Principal Factors Affecting Couples’ Childbearing Policies: A Roadmap for Policymaking
Abstract
Background: The concept of negative population growth, population aging, and the need to implement child‑encouraging policies is an important concern in many countries. As this issue is completely cultural and country‑based, this study is designed to assess and prioritize the perception of newly married couples to the policies that may have a crucial role in the childbearing intention around the world.
Materials and Methods: Through a descriptive cross‑sectional study, 300 couples were selected by a simple random sampling method. Multilevel binary logistic regression was used for investigating the relationships among dimensions of family policies, socio‑demographic variables, and childbearing intention.
Results: Childbearing perception positively correlated with education and permanent job in both genders, maternal age range of 25–35, the higher length of marriage, having more children, and living in a government settlement. The most important family policies that couples preferred were contextual requirements (mean rank of 4.50%). Positive childbearing perception negatively correlated with higher age categories in women, the number of children, rental housing status, no insurance access, higher educational attainment, and low employment ranks in both men and women.
Conclusions: This study cleared that family policies affect the childbearing intention of young couples. Polices involved contextual requirements, supporting couples to integrate work and home, health promotion plans, child‑centered social support, and promoting the level of social and cultural relations.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Fahlén S. Capabilities and childbearing intentions in Europe: The association between work family reconciliation policies, economic uncertainties, and women’s fertility plans. Eur Soc 2013;15:639 62.
Harknett K, Billari FC, Medalia C. Do family support environments influence fertility? Evidence from 20 European countries. Eur J Population 2014;30:1 33.
Comolli CL, Neyer G, Andersson G, Dommermuth L, Fallesen P, Jalovaara M, et al. Beyond the economic gaze: Childbearing during and after recessions in the Nordic countries. Eur J Population 2021;37:473 520.
Comolli CL. Finnish fertility: Pro-or counter-cyclical. FJSR 2018;11:58-64.
Comolli CL. The fertility response to the great recession in Europe and the United States: Structural economic conditions and perceived economic uncertainty. Demogr Res 2017;36:1549 600.
Bellido H, Marcén M. Fertility and the business cycle: The European case. Rev Econ Household 2019;17:1289 319.
Brinton MC, Mun E. Between state and family: Managers’ implementation and evaluation of parental leave policies in Japan. Socio Econ Rev 2016;14:257 81.
Luci Greulich A, Thévenon O. The impact of family policies on fertility trends in developed countries. Eur J Population 2013;29:387 416.
Kavehfirooz Z, Zare B, Jahanbakhsh GS. The effect of socio-cultural capitals on attitudes towards childbearing (Case study: Tehranian couples going to marry). Social Studies and Research in Iran 2017;6:119-43.
Duvander AZ, Lappegård T, Andersson G. Family policy and fertility: Fathers’ and mothers’ use of parental leave and continued childbearing in Norway and Sweden. J Eur Soc Policy 2010;20:45 57.
Kariman N, Simbar M, Ahmadi F, Vedadhir AA. Socioeconomic and emotional predictors of decision making for timing motherhood among Iranian women in 2013. Iran Red Crescent Med J 2014;16:e13629.
Araban M, Karimy M, Armoon B, Zamani Alavijeh F. Factors related to childbearing intentions among women: A cross sectional study in health centers, Saveh, Iran. J Egypt Public Health Assoc 2020;95:6.
De Wachter D, Neels K. Educational differentials in fertility intentions and outcomes: Family formation in flanders in the early 1990s. Vienna Yearb Popul Res 2011;9:227 58.
Rosina A, Testa MR. Couples’ first child intentions and disagreement: An analysis of the Italian case. Eur J Population 2009;25:487.
Khadivzadeh T, Arghavani E, Shakeri MT. Attitude toward governmental incentives on childbearing and its relationship with fertility preferences in couples attending premarital counseling clinic in health centers in Mashhad. J Maz Univ Med Sci 2015;24:1-3.
Rahman M, Mustafi M, Azad M. Analysis of the determinant’s of marriage to first birth interval in Bangladesh. Int J Manag Sustain 2013;2:208 19.
Lotfi R, Naeeni MR, Rezaei N, Farid M, Tizvir A. Desired numbers of children, fertility preferences and related factors among couples who referred to pre marriage counseling in Alborz province, Iran. Int J Fertil Steril 2017;11:211 9.
Yeatman S, Sennott C, Culpepper S. Young women’s dynamic family size preferences in the context of transitioning fertility. Demography 2013;50:1715 37.
Sharma R. The demographics of stagnation: Why people matter for economic growth. Foreign Aff 2016;95:18.
Matsumoto Y, Yamabe S. Family size preference and factors affecting the fertility rate in Hyogo, Japan. Reprod Health 2013;10:6.
Egenti NB, Chineke HN, Merenu IA, Egwuatu CC, Adogu PO. Family size preference: Socio cultural and economic determinants among the obstetric population in Orlu South East Nigeria. J Educ Soc Behav Sci 2016;15:1 7.
Kalwij A. The impact of family policy expenditure on fertility in Western Europe. Demography 2010;47:503 19.
Kim EH. Division of domestic labour and lowest low fertility in South Korea. Demogr Res 2017;37:743 68.
Marchetta F, Sahn DE. The role of education and family background in marriage, childbearing, and labor market participation in senegal. Econ Dev Cult Change 2016;64:369 403.
Wesolowski, K. To have or not to have a child? Perceived constraints on childbearing in a lowest-low fertility context. Popul Space Place 2015;21.86-101.
Yoon SY. Is gender inequality a barrier to realizing fertility intentions? Fertility aspirations and realizations in South Korea. Asian Popul Stud 2016;12:203 19.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.