Is that only man's fault?

From Gender equality the key to Big Baby problem?
By Angela Lim – May 20th, 2010
Do Singaporean males have to step up if we want more babies?

In a letter to the Straits Times forum on Thursday, women’s rights group AWARE wrote that Singapore has not seen a reversal in the decline of fertility rates because Singaporean fathers are not rising to the task of child rearing. It also believes that state support for equal parenting roles is not adequate.

New executive director of AWARE, Ms Corinna Lim, expressed that while many people think that Singaporean women have achieved greater gender equality, compared with other states like Australia and Britain where the Total Fertility Rate (TFR) is now increasing, Singapore is lagging far behind.

Her views echo that of noted Swedish Professor Hans Rosling, who was recently interviewed by the same paper. In his interview, he suggested fairer employment and government policies would lead to greater gender equity, which in turn, would boost Singapore’s birth rate.

Rosling compared Singapore’s situation with that of pro-family, pro-baby Sweden, a close cousin to Singapore in terms of income and infant mortality rate. He pointed out the two countries are moving in opposite directions when it comes to fertility rates — Sweden climbing to a 16-year high of 1.94, while Singapore plummeting to a mere 1.23.

In her letter, Lim writes this is because “in the last 30 years, women have entered the workplace in droves. More girls graduate from our universities than boys. However, these changes are asymmetrical. Men have not moved into the domestic sphere at the same rate.”

She adds that this makes raising a child “less attractive” for career women if she has to “bear the bulk of the childcare burden”.

In contrast, she writes, “Her husband does not lose sleep about balancing work and family life.”

Sharing Professor Rosling’s calls for fairer work-place policies, Lim goes on to ask why the government only mandates four months’ paid maternity leave, but not a day of paternity leave. She also called for better support structures for flexi-work arrangements and family-friendly work environments.

A recent question we asked on Yahoo! Answers on “Why are Singaporeans not having enough babies?” drew over 1,000 responses.

Now’s your turn. Do you agree with Ms Lim?

Is greater gender equality the solution to Singapore’s Big Baby problem?

I don't think gender equality is the solution to Singapore's fertility issue, quite opposite, the society, and modern educated women, has gradually abandoned the role of mothering. Though it is purely personal choices to be a mother or to be a career woman, which, to great extend, are conflicting and equally demanding, the policy on gender equality certainly had done negative impacts on Singapore's TFR. It takes mothers to nurture a generation. Ladies make your own choice wisely with your heart and soul, stopping blaming other. Even if the "FULL TIME MOTHERS effort is just as tiny as a drop of water, let's strive to aim for the ocean. For our rewards are not decided by men.

Thankfulness

Recently, we switched our fourth son, Stephen, from three-hour kindergarten to a full day childcare programme.He used to attend our church kindergarten in the morning. I found, since the baby was born, it difficult to keep him occupied in the afternoon, he did not take his usual nap in the afternoon and...being an active little boy who wants do a lot,while I was not all the time available, he ended up to be left alone, or into some mischiefs.

We thought about some other enrichment programmes, but with a five month old baby, I am loath to drive around, plus, my elder son will have PSLE next year, he needs a lot of help in studies.

So we chose the little village which is just around corner of our neighbourhood. The cost of school of course is very expensive, but we felt it was out of necessity. The government gives subsidy for all registered childcare program, however, the school administer told me that only working mothers entitle the full amount of S$300, while the non-working mothers only entitle half. (*working mother, by their definition, is those who work for pay more than 56 hour per month.)

As I mentioned in my early post, this is one of classic examples which some of relevant of policies need to be challenged.

the sheer definition of working mother;

the purpose of subsidy, to whom and for what;

the underline calling or factors affect mothers'choice;....

.....

Ironically, mothers work for pay surely have more disposable income to spend for this kind of high end childcare service, while others probably have no means to afford basic needs even they want to.

That reminds me of my suspended research topic. The very reason I took up this research was to help some full time mother and foster a more family friend envirnment in this land. Due to my fifth baby's birth, I have asked for one year break.

Even after one year, my baby will be only one year old, I have four other kids need me , I am wondering "should I first practice what I am preaching?"

.........
Fortunately, Stephen loves his new school, especially many activities based learning which is suitable for his personality.

I am thankful!

That is not simply number game

From The Straits Time Forum Sept 29, 2009

Integration and immigration: Copying the US won't work

BASING our integration and immigration efforts on those of the United States, as Mr K. Kesavapany suggested last Saturday ('Integrating immigrants: Learn from American experience') may not help Singapore. Our experiences are different and based on contrasting paradigms.

Improvements to the demographic profile of the US are not due to its immigration policy but the result of some two centuries of nation building by prudent leaders who enjoyed the advantages of a large country with rich natural resources and a fundamentally strong industrial base buttressed by a critical mass of home-grown citizens.

The US does not suffer from the problem of economic migrants. Also, the comparatively small number who want to make America their home must assimilate, and not the other way round.

Singapore is different. In just 10 years, the population jumped a mind-boggling 25 per cent, to four million in 2000.

Here is the nub: The Singapore Department of Statistics in 2002 showed that in 2000, 63 per cent of all ethnic Singaporean groups aged 35 to 44 years attained only secondary level education. Can these groups compete with well-educated foreign migrants for high-paying jobs created by sophisticated multinationals? Are we creating a poverty trap for low-income Singaporeans?

My understanding of Mr Ngiam Tong Dow's commentary last Thursday ('Lest we become strangers in our own land') is that he wants to remind our population planners to rethink an immigration scheme precisely because Singaporeans face unequal competition from a massive influx of economic immigrants.

In large developed countries with solid home-grown global industrial bases like the US, economic migrants are insignificant and their function is to boost the American economy.

They cannot influence America's social system radically.

Can Singapore's economic model - based on global trade and foreign multinationals - continue to retain the brightest and the best to call this country home?

With 6.5 million people, can we integrate more than three million new citizens over one or two generations successfully through an open, meritocratic system that will not fundamentally affect Singapore's social fabric?

If we fail to integrate our new citizens, the mistake will be irreversible and we will become strangers in our own land.

Paul Chan

This letter is a good one.The population is one of core issues in Singapore policy making. What worries Singapore government is that native Singaporeans are not making enough babies, the immigration policy acts like second best remedy.

However, it is not simply number game. If not mindful,the tiny country like Singapore will be soon floored by the well educated immigrants, and I don't see why is not possible, the less clever and capable native Singaporeans to serve the "foreign Bosses"

Birth Rate is up, but not enough?

Source: The Straits Times

May 6, 2008
Birth rate up, but foreigners still needed to build core of citizens

By Zakir Hussain

SINGAPORE's birth rate crept up slightly to 1.29 last year, up from 1.26 the year before, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong revealed on Tuesday.

The birth rate hit a record low of 1.24 in 2004.

'I just looked at the numbers. They were 1.24. We made a big effort, we came to 1.26. And last year, we have reached the fabulous number of 1.29,' he said.

I don't think that is "fabulous" but rather to show the ineffectiveness of government population policy in increasing of the birth rate

Singapore can try to do better, but the birth rate will never go back up to the replacement level of 2.1 because of the way society has changed, he added.

'The social trends have gone too far this way, and it's the behaviour in all of the developed countries,' he said at a dialogue organised by Thomson Reuters on Tuesday.

Newsweek correspondent Sonia Kolesnikov-Jessop had asked how the Government planned to integrate an anticipated large inflow of foreigners.

Mr Lee replied that the Government believed Singapore had to be open to foreigners because it needed to draw on a range of talent and expertise, just like the thriving financial centres of New York and London.

That is a new game now!

“Low fertility and the State: The efficacy of policy”

by Peter McDonald
(this article from "Population and development review 32(3):485-510 (sept 2006)

In this article, Peter McDonald:

o reviews the causes of low fertility rate in many developed countries
o how these countries, in different institution setting, tried to booster up the fertility
o What is the possible solution for low fertility rate?

The author contends that people do have desire to have family and children, however, the desire was unsatisfied at individual level, mainly due to the unintended consequence of economic and social development. It is not mainly because the people are more materialistic than before, but rather that people use controlled family planning as risk averse strategies.

The two waves of social changes are associated with low fertility rate in many developed countries.

1. Social liberalism or reflexive modernization, beginning in the 1960s and consolidated in the 1970s.

Reflexive modernization is modernization of the principles of industrial society involving assessment by individuals or groups of the appropriateness of existing social institutions for modern life. It has brought a sharply increased capacity for individuals to pursue personal autonomy and to construct their own identity rather than having those identities defined for them by societical norms and institutions.

Individuals are freed from institutional and normative constrains, they become more responsible for their own actions. In regards of family formation, social liberalism lifted the lid on divorce, cohabitation before marriage has increased, as an experiment in a form of intimacy that allowed the greater pursuit of personal autonomy.

Under reflexive modernization, gender equity has partially fulfilled through paid employment, usage of contraceptive technology, legalized abortion right, and increased level of education. However, in other social institutions, notably, family, tax transfer system and working arrangement and condition, there are still great degree of gender inequity. While men and women face increased personal risks from social liberalism, the risks are greater for women.

2. Economic deregulation or the new capitalism, beginning in the 1980s and into the 1990s.

The neo-liberal capitalism holds that free operation of the market is the most efficient and effective form of economic organization. The economic deregulation has enable capitals flow easily to maximum profit and efficiency.

The characteristic of new regime are free flow of capital across international boundaries, free trade, and the right for employers and workers to negotiate wages and working conditions in deregulated environment, and curtailment of government funded social welfare. The old capitalism welfare state system provided job and wages protection in considering of each worker was supporting his wife and children. Under new capitalism, the states remove worker protection, implying that the employers need not have responsible for employee’s family.

Young men and women must devote themselves to maximum their own human capital, implying to delay forming family.

Social liberalism and economic restructuring have lead to two key changes for individuals: the provision of gender equity through an opening up of opportunities for women, and the rise of risk aversion among young people of both sexes in an increasingly competitive labour market.

Gender equity

In the institutions of education and market employment, considerable gender equity was afforded to women as individuals, the movement to gender equity has been focused upon individual-oriented social institutions, however, consequently, family-oriented institutions, especially the family itself, continue to be gender inequity. Women are facing greater risks in family formation than men. Women are faced with a conflict between opportunities and risks in relation to family and paid employment. And modernization has passed the responsibilities and risks to individuals.

Risk aversion under labor market deregulation

Globalization and rising of education levels have created high economic aspirations among young people. The individual often faces three dimensional forces: independence, financial security and family formation. The new capitalism has forced one to pursue higher human capital and financial security, as the result, family formation is put on hold while human capital is accumulated and women are keen to delay family formation till they have secured financially to compensate the loss due to childbearing and childrearing.

The conflict between autonomy and intimacy

Despite of social and economic changes, the family has remained central to most people’s lives even in the most socially liberal countries. (this is consistent with out on class survey, over 95% student agree that family relation is more important than other social relations). The family remains central to the lives of most people, and the quality of family relationships has a very strong association with the quality of life as whole (Nolan 2002)

Liberty and independence are the aims of reflexive modernization. Greater financial security is a goal of new capitalism, family values are the third leg of the tripod, but they have not been supported by governments to the same extend as the other two values. Under the new capitalism, individuals must maximize their utility to the market, that involve acquisition of saleable skills, working experience and a marketable reputation. Reflexive modernization provides individuals with freedom to pursue personal goals. While family values are altruism, that is, time and money freely devoted to others. This conflict leads to many people to be risk aversion.

What government can do in solution of low fertility, in author’s view, is to provide the sense of assurance to young people that if they have family and children, they will be supported by the society. The author believes that states must be principle players in restoring the social balance just as they play key role in supporting other social and economic changers. The first step is to reestablish confidence among young people that they will be able to embark on family formation with tolerable levels of economic loss and acceptable impacts upon individual aspiration.

In Asia, at least three countries have instituted major policy programs to reverse fertility decline, namely Singapore, Japan and Korea, yet, policy has failed to have any great impact in these counties. The solution, according to author, lies in a third wave of social change, a compensatory wave in which the state and other institutions provide a new and substantial priority to the support of family especially the bearing and rearing of children.


Reference

Nolan, J. 2002 “The intensification of everyday life.” In B Burchell, D. Ladipo, and F. Wilkinson (eds.), Job Insecurity and Work intensification. London: Routledeg, pp.112-136

The Microeconomic Theory of Fertility

from “Policy implications of the next world demographic transition” by Harbison and Robinson (2002)Studying in Family Planning 2002; 33[1]:37-48

In the last several decades, the economic theory of fertility has been the dominant explanation paradigm. This model takes the individual or the couple as the decision making unit and assumes that they exercise a conscious and deliberate control over their childbearing, with respects to the number and the timing of offspring.

This is to assume that having children cost money and energy and children generate kind of “utilities” (pleasure and benefit) for their parents. The decision of childbearing is to maximize the gain subject to resource constrain, is the cost and benefit analysis.

Becker (1991) argues that children generate a unique kind of utility that does not compete with other types of pleasure and rewards to the couple. He suggests that the couple may aim at maximizing an intergenerational dynastic utility function, so that the couples see themselves as acting for future generations in a continuing lineage.

Alexander and others find no reason for thinking that the couples will always find having children necessary in order to achieve the “wealth, power, and status” that most people seen to crave (Alexander 1988:327) The family size decision is a function of a host of variables including the characteristics of the couples, process and availabilities of other products in the market and taste.

After years of power social propaganda on family planning, the fertility has fallen. However the new concern over the low total fertility rate (TFR) in developed counties, (even in developing countries) rises. Some see the current TFR in some countries below replacement rate as temporary (Westoff 1991). Presently above replacement populations are exporting migrants to the below-replacement nations, these movements are intensified by political and social unrest in the exporting countries and also threaten to change the ethnic and cultural landscape in receiving countries. Therefore public policies in respond to such movement are expected.

In Europe, nearly all government adopted a pronatalist policy, including family allowance, baby bonus, tax incentive, provision to maternal and child health care facilities etc. The impact of these programs on fertility has been studied by many researches. Most of these studies found no conclusive evidences, the results vary from country to country.

According to author, some prerequisites of future pronatalist policy can be suggested in light of apparent prevailing socioeconomic trends:

1. Policy has to be embedded in health, education and family support for prospective mothers.
2. Policy has to offer meaningful economic support and motivation for a woman to bear a child.
3. Policy has to use mass media campaign aimed at changing public attitudes and climate of public opinion towards fertility.

The implementation of the pronatalist measures would be expensive. The costs would include: reimbursing a woman (for her employer) for her time lost in pre and postmaternal leave; providing nursery and day care for the children; offer health care and other necessary maintenance; providing support for education from kindergarten through high-school graduation. It would be certainly required of public debate to determine financing. Each state will have to make its own cost and benefits analysis.

The late Frank Notestein (1950:340) wrote in half century ago: “The greatest danger, it seems to me, is that concern about slowing growth may drive societies to a renewed emphasis on the obligations of the individual to reproduce for the benefit of the sate, church, party or other extra-personal unit. There is a danger that the emotional reaction to slowing growth will lead us to seek people for society, rather than to enrich society for people.”


Reference:


Alexander, Richard D. 1988. “Evolutionary approaches to human behaviou: what does the future hold?” in Human Reproduction Behaviour: A Darwinian Perspective. Eds, Laura Betzig et al. Cambridge. England. Cambridge University Press. Pp317-341.

Becker, Gary S. 1991. A treatise on family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Notestein, Frank W. 1950 “The population of the world in the year 2000” Journal of the American Statistical Association 45(251):333-345.

Westoff, Charles F. 1991. “The return to replacement fertility: A magnetic force?” In Future Demographic Trend in Europe and North America. Ed Wolfgang Lutz. New York. The Academic Press. Pp 227-234