder high child-rearing costs and those who want success for their child tend to opt out from having a second one. In such a case, policymakers could curb long working hours, ensure more social rights, and make parental leave accessible for both full-time and part-time workers.
Spain
Spain implemented “Baby Bonus” for a short period in 2007. They gave 2,500 euros (2,800 USD) to a newborn and it was estimated that the TFR rose 2-3% and during that time, the abortion rate also decreased. However, this policy was dropped after an economic downturn in 2011. Apart from that, working mothers with a child below 3 years old in the household can get additional tax credit and families with a child can get tax deductions. These policies were estimated to result in 5% increased births or 3 births per 1,000 women.
Sweden
Sweden has successfully increased its Total Fertility Rate, but its birth rates are that of a “rollercoaster” – fluctuating depending on the nation’s economy.
Sweden has had gender equality and child-centred family policies and social welfare for a long time. In the 1970s, Sweden responded to more working mothers and fewer child births with parental leave and childcare provision. Parents can lessen their work hours by 25% if they have a preschool child at home. Sweden adapted to changes in societal roles by expanding childcare to male parents, being one of the first countries to focus on “rights for fathers” which was a part of the country’s gender equality policy. Fathers receive 90-day leave for childcare but at present, only 26% of them use it since men are still viewed as “ideal workers” whom society deems their work performance unaffected by family issues.
With the effect of the 1995 Child Care Act, Sweden intensively built public childcare centres for 1-6 year-old children, increasing from 12,000 placements in 1965 to 730,000 in 2002. Children have the “right to childcare” meaning that they should not wait longer than 3 months to get into one. Furthermore, parents are able to care for their children at home and receive allowances since 2008.
Even so, with the economic crisis and salary-based amount of leave compensation, fewer people chose to have children. In 1980, Sweden extended the length of parental leave from 15 months to 24 months; as a result, many women chose to have another child while still on leave. In addition, there was the “speed premium” policy in which parents still got paid the same amount as they got with the first child, provided that they had another child within 30 months. This urged families to plan for children with a close age gap and to rear them with no interruption. It particularly benefited women who, after giving birth, oftentimes needed to change to part-time work with less payment. With all these policies, the TFR went higher, from 1.61 in 1983 to 2.14 in 1990, but fell again in the late 1990s to 1.5 due to economic reasons.
After all, parental leave in Sweden is still flexible. Parents can choose to take only some portions of their leave; in full, half, or any length they prefer until their children reach 12 years old. Another child-friendly factor is that Swedish workers have a very high sense of responsibility for families. Companies in Sweden have flexible hours, usually allow working from home, and do not have meetings in early morning or late afternoon. When child-rearing costs dropped, there were more 3-5 births per 1,000 women in 2001 and the Swedish TFR went high again this year (2022) at 1.84.
———————————————–
All in all, some policies such as the Baby Bonus seem to work in the short term while some like gender equality policy and flexible working hours work in the long-run. When a family decides to have children, it is not based solely on family policies but also on labour policies and working conditions. Work should provide parents with enough resources to take care of their children and family, this is perhaps why countries with low and unstable employment often see low childbirths.
Using one set of policies might not be able to increase birth rates, especially when said policies are based on outdated gender and family expectations. Pronatal policies need to integrate family, labour, and health issues to be effective. They need to act as a safety net among the economic fluctuations, inequality faced by younger generations, rising cost of housing, diverse gender preferences and reproductive choices. Effective policies simply need to address various needs of the people.
Last but not least, what matters most is to support the small number of children in our society to grow up with a high quality of life. Even though policies and social welfare might not increase birth rate straight away, they are crucial for relieving some burdens from the youth as they are the ones who are going to support the country in such an unstable and insecure future.
References
- “Measures to encourage childbirths in Singapore” by Sunny LAM, Legislative Council Secretariat, Hong Kong (August, 2021)
- “Policy responses to low fertility: How effective are they?” by UNFPA (May, 2019)
- “Korea” by Hyunsook Kim (Ministry of Health and Welfare, Korea) (April, 2020)
- “Fertility and the Family: An Overview of Pro-natalist Population Policies in
Singapore” by Theresa Wong and Brenda S.A. Yeoh (Asian Meta Centre)
- “Sweden’s 1975 National Preschool Reform” by Centre for Public Impact