Résumés
Résumé
Cet article s’inscrit dans la lignée des revues de littérature qui se penchent sur l’effet des politiques familiales sur la fécondité. L’article rappelle que les politiques peuvent 1) affecter le quantum des naissances, 2) affecter le tempo des naissances, 3) ne pas avoir d’effet sur la fécondité. Tout en démontrant l’effet hétérogène des politiques familiales sur la fécondité, l’auteure argue que les transferts monétaires (sous forme d’allocations et de crédits d’impôt) et les services de garde sont associés à un effet quantum sur les naissances, alors que les primes à la naissance semblent davantage provoquer un effet tempo. L’effet des congés parentaux demeure incertain. L’article conclut en démontrant qu’au-delà de la conciliation travail-famille, c’est la marge de liberté que détiennent les mères face à l’obligation de prodiguer des soins, une idée conceptualisée sous le terme de « dématernalisation », qui influe le plus sur la fécondité.
Mots-clés :
- politiques familiales,
- fécondité,
- dématernalisation
Abstract
This article is in line with literature reviews that focus on the impact of family policies on fertility. It recalls that policies can 1) affect the quantum of births, 2) affect the tempo of births, 3) have no effect on fertility. While demonstrating the heterogeneous effect of family policies on fertility, the author argues that cash transfers (in the form of grants and tax credits) and child care are associated with a quantum effect, whereas premiums at births are associated with a tempo effect. The article concludes by showing that beyond work-family conciliation, it is the extent to which mothers are freed from the obligation to perform care work, an idea conceptualised as “dématernalitsation”, that has the most influence on fertility.
Keywords:
- family policies,
- fertility,
- dématernalisation
Resumen
Este artículo se inscribe en el contexto de las revistas de literatura interesadas en el efecto de las políticas familiares en materia de fecundidad. El artículo recuerda que las políticas pueden 1) afectar el quantum de los nacimientos 2) afectar el tempo de los nacimientos, 3) no tener ningún efecto sobre la fecundidad. Después de demostrar el efecto heterogéneo de las políticas familiares en la fecundidad, la autora argumenta que las transferencias monetarias (bajo forma de prestaciones y exenciones tributarias) y los servicios de guardería están asociados a un efecto quantum en los nacimientos, mientras que las primas por nacimiento parecen provocar un efecto tempo. El efecto de las licencias parentales permanece incierto. Para concluir, el artículo demuestra que, más allá de la conciliación trabajo-familia, es justamente en el margen de libertad de las madres frente a la obligación de prodigar cuidados ― idea conceptualizada bajo el término “desmaternalización”― donde reside la mayor influencia en la fecundidad.
Palabras clave:
- políticas familiares,
- fecundidad,
- desmaternalización
Parties annexes
Bibliographie
- Aassve, A. and T. Lappegård (2009), « Childcare Cash Benefits and Fertility Timing in Norway », European Journal of Population, vol. 25, n° 1, p. 67-88.
- Andersson, G. (2004), « Childbearing Developments in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden from the 1970s to the 1990’s : A Comparison », Demographic Research, p.155-176.
- Andersson, G. (2008), « Family Policies and Fertility in Sweden, Contribution to the Consultancy Study on Population Related Matters — A Study on Policies and Practices in Selected Countries that Encourage Childbirth », Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
- Andersson, G., A.- Z. Duvander et H. Hank (2004), « Do Child Care Characteristics Influence Continued Childbearing in Sweden ? An Investigation of the Quantity, Quality, and Price Dimension », Journal of European Social Policy, vol.14, n° 4, p. 407-418.
- Andersson, G., J. M. Hoem, and A.-Z. Duvander (2006), « Social Differentials in Speed-Premium Effects in Childbearing in Sweden », Demographic Research, vol. 14, n° 4, p. 51-70.
- Ang, X. (2009), The Effects of the Generosity of Parental Leave Benefits on Labor Supply and Fertility : Evidence from a Canadian Natural Experiment, Princeton University.
- Apps, P. and R. Rees (2004), « Fertility, Taxation and Family Policy », Scandinavian Journal of Economics, vol. 106, n° 4, p. 745-763.
- Averett, S. L. and L.A. Whittington (2001), « Does Maternity Leave Induce Births ? », Southern Economic Journal, vol. 68, n° 2, p. 403-417.
- Azmat, G. and L. González (2010), « Targeting Fertility and Female Participation Through the Income Tax », Labour Economics, vol. 17, n° 3, p. 487-502.
- Baizán, P. (2009), « Regional Child Care Availability and Fertility Decisions in Spain », Demographic Research, vol. 21, n° 27, p. 803-842.
- Baughman, R. and S. Dickert-Conlin (2003), « Did Expanding the EITC Promote Motherhood ? », American Economic Review, vol. 93, n° 2, p. 247-250.
- Bélanger, A. and J. Dumas (1988), Report on the Demographic Situation in Canada, 1997, Catalogue no 91-209-XPE, Ottawa, Statistics Canada.
- Billari, F. C. (2008), « Lowest-Low Fertility in Europe : Exploring the Causes and Finding Some Surprise », The Japanese Journal of Population, vol. 6, n° 1, p. 2-18.
- Bloom, D. E. and A. Sousa-Poza (2010), « Introduction to Special Issues of the European Journal of Population : “Economic Consequences of Low Fertility in Europe” », European Journal of Population, vol. 26, p.127-139.
- Bongaarts, J. (2001), « Fertility and Reproductive Preferences in Post-Transitional Societies : Supplement on Global Fertility Transition », Population and Development Review, 27, p. 260-281.
- Breton, D. and F. Prioux (2005), « Two Children or Three ? Influence of Family Policy and Sociodemographic Factors », Population, vol. 60, n°4, p. 415-445.
- Brewer, M., A. Ratcliffe and S. Smith (2007), « Does Welfare Reform Affect Fertility ? Evidence from the UK », Centre for Market and Public Organisation, working paper n° 07/177.
- Bussière, Y., J.-P. Thouez et J. Carrière (2006), « Le vieillissement de la population : une nouvelle spécificité québécoise », Recherches innovations, vol. 3, p.8-9.
- Castles, F. G. (2003), « The world turned upside down : below replacement fertility, changing preferences and family-friendly policy in 21 OECD countries » Journal of European Social Policy, vol. 13, n° 3, p. 209-227.
- Chesnais, J.-C. (1998), « Below-Replacement Fertility in the European Union (EU-15) : Facts and Policies, 1960-1997 », Review of Population and Social Policy, vol. 7, p. 83-101.
- Cooke, L. P. (2008), « Gender Equity and Fertility in Italy and Spain », Journal of Social Policy, vol. 38, n° 1, p.123-140.
- D’Addio, A. C. and M.M. d’Ercole (2006), « Policies, Institutions and Fertility Rates : A Panel Data Analysis for OECD Countries », OECD Economic Studies, no 41.
- Day, C. and S. Dowrick (2010), « What Entices the Stork ? Fertility, Education and Family Payments »,. Economic Record, vol. 86, p. 69-79.
- Del Boca, D. (2002), « The effect of Child Care and Part Time Opportunities on Participation and Fertility Decisions in Italy », Journal of Population Economics, vol. 15, n° 3, p. 549-573.
- Drago, R., K. Sawyer, K.Sheffler, D. Warren and M. Wooden (2009), « Did Australia’s Baby Bonus Increase the Fertility Rate ? » Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series, working paper no 1/09.
- Duclos, É., P. Lefebvre and P. Merrigan (2001), « A Natural Experiment on the Economics of Storks : Evidence on the Impact of Differential Family Policy on Fertility Rates in Canada », Center for Research on Economic Flucturations and Employment (CREFE), working paper 136.
- Duvander, A-.Z., and G. Andersson (2005), « Gender Equality and Fertility in Sweden : A Study on the Impact of the Father’s Uptake of Parental Leave on Continued Childbearing », MPIDR working paper 2005-013.
- Duvander, A.-Z., T. Lappegård and G. Andersson (2010), « Family Policy and Fertility : Fathers’ and Mothers’ Use of Parental Leave and Continued Childbearing in Norway and Sweden », Journal of European Social Policy, vol. 20, n° 1, p. 45-57.
- Edmonston, B., S.M. Lee and Z. Wu (2010), « Fertility Intentions in Canada : Change or No Change ? », Canadian Studies in Population, vol. 37 n° 3-4, Fall/Winter, p. 297-337.
- Erler, D. (2009), « La réforme du congé parental en Allemagne : vers le modèle nordique ? », Politiques sociales et familiales, n° 95, p. 43-52.
- Esping-Andersen, G. (1990), The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
- Esping-Andersen, G. (1999), Social Foundations of Postindustrial Economies, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
- Fagnani, J. (2002), « Why do French Women Have More Children than German Women ? Family Policies and Attitudes Towards Child Care Outside the Home », Community, Work and Family, vol. 5, n° 1, p. 103-119.
- Fagnani, J. (2007), « Family Policies in France and Germany : Sisters or Distant Cousins ? » Community, Work and the Family, vol.1, n° 1, p. 39-56.
- Ferrera, M. (1996), « The Southern Model of Welfare in Social Europe », Journal of European Social Policy, vol. 1, p. 17-37.
- Gans, J. S. and A. Leigh (2009), « Born on the First of July : An (Un)natural Experiment in Birth Timing », Journal of Public Economics, vol. 93, n° 1-2, p. 246-263.
- Gauthier, A. H. (2007), « The Impact of Family Policies on Fertility in Industrialised Countries : A Review of the Literature », Population Research Policy Review, vol. 26, n° 3, p. 323-346.
- Gauthier, A. H. and J. Hatzius (1997), « Family Benefits and Fertility : An Econometric Analysis », Population Studies, vol. 51, p. 295-306.
- Gornick, J. C, M. K. Meyers and K. Ross (1997), « Supporting the Employment of Mothers : Policy Variation Across Fourteen Welfare States », Journal of European Social Policy, vol. 7, n° 1, p. 45-70.
- Haan, P. and K. Wrohlich (2011), « Can child care policy encourage employment and fertility ? », Labour Economics, vol.18, n° 4, p. 498-512.
- Hank, K. and M. Kreyenfeld (2003), « A Multilevel Analysis of Child Care and Women’s Fertility Decisions in Western Germany », Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 65, n° 3, p. 584-596.
- Hantrais, L. (2004), Family Policy Matters : Responding to Family Change in Europe, Bristol, the Policy Press.
- Hoem, J. M., A. Prskawetz and G. Neyer (2001), « Autonomy or Conservative Adjustment ? The Effect of Public Policies and Educational Attainment on Third Births in Austria », Population Studies, 55, n° 3, p. 249-261.
- Hoem, J. M. (2005), « Why Does Sweden Have such High Fertility ? » Demographic Research, vol. 13, p. 559-572.
- Hoem, J. M. (2008), « Overview 3 Chapter 8 : The Impact of Public Policies on European Fertility », Demographic Research, vol. 19, p. 249-260.
- Kalwij, A. (2010), « The Impact of Family Policy Expenditure on Fertility in Western Europe », Demography, vol. 47, n° 2, p. 503-519.
- Karamessini, M. (2008), « The Provision of Childcare Services in Greece », External report commissioned by and presented to the EU Directorate-General Employment and Social Affairs.
- Kearns, P. (1996), Les déterminants socio-économiques de la fécondité par rang au Canada et au Québec, Mémoire de maîtrise, Département d’économie, Université du Québec à Montréal.
- Lain, S. J., J. B. Ford, C. H. Raynes-Greenow, R. M. Hadfield, J. M. Simpson, J. Morris and C. L. Roberts (2009), « The Impact of the Baby-Bonus Payment in New South Wales : Who is Shaving “One for the Country” ? » Medical Journal of Australia, vol. 190, n° 4, p. 238-241.
- Lalive, R. and J. Zweimüller (2005), « Does Parental Leave Affect Fertility and Return-to-Work ? Evidence from a “True Natural Experiment” », IZA Discussion Papers 1613.
- Lapierre-Adamcyk, É. (2010), « L’évolution de la fécondité et la politique familiale québécoise », Santé, Société et Solidarité, n° 2, p. 63-74.
- Lappegård, T. (2010), « Family Policies and Fertility in Norway », European Journal of Population, vol. 26, n° 1, p. 99-116.
- Lattimore, R. and C. Pobke (2008). Recent Trends in Australian Fertility, Productivity Commission Staff Working Paper.
- Leibfried, S. (1993), « Towards a European Welfare State ? », in C. JonesNew Perspectives on the Welfare State in Europe, London, Routledge, p. 133-156.
- Letablier, M.-T. (2003), « Fertility and Family Policies in France », Journal of Population and Social Security (Population) Supplement to volume 1, p. 245-261.
- Luci, A. and O. Thévenon (2012), « The Impact of Family Policy Packages on Fertility Trends in Developed Countries », Institut national d’études démographiques, Paris.
- Malmberg, B. (2010), « Low Fertility and the Housing Market-Evidence from the Swedish Regional Data », European Journal of Population, vol. 26, n° 2, p. 229-244.
- Mathieu, S. (2003), Droits, marchandisation et défamilisation : une typologie des régimes de genre, Université de Montréal, Mémoire de maîtrise.
- McDonald, P. (2006), « Low Fertility and the State : The Efficacy of Policy », Population and Development Review, vol. 32, n° 3, p. 485-510.
- McDonald, P. (2000), « Gender Equity, Social Institutions and the Future of Fertility », Journal of Population Research, vol. 17, n° 1, p.1-16.
- Milligan, K. (2002), « Quebec’s Baby Bonus : Can Public Policy Regime Raise Fertility ? », Backgrounder C.D. Howe Institute.
- Milligan, K. (2005), « Subsidizing the Stork : New Evidence on Tax Incentives and Fertility », Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 87, n° 3, p. 539-555.
- Mörk, E., A. Sjögren and H. Svaleryd (2009), « Cheaper Child Care, More Children. Institute for the Study of Labour », discussion paper no 3942.
- Neyer, G. (2003), « Family Policies and Low Fertility in Western Europe », Journal of Population and Social Security Supplement to Volume 1, p. 46-93.
- Nishioka, H. (2003), « Low Fertility and Family Policies in Southern European Countries », Journal of Population and Social SecuritySupplement to volume 1, p. 262-283.
- Nizalova, O. (2000), « Economic and Social Consequences of Maternity Protection : A Cross-Coutry Analysis », Mémoire de maîtrise, National University Kiev-Mohyla Academy.
- OCDE (2011), « Fertility Trends : What Have Been the main Drivers ? » Chapitre 3 dans Doing Better for Families, OCDE, Paris.
- Ohinata, A. (2008), « Fertility Response to Financial Incentives : Evidence from the Working Families Tax Credits in the UK », Warwick Economic Research Paper.
- Parr, N and R. Guest (2011), « The Contribution of Recent Increases in Family Benefits to Australia’s Early 21st Century Fertility Increase : an Empirical Analysis », Demographic Research, vol. 25, p. 215-244.
- Phipps, S. A. (2000), « Maternity and Parental Benefits in Canada : Are these Behavioural Implications ? » Canadian Public Policy, vol. 26, n° 2, p. 415-436.
- Piketty, T. (2005), « L’impact de l’allocation parentale d’éducation sur l’activité féminine et la fécondité en France », in C. Lefebvre et A. Filhon, Histoires de familles, histoires familiales. Les résultats de l’enquête Famille de 1999, Les Cahiers de l’INED 156, Paris, INED.
- Ray, R. (2008), « A Detailed Look at Parental Leave Policies in OECD Countries », Center for Economic and Policy Research.
- Rindfuss, R., D. Guilkey, P. S. Morgan, Ǿ. Kravdal and K. B. Guzzo (2007), « Child Care Availability and First-Birth Timing in Norway », Demography, vol. 44, n° 2, p. 345-372.
- Rindfuss, R., D. Guilkey, P. S. Morgan and Ǿ. Kravdal (2010), « Child-Care Availability and Fertility in Norway », Population and Development Review, vol. 36, n° 4, p. 725-748.
- Risse, L. (2006), « Determinants of Maternity Leave Provisions in Australia and the Effects on Fertility : An Application of the Heckprobit Selection Model », paper presented to the Social Science Methodology Conference, University of Sydney.
- Rønsen, M. (2004), « Fertility and Family Policy in Norway — A Reflection on Trends and Possible Connections », Demographic Research, vol. 10, n° 10, p. 265-286.
- Roussel, L. (1989), La famille incertaine, Paris, Éditions Odile Jacob.
- Salles, A., C. Rossier and S. Brachet (2010), « Understanding the Long Term Effects of Family Policies on Fertility : The Diffusion of Different Family Models in France and Germany », Demographic Research, vol. 22, n° 34, p. 1057-1096.
- Sleebos, J. (2003), « Low fertility rates in OECD countries : facts and policy responses », Social Employment and Migration Workshop, OECD.
- Sobotka, T. (2011), « Reproductive Decision-Making in a Macro-Micro Perspective (REPRO) : Synthesis and Policy Implications », European Demographic Research Papers, vol. 1, Vienna Institute of Demography.
- Thévenon, O. (2010), « L’influence des politiques d’aide aux familles sur la fécondité dans les pays développés », Santé, Société et Solidarité, 2, p. 53-62.
- Thévenon, O. (2011a), « Does Fertility Respond to Work and Family-life Reconciliation Policies in France ? » in N. Takayama and M. Werding,Fertility and Public Policy : How to Reverse the Trend of Declining Birth Rates, Cambridge, MIT Press, p. 219-259.
- Thévenon, O. (2011b), « Family Policies in OECD Countries : A Comparative Analysis », Population and Development Review, vol. 27 n° 1, p. 57-87.
- Thévenon, O and A. H. Gauthier (2011), « Family Policies in Developed Countries : A “Fertility Booster” with Side-Effects », Community, Work and Family, vol. 14, n° 2, p. 197-216.
- Toulemon, L. (2006), « Fertility Among Immigrant Women and Men in France : New Data, a New Approach », paper presented at the Population Association of American 2006 Meeting, Los Angeles, California.
- Toulemon, L., A. Pailhé and C. Rossier (2008), « France : High and Stable fertility », Demographic Research, vol.19, n° 16, p.503-556.
- Werding, M. 2011, « The Economics of the Family and Its Policy Implications : Why Should We Care about Fertility Outcomes », in N. Takayama and M. Werding,Fertility and Public Policy : How to Reverse the Trend of Declining Birth Rates, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, p. 15-49.
- Zabel, C. (2009), « Eligibility for Maternity Leave and First Birth Timing in Great Britain », Population Research and Policy Review, vol. 28, n° 3, p. 251-270.