** 80%1.89 2005 7 35 Policy Coherence JEL Classification : J12, J13, J21 Key words : **
Family Life and Family Policy in France and Germany: Implications for Japan By Tomoko Hayashi and Rieko Tamefuji Abstract Recently much attention has been paid to family policy in France; both the labor participation of women and the fertility rate remain high. In Germany, on the other hand, the fertility rate is as low as Japan though the labor participation rate of women remains high. By conducting a survey of French and German families and analyzing the data, this paper identifies factors that account for the difference between the fertility rate in France and Germany, and finds some policy implications for Japan. The survey data shows that about 70 percent of women in France who bore a child / children did not take full-day child-care leave. This is because child care service is fully prepared for parents. Thus, the ways of coming back to work after giving birth vary according to occupation and willingness to do so. Moreover, family allowance is sufficient and varies according to the period of child raising. Because both men and women in France tend to come home early from work, this tendency contributes to the high fertility rate. On the other hand, though family allowance and child benefits are sufficient in Germany, lack of child care service and half-day school make it difficult for women to work full-time, and cause the opportunity cost of having children to be higher in Germany than in France. The analysis shows three policy implications for Japan. First, what is more important is not just amount of expenditure for family policy, but the content and balance between the policies. Second, policy coherence of various measures from the viewpoint of coexistence of family life and work is necessary. Finally, it is significant that the government and companies offer parents various ways of working, according to individual circumstances. JFL Classification: J12, J13, J21 Key words: France, Germany, fertility, family policy, child-care leave, women participation in labor force, marriage 2
1975 1.292003 1970 1980 2005 1.892003 2544 79.52001 8 GDP 2.82001 GDP 1.92001 77.8 1.342003 2005 2 3 4 5 2005 3
OECD2002OECD2003 OECD2004OECD Max Planck Institute for Demographic ResearchKöppen2004UNECE(UN Economic Commission for Europe) FFS (Family and Fertility Survey) 0-3 () Le Goff2002 1 2000 2003 1992 1999 1 1998 4
1989 1999 30km 3544 3544 2 2 The Infratest Telephone Household Master Sample2004 12 2005 1 () 150 4 1200 3-1 2 2005 2004 5
4.1 2544 79.5%(2001 ) 65.6% 1.89(2003 ) 1.2977.8%2001 1.342003 4-1 U M 4-2 6
7
U 1980 20-24 1990 U 4-3 1970 M M 25-29 1990 30-34 4-4 20-24 30-34 1976 30-34 4-54-64-7 5 8
9
4.1.1 3 123 CNAF 5.40% 2 20 2 112.59 15,000 3 256.83 35,000 4 401.08 54,000 3 20,000 2004 3 146.54 20,000 801.31 109,000 3 161.66 22,000 257.62 35,000 1 6 2 3 501.59 67,000 50 381.42 51,000 6 3 10
67,000 4 200,000 80,000 4-8 2 0.5 3 1 4.1.2 3 1 2 5 1 2 1994 310 11
7 7 4 3 1992 309 75 4-9 9 4-10 4 2004 12
4-11 7 4.1.3 35 35 4-12 4-13 6 7 4-14 6 13
40 1 8 40 35 14
4.1.4 1983 2002 44.3 4-15 3544 31.0 23.3 PACS :Pacte civil de solidarité 6 19.7 21.3 4-16 3544 2.3% 2.4% 5 89 4-17 4-18 5 1834 14 12 2002 15
14.1% 59.5 70.5 16
17
4.2 1.342003 4.2.1 18 27 21 18 7,188 96.6 1 2 3 154 21,000 4 179 24,000 3 462 63,000 20,000 3,104 46,000 1 3,648 ( 490,000 ) 1 380,000 16 22 630,000 10 027 2,160 124,000 30 6 3 6 18
24 3 1 3 8 30 2 307 41,000 1 460 62,000 GDP 1.90.6 3 2.8 OECD 4-19 19
4.2.2 (tempo) (quantum) 7 2 1960 TI QI 8 TI 1.0 1973 TI 1.0 QI 1960 1974 1974 TI 1.0 QI 1960 2.00 4-20 1970 TI 1.0 QI 1960 1960 QI 2.0 1990 1.5 1970 1.5 4-21 7 1 8 29 QI=TI 20
21
4.2.3 3 3 6 3 4-22 3 6 1998 86.8% 100 3 3 3 35 100 22
4.2.4 50% 4 1 4-23 3 3 23 6 6 3 6 7 8 6 4-24 23
24
4.2.5 6 34 4-25 4-26 8 43.3 33.4 2 4-27 () 2 4-28 () 9 5 2 3 4-29 4-30 95% 25
26
27
28