A Study on Low-Fertility Response Strategy of East Asian Countries

Abstract

동아시아 국가들은 공통적으로 인구정책을 국가 경제 발전 전략의 일환으로 추진해 왔다. 심각한 저출산 상황에 직면하여 정책의 방향을 전환하고 있지만 인구 정책 패러다임에서 근본적인 변화가 나타났는가는 분명하지 않다. 저출산을 둘러싼 동아시아 국가의 특수성과 유사성에 대한 이해를 기반으로 할 때 한국 정부는 더 효과적인 정책을 추진할 수 있을 것으로 본다.

This study provides updated information on fertility trends in the four countries of Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, and Korea and further develops the knowledge on population policies underlying the phenomenon of low fertility rates in these countries. The first section looks at general trends in fertility rates by both cohort and period and explores trends in delayed childbirth and the recovery of childbirth of East Asian women. The second section analyzes the socio-economic background of low birthrate in East Asian countries with the fuzzy set methodology that explains what aspects of economic and socio-cultural characteristics of East Asia are influential on birth in comparison with other countries. The third section takes a closer look at the specific historical roots and development of population policies in four East Asian countries. Compared with prior research that mainly focused on the similarities among these countries, this study sheds new light on the low fertility crisis in East Asia by addressing cross-country differences in population policies. The results of this study demonstrate that fertility rates of East Asian countries are not likely to increase in the near future. The socioeconomic characteristics and pro-natal policies distinguishing the East Asian countries with low fertility rates from their European counterparts are clearly visible. It follows that public policy responding to low fertility rates should be designed based upon a comprehensive understanding of the unique characteristics of East Asian countries. Most East Asian governments have announced at some point that public policy has been redirected toward encouraging childbirth, though it is not clear whether or not underlying assumptions regarding population policies have changed. New ideologies that replace ingrained developmentalism are needed, and welfare systems that address family policy, and not simply pro-natal policy, should be reinforced.