现行生育政策与未来家庭结构

本文从探讨“四二一”家庭数量研究的操作性困难入手，提出了“Ｘ二”家庭的研究命题，提高了分析的操作性，并使该研究具有一般意义。本文抓住独生子女属性这一关键，以１９９０年人口普查数据为基数，对中国现行生育政策不变条件下子女一代队列的终身独生子女比例进行了估计，进而计算了不同时期成年人口中的独生子女比例，在此基础上估计出时期城乡成年人口按独生子女属性划分的不同类型婚姻组合的期望概率，借以描述现行生育政策对未来家庭结构变化的影响和未来家庭结构变化的程度。     

江苏省生育政策一元化对人口出生的影响

为估算独生子女夫妇生育2孩的影响,文章以江苏省为例,采用年龄孩次递进模型和生育率拆分的方法,测算了全省非农人口也和农村一样("生育政策一元化"),实行"夫妻一方为独生子女的家庭,可以生育第2个孩子"的政策(简称"单独",非农业人口现行的"夫妻双方均为独生子女可以生育第2个孩子"的政策简称"双独")对人口出生规模的影响.测算结果表明:全省城乡都实行"单独"生育政策后,平均每年人口出生增加最大不超过7.3万人,对江苏省的人口规模不会有明显的影响;在政策调整初期,可能出现出生堆积现象,需要各地政府进行必要的疏导;这种政策调整早一点,出生堆积就会小一点.     

21世纪吉林省独生子女生育政策探析

自 1 98 0年以来 ,吉林省独生子女数量不断增长。目前 ,独生子女陆续进入婚育年龄 ,对独生子女实行什么样的生育政策 ,是摆在广大计生干部和科研工作这面前的一个亟待解决的问题。预测表明 ,吉林省现行独生子女政策是有前瞻性的 ,它兼顾了国家和个人的利益 ,充分体现了“合情合理 ,群众拥护 ,干部好做工作”的原则。二十一世纪 ,吉林省现行的独生子女生育政策符合吉林省的省情 ,不宜作大的改动     

中国独生子女家庭与二孩家庭生育模式百年模拟与选择

不少人对中国的独生子女政策可能造成家庭负担过重忧心忡忡。通过独生子女家庭和“二孩加间隔”家庭未来百年发展变化模拟评价后认为：如果生育模式选择得当,独生子女家庭“四、二、二” 负担结构有可能基本避免,未来独生子女家庭的负担,也不会比历史上经历过的较重的负担更重。生育模式选择不当,生二个孩子,并不能保证比生一个孩子负担轻。从百年人口对资源环境和杜会经济发展的压力看,“二孩加间隔” 的政策无论如何组合和选择,所形成的人口压力都要显著大于独生子女政策,而独生子女家庭的生育模式如果选择得当,它的家庭负担不见得比生育模式选择不当的二孩家庭重多少。因此,政府应坚持稳定现行生育政策,坚持提倡一对夫妇只生一个孩子;同时应按最优生育模式,对生育年龄和间隔进行适当的调整。     

生育政策调整对陕西省人口年龄结构的影响研究

为测定生育政策调整对陕西省人口年龄结构的影响,本文选择四种方案进行模拟分析。结果表明:2010—2080年间陕西省人口年龄结构将面临着劳动人口供给量大幅下降和老年抚养比快速增长两大难题;生育政策的调节方案均能在一定程度上缓解上述两大问题的问题;其中从现在起实行"父母中一方是独生子女的家庭可生育两个孩子"的调节效果最佳。     

完善政策体系解决计生家庭困难

近年来,河南省禹州市委、市政府进一步完善奖励、减免、救助、保障四大政策体系,从根本上解决广大计生家庭生产、生活中的困难,其主要做法是: 1.奖励政策。对全市领取《独生子女父母光荣证》的独生子女户继续以银行存折的形式兑现每月10元奖励费;对领取《独生子女父母光荣证》的独男户子女年满18周岁时,给予父母1000元的奖励,对年满18周岁的独女户给予2000元的奖励;对符合生育二孩条件而自愿领取《独生子女父母光荣证》的夫妇一次性奖励2000元。 2.减免政策。教育部门对农村领取《独生子女父母光荣证》的家庭和政策内双女结扎户子女免除九年义务教育期     

城乡一体化与我国“二元”生育政策改革

我国目前实施的是以户籍为标志的城乡有别的二元生育政策。随着城乡一体化的发展,户籍制度的改革是大势所趋,由此会带来生育政策适用对象不明确的问题。为了克服这一问题,本文通过比较多种生育政策调整方案,认为选择新的区分城乡人口的标志来代替户口以维持现有二元政策的方法不能成立;城乡统一的更严格的生育政策不符合我国人口和社会经济发展需要;将现有的二元生育政策经两阶段六步骤调整为城乡一体的普遍二孩的生育政策是一种更优方案,它既能解决户籍制度改革带来的生育政策执行问题,又符合我国社会经济发展的客观需要。     

独生子女父母的生育意愿

生育意愿是人们对自己生育行为的主观期望。对于承担我国历史上前所未有的控制人口重任的一代独生子女父母来说,他们具有什么样的生育意愿呢?他们的生育意愿与其生育现实之风,是否存在差距呢?弄清这些问题,既有助于我们理解社会生活中众多的独生子女现象,也有助于我们探讨将来可能出现的某些社会问题。     

中国现行制度和政策对农村人口增长的影响

本文以家庭生育决策为理性行为作为分析前提，阐述了影响生育率的主要因素。认为中国现行的一些政策和制度对生育有刺激作用，如定期根据家庭人口变化重新分配土地、对城乡提供不同的养老保障制度、限制城乡间人口迁移等。本文提出一组替代政策和制度，以克服现行政策的缺陷，并可最终导致生育率水平下降。本文还认为人口规模对人均粮食供应、人均收入，从而对人均福利水平基本上无不利影响。     

中国生育政策的系统模拟与比较选择--以浙江省为例

文章以浙江省为例,以分年龄、性别独生子女、非独生子女数据为基础,对未来46种生育政策方案、2665种方案组合,经过长时期、大跨度的模拟测算,多指标联合逐步淘汰法定量和定性的比较选择,结果表明,兼顾人口数量控制、年龄结构改善、经济社会发展需求、资源环境可持续发展的需要,现行生育政策可再稳定15～20年.     

人口、文化与政策：解读日本的低生育率

通过对日法两国生育状况进行对比（法国1．98,日本1．29）,挖掘日本总和生育率急剧下降的原因。两国都采取了政府干预的行政手段以及在实用主义的右翼政党支持下进行家庭政策改革,以期提高人口出生率,但是两国家庭政策的作用效果却不尽相同。一种可能的解释是植根于日本劳动力市场的文化：它使得年轻夫妇若中断他们的职业生涯来抚养孩子需要付出高额的机会成本：使得理想的雇员无法拥有太多的时间来安排家庭生活：同时假设并强化了一种传统的社会性别意识,将女性推向非正规劳动力就业市场,迫使她们只能在“正规工作”与“生养孩子”之间做出取舍。这也是越来越多的日本年轻人宁可选择单身并推迟结婚,也不愿轻易结婚生子的重要原因。     

我国生育政策对二孩生育间隔影响的分层模型研究

我国不同生育政策类型地区二孩生育间隔的差异,既受到地区经济、社会和生育政策的影响,又受到育龄妇女个人和家庭因素的影响。分层模型结果表明,地区间生育间隔差异占我国二孩生育间隔总差异的30．54％。我国生育政策对不同政策类型地区二孩生育间隔差异的影响程度基本在20％以下,不同地区经济和社会发展的不平等状况是导致地区间二孩生育间隔差异的主要原因。     

State-level Welfare Policies and Nonmarital Subsequent Childbearing

Using discrete time event history analyses of data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), we examine the association between state-level welfare waiver policies implemented before the 1996 welfare reform legislation and the risk of a nonmarital subsequent birth. Our study makes a unique contribution to the existing literature by using a national-level sample of unmarried mothers who ever received welfare. This high-risk sample represents the women of most interest to policymakers, as it is the exact group to whom welfare reform is targeted—welfare mothers at risk of having nonmarital additional births. The state policies we study include: family cap, earnings disregard, work exemptions, work requirements, and sanctions. We conclude that, although reducing the number of nonmarital births is a key goal of welfare reform, state-established welfare waiver policies do not have any influence on women’s childbearing behaviors in this sample, net of women’s individual characteristics and state economic environments. Even the family cap policy, which was designed for the sole purpose of reducing additional births, has no significant association with nonmarital subsequent childbearing. Instead, personal characteristics, not public policies, are stronger determinants of women’s childbearing decisions. Age, race/ethnicity, marital status, number of previous children, education level, and welfare receipt are significantly associated with nonmarital subsequent births. Overall, this paper contributes to an expanding body of research that shows minimal effects of welfare waivers on fertility. Our work suggests that more targeted policies are necessary to be able to influence individual family formation behaviors.     

Family structure and child outcomes in the USA and Sweden

Previous research shows that living in a non-intact family is associated with educational disadvantages. This paper compares the relationships between childhood family structure, schooling, and earnings in Sweden and the USA. This comparison is interesting because both family structure and public policies differ significantly. We find a negative relationship between living in a non-intact family and child outcomes, and the estimates are remarkably similar in both countries. After using sibling-difference models, the correlation with family structure is no longer significant. These results cast doubt on the causal interpretation of the negative relationship between non-intact family structures and child outcomes.     

Do family caps reduce out-of-wedlock births? Evidence from Arkansas,Georgia, Indiana,New Jersey and Virginia

During the 1990s, 23 states implemented family cap policies as a means to reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock births among welfare recipients. Using Current Population Survey data from 1989 to 1999, we examine the impact of family cap policies on the birth rates of single, less-educated women with children. We use the first five states that were granted waivers from the Department of Health and Human Services to implement family caps as natural experiments. Specifically, we compare trends in out-of-wedlock birth rates in Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, New Jersey and Virginia to trends in states that did not implement family caps or any other waivers prior to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. We employ several techniques to increase the credibility of results from our natural experiment, such as the inclusion of multiple comparison groups, controls for differential time trends, and difference-in-difference-in-differences estimators. Our regression estimates generally do not provide evidence that family cap policies reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock births among single, less-educated women with children.     

曲折、艰难、辉煌的中国生育转变

从1979～2009年30年人口变动的历程来看,中国人口转变是成功的,其结果是辉煌的,但其转变的历程,尤其是生育转变的历程是曲折和艰难的,历史留给人们的经验和教训是深刻的。本文将近30年来的生育转变历程为四个阶段,从而突显了不同阶段生育水平的变化,以及生育水平与社会经济变革、生育行为以及生育政策博弈的结果。1979～1984年生育水平反弹波动,反映出严格的生育政策遇到强大阻力,结果是欲速而不达。1985～1991年生育高峰如期而至,显示了人口内在规律的强大威力,从而最大限度地调动了人口控制的力量。1992～1999生育率再次下降,并穿透替代水平生育率,宣告人口转变基本完成。2000～2009低生育水平持续稳定,人口结构性问题逐步显现,统筹解决人口问题势在必行。     

家庭变迁背景下的中国家庭政策

在人口转变和经济社会变迁的过程中,中国家庭规模不断缩小、家庭结构逐渐简化、传统家庭功能趋于弱化。这对维系社会正常运作的各项社会政策带来巨大冲击,并由此将家庭政策的完善与改革提上议程。尽管改革开放以来,中国的家庭政策在影响人口发展、提供家庭保障和促进性别平等等方面有所建树,但仍未脱离含蓄型和补缺型模式的囿限。文章认为,中国的家庭政策体系应实现向明确型和发展型转变。首先应创建专门的家庭政策机构,在此基础上明确将家庭整体作为基本的福利对象、以发展家庭能力为目标进行家庭投资、推进家庭政策的适度普惠性,并尽量避免其他政策安排与家庭政策的相互制约乃至冲突。     

Parental Cohabitation Experiences and Adolescent Behavioral Outcomes

Children are increasingly spending time in cohabiting parent families. Most studies that examine the implications of parental cohabitation focus on parental living arrangements at a single point in time. Using data from the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG), we assess whether and how parental cohabitation during childhood influences adolescent girls’ well-being. This work moves beyond prior studies by specifically considering the effects of the exposure to, transitions, and age at which children lived in cohabiting parent families. The results indicate living in cohabiting parent families is consequential for earlier sexual initiation, likelihood of having a teen birth, and high school graduation. Prior work suggests that the explanation for the negative effect of parental cohabitation is family instability. Yet, our empirical work shows that family instability does not explain the relationship between cohabitation and negative child outcomes. We conclude that the best way to understand the implications of parental cohabitation is to adopt a dynamic family experience model.

Capping Kids: The Family Cap and Nonmarital Childbearing

An explicit goal of policymakers in drafting welfare reform policies was to reduce incentives for nonmarital childbearing. This paper estimates the extent to which state welfare reforms have lowered age and race-specific nonmarital fertility. Using state-level data from 1984 to 1999—a time period that includes the passage and implementation of national welfare reform—we estimate fixed effects models corrected for heteroscedasticity and autocorrelation. We find evidence that the family cap, a policy that decreases or eliminates the incremental increase in benefits for mothers who have an additional child while on welfare, is associated with a decline in nonmarital birth ratios. However, we also find that the family cap is associated with higher marital birth rates. Taken together with other research, our findings suggest evidence of policy endogeneity.

Welfare work requirements and child well-being: Evidence from the effects on breast-feeding

A central theme of welfare reform is that recipients are required to engage in work activities. In many states, these work requirements apply to mothers whose children are a few months old, which may increase the costs and decrease the prevalence of breast-feeding. Given the substantial benefits of breast-feeding, any reduction represents an important negative consequence of these requirements. Our results suggest that in the absence of welfare reform, the national breast-feeding rate six months after birth would have been 5.5% higher in 2000. Such negative consequences of these policies must be weighed against potential benefits as states refine their welfare programs.