The Influence of Government Policies on Fertility Rates: A Comparative Analysis Across Seven Countries

Purpose: This study examines the influence of government fertility policies on total fertility rates (TFR) across seven culturally diverse countries: South Korea, Japan, Singapore, Russia, France, Sweden, and Canada, analyzing policy effectiveness and implementation patterns from 1970 to 2024. Design/methodology/approach: The research employs a dual methodological approach combining systematic literature review with comparative policy analysis. Fertility policies are categorized into material policies (financial incentives) and humanistic care policies (work-life balance support). The study analyzes policy implementation timing and corresponding TFR changes, utilizing longitudinal data from UN population statistics. Findings: The analysis reveals a consistent 10‑year lag between policy implementation and observable TFR impacts. Material policies, including newborn bonuses and childcare allowances, show varying effectiveness across countries. Nations implementing comprehensive approaches combining material and humanistic policies (France, Sweden) maintained higher TFR levels compared to those focusing primarily on financial incentives (South Korea, Japan). Despite significant policy investments, East Asian countries continue struggling with sub‑1.0 TFR, suggesting the influence of broader sociocultural factors. Research limitations: The study’s focus on seven countries, while representing diverse cultural zones, may limit generalizability to other contexts. Additionally, some statistical data and benefit amounts cited in this study may not reflect the most recent policy updates, as government programs are frequently revised. Readers should consult official government sources for the latest figures. Practical implications: The findings indicate that successful fertility policies require both immediate financial support and long-term societal adaptation measures, emphasizing the need for policy patience in evaluating effectiveness. Specifically, countries that combine material incentives with humanistic care policies (e. g., France and Sweden) demonstrate higher TFR levels, while nations relying primarily on financial measures (e. g., South Korea and Japan) show limited success despite substantial investment. The study contributes to the theoretical understanding of the dual-dimensional policy framework (material vs. humanistic) and provides evidence-based recommendations for designing integrated fertility policies that address both economic barriers and sociocultural factors. Originality/value: This research uniquely categorizes fertility policies into material and humanistic approaches while establishing a clear temporal relationship between policy implementation and fertility outcomes. The study’s longitudinal analysis provides valuable insights into policy effectiveness across different cultural contexts, contributing to evidence-based fertility policy design.

1. Bonoli G. The impact of social policy on fertility: Evidence from Switzerland. Journal of European Social Policy. 2008;18(1):64-77. DOI: 10.1177/0958928707081074

2. Schwartz S. H. National culture as value orientations: Consequences of value differences and cultural distance. In: Ginsburgh V. A., Throsby D., eds. Handbook of the economics of art and culture. Amsterdam: North-Holland; 2013;2:547-586. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-444-53776-8.00020-9

3. Yuan P., Guo X. Policy evolution and implications from family planning to fertility encouragement in Korea. Southeast Academic Research. 2015;(3):161-170. DOI: 10.13658/j.cnki.sar.2015.03.021 (In Chin.).

4. Lee S., Duvander A.-Z., Zarit S. H. How can family policies reconcile fertility and women’s employment? Comparisons between South Korea and Sweden. Asian Journal of Women’s Studies. 2016;22(3):269-288. DOI: 10.1080/12259276.2016.1202027

5. The Second Framework Plan for a low-fertility and aging society (2011–2015). Presidential Committee on Ageing Society and Population Policy. 2018. URL: https://www.betterfuture.go.kr/ (accessed on 22.05.2024). (In Korean).

6. Tsuya N. O. Below-replacement fertility in Japan: Patterns, factors, and policy implications. In: Rindfuss R. R., Choe M. K., eds. Low and lower fertility: Variations across developed countries. Cham: Springer; 2015:87-106. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-21482-5_5

7. Tian X. The impact of population decline and aging on Japan’s comprehensive national strength: An essay on Japan’s population policy and its effects. Japanese Studies. 2011;(5):107-121. URL: https://oversea.cnki.net/kcms2/article/abstract?v=VrduTR4bJX43MN5jnlSJTZOTIJ5wEi5DTi9DKCAHzzEyBas15LfTPWPejXNjBnot_QmgqtnoNujgi9BE8F26EqBclc9DhCMkaANA7oTGblqNYR4oX9AtIAseAHBc28-BGJwAQcI34Pu-up4BXH2HVmMl2sunvuXYK1wqHLvj3rFXxnj5XvR5ow==&uniplatform=OVERSEA&language=CHS (accessed on 12.05.2026). (In Chin.).

8. Date Y., Shimizutani S. Why has Japan’s fertility rate declined? An empirical literature survey with an emphasis on policy implications. Japanese Economy. 2007;34(1):4-45. DOI: 10.2753/JES1097-203X340101

9. Lee S. M., Alvarez G., Palen J. J. Fertility decline and pronatalist policy in Singapore. International Family Planning Perspectives. 1991;17(2):65-73. DOI: 10.2307/2133557

10. Liu W. Changes in Singapore’s fertility policy, its effectiveness and implications. Population and Society. 2020;36(5):14-29. (In Chin.). DOI: 10.14132/j.2095-7963.2020.05.002

11. Andreev E. M., Darsky L. E., Kharkova T. L. Demographic history of Russia: 1927-1959. Moscow: Informatika; 1998. 187 p. (In Russ.).

12. Feng H. Improving the system of maternity protection and realizing the strategic concept of population development: The case of Russia. Population and Health. 2022;(4):15-17. URL: https://oversea.cnki.net/kcms2/article/abstract?v=VrduTR4bJX4uEwkISL-3khD46_8FwzHIf3WZfIn272OxlJsablVR7UVwR4cBXlw19UxwIXxzxTcuQ4kRTiKDlvqFHFS46wYPCDbxMlYTyaAhFGQ3UlFFciW0mPSeX0YzYOn0aIjOmckiZJq03MYlkzIMCNS23YbGcdOHisbqow2MKwIkC9xZOQ==&uniplatform=OVERSEA&language=CHS (accessed on 12.05.2026). (In Chin.).

13. Kravchenko Z., Grigoryeva I. Family policy in Russia: Folkways versus stateways revisited. In: Robila M., ed. Handbook of family policies across the globe. New York, NY: Springer; 2014:223-237. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-6771-7_15

14. Minister Maxim Topilin: Effective demographic measures must be preserved. Ministry of Labour and Social Protection. June 06, 2016. URL: http://mintrud.gov.ru/social/demography/73 (accessed on 22.05.2024). (In Russ.).

15. Zheng J., Yan L. Effectiveness of fertility-supportive family policies: A study based on the experiences of France and Japan. Journal of Shandong Women’s University. 2024;(2):1-14. URL: https://oversea.cnki.net/kcms2/article/abstract?v=VrduTR4bJX4vsRFUsL4I2dOt3Ezr3Qbpt9ShvcYoPTcpZMAV3gf20kjEmvemgyEBSzo7qCxbyJsYkWTgJuOnoRNqU0FFRQORbzf6OE1SMcIui2W8Q1xuUw42crHGgDEs3sNVbEz0D21O1FiSlHRE99NmTYaDahueQchrRxjG-RMepoqg9EM00w==&uniplatform=OVERSEA&language=CHS (accessed on 12.05.2026). (In Chin.).

16. Mikou M., Solard J., Roussel R. La montée en charge des risques sociaux depuis 1945. Vie Sociale. 2015;(2):109- 130. DOI: 10.3917/vsoc.152.0109

17. Wang Q., Li X. Study tour on population and family planning public services in the United Kingdom and Sweden. Chinese Journal of Family Planning. 2010;18(8):511-512. URL: https://oversea.cnki.net/kcms2/article/abstract?v=VrduTR4bJX4JRPfV9CTsnGMKY670YTYTv02KL4-vB9NKErXrEzDZEdxqrdW3Ue5f1qaLzlQH_qn1hqTIZbGUZ37L1gP4kCg_yPqTmC6X4EWIxhOBOYLLxJH34rtFEo-WQlsg94vvn8x2KtMbyMXvk6_AdsDxv_sG8I-nmj7JXWQykN5A7z-xJg==&uniplatform=OVERSEA&language=CHS (accessed on 12.05.2026). (In Chin.).

18. Fu Y. Sweden’s welfare system to promote gender equality and encourage childbearing. Jing Ji Can Zheng Bao= Economic Reference News. 2021. URL: http://jjckb.xinhuanet.com/2021-06/08/c_139994823.htm (accessed on 12.05.2026). (In Chin.).

19. Wei Z. Fertility changes in Sweden and the impact and implications of family policies. Population and Health. 2019;(1):21-23. URL: https://oversea.cnki.net/kcms2/article/abstract?v=VrduTR4bJX7iszcYzQvuhG0bv_XD-ZULXi075I7GNqcp2Percc1fQmiEdsukaDmQjWwmmYgmMkflEUZt98iol-9Ncx1BRv75dfToMjTwshlDShz671cNpc0pmphb0-_K8cAk_29Wtfr-4K-KL0SKYgIJIR3n3SmKHeQoN4vcrcQqHRAwTx0_g==&uniplatform=OVERSEA&language=CHS (accessed on 12.05.2026). (In Chin.).

20. Liu M. A review of research on child welfare policies in welfare states: Taking Sweden as an example. Dynamics of Social Sciences. 2019;(2):60-65. URL: https://oversea.cnki.net/kcms2/article/abstract?v=VrduTR4bJX4ebOKm9M8Tb6eUQnIWBIjAVG0NF2H2mC0XD61eg7v6iYiiAmLRVLm1EFLj50aLWbwzQq6Jjg8P-LypzW0V08-reIajnEEDcIQgS1rySr7BJ_DjDHj726EljBhEi4m0Y37oTNB6HrKOOpLBFuAY2HEEl8nHBvo91jTwMZt0MC1eJQ==&uniplatform=OVERSEA&language=CHS (accessed on 12.05.2026). (In Chin.).

21. Woodsworth D. E. Social security and national policy: Sweden, Yugoslavia, Japan. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press; 1977. 156 p.

22. Baker M. Family and population policy in Quebec: Implications for women. Canadian Journal of Women and the Law. 1994;7:116-132.

23. Frejka T., Jones G. W., Sardon J.-P. East Asian childbearing patterns and policy developments. Population and Development Review. 2010;36(3):579-606. DOI: 10.2307/25749201

24. Eun K.-S. Lowest-low fertility in the Republic of Korea: Causes, consequences and policy responses. Asia-Pacific Population Journal. 2007;22(2)51-72. DOI: 10.18356/742d2082-en