How to awaken the enthusiasm for marriage and childbearing after 90?

The latest birth population data released by the National Bureau of Statistics and the Health Planning Commission are attracting continuous attention. Some articles emphasize that the "comprehensive two-child policy" is effective on the grounds that both the absolute number and the proportion of two children born on 20 17 have increased. However, with the decline of the total birth population and the increase of the number of two children, it shows that the number of one child is "avalanche"-the enthusiasm of young people for childbearing has reached an all-time low.

Point velocity reading

1 The fact is that before 20 13 years ago, the number of people born was relatively stable, and in just four years, it dropped by as much as 30%-this is definitely an avalanche. Encouraging childbearing, cash subsidy, tax reduction and extending maternity leave are necessary basic measures, and supporting measures and implementation are very important. However, compared with these incentives, deep social policies-promoting gender equality and improving women's status-may be more important.

The "avalanche" of one child shows that the concept of marriage and childbearing of young people after 1990 is in line with international standards

About a child's "avalanche", directly above the picture-

See the point of this picture? From 20 14, the number of births of one child and two children showed an obvious opposite trend, with two children increasing year by year and one child decreasing year by year. The rise of two children is expected, because the policy of "two children alone" was implemented in 20 14, and the policy of "comprehensive two children" was implemented in 20 16. The accumulated desire to have two children has been released in recent years, and even the increase in the number of two children is far from what some population "experts" predicted. However, the decline in the number of only-child births is not the interference of policy factors. In fact, before 20 13 years, the number of only-child births was relatively stable, and it dropped by as much as 30% in just four years-this is definitely an "avalanche".

You know, giving birth to a second child and giving birth to a child can be said to be fertility behaviors of two different age groups. Considering that many two children are "supplementary students" after the policy is opened, most of the parents of the two children are older, and many of them are "before 85". Therefore, the outstanding problem reflected by the "avalanche" of one child is that the younger generation, that is, the generation born after 1985, especially the generation born after 1990, has a rather low fertility will.

Some people may think that it is because the population of childbearing age has decreased, but the birth population has remained relatively stable over the years. In the 1980s and 1990s, the family planning policy was implemented, and the overall birth population remained at a high level and declined slowly, with no "avalanche".

Some people may blame the problem on the sharp rise in housing prices in recent years, which is quite synchronous with the "avalanche" of one child, but we might as well put this explanation higher: with the changes in social and economic conditions, the concept of marriage and childbearing of this generation born in the era of reform and opening up has been in line with international standards, and urban people no longer regard children as durable goods, but durable consumer goods, even luxury goods. When the cost of having children is too high, it is necessary to postpone having children or not having them. If you really want to be a parent, there are ways to do it-such as keeping a frog in your mobile phone.

This change in socio-economic conditions, in turn, led to changes in ideas, resulting in a sharp decline in fertility. It can be said that the whole world is universal, but China has no particularity. Moreover, there is no particularly good case to reverse the problem that the whole world is facing-when the fertility rate falls below 1.8 or even 1.5, it will almost never return to more than 2. 1 which can ensure the replacement of generations.

If China is to be said to be special, it may be because of the influence of the policy, the social and economic conditions have changed greatly, and the range and speed of the change of birth concept can be said to be unique. The fertility rate in first-tier cities like Shanghai is even lower than 1. This means that it is more difficult for China to reverse the low fertility rate than other countries.

A relatively optimistic view is that due to the unbalanced economic development in China, as long as the policy is liberalized, the fertility rate in some relatively poor areas will naturally remain at a high level, so there is no need to worry too much. There are two problems with this idea-first, one of the purposes of reform and opening up for so many years is urbanization, so that rural people can live a good life. If rural people are expected to have more children to solve the fertility problem, isn't urbanization in these years in vain? Secondly, it is immoral to expect rural people to have more children, but actually they are expected to provide "low-end labor", although this will help maintain the demographic dividend. The development pursued by a good society should be that all people can enjoy the benefits of development and have a more modern concept, rather than expecting a specific person to become a "fertility tool".

If we look at it this way, the present situation and prospects of East Asian countries and regions seem to be in sight. Like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan Province Province and Hongkong, the fertility rate has remained below 1.5 for a long time.

It is necessary to awaken the enthusiasm of the post-90 s, cash subsidies, tax cuts and extended maternity leave.

From the government's point of view, it is relatively easy to implement the policy of encouraging childbearing, directly give couples of childbearing age economic preferential measures, and extend maternity leave and paternity leave. The main obstacle is whether the cost is acceptable. We might as well refer to the experience of other countries.

Economic measures generally include cash subsidies and tax adjustments.

The cash subsidy policy is to give cash subsidies to families who have children, and to reduce their financial pressure of raising children and improve their willingness to have children by adjusting the level of family financial support. In the policy practice of various countries, there are many kinds of cash subsidies, including maternity allowance, childcare allowance and family allowance, with France, Germany, Sweden, Quebec, Canada and Russia as typical examples. For example, in France, the second child born after 1995 can receive 665 francs, the third child can receive 1578 francs, and each additional child can receive 852 francs in the future; Japan's cash subsidy policy is more inclined to families with many children. Since September 2004, the first and second children can get a monthly subsidy of 5000 yen, and the third and subsequent children can get a monthly subsidy of 1 10,000 yen.

Tax relief is to protect children's basic living needs and related educational expenses by reducing parents' personal income tax, thus reducing parents' financial burden of raising children. For example, the United States 1997 implemented a tax reduction bill on tax incentives, which stipulated that each child should be reduced by $400, and couples with an annual income of more than 1 10000 should be reduced by $50. Spain implements the tax-free policy, deducting the tax-free amount from the taxable income, and then applying the corresponding tax rate. Every family with children under 3 years old can get an extra deduction of 300 euros, and families with children between 3 years old and 16 years old can get a deduction of 150 euros. It is worth mentioning that some countries have imposed a single tax. For example, the French government used the tax law as early as 1920 to "punish" unmarried taxpayers and childless couples. When the tax is levied on unmarried childless taxpayers, it is 25% more than the normal tax.

Maternity leave is also one of the important points to encourage the birth policy. In terms of maternity leave period, countries with relatively low fertility rate generally extend the maternity leave period, which is typical in Germany, from six weeks in 1927 to three years in 1992; Maternity leave in Russia has been extended from the initial 12 week to four and a half years. Judging from the proportion of maternity leave wages, the proportion of monthly compensation wages of Swedish female workers has increased from 60% to 100%. In terms of paid maternity leave time, in order to further enhance the policy effect and reverse the downward trend of fertility rate, in 2009, Russia extended maternity leave with full pay to 140 days. In addition, paternity leave and parental leave for men are also very important aspects. For example, Sweden stipulates that parents have the right to enjoy 480 days of parental leave before their children reach the age of 8, of which 60 days are exclusively enjoyed by parents and the remaining 360 days are jointly enjoyed and arranged by parents. (The above paragraph is quoted from Policies to Encourage Childbirth and Their Effects: International Experience, Retrospect and Prospect, Wang Ying, 20 17).

These policies are widely adopted in low-fertility countries, and their strength is constantly strengthening. Whether the expected effect can be achieved depends on the relevant supporting measures and the intensity of implementation. Take maternity leave as an example. If a woman wants to take three or four years off to have a baby, how can an enterprise afford it without corresponding compensation measures?

However, if we can continue to change our ideas and women's status, China may get a better situation on the issue of fertility than Japanese and Korean.

However, in the opinion of some experts, these relatively direct policies, even if implemented well, can only hinder the further decline of fertility rate and it is difficult to promote the sharp increase of fertility rate. Gunnar Anderson, a professor of demography at Stockholm University, believes that, on the whole, "policies to encourage fertility", such as the government ordering more children, or out of patriotism, or even giving cash subsidies to families with more children, often do not significantly increase the fertility rate. Dodge, former governor of the Bank of Canada, said: "Using policies to encourage people to have more children will have no obvious effect anywhere. Successful cases that can really improve the fertility rate often appear in places that can provide better parenting services for women. "

This means that encouraging childbearing is not only a simple and direct policy intervention, but also a deeper social policy-the most important thing is to promote gender equality and improve the status of women.

It sounds hard to understand-the fertility rate is getting lower and lower, and it is not recognized that it is the result of the improvement of women's status, especially the education level of women? Why should we continue to improve the status of women?

This is because treating children as durable products and durable consumer goods are two completely different birth logics. The former regards women as fertility tools and children as productive forces to continue the incense. Therefore, with the development of social economy and the improvement of women's education level, this concept was naturally abandoned. In an era when children are regarded as durable consumer goods or even luxury goods, women themselves will not be regarded as fertility tools, but if women lack sufficient economic status and social policy support, they will still lack the enthusiasm for childbirth, because childbirth will be very hard. If women's status is further improved, the relatively relaxed social and economic environment will stimulate women's fertility enthusiasm.

This phenomenon can be confirmed by country comparison.

Germany is a positive example. In Europe, Germany has always been a country with an ultra-low fertility rate, so the population policy has always relied on increasing immigration. But in recent years, the fertility status of German native women has also begun to improve. A German scholar pointed out that in recent years, the childless rate of highly educated women has declined. According to a survey in 20 17, 25% of college graduates aged 40 to 44 have no children or women, slightly lower than 28% in 20 12. A report in Germany pointed out that the decline in the proportion of women who have never given birth is partly due to the improvement of work-family balance, especially the increase in child care services-the report also believes that the simultaneous increase in the number of working mothers in Germany in the past eight years is the best circumstantial evidence of this statement. In 20 16, 44% of mothers with 1 year-old children were employed regularly instead of taking maternity leave, which was much higher than 36% in 2008. Among mothers with two-year-old children, the proportion of working mothers also rose sharply from 46% in 2008 to 58% last year. In addition, the report also found that among women who graduated from college, the rate of returning to work after giving birth was faster than that of eight years ago. The proportion of mothers who returned to the workplace after the youngest child reached 1 year old rose from 54% in 2008 to 58% in 20 16 years. At the same time, 19% of highly educated women will work full-time again when their children reach 1 year, up from 16% in 2008.

All of the above shows that, with the support of social policies, German women feel that they can take care of their children even if they work, so they will still have family planning even if the childbearing age is postponed. The same thing happened in France and northern Europe, where the fertility rate is much better than that in Germany, and the fertility rate is close to 2.

Negative examples appear in relatively conservative central and southern Europe and East Asia. For example, South Korea, as a high-income country, has not seen an obvious fertility recovery like other OECD countries, and Japan is still at a low level. The reason lies in the low status of women in these countries, especially the low income of women compared with men, the insufficient degree of women's participation in the work, and the fierce competition among women involved in the work.

For China, on the issue of fertility, it will undoubtedly be more like our East Asian neighbors, because there are many similarities in cultural concepts. One of the reasons for the high fertility rate in France and northern Europe is that children born out of wedlock are very common. There is no constraint on fertility and marriage, and the lack of a constraint will naturally enhance the willingness to have children. European countries are also accustomed to introducing immigrants, and immigrants can also improve the overall fertility rate of the country. These two points are more difficult for China people to accept.

However, compared with young people in Japan and South Korea who are unwilling to have children, the difference between young people in China may be that the tradition or inertia of "men are superior to women" is not as strong as that in Japan and South Korea. From the superficial concept of society, equality between men and women is completely politically correct. It is not so difficult to make men and women more equal in economic status.

However, compared with the issue of gender equality, the current socio-economic pressure faced by young people is the fundamental reason why young people are not willing to get married and have children. Subsidies, tax cuts, extending maternity leave and establishing more reliable child care institutions are more urgent. After all, even if the fertility rate can't return to more than 2. 1, it can't be as low as 1.3, 1.2 or even less than 1-instead of an avalanche, it's better to let the problems caused by declining birthrate happen later.