Human Ecology Research

The Korean Home Economics Association (대한가정학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Relationship between Family Policy and Children's Quality of Life among OECD Countries: Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis

OECD 국가의 가족정책과 아동 삶의 질의 관계: 퍼지셋 질적비교분석

  • Jeongmin, Park (Department of Child Development and Family Studies, Seoul National University) ;
  • Meejung, Chin (Department of Child Development and Family Studies, Seoul National University/Research Institute of Human Ecology)
  • 박정민 (서울대학교 아동가족학과) ;
  • 진미정 (서울대학교 아동가족학과/생활과학연구소)
  • Received : 2022.10.24
  • Accepted : 2022.11.15
  • Published : 2022.11.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study aims to clarify the relationship between family policy and children's quality of life through an international comparison and to determine which family policy factors contribute to children's quality of life. The research question is "How can family policies be combined to improve children's quality of life in terms of health and economy?" It includes nine categories of family policies related to money, service, and leave. Measures of children's quality of life include low birth weight, infant mortality, and child poverty. Using the OECD Family Database, and the OECD Child Well-being Data, fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparison Analysis (fsQCA) was used among 20 OECD countries. Combinations of family policies significant to the children's quality of life were derived from the results. This study contributes to the literature by revealing the effectiveness of states' investment in family policy. In addition, the study indicates that since family policies interact with each other, those policies combine to improve children's quality of life.

Keywords

References

  1. Ahn, S. A. (2020). Econstruction of the welfare system through family policy change: Focusing on gender regime, OECD family policy. Asia-pacific Journal of Multimedia Services Convergent with Art, Humanities, and Sociology, 10(3), 127-141.
  2. Ahn, S. H. (2002). A comparative study on productive welfare in the three worlds of welfare capitalism. Korean Journal of Social Welfare, 49, 162-189.
  3. Ben-Arieh, A., Casas, F., Frones, I., & Korbin, J. E. (2014). Multifaceted concept of child well-being. In Handbook of child well-being: Theories, methods and policies in global perspective (pp. 1-27). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9063-8_134
  4. Berger, L. M., & Carlson, M. J. (2020). Family policy and complex contemporary families: A decade in review and implications for the next decade of research and policy practice. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82 (1), 478-507. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12650
  5. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). Contexts of child rearing: Problems and prospects. The American Psychologist, 34(10), 844-850. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.34.10.844
  6. Carneiro, P. M., & Heckman, J. J. (2003). Human capital policy. Institute for the Study of Labor(IZA) Discussion Paper, 821. http://doi.org/10.3386/w9495
  7. Castro-Garcia, C., & Pazos-Moran, M. (2016). Parental leave policy and gender equality in Europe. Feminist Economics, 22(3), 51-73. https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2015.1082033
  8. Chandy, L., Marlin, A., & Teixeira, C. (2021). Understanding child subjective well-being: A call for more data, research and policy making targeting children. UNICEF Office of Global Insight & Policy.
  9. Chin, M. (2012, June). The scope and challenges of family policy from the perspective of the OECD Family Database. Paper presented at the 51th Conference of the Korean Home Management Association, Seoul, Korea.
  10. Chin, M. (2015). Uniqueness and challenges of Korean family policy: Micro-publicness and communality. In Talking about Korean families: Phenomena and Issues (pp. 75-97). Seoul: Hawoo Publishing.
  11. Collison, D., Dey, C., Hannah, G., & Stevenson, L. (2007). Income inequality and child mortality in wealthy nations. Journal of Public Health, 29(2), 114-117. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdm009
  12. Cooper, K., & Stewart, K. (2021). Does household income affect children's outcomes? A systematic review of the evidence. Child Indicators Research, 14(3), 981-1005. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-020-09782-0
  13. Daly, M., & Ferragina, E. (2018). Family policy in high-income countries: Five decades of development. Journal of European Social Policy, 28(3), 255-270. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928717735060
  14. Duncan, G. J., Magnuson, K., & Votruba-Drzal, E. (2017). Moving beyond correlations in assessing the consequences of poverty. Annual Review of Psychology, 68 (1), 413-434. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044224
  15. Engster, D., & Stensota, H. (2011). Do family policy regimes matter for children's well-being? Social Politics, 18(1), 81-124.
  16. European Commission. (2017). European Pillar of Social Rights. European Commission.
  17. European Commission. (2021). The EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child and the European Child Guarantee. European Commission.
  18. Ferrarini, T. (2006). Families, states and labour markets: Institutions, causes and consequences of family policy in post-war welfare states. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
  19. Fleckenstein, T., & Lee, S. C. (2017). The politics of investing in families: Comparing family policy expansion in Japan and South Korea. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 24(1), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxw008
  20. Gligor, D., & Bozkurt, S. (2020). FsQCA versus regression: The context of customer engagement. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 52, 1019-1029.
  21. Gornick, J., & Jantti, M. (2010). Child poverty in upper-income countries: Lessons from the Luxembourg income study. In From child welfare to child well-being (pp. 339-368). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3377-2_19
  22. Gornick, J. C., & Meyers, M. K. (2003). Families that work: Policies for reconciling parenthood and employment. Manhattan, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
  23. Grant, J., Greene, K., & Maxwell, D. K. (2004). The planning and policy implications of gated communities. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 13(1), 70-88.
  24. Haider, A. (2021). The basic facts about children in poverty. Center for American Progress.
  25. Han, S. (2020). What find of welfare state has Korea grown up in?. Korea Social Policy Review, 27(1), 153-185. https://doi.org/10.17000/kspr.27.1.202003.153
  26. Hoffmann, S., Sander, L., Wachtler, B., Blume, M., Schneider, S., Herke, M., et al. (2022). Moderating or mediating effects of family characteristics on socioeconomic inequalities in child health in high-income countries - A scoping review. BMC Public Health, 22(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-12603-4
  27. Huerta, M., Adema, W., Baxter, J., Han, W. J., Lausten, M., & Lee, R., et al. (2013). Fathers' leave, fathers' involvement and child development: Are they related? Evidence from four OECD countries. OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers No. 140. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5k4dlw9w6czq-en
  28. Immervoll, H., Sutherland, H., & de Vos, K. (2000). Child poverty and child benefits in the European Union. EUROMOD Working Paper No. EM1/00.
  29. Jung, J., Kim, H., & Lim J. (2019). Total fertility rates of OECD countries: Becker hypothesis, easterlin hypothesis, family policies and implications. Korean Journal of Public Finance, 12(4), 1-47.
  30. Kim, J., & Choi, Y. (2012). Household types and changes of work-family time allocation: Adapting fuzzy-set ideal type analysis. Korean Journal of Social Welfare, 64(2), 31-54. https://doi.org/10.20970/kasw.2012.64.2.002
  31. Kong, I., & Kim, S. (2012). The construction of the domains and indicators measuring and monitoring children's well-being in Korea. Korean Journal of Child Studies, 33(1), 183-203. https://doi.org/10.5723/KJCS.2012.33.1.183
  32. Kooreman, P. (2000). The labeling effect of a child benefit system. American Economic Review, 90(3), 571-583. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.90.3.571
  33. Kvande, E., & Brandth, B. (2017). Individualized, non-transferable parental leave for European fathers: migrant perspectives. Community, Work & Family, 20(1), 19-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668803.2016.1270258
  34. Lee, S. (2014). Introduction to Fuzzy-set QCA. Seoul: Korea University Press.
  35. Lundberg, S., Pollak, R. A., & Stearns, J. (2016). Family inequality: Diverging patterns in marriage, cohabitation, and childbearing. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30(2), 79-102. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.30.2.79
  36. Misra, J., Moller, S., & Budig, M. J. (2007). Work-family policies and poverty for partnered and single women in Europe and North America. Gender & Society, 21(6), 804-827. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243207308445
  37. Moreno Minguez, A. (2017). The role of family policy in explaining the international variation in child subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research, 134(3), 1173-1194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1456-5
  38. Nordenmark, M. (2021). How family policy context shapes mental wellbeing of mothers and fathers. Social Indicators Research, 158(1), 45-57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-021-02701-y
  39. OECD. (2022a). OECD Family Database [Data set]. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/els/family/database.htm
  40. OECD. (2022b). OECD Child Well-Being Data Portal [Data set]. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/els/family/child-well-being/data/
  41. Olivetti, C., & Petrongolo, B. (2017). The economic consequences of family policies: lessons from a century of legislation in high-income countries. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(1), 205-230. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.1.205
  42. Panico, L., & Kitzmann, M. (2020). Family policies and child well-being. In Handbook on Society and Social Policy (pp. 356-371). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788113526.00035
  43. Park, J., Park, C., Seo, H., & Youm, Y. (2010). Collection of Korean child well-being index and its international comparison with other OECD Countries. Korean Journal of Sociology, 44(2), 121-154.
  44. Pollard, E. L., & Lee, P. D. (2003). Child well-being: A systematic review of the literature. Social Indicators Research, 61(1), 59-78. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021284215801
  45. Ragin, C. C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  46. Ragin, C. C. (2000). Fuzzy-set social science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  47. Ruhm, C. J. (2000). Parental leave and child health. Journal of Health Economics, 19(6), 931-960. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6296(00)00047-3
  48. Tanaka, S. (2005). Parental leave and child health across OECD countries. The Economic Journal, 115(501), 7-28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0013-0133.2005.00970.x
  49. UNICEF. (2005). State of the World's Children: Excluded and invisible. https://doi.org/10.18356/198d96de-en
  50. UNICEF. (2013). Child well-being in rich countries: A comparative overview. Innocenti Report Card 11. UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre. https://doi.org/10.18356/0aea8e54-en
  51. Wesolowski, K., & Ferrarini, T. (2018). Family policies and fertility: Examining the link between family policy institutions and fertility rates in 33 countries 1995-2011. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 38(11/12), 1057-1070. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSSP-04-2018-0052
  52. Winegarden, C. R., & Bracy, P. M. (1995). Demographic consequences of maternal-leave programs in industrial countries: Evidence from fixed-effects models. Southern Economic Journal, 61(4), 1020-1035. https://doi.org/10.2307/1060738