RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색

인기 검색어

    다국어 입력

    http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

    변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

    예시)
    • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
    • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
    닫기
    KCI등재

    한국의 출산격차 영향요인 실증분석-희망자녀수와 현실자녀수의 차이를 중심으로- = An Analysis of ‘Fertility Gap’ in Korea: Focusing on the Difference between Real and Desired Children Numbers

    한글로보기

    https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A101721294

    • 0

      상세조회
    • 0

      다운로드
    서지정보 열기
    • 내보내기
    • 내책장담기
    • 공유하기
    • 오류접수
    인용문이 복사되었습니다.

    부가정보

    다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

    This study is designed to estimate the value of the factors contributing to ‘Fertility Gap(FG)’, the difference between desired and real children numbers for an individual. The frame of analysis lies on the assumption that for many people the real number of children is not the same as the desired number, leading to low fertility rate in Korea. The data are drawn from the 4th wave of National Survey of Tax and Benefit(NaSTaB), conducted by the Korea Institute of Public Finance in 2011. The target populations are the 2,009 couples: wives with the capability of becoming pregnant, ranging from 20 to 39 years of age, and their husbands.
    As a result of analysis, FG vanishes under the condition that the first fertility interval is getting shorter or household-income is increasing. The positive ‘concept of governmental fertility encouragement policies’ also helps reduce FG. However, if ‘savings to household-income ratio’ or ‘private education expenditure per child’ ascends, the couples are hard to escape the trap of FG. Especially, it is confirmed that the effect of awareness of the fertility grants provided by their local governments is minute for those who earn large household-income.
    The result presents the direction of fertility encouragement policy needs to be changed to the first child priority policy rather than multi-children priority policy since the first pregnancy can function as a threshold of fertility. And it seems to be more reasonable to offer the fertility grants, based on the household-income. Furthermore, it suggests that authorities are not supposed to limit the scope of fertility encouragement policy only to promoting pregnancy and providing child care system. It is also imperative that the couples’ satisfaction over policies be managed more attentively. It is attributed to the fact that the burden of private education expenditure for children and the anxiety toward later life are powerful deterrent factors in realizing their desired children numbers in Korea.
    번역하기

    This study is designed to estimate the value of the factors contributing to ‘Fertility Gap(FG)’, the difference between desired and real children numbers for an individual. The frame of analysis lies on the assumption that for many people the real...

    This study is designed to estimate the value of the factors contributing to ‘Fertility Gap(FG)’, the difference between desired and real children numbers for an individual. The frame of analysis lies on the assumption that for many people the real number of children is not the same as the desired number, leading to low fertility rate in Korea. The data are drawn from the 4th wave of National Survey of Tax and Benefit(NaSTaB), conducted by the Korea Institute of Public Finance in 2011. The target populations are the 2,009 couples: wives with the capability of becoming pregnant, ranging from 20 to 39 years of age, and their husbands.
    As a result of analysis, FG vanishes under the condition that the first fertility interval is getting shorter or household-income is increasing. The positive ‘concept of governmental fertility encouragement policies’ also helps reduce FG. However, if ‘savings to household-income ratio’ or ‘private education expenditure per child’ ascends, the couples are hard to escape the trap of FG. Especially, it is confirmed that the effect of awareness of the fertility grants provided by their local governments is minute for those who earn large household-income.
    The result presents the direction of fertility encouragement policy needs to be changed to the first child priority policy rather than multi-children priority policy since the first pregnancy can function as a threshold of fertility. And it seems to be more reasonable to offer the fertility grants, based on the household-income. Furthermore, it suggests that authorities are not supposed to limit the scope of fertility encouragement policy only to promoting pregnancy and providing child care system. It is also imperative that the couples’ satisfaction over policies be managed more attentively. It is attributed to the fact that the burden of private education expenditure for children and the anxiety toward later life are powerful deterrent factors in realizing their desired children numbers in Korea.

    더보기

    참고문헌 (Reference)

    1 신광영, "한국의 성별 임금격차: 차이와 차별" 한국사회학회 45 (45): 97-127, 2011

    2 박종서, "학업자녀가 있는 가구의 소비지출 구조와 교육비 부담" 293 : 1-8, 2015

    3 국립국어연구원, "표준국어대사전" 두산동아 1999

    4 송헌재, "출산장려금이 기혼여성의 출산의향에 미치는 영향" 한국재정정책학회 15 (15): 3-27, 2013

    5 송헌재, "출산장려금과 지역 간 인구이동" 한국응용경제학회 16 (16): 165-199, 2014

    6 고승연, "출산율 부진의 배경과 시사점-희망 자녀수는 2.11명, 합계출산율은 1.18명"

    7 김승권, "최근 출산행태 및 가족주기 변화에 따른 정책과제" 18 : 7-17, 1998

    8 서미숙, "주택가격 변화에 따른 여성 출산율에 관한 연구" 한국여성경제학회 10 (10): 63-79, 2013

    9 홍석한, "정보격차해소에 관한 헌법적 고찰" 한국토지공법학회 44 : 475-498, 2009

    10 차경욱, "저출산 가계와 출산계획 있는 가계의 경제구조 비교 분석" 한국가정관리학회 23 (23): 137-148, 2005

    1 신광영, "한국의 성별 임금격차: 차이와 차별" 한국사회학회 45 (45): 97-127, 2011

    2 박종서, "학업자녀가 있는 가구의 소비지출 구조와 교육비 부담" 293 : 1-8, 2015

    3 국립국어연구원, "표준국어대사전" 두산동아 1999

    4 송헌재, "출산장려금이 기혼여성의 출산의향에 미치는 영향" 한국재정정책학회 15 (15): 3-27, 2013

    5 송헌재, "출산장려금과 지역 간 인구이동" 한국응용경제학회 16 (16): 165-199, 2014

    6 고승연, "출산율 부진의 배경과 시사점-희망 자녀수는 2.11명, 합계출산율은 1.18명"

    7 김승권, "최근 출산행태 및 가족주기 변화에 따른 정책과제" 18 : 7-17, 1998

    8 서미숙, "주택가격 변화에 따른 여성 출산율에 관한 연구" 한국여성경제학회 10 (10): 63-79, 2013

    9 홍석한, "정보격차해소에 관한 헌법적 고찰" 한국토지공법학회 44 : 475-498, 2009

    10 차경욱, "저출산 가계와 출산계획 있는 가계의 경제구조 비교 분석" 한국가정관리학회 23 (23): 137-148, 2005

    11 통계청, "장래인구추계 2010-2060" 통계청 2011

    12 김현숙, "장기적 인적자본 형성을 위한 조세, 재정정책: 출산율 결정요인에 대한 경제학적 분석" 한국 조세연구원 1-212, 2006

    13 권용은, "자녀가치와 출산율" 13 (13): 211-226, 2004

    14 김미숙, "자녀가치 국제비교" 284 : 1-8, 2015

    15 김두섭, "인구의 이해" 서울대학교출판부 2002

    16 김현숙, "우리나라 가구의 자녀수 결정요인에 관한 Count 모형 분석 및 경제적 함의" 30 (30): 107-135, 2007

    17 통계개발원, "소득과 자산에 따른 차별 출산력" 통계청 2010

    18 조혜종, "새 인구론 : 인구의 공간적·사회적 접근" 푸른길 2006

    19 홍정림, "보육비 지원 정책의 효과성 분석" 한국인구학회 36 (36): 95-118, 2013

    20 서문희, "보육료·유아교육비 지원이 추가 출산 의사에 미치는 영향" 육아정책연구소 4 (4): 76-95, 2010

    21 박수미, "둘째 출산 계획의 결정요인과 가족내 성 형평성" 한국인구학회 31 (31): 55-73, 2008

    22 염명배, "군집분석을 통한 저출산 원인 및 정책수요 도출 :핵심정책대상 집단을 중심으로" 한국경제통상학회 29 (29): 163-190, 2011

    23 박은태, "경제학 사전" 경연사 2011

    24 이삼식, "가치관의 변화가 결혼 및 출산 행태에 미치는 영향" 26 (26): 95-140, 2006

    25 배광일, "가족가치관 및 출산정책이 희망자녀수 출산에 미치는 영향" 한국사회복지연구회 43 (43): 239-266, 2012

    26 유경원, "가계의 교육비와 저축간 관계 분석" 한국은행 금융경제연구원 13-31, 2007

    27 Maddala, G. S., "Unit Roots, Cointegration, and Structural Change" Cambridge University Press 1998

    28 Halcoussis, D., "Understanding Econometrics" Thompson-South Western 2005

    29 d’Addio, A. C., "Trends and Determinants of Fertility Rates: Role of Policies" OECD 2005

    30 Bongaarts, J., "The Supply-Demand Framework for the Determinants of Fertility: An Alternative Implementation" 47 (47): 437-456, 1993

    31 Bumpass, L., "The Prediction of Completed Fertility" 6 (6): 445-454, 1969

    32 Ryder, N. B., "The Predictability of Fertility Planning Status" 7 (7): 294-307, 1976

    33 Venator, J., "The Implications of Inequalities in Contraception and Abortion" Brookings’ Social Mobility Memos

    34 Blanchet, D, "The Family, the Market and the State in Ageing Societies" Oxford University Press 1994

    35 Bongaarts, J., "The End of the Fertility Transition in the Developed World" 28 (28): 419-443, 2002

    36 Zhang, J., "The Effect of Tax-Transfer Policies on Fertility in Canada, 1921-88" 29 (29): 181-201, 1994

    37 Walker, J. R., "The Effect of Public Policies on Recent Swedish Fertility Behavior" 8 (8): 223-251, 1995

    38 Chow. G. C., "Tests of Equality Between sets of Coefficients in Two Linear Regressions" 28 (28): 591-605, 1960

    39 OECD., "Taxing Wages 2012-2013" OECD Publishing 2014

    40 Freedman, R, Coombs, L. C., "Stability and Change in Expectations About Family Size: A Longitudinal Study" 2 : 250-275, 1965

    41 계봉오, "Son Preference and Fertility Transition in South Korea" 한국인구학회 37 (37): 107-141, 2014

    42 Kantner, J. F., "Social and Psychological Factors Affecting Fertility. XXIV. The Relationship of Family Size in Two Successive Generations" 32 (32): 294-311, 1954

    43 Westoff, C. F., "Reproductive Intentions and Fertility Rates" 16 (16): 84-96, 1990

    44 Long, J. S., "Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables using Stata" StataCorp LP 2006

    45 Hoffman, L. W., "Psychological Perspectives on Population" Basic Books 1973

    46 Fenge, R., "Pensions and Fertility: Back to the root-The Introduction of Bismarck’s Pension Scheme and the European Fertility Decline" European Central Bank 2014

    47 Bongaarts, J., "On the Quantum and Tempo of Fertility" 24 (24): 271-291, 1998

    48 Gibson-Davis, C. M., "Money, Marriage, and Children : Testing the Financial Expectations and Family Formation Theory" 71 (71): 146-160, 2009

    49 Denton, F. T., "Macro-Effects of Changes in Household Preferences for Children : Simulated History and Future Time Paths" 2 (2): 165-188, 1989

    50 Kleinbaum, D. G., "Logistic Regression: A Self-Learning Text" Springer 2002

    51 Birdsall, N., "Income and Other Factors Influencing Fertility in China" 9 (9): 651-675, 1983

    52 Fraser, C. D., "Income Risk, the Tax-Benefit System and the Demand for Children" 68 (68): 105-125, 2001

    53 Girard, A., "Ideal Family Size, Fertility, and Population Policy in Western Europe" 8 (8): 323-345, 1982

    54 Becker, G. S., "Human Capital, Fertility, and Economic Growth" 98 (98): S12-S37, 1990

    55 McDonald, P., "Gender Equity in Theories of Fertility Transition" 26 (26): 427-439, 2000

    56 Becker, G. S., "Fertility and the Economy" 5 (5): 185-201, 1992

    57 Rodgers, G. B., "Fertility and Desired Fertility : Longitudinal Evidence from Thailand" 30 (30): 511-526, 1976

    58 Schultz, T. P., "Fertility Determinants: A Theory, Evidence, and an Application to Policy Evaluation" Rand Corporation 1974

    59 Gauthier, A. H., "Family Benefits and Fertility : An Econometric Analysis" 51 (51): 295-306, 1997

    60 Kmenta, J., "Elements of Econometrics" Macmillan 1986

    61 Becker, G. S., "Demographic and Economic Change in Developed Countries. National Bureau of Economic Research" Princeton University Press 1960

    62 Pollak, R. A., "Cultural and Economic Approaches to Fertility : Proper Marriage Or Mesalliance?" 19 (19): 467-496, 1993

    63 Lesthaeghe, R., "Cultural Dynamics and Economic Theories of Fertility Change" 14 (14): 1-45, 1988

    64 Preston, S. H., "Changing Values and Falling Birth Rates”. Population and Development Review" 12 (12): 176-195, 1986

    65 Peng, C. J., "An Introduction to Logistic Regression Analysis and Reporting" 96 (96): 3-14, 2002

    66 Schultz, T. P., "An Economic Model of Family Planning and Fertility" 77 (77): 153-180, 1969

    67 Happel, S. K., "An Economic Analysis of the Timing of Childbirth" 38 (38): 299-311, 1984

    68 Lindh, T., "Age Structure Effects and Growth in the OECD, 1950-1990" 12 (12): 431-449, 1999

    69 Becker, G. S., "A Treatise on the Family" Harvard University Press 1981

    70 국회예산정책처, "2015년도 예산안 분야별 분석 I: 보건・복지・고용, 교육, 문화・체육・관광, R&D, 산업・중소기업・에너지" 98-101, 2014

    71 통계청, "2014 출생사망통계(잠정)" 2015

    72 김승권, "2012년 전국 출산력 및 가족보건・복지실태조사" 보건사회연구원 206-212, 2012

    73 이정원, "1명의 영유아 자녀를 둔 취업모의 후속출산계획에 영향을 미치는 요인" 육아정책연구소 8 (8): 47-80, 2014

    더보기

    분석정보

    View

    상세정보조회

    0

    Usage

    원문다운로드

    0

    대출신청

    0

    복사신청

    0

    EDDS신청

    0

    동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

    더보기

    주제

    연도별 연구동향

    연도별 활용동향

    연관논문

    연구자 네트워크맵

    공동연구자 (7)

    유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

    인용정보 인용지수 설명보기

    학술지 이력

    학술지 이력
    연월일 이력구분 이력상세 등재구분
    2023 평가 계속평가 신청대상 (등재유지)
    2018-01-01 등재 우수등재학술지 선정 (계속평가)
    2015-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2013-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2010-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2008-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2006-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2004-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2001-07-01 등재 등재학술지 선정 (등재후보2차) KCI등재
    1999-01-01 등재 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) KCI등재후보
    더보기

    학술지 인용정보

    학술지 인용정보
    기준연도 WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) KCIF(2년) KCIF(3년)
    2016 1.69 1.69 1.76
    KCIF(4년) KCIF(5년) 중심성지수(3년) 즉시성지수
    1.83 1.8 1.759 0.69
    더보기

    이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

    나만을 위한 추천자료

    해외이동버튼