Family Policies and Fertility Intentions in South Korea

Eun Jung Kim1

Susan L. Parish1

1 Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University, Waltham,

Massachusetts, USA

Corresponding author: Eun Jung Kim, The Heller School for Social Policy and

Management at Brandeis University, 415 South Street, MS 035, Waltham

Massachusetts USA 02454; ejkim@brandeis.edu

Abstract

The present study examined the effects of family policies on working married women’s

fertility intentions in South Korea. The study (1) compared the impacts of policy

availability (i.e. whether family policies are provided at workplaces) and accessibility (i.e.

whether employees can actually use these policies); and (2) examined the impact of

family policies by parity-specific birth intentions. Using the 2007-2012 Korean

Longitudinal Survey of Women and Families (N=4,324 working women), the study

examined seven family policies. Population-averaged logistic regression modeling was

used. Results revealed that neither policy availability nor accessibility were significantly

associated with women’s overall fertility intentions in Korea. Yet, examination by parity-

specific birth intentions revealed that working women’s second birth intentions

increased significantly when they had more available and accessible family policies at

their workplaces. The present study underscores that women’s fertility decisions differ

significantly by parity, and informs policymakers of developing family policies that

address these differences.

Keywords: Family policies, policy availability and accessibility, working women, fertility

intentions, parity, South Korea

Family-Supportive Workplace Policies and Fertility Intentions in South Korea

1. Introduction

South Korea (hereafter referred to as Korea) has one of the lowest fertility rates

(i.e. average number of children born to a woman over her lifetime) in the world. Korea’s

fertility rate has been steadily declining since the early 1960s. From 2005 to 2010,

Korea’s fertility rate averaged 1.13 live births per woman, well below the world average

of 2.56 live births per woman (National Statistics Office of Korea, 2016a).

Increased women’s labor force participation has been associated with Korea’s

low birth rates (Ma, 2013; 2016). Korean women’s employment rate increased from 27%

in 1960 to 47% in 1990 and 54% in 2014 (National Statistics Office of Korea, 2016b). In

Korea, working women report high levels of stress meeting the demands of their work

and family responsibilities (Chung, 2010; Kim, 2004). These difficulties have been

associated with women’s reluctance to have children (Lee and Choi, 2012). It is

reported that labor force participation significantly reduces women’s propensity for

having a second child in Korea, and non-employment was associated with an increased

propensity to have a second child (Ma, 2013). Since the 2000s, the Korean government

has introduced and implemented new family-supportive workplace policies as an effort

to help working women better balance their work and family lives, and alleviate child

care-related stress and costs with the ultimate goal of increasing fertility (Chin et al.,

2012).

However, it is unclear whether these policies have had a significant impact on

fertility. To the best of our knowledge, until now there is only one study that empirically

investigated the relationship between family policies and fertility on a national scale in

Korea (Lee and Yu, 2011). These authors examined 1,101 married women workers in

2008 and found that family policies did not impact women workers’ fertility or reported

fertility intentions (Lee and Yu, 2011). However, this study has two important limitations,

which warrant further research.

First, Lee and Yu (2011) measured the effects of family polices based on

perceived availability (i.e. whether policies are provided at workplaces), and found that

availability of family policies was not effective in increasing working women’s fertility or

fertility intentions. While studying the impact of policy availability is important, this

approach ignores accessibility (i.e. whether employees can actually use these policies

if they wish to). There is widespread workplace variation in the extent to which

employees can actually utilize family policies. Employees may be unable to use family

policies even if employers provide such policies because of fear of negative reprisal

(e.g., being demoted or moved to unfavorable tasks). There is a very modest

correlation between family policy availability and accessibility (Budd and Mumford,

2006; Butler, Gasser and Smart, 2004; Thompson, Beauvais and Lyness, 1999). The

impact of family policies on fertility likely differs depending on how policies are

measured. Hence, to accurately estimate the effects of family policies on fertility, it is

important to measure both policy availability and accessibility.

Second, Lee and Yu (2011) examined the effect of family policy on all fertility

intentions. Studies from other countries indicate that family policies had differential

effects on the probability of first, second and third births (Ermisch, 1988; Laroque and

Salanie, 2005; Milligan, 2005; Vikat, 2004). In the UK, generous child allowances were

associated with significantly increased probability of third births (Ermisch, 1988), and in

France, the availability of a newborn cash benefit was associated with significantly

increased likelihood of having a second child (Milligan, 2005). By contrast, in Finland,

childcare allowance use was related to an increased likelihood of having a third child,

but the allowances had little effect on first and second births (Vikat, 2004). Also,

according to a cross-national study of 25 European nations, parity explained the

greatest amount of fertility decision variance among all sociodemographic factors

(Ajzen and Klobas, 2013). Hence, the impacts of family policies likely have variable

impact on women’s fertility decisions by parity. In Korea, little is known about the

relationship between family policies, parity and women’s fertility intentions. Most

existing parity and fertility studies are from Western countries that have significantly

different socioeconomic and institutional cultures compared to Korea.

The purpose of this study is to address these gaps in the research. The present

study examined (1) the impact of perceived availability and accessibility of family

policies on working women’s fertility intentions; and (2) the differential effects of family

policies on working women’s fertility intention by parity in Korea. Using the Korean

Longitudinal Survey of Women and Families, the present study empirically examined

these relationships on a national scale. These results can help policymakers to better

understand the effectiveness of family policies on fertility, and build evidence to inform

better polices to support working women.

2. Background

Over the past decades, fertility rates have dropped precipitously in Korea. In

1960, the fertility rate was 6.2 live births per woman over her lifetime. By 1983, fertility

was below the replacement rate (i.e., fertility needed to maintain the existing population

of 2.1 per live births woman (National Statistics Office of Korea, 2016a). By 2005,

Korea’s fertility rate was 1.05 live births per woman, the lowest rate in the world (The

World Bank, 2016). As of 2016, Korea’s fertility rate was 1.26, which is the fifth lowest in

the world (Geoba, 2016). While fertility in Korea has declined, women’s labor market

participation has increased. Between 1960 and 2014, Korean women’s labor force

participation rates rose from 27% to 54% (The World Bank, 2016). There are several

important characteristics of Korean women’s employment that relate to declining fertility.

First, in Korea, women’s labor force participation rate by age forms an “M” shape,

meaning that it increases into early adulthood, but dips between the early twenties and

the main child-bearing years of 23-34, and increases again from age 35 (Lee et al.,

2013). This pattern indicates Korean women typically quit their jobs for childbearing.

After age 35, women’ employment steadily increases again, but many women return

only as irregular part-time workers because of child care reasons and because they

cannot find regular full-time work (Lee et al., 2013; Kim et al., 2012). Korean employers

often view working mothers as incompetent and career disruptions as unfavorable (Lee

et al., 2013; Kim et al., 2012). Both career disruptions and irregular part-time

employment make it particularly difficult for Korean women to advance to higher status

positions (Kim et al., 2012). In 2012, women represented 37% of the workforce at

Korean companies with at least 1,000 workers, but they filled only 17% of managerial

posts (Korean Ministry of Labor, 2012). Consequently, the gender wage gap is relatively

wide in Korea compared to other developed countries. In 2012, Korean women’s

earnings were 39% lower than those of Korean men. This gap was 2.6 times larger than

the 15% average gender wage gap among OECD countries (OECD, 2014).

In addition to career sacrifices, difficulties balancing work and family

responsibilities add to Korean women workers’ decisions to delay or avoid having

children (Eun, 2006; Lee and Choi, 2012). The Confucian patriarchal tradition in Korea

places most household and child rearing responsibilities on women (Chin et al., 2012).

In 2014, Korean married working women spent an average of 3½ hours per day on

unpaid domestic work, vastly more than the 32 minute daily average of their married

working male counterparts (Kim and Lee, 2015). Elevated levels of work-family stress

are associated with greater marital dissatisfaction and are reported to discourage

women’s fertility intentions (Lee and Choi, 2012).

Further, the reduced availability of extended family households and high costs of

child care have been associated with women’s fertility avoidance in Korea. Between

1970 and 1995, the percentage of extended family households (three generations or

more) declined from 22% to 11% in Korea (The Center for Work and Family, 2000).

Grandparents are frequently less available to share child care responsibilities as much

as they were when extended families were more common. Working parents must rely

on child care centers. In 2010, the average cost for sending a young child to a child care

center averaged KWR 221,000 (US $220) per month, which accounted for about 7% of

families’ total household income, on average (Lee, 2013). For working parents,

childcare costs are difficult to ignore, especially when they are already sending one or

more children to childcare centers.

2-1. South Korean family-supportive workplace policies

To promote fertility, the Korean government expanded and introduced new

family-supportive workplace policies. These policies include parental leave

arrangements, child care support, flexible working arrangements and other supportive

arrangements (OECD 2004). In 2007, the Korean government reformed the Act on

Equal Employment and Support for Work-Family Balance, aiming to expand its earlier

goals of achieving gender equality in the workplace to include promoting work-family

balance for working families (Chin et al. 2012). The family policies stipulated under the

Act are summarized below:

Maternity Leave. Maternity leave was originally introduced in 1953 as a paid 60-

day leave but was extended in 2001 to 90 days. Korean working women are now

eligible to receive a full wage replacement from their employers for the first 60 days of

their maternity leave and partial- or full-wage replacement from the national employment

insurance program for the remaining 30 days up to a maximum of KWR 1,350,000

(approximately US $1,300). To be eligible for paid maternity leave, workers must have

paid into the national employment insurance for at least 180 days, and they must apply

for the cash allowance within six months of giving birth (Chin et al., 2012).

Childcare Leave (Parental leave). Childcare leave was first introduced in 1987 as

an unpaid one-year leave for mothers with children under one year old. In 2008, this

policy was revised to provide paid leave at a flat rate of KRW 500,000 (US $450) per

month, and was expanded to include both mothers and fathers with children under three

years old. In 2010, the leave was further expanded to include children under six years

old. In 2011, the leave was revised from a flat rate to wage replacement equivalent to

40% of monthly salary within a range of KRW 500,000 – 1,000,000 (US $450-900). Both

parents cannot take the leave simultaneously; however, the leave can be used in one or

two blocks. Childcare leaves are financed from the national employment insurance

program. To be eligible, employees must have contributed to the national employment

insurance program for at least 180 days (Chin et al. 2012).

Employed parents who are eligible for a childcare leave can also request

reduced working hours as an alternative to childcare leave. The reduced work schedule

was introduced in 2008 for families that cannot afford partial wage replacement or for

parents whose job duties do not allow full-time long absences. To be eligible,

employees must work between 15-30 hours per week (full-time work is 40 hours per

week). Consistent with the childcare leave, the reduced work schedule can be used for

up to one year in one or two blocks until the child reaches his or her sixth birthday (Chin

et al. 2012).

Flexible working arrangement. In 2010, the Korean government implemented

flexible working arrangements in eleven public organizations as a pilot project. The

government announced it would gradually expand flexible arrangements, yet, as of June

2016, it is not mandated and employers are only encouraged to provide it.

On-site Childcare Centers (Workplace childcare centers). In 1999, the Act on

Equal Employment and Support for Work-Family Balance mandated on-site, nonprofit

childcare at workplaces with 300 or more women workers (or 500 or more total workers).

Employers must pay at least 50% of the management costs (e.g., equipment, wages,

rent) involved with running these on-site child care centers; the balance of the costs are

paid out-of-pocket by employees who use it. When employers do not establish on-site

childcare, they must instead offer childcare jointly with other employers, contracting with

local childcare facilities, or providing childcare (or family) allowances and/or education

expense subsidies. Incentives to establish on-site childcare centers include direct

financial aid and tax benefits (Chin et al., 2012). Despite these incentives, only 47% of

mandatory workplaces offered either on-site childcare centers or equivalent

replacements (Korean Ministry of Women and Family, 2006). In 2012, the government

publicized an online list of workplaces that do not provide on-site childcare centers as a

type of punishment (Chin et al., 2014).

2-2. Family-supportive workplace policies and fertility

Research on the relationship between family policies and fertility are decidedly

equivocal. Some studies report that family policies significantly increase fertility (Castle

2003; Del Boca et al. 2003; Finch and Bradshaw 2003; Hyatt and Milne 1991), while

other studies report that there is no significant relationship between family policies and

fertility (Anderson, Duvander and Hank 2004; Hoem, Prskawez and Neyer 2001; Miligan

2002; Rosen 2004).

It has been hypothesized that disparate national contexts contribute to these

inconsistent findings. Hoem (2005), although not providing econometric evidence,

claimed that national socio-political cultures, including national sentiments about

women’s labor participation, as opposed to specific policies, determine whether

countries are more family-, child-, and women-friendly, which is closely related to fertility

rates. Walker (1995) investigated Sweden from 1955-1990 and found a positive

pronatalist effect between family policies and fertility. However, these effects were small

compared to the larger and negative effects of income and tax policies, which overrode

the positive effects of family policies. Furthermore, variation in access to and receipt of

benefits (i.e. eligibility criteria, benefit caps) of family policies influenced the relationship

between work-family policies and fertility (Gauthier, 2007).

The inconsistent findings may also be related to methodological differences. Not

all employees have equal access to family polices. Some employees not use family

policies for fear reprisals (e.g., demotion to unfavorable tasks) and due to wage losses.

While some studies evaluated the impacts of availability of family policies, other studies

evaluated the impact of employees’ access to family policies (Kelly et al. 2008). Hence,

the impacts of family policies likely differ by how policies are measured. Given Korea’s

work culture of long working hours, work-oriented ethics, and preference for

uninterrupted careers, a wide discrepancy between policy availability and accessibility

would be suspected to exist in Korea.

In addition, the effects of family policies likely differ by parity. The decisions to

have a first, second and subsequent children are qualitatively different (Ajzen and

Klobas, 2013; Morgan, 2003). A cross-national study that examined eight European

countries demonstrated that the decision to have a first child relied primarily on the

individual’s appraisal of gains and losses accruing from having a child (i.e. emotional

happiness, limitation to freedom, career interference). By comparison, the decision to

have subsequent children depended not only on possible gains and losses, but also on

subjective norms in relation to important referents (i.e. friends, families, co-workers) and

perceived resources and obstacles related to having an additional child (i.e. accessible

childcare centers, one-child policy and wage penalties; Klobas, 2010). As a result, the

effects of family policy likely vary by parity-specific birth intentions. According to the

economic model, increased income or benefits should increase fertility intentions

(Gauthier 2007), yet behavioral studies argue that parents who receive monthly

childcare subsidies for their only child were more prone to use this money to buy more

expensive toys or clothes instead of having a second child (Folbre, 2001; Gauthier,

2007). Hence, availability or increased childcare subsidies may provide incentives for

first birth, but may not necessarily have a positive effect on subsequent births

These complexities motivated the present study, which empirically examined the

separate effects of policy availability and accessibility on working women’s fertility

intentions, and determined how these relationships change by parity in the Korean

context.

3. Methodology

3-1. Data

The Korean Longitudinal Survey of Women and Families (KLoWF) was used to

examine the impact of family policy on women’s fertility intention. The KLoWF was

established as a longitudinal study of women’s lives and employment for the evaluation

of various family policies in Korea (KLoWF, 2013). The KLoWF uses a multi-stage,

stratified clustered design and surveys 9,997 women aged from 19 to 64 who live in

9,068 households across the nation. The survey was first conducted in 2007 and

subsequent surveys were conducted in 2008, 2010 and 2012. The survey is an

unbalanced panel data (i.e., each panel contains different time points) and refreshment

samples were included to treat for attritions at each wave. Hence, the number of sample

is different by waves. In this study, the 2008 data was excluded because it was missing

important study variables (e.g., key family policies such as flexible working hours)

Our unit of analysis was married wage-earning working Korean women. For this

study, wage-earning employees were examined because generally self-employed or

freelance workers have greater authority and flexibility over their work schedule than

wage-earning workers. Also, women’s fertility intentions were examined because

policies such as maternity leaves are only applicable to women. Based on these criteria,

a total sample of 4,324 working married women was examined (i.e. wave 2007:1,444;

2010:1,419; and 2012: 1,461 working women were examined).

3-2. Measures

Dependent variable. The dependent variable for this study was fertility intention.

Fertility intention was measured as “Do you plan to have a child (or children) in the

future?” (yes/no).

Independent variable. The effects of family policies were examined based on

perceived availability and accessibility. The KLoWF asks respondents “whether policies

are provided at their workplace” (availability) and “whether respondents have used or

could use the policies if they wish to” (accessibility). Both questions were measured as

binary responses (yes/no). The following seven family policies were examined:

maternity leave, childcare leave, on-site childcare center, childcare subsidy, flexible

working hours, family allowance and school expenses subsidy. The policies were

summed and measured as counted continuous variable, ranging between 0-7. Higher

number indicated that the respondent had more available and accessible family policies.

Control variables. Based on the literature review, a range of demographic

variables were controlled (Del Boca et al., 2003; Lee and Yu., 2011; Milligan, 2005;

Rosen ,2004). Continuous covariates included: woman’s age, spouse age, average

daily work hours, monthly salary, yearly household income, average daily unpaid

domestic work hours, number of children, and years of education. Employment status

(contingent or regular worker) and paid housework help (yes or no) were measured as

binary variables. Health (very unhealthy to very healthy) and work satisfaction (very

unsatisfied to very satisfied) were measured as five point Likert scales, gender-

discriminatory workplace culture (not at all discriminatory to very discriminatory) was

measured as a four point Likert scale, and marital satisfaction (very unsatisfied to very

satisfied) was measured as a ten point Likert scale. In this study, the Likert scale

variables were treated as continuous variables to save degree of freedom and since

they are used as covariates.

Multiple imputation was used to address missing data. Multiple imputation

procedure replaces each missing value with a set of plausible values taking into account

of the uncertainty in the missing values and thus, provides a more robust estimation

than a single imputation (Stuart, Azur, Frangakis, & Leaf, 2009). Five imputed data sets

were created to generate plausible values for missing data for the variables marriage

satisfaction (n=133), daily work hour (n=9), monthly salary (n=11), yearly household

income (n=16), and workplace gender culture (n=7).

3-3. Analyses

Random effects modeling was used to estimate the effects of family policies on

women’s fertility intention. If we were to run a pooled ordinary least square regression

model with year dummies, the result would be bias because of possible repeated

measures and unobserved heterogeneity, such as historical trends. Working women

and women’s employment rates, it is appropriate to control for such potential omitted

variables.

When analyzing a longitudinal panel study either Random Effects Model (REM)

or Fixed Effects Model (FEM) is used. A major attraction of these models is that they

provide a way to control for all time-invariant unmeasured (or latent) variables that

influence the dependent variable whether these variables are known or unknown to

researchers. REM assumes that the omitted time-invariant variables are uncorrelated

with the included time-varying covariates while the FEM allows these variables to freely

correlate (Mundlak, 1978). REM is known to have greater efficiency relative to the FEM

leading to smaller standard errors and higher statistical power to detect effects

(Woodridge, 2008). In addition, while FEM cannot estimate the effects of time-constant

covariates, the REM can. In this study, REM was used because of its greater efficiency.

Hausman specification test was examined to compare fixed effects and random effects

models, and results confirmed that the REM was a better fit.

Results

The demographic characteristics of the sample are presented in Table 2-1. The

sample of working women was on average 43 years old, their spouses were 47 years

old, the women spent 3 hours and 15 minutes on unpaid domestic work per day, worked

7 hours and 18 minutes per day, and earned a monthly salary of KRW 1,377,000

(approximately US $1,400), slightly less than the Korean average women worker

($1,597; Korean National Tax Service 2015). The average annual household income

was KRW 44,796,000 (approximately $45,000), which was higher than the 2013 Korean

median household income US $40,861 (Gallup, 2013). Slightly fewer than half of the

women were employed as regular workers (versus contingent workers, 45%), and had a

2-year college degree or higher (49%). A majority of women had 2 children (58%),

perceived themselves as healthy (54%), and reported having average work satisfaction

(52%). A substantial majority of women reported that their workplaces were non-gender

discriminatory (73%). Only 11% of the working women had paid housework helpers.

Table 2-1. Description of the Sample (N=4,324) Characteristic Mean (SD)

Age 43.71 (9.73)

Husband age 46.64 (10.35)

Average unpaid domestic work per day (minutes) 194.66 (167.85)

Average daily work hour 7 hours 18 minutes (2.08)

Monthly salary (KWR ) 1,377,000 (923,000)

Yearly household income (KWR) 44,796,000 (27,564,000)

Marriage Satisfaction (1: very unsatisfied – 7: very satisfied) 5.52 (1.29)

n (%)

Educational attainment

Middle school degree or below

High school degree

2 year college (community or vocational college) degree

Bachelor degree

Master degree or higher

830 (19.2%)

1,773 (41.0%)

649 (15.0%)

899 (20.8%)

173 (4.0%)

Health

Very unhealthy

Unhealthy

Average

Healthy

Very healthy

22 (0.5%)

294 (6.8%)

1,098 (25.4%)

2,347 (54.3%)

558 (12.9%)

Work Satisfaction

Very unsatisfied

Unsatisfied

Average

Satisfied

Very satisfied

108 (2.5%)

649 (15.0%)

2,261 (52.3%)

1,111 (25.7%)

208 (4.8%)

Gender-discriminatory workplace culture

Not at all discriminatory

Non-discriminatory

Discriminatory

Very discriminatory

1,167 (27.0%)

1,972 (45.6%)

1,025 (23.7%)

164 (3.8%)

Number of children (both dependent and adult)

0

1

2

3

4 or more

307 (7.1%)

679 (15.7%)

2,525 (58.4%)

623 (14.4%)

190 (4.4%)

Regular worker (versus contingent) 1, 937 (44.8%)

Has a paid housework helper 467 (10.8%)

Have fertility intentions 454 (10.5%)

Note: values are weighted

Table 2-2 presents the frequency of availability and accessibility of individual

family policies. Availability of family policies was generally low in Korea (6-29%).

Maternity leave was perceived as most available whereas flexible working hours were

perceived as least available at workplaces. However, once available, perceived

accessibility was reported to be generally high, ranging from 76-87%. Flexible working

hours were perceived as most accessible and childcare subsidy was perceived as least

accessible.

Table 2-2 also indicates the number of family policies working women reported

as available and accessible. More than two-thirds of the women reported they had no

family policies at their workplaces. Only 19% of working women reported having access

to between one and three policies, and fewer than 6% of working women reported

having access to five or more family policies.

Table 2-2. Women’s Perceived Reports of the Availability and Accessibility of Family-

Friendly Policies

Availability

(%)

Accessibility a

(%)

Maternity leave 28.9 80.3

Childcare leave 23.2 76.3

Family allowance 22.4 86.2

On-site childcare center 10.6 83.8

Education expense subsidy 13.7 79.6

Childcare subsidy 7.0 76.2

Flexible working hours 5.6 86.7

Number of Policies Availability

(%)

Accessibility b

(%)

0 69.8 70.6

1 7.9 9.1

2 5.7 5.6

3 4.0 4.0

4 4.8 5.1

5 3.3 2.7

6 2.7 1.8

7 1.7 1.1

Note: Percentages are weighted.a Accessibility of policies only among women with available policies;

b

Includes all mothers. Mothers who reported having zero available policies were included as having zero policy accessible. If a mother reported having one available policy but perceived it as inaccessible, she will be counted as having zero policy accessible.

On average, 11% of women reportedly had future fertility intentions (see Table 2-1). Yet,

as evident in Table 2-3, women’s fertility intentions differed substantially by parity. First birth

intentions among women with no children were high (70%). However, women’s fertility

intentions dropped substantially after their first child. On average, 30% of women with one child

and 1% of women with two children had subsequent fertility intentions. Chi-square results

support that women’s fertility intentions significantly decreased as they had more children

(x2=171.20, p<0.001).

Table 2-3. Association between Fertility Intention and Parity

Current number of children Fertility Intention

0 69.8%

1 30.4%

2 1.3%

3 or more 0.2%

x2 (df) 171.20 (5)***

Note: values are weighted. ***p <0 .001

Table 2-4 presents the unadjusted bivariate relationship between the number of

available and accessible family policies and fertility intentions. First, women with fertility

intentions, on average, had significantly more family policies available at work than

women who did not report intending to have another child (2.1 vs 0.9 policies, p<0.001).

The relationship was also examined by parity-specific birth intentions, and women with

first birth intentions and second birth intentions had significantly more family policies

available at their workplaces than women without respective birth intentions.

Similar results were also found for policy accessibility. Overall, women with fertility

intentions had access to more family policies than women without fertility intentions (2.0

vs 0.8 policies, p<0.001). Also, women with first birth intentions had significantly more

accessible family policies than women without first birth intentions, and women with

second birth intentions had significantly more family polices than women without second

birth intentions.

Table 2-4 Association between Fertility Intentions and Average Number of Family

Policies

Fertility Intention

Average number of available family policies

Overall birth

intentions

First birth

intentions

Second birth

intentions

Third or

subsequent

birth intentions

No 0.91 0.71 1.06 0.89

Yes 2.15 1.73 2.59 1.13

t (df) –9.09(2,519)*** –2.63(101)** –6.79(393)*** –0.65(2,021)

Fertility Intention

Average number of accessible family policies

Overall birth

intentions

First birth

intentions

Second birth

intentions

Third or

subsequent

birth intentions

No 0.81 0.75 1.02 0.77

Yes 1.97 1.61 2.39 0.93

t (df) –10.24(2,909)*** –2.53(121)* –7.03(454)*** –0.48(2,330)

Note: The values in the table indicate average number of available and accessible family policies employed women reported.

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p <0 .001

Tables 2-5 and 2- 6 present the multivariate population-averaged logistic

regression models for availability and accessibility of family policies and fertility

intentions (see Table 2-5 for policy availability and Table 2- 6 for policy accessibility).

First, availability of family policies was not significantly associated with women’s

overall fertility intentions. However, in relation to parity-specific birth intentions, women

whose workplaces provided more generous family policies were significantly more likely

to have second birth intentions (among women with one child). Further, for every

additional available family policy, women’s second birth intentions increased by 1.36

odds (OR=1.36, p<0.01). However, availability of family policies was not significantly

associated with first and third or subsequent birth intentions (see Table 2-5).

Similar results were found for policy accessibility. Accessibility of family policies was not

significantly associated with women’s overall fertility intentions. Yet, women who had

access to more family policies were significantly more likely to report having second

birth intentions compared with women with access to fewer family policies, even after

controlling for other covariates. For every additional accessible family policy, the odds of

women’s second birth intention increases by 1.26 (OR=1.26, p<0.05). No significant

associations between access to family policies and first and third or subsequent birth

intentions were found (see Table 2-6).

Table 2-5. Multivariate Analyses: Effects of Availability of Family policies on Fertility Intentions by Parity

Overall birth intentions

First birth

intentions

Second birth

intentions

Third or subsequent

birth intentions

OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI)

Number family policies 1.16 (0.99, 1.36) 0.68 (0.31, 1.49) 1.36 (1.08, 1.71)** 1.04 (0.47, 1.45)

Year 2010 (ref: 2007) 0.56 (0.28, 1.09) 1.86 (0.02, 167.61) 0.47 (0.18, 1.18) 0.82 (0.25, 2.70)

Year 2012 0.41 (0.18, 0.91)* 12.95 (0.08, 209.37) 0.35 (0.11, 1.12) 0.28 (0.06, 1.33)

Age 0.82 (0.74, 0.91)*** 0.90 (0.62, 1.31) 0.79 (0.68, 0.91)** 0.90 (0.76, 1.05)

Work satisfaction 0.97 (0.70, 1.35) 1.66 (0.41, 6.68) 0.90 (0.55, 1.47) 0.99 (0.53, 1.83)

Work hour 0.90 (0.76, 1.06) 1.02 (0.60, 1.72) 0.84 (0.66, 1.06) 0.95 (0.71, 1.29)

Monthly salary 0.99 (0.99, 1.00) 1.00 (0.98, 1.01) 1.00 (0.99, 1.00) 1.00 (0.98, 1.01)

Regular worker 1.17 (0.62, 2.20) 6.33 (0.26, 152.17) 1.23 (0.50, 2.99) 1.17 (0.33, 4.18)

Education 1.42 (1.13, 1.79)** 1.26 (0.40, 3.92) 1.68 (1.20, 2.34)** 1.26 (0.81, 1.97)

Health 1.14 (0.79, 1.64) 1.24 (0.29, 5.31) 0.95 (0.57, 1.54) 1.36 (0.65, 2.82)

Husband’s age 0.87 (0.80, 0.95)** 0.62 (0.37, 1.02) 0.86 (0.74, 0.98)* 0.91 (0.79, 1.07)

Marriage satisfaction 1.13 (0.99, 1.63) 1.23 (0.33, 4.47) 1.21 (0.86, 1.73) 1.65 (0.96, 2.84)

Unpaid housework hour 1.00 (0.99, 1.00) 0.99 (0.98, 1.00) 1.00 (0.99, 1.00) 1.00 (0.99, 1.00)*

Housework help 1.16 (0.61, 2.22) 0.08 (0.01, 4.89) 0.93 (0.39, 2.19) 2.87 (0.95, 8.67)

Household income 1.00 (0.99, 1.00) 1.00 (0.99, 1.00) 1.00 (0.99, 1.00) 1.00 (0.99, 1.00)

Gender discriminatory work culture 0.95 (0.66, 1.38) 2.12 (0.29, 15.75) 0.94 (0.55, 1.61) 1.01 (0.53, 1.96)

Number of children 0.06 (0.04, 0.09)*** - - -

Sigma_u 0.01 0.01 1.33 0.01

Rho 1.53e-e05 3.02e-05 0.35 1.58e-05

*p < .05, ** p < .01, ***p < .001

Table 2-6. Multivariate Analyses: Effects of Accessibility of Family policies on Fertility Intentions by Parity

Overall birth intentions

First birth

intentions

Second birth

intentions

Third or subsequent

birth intentions

OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI)

Number family policies 1.13 (0.96, 1.32) 0.71 (0.40, 1.29) 1.26 (1.01, 1.58)* 0.97 (0.68, 1.40)

Year 2010 (ref: 2007) 0.74 (0.40, 1.35) 2.48 (0.08, 74.33) 0.61 (0.27, 1.39) 0.99 (0.33, 2.87)

Year 2012 0.62 (0.31, 1.25) 6.65 (0.17, 251.54) 0.48 (0.18, 1.29) 0.60 (0.16, 2.29)

Age 0.83 (0.77, 0.91)*** 0.85 (0.62, 1.17) 0.79 (0.70, 0.91)** 0.88 (0.76, 1.03)

Work satisfaction 1.03 (0.76, 1.39) 2.63 (0.83, 8.25) 1.06 (0.67, 167) 1.03 (0.58, 1.82)

Work hour 0.92 (0.78, 1.07) 0.89 (0.55, 1.42) 0.87 (0.70, 1.08) 0.92 (0.71, 1.20)

Monthly salary 1.00 (0.99, 1.00) 1.01 (1.00, 1.02) 1.00 (0.99, 1.00) 1.00 (0.98, 1.01)

Regular worker 1.03 (0.57, 1.88) 2.12 (0.30, 14.78) 1.41 (0.60, 3.28) 0.79 (0.25, 2.49)

Education 1.47 (1.19, 1.81)*** 0.82 (0.38, 1.72) 1.74 (1.27, 2.36)*** 1.42 (0.95, 2.11)

Health 1.37 (0.98, 1.91) 1.01 (0.32, 3.15) 1.08 (0.68, 1.70) 1.53 (0.80, 2.95)

Husband’s age 0.87 (0.80, 0.95)** 0.71 (0.50, 1.01) 0.86 (0.76, 0.98)* 0.92 (0.80, 1.05)

Marriage satisfaction 1.21 (0.97, 1.52) 2.10 (0.89, 4.94) 1.20 (0.86, 1.63) 1.22 (0.78, 1.91)

Unpaid housework hour 1.00 (0.99, 1.00) 0.99 (0.98, 1.01) 1.00 (0.99, 1.00) 1.00 (0.99, 1.00)

Housework help 1.20 (0.66, 2.18) 0.15 (0.01, 2.97) 1.00 (0.45, 2.23) 2.44 (0.87, 6.82)

Household income 1.00 (0.99, 1.00) 1.00 (0.99, 1.00) 1.00 (0.99, 1.00) 1.00 (0.99, 1.00)

Gender discriminatory work culture 0.99 (0.71, 1.38) 0.88 (0.22, 3.40) 1.00 (0.62, 1.61) 0.89 (0.48, 1.63)

Number of children 0.06 (0.04, 0.09)*** - - -

Sigma_u 0.01 0.01 2.01 0.01

Rho 5.88e-05 1.12e-05 0.55 1.01e-05

*p < .05, ** p < .01, ***p < .001

4. Discussion

Using the nationally representative KLoWF survey, the present study examined

the effects of family-supportive workplace policies on working women’s fertility

intentions in Korea. The policies were examined based on (1) availability and

accessibility; and (2) by parity-specific birth intentions. Neither availability nor

accessibility of family policies had a significant impact on increasing women’s overall

fertility intentions. Parity, by contrast, had a considerable impact on the association

between family policies and women’s fertility intentions. Family policies did not have a

significant impact on first and third or subsequent birth intentions. However, working

women’s second birth intentions increased significantly when they had more available

and accessible family policies at their workplaces.

5-1. Limitations

Before discussing the study’s implications, there are limitations that warrant

consideration. First, the information on family policy availability and accessibility are

self-reported. The information cannot be verified or confirmed, and solely relies on the

women employees’ perceived perceptions. However, perceived policy availability and

accessibility by employees is still important because it is the women employees’

perception that influences their fertility decisions and behaviors. Second, the present

study measured fertility intentions and not actual fertility. Despite this limitation, fertility

intention studies are still meaningful in understanding the general process behind

women’s fertility decision making. Third, the study was not able to assess the impact of

individual family policies due to limited sample size. However, the study is still

meaningful to examine the combined synergistic effects of family policies on women’s

fertility intentions. Finally, this study could not examine longitudinal trends because of

high attrition rates and short data period, 2007-2012. Further longitudinal studies are

needed to explore the relationship between family policies and fertility intentions.

Despite these limitations, the study has notable strengths. First, the use of a

large, nationally-representative sample of Korean working women provides a robust and

comprehensive assessment of the relationship between family policies and women’s

fertility intentions. Second, the present study is the first empirical investigation of the

separate effects of family policy availability and accessibility on fertility intentions in

Korea, and also the first examination of the varying effects of family policies by parity-

specific fertility intentions on a national scale.

5-2. Implications

Our findings have important implications for understanding the relationship

between family policies and working women’s fertility intentions in Korea. Consistent

with Lee and Yu (2011)’s study, we found that availability of family policies did not have

a significant effect on working women’s overall fertility decisions. Yet, further

examination revealed other interesting and potentially important stories.

First, despite popular belief that Korean working women are hesitant to actively

use family policies due to work cultures that discourage the use of such leaves (Chin et

al. 2014), the present study found that once available, perceived policy accessibility was

actually high (see Table 2). Yet, despite the Korean government’s expansion efforts,

family policies were not well available at workplaces. More than two-thirds of women

(70%) reported that no family policies were provided at their workplaces (see Table 2).

Penalties against Korean employers who violate the requirement to provide family

policies are weak which discourage employers from providing them (Chin et al. 2014).

Our study indicates that much greater effort is needed to encourage or compel

employers to implement family policies at workplaces.

In contrast to previous research from Europe (i.e. Budd and Mumford 2006;

Butler, Gasser and Smart 2004; Kelly et al. 2008), our results demonstrated that there

was no marked discrepancy between the effects of policy availability and accessibility

on women’s fertility intentions in Korea. Given Korea’s long working hours and strong

work-oriented ethic, we expected the effects of policy availability and accessibility would

differ. Possible reasons for these findings may be because availability of family policies

is low from the outset. It is also likely that family polices are generally provided to

employees with high job security and in family-friendly workplaces, and thus the

discrepancy between policy availability and accessibility is small. Further studies in this

area are warranted.

Consistent with studies from Western countries, our findings demonstrated that

family policies had differential effects on women’s fertility decisions by parity. Family

policies were ineffective in increasing women’s first birth and third and subsequent birth

intentions; however they were significantly associated to increase second birth

intentions. These results are in line with Klobas’s study (2010), which argued that the

decision to have first child depends primarily on individual possible gains and losses (i.e.

individual happiness, limitation to freedom, career disruption), whereas the decision to

have second or subsequent birth depends not only on possible gains and losses, but

also on opinions of important referents and perceived resources and obstacles. These

findings confirm that Korean family policies, which are perceived possible resources,

play a more significant role in second birth decisions than first birth decisions. On the

other hand, family policies did not have a significant influence on increasing third or

subsequent birth intentions because the additional costs and physical exhaustion of

having three or more children may have overshadowed the effects of family policies.

This issue needs further investigation.

Our findings have important implications in relation to population fertility

replacement rate (i.e. the amount of fertility needed to keep the population the same

from generation to generation). To sustain a countries’ population, the fertility rate

needs to be maintained at approximately 2.1 children per woman or higher in most

industrialized countries (Espenshade, Guzman and Westoff, 2003), yet Korea’s fertility

rate is currently at 1.26. Our findings provide empirical evidences that family policies

play a significant effect in raising second birth intentions. Hence, policymakers

interested in maintaining the population level should focus on strengthening family

policies. Further, policymakers could fruitfully apply different approaches and strategies

to target first, second, and subsequent intentions.

5. Conclusion

In conclusion, family policies were associated with increased fertility intentions for

working women’s second birth intentions in Korea. Women whose workplace provided

more family policies and women who had access to more family policies were

significantly more likely to have second birth intentions. Although this study is focused

on Korea, our findings may well be applicable to other countries experiencing low

fertility, such as Singapore and Taiwan. The study examines family policies in multiple

dimensions and provides empirical evidences to expanding family policies that better

address woman’s differential fertility intentions.

References

Anderson, G., Duvander, A. –Z., and Hank, K. (2004). Do childcare characteristics influence continued childbearing in Sweden? An investigation of the quantity, quality and price dimension. Journal of European Social Policy, 14(4), 407-418.

Ajzen, I., & Klobas, J. (2013). Fertility intentions: An approach based on theory of planned behavior, Demographic Research, 29(8), 203-232.

Budd, J.W and Mumford, K. (2006). Family-friendly work practices in Britain availability and perceied accessbility. Human Resources Management, 45(1), 23-42.

Butler, A., Gasser, M., & Smart, L. (2004). A social-cognitive perspective on using family-friendly benefits. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 57-70.

Chung, S. (2010). Causal model of low fertility determinants in Korea. Social Science Studies, 49(1), 69-91.

Chin, M, Lee J., Lee S. Son, S and Sung M. (2012). Family policy in South Korea: Development, current Status, and challenges, Journal of Child Family Studies, 21(53), 53-64.

Chin, M., Lee, J., Lee, S., Son, S., & Sung, M. (2014). Family policy in South Korea: Development, Implementation and Evaluation. In M. Robila (Ed.), Handbook of family polices across the globe (pp.205-318). Flushing, NY: Springer.

Del Boca, D., Aaberge, R., Colombino, U., Ermisch, J., Francesconi, M., Pasqua, S., and Strom, S. (2003). Labor market participation of women and fertility: the effect of social policies. Paper presented at the FRDB Child conference. Alghero, Italy, June 2003.

Dmitrienko, A., Chaung-Stein, C., D’Agostino, R. (2007). Pharmaceutical Statistics Using SAS: A Practical Guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.

Dulk, L. Den & Peper, B (2007). Working parents’ use of work –life policy, Sociologia, 53, 51-70.

Ermisch, J. (1988). The econometric analysis of birth rate dynamics in Britain. The Journal of Human Resources, 23, 563-576.

Espenshade, T.J., Guzman, J.C., and Westoff, C.F. (2003). The surprising global variation in replacement fertility. Population Research and Policy Review, 22(5-6), 575-583.

Eun, K. (2006). Lowest-low fertility in the Republic of Korea: causes, consequences and policy responses, paper presented at UN-ESCAP Seminar on Fertility Transitions in Asia: Opportunities and Challenges, Bangkok, Thailand 18-20 December.

Folbre, N. (2001). The invisible heart: economics and family values. New York: New Press.

Gauthier, A.H. (2007). The impact of family policies on fertility in industrialized countries: a review of the literature. Population Research and Policy Review, 26(3), 323-346.

Geoba se (2016). Gazetteer - The World - Population - Top 100 By Country. Sept, 15th 2016 Retrieved from http://www.geoba.se/population.php?pc=world

Hoem, J. M., Prskawetz, A., and Neyer, G.(2001). Autonomy or conservative adjustment? The effect of public policies and educational attainment on third births in Austria, 1975-96. Population Studies, 55(3), 249-261.

Hoem, J. M. (2005). Why does Sweden have such high fertility? Demographic Research, 13(22), 559- 572.

Hu, F, B, Goldberg, J, Hedeker, D, Flay, B, R and Pentz, M, A (1998). Comparison of Population-Averaged and subject specific approaches for analyzing repeated binary outcomes. American Journal of Epidemiology, 147(7). 694-703.

Hubbard AE, Ahern, J., Fleischer, NL., Ban der Laan, M., Lippman, SA., Jewell, J., Bruckner, T and Satariano, WA. (2010). To GEE or not to GEE: comparing population average and mixed models for estimating the association between neighborhood risk factors and health. Epidemiology, 21(4). 467-474.

Jones, G. W., and Gubhaju, B. (2009). Changes influencing changes in mean age at first marriage and proportions never marrying in the low-fertility countries of East and Southeast Asia, Asian Population Studies, 5(3), 237-265.

Kelly, E.L., Kossek, E.E., Hammer, L.B., Durham, M., Bray, J., Chermack, K., Murphy, L.A., & Kaskubar, D. (2008). Getting there from here: Research on the effects of work–family initiatives on work–family conflict and business outcomes. Academy Of Management Annals, 2, 305-349.

Kim, J and Lee, T (2015). A Typology of dual-income family work-life by time allocation. Korean Family Resource Management Association, 19(2), 101-125.

Kim, T., Yang, I., Bae, H., Keum, J. and Lee, S. (2012). Economic growth strategy and job creation for women: Female employment structure and policies. Seoul: Korean Women’s Development Institute.

Klobas, J. (2010). Social psychological influences on fertility intentions: A study of eight countries in different social, economic and policy contexts. Report to the European Commission within the project “ Reproductive decision-making in a macro-micro perspective” (REPRO). Vienna, Austria: Vienna Institute for

Demography and Milan, Italy: Carlo F. Dondena Centre for Research on Social Dynamics, Bocconi University.

Korean Longitudinal Survey of Women and Families (2013). 2013 Korean Longitudinal Survey of Women and Families Annual Report. Seoul: Korean Women’s Development Institute.

Korean Ministry of Labor (2012), 2012 Annual report of the Ministry of Labor. Seoul: Korea.

Korean Ministry of Women and Family (2006). 2006 On-site Childcare Center Annual Report. Seoul: Korea.

Laroque, G. and Salanie, B. (2005). Does fertility respond to financial incentives? Sept, 15th 2016 Retrieved from http:// www.crest.fr/pageperso/lei/slanie/p 1 40205 .pdf

Lee, H., & Yu, C. (2010). Work-family balance and childbirth: Supporting institutions of company and influence of women workers’ work-family balance perception. The Women’s Studies, 80(1), 37-79.

Lee, H. (2013). The effects of childcare subsidy on relieving parent’s childcare cost. . Seoul: Korea Institute of Public Finance, June.

Lee, J.and Choi, Y. (2012). A path analysis on birthplan of married working women: Focus on the relationships of gender role attitude, work-family reconciliation, marriage satisfaction and birth plan. Korean Journal of Social Welfare Studies, 43(4), 5-30.

Lee, S., Cho, J., Park, S and Lee, S (2013). It’s more than an M-Shape: The political economy of women non-standard workers in the Republic of Korea. Asian Social Work and Policy Review, 7(1), 1-17.

Lin, W., and Shin-Yi, Y. (2009), From successful family planning to the lowest of low fertility levels: Taiwan’s dilemma, Asian Social Work and Policy Review, 3, 95-112.

Ma, L. (2013). Employment and motherhood entry in South Korea, 1978–2006. Population, 68, 419–446.

Ma, L. (2016). Female labour force participation and second birth rates in South Korea.

Journal of Population Research 33, 173-195.

Menard, S. (2009). Logistic regression: From introductory to advanced concepts and applications. California: Sage Publications Inc.

Miligan, K. (2002). Quebec’s baby bonus: Can public policy raise fertility? C.D Howe Institute. Backgrounder. Jan 24, 2002. Retrieved from: http:www.cdhowe.org/pdf/Milligan_Backgrounder.pdf.

Milligan, K. (2005). Subsidizing the stork: New evidence on tax incentives and fertility. Review of Economics and Statistics, 83, 539–555.

Morgan, S. P. (2003). Is low fertility a twenty-first-century demographic crisis? Demography, 40(4), 589–603.

National Statistics Office of Korea (2016a). Total Fertility Rate by Age, Sept, 15th 2016 Retrieved from http://kosis.kr/statHtml/statHtml.do?orgId=101&tblId=DT_1B81A21&vw_cd=&list_id=&scrId=&seqNo=&lang_mode=ko&obj_var_id=&itm_id=&conn_path=K1&path

National Statistics Office of Korea (2016a). Women Labor force participation, Sept, 15th 2016 Retrieved from http://www.index.go.kr/potal/main/EachDtlPageDetail.do?idx_cd=1497

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2004) Babies and Bosses: Reconciling Work and Family Life (Volume 3): New Zealand, Portugal and Switzerland, Paris: OECD Publishing

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2014). Employment policies and data, 15th 2014 Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/els/emp/

Park, I. and Cho, L. (1995). Confucianism and the Korean family. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 117–134.

Rindfuss, R.R., & Brewster, K.L. (1996). Childbearing and fertility. Population and Development Review, 22 (Suppl), 258-289.

Rosen, M. (2004). Fertility and public policies—Evidence from Norway and Finland. Demographic Research, 10, 143-170.

The Center for Work and Family (2000). Work and Family Issues in Japan and the Republic of Korea: Expanding our understanding of work and family experiences in North Asia. Work-family Policy Paper Series, Boston College Wallace E. Carrol School of Management, Chestnut Hill: MA

The World Bank (2016). The World Bank Database Fertility rate, total (births per woman). Sept, 15th 2016 Retrieved from http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN

Thompson, C.A., Beauvais, L.L., & Lyness, K. S., (1999). When Work-Family Benefits Are Not Enough: The Influence of Work-Family Culture on Benefit Utilization, Orgnaizational Attachment, and Work-Family Conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54(3), 392-415.

Vikat, A. (2004).Women's labor force attachment and childbearing in Finland. Demographic Research. 3(8), 178-207.

Walker, J. R. (1995). The effect of public policies on recent Swedish fertility behavior. Journal of Population Economics, 8(3), 223-251.