“Gender equality will raise the total fertility rate (TFR).” This is the most dominant discourse on fertility these days. In this paper, I criticize such discourses and statistics, using research literacy methods.First of all, according to an international comparison among OECD countries, there seems to be a strong positive correlation coefficient between the rate of female labor participation, the amount of public expenditure toward children, and TFR. The samples are, however, often selected in some arbitrary ways. In fact, there is no correlation.Secondly, based on JGSS2001 data, I find that the sharing of domestic labor by husbands cannot increase the number of children. Thirdly, “gender equal” couples (double-income couples, of which husbands do domestic labor a lot) have less children and earn higher income than other types of couples. Due to the Difference Principle, there is no reason to support them.Fourthly, I propose the Japanese government provides “child allowance” to all children under 18 years old equally. It is based not on the theory of the “child care free rider, ” but on the child's right to live. The present public nursery service gives priority to double-income couples. It is unfair because of the unequal accessibility to the service by the parents' lifestyles and income. If the public nursery service cannot solve such inequality, then it must be privatized.Finally, the financial costs of “child allowance” must be shared by all citizens over 30 years old. I suppose there are three options to generate these costs. The priority will be as follows : cutting a part of the pension plan for child allowance; increasing the consumption tax; and increasing the income tax. This political strategy will be able to solve the unequal freedom of choice under the present child care support system, and can improve the imbalance in benefits of and contributions to the pension system among generations.
Read full abstract