Abstract
The global decline in fertility has prompted countries to reassess their socio-economic strategies. Specifically, Japan and the Republic of Korea are at the forefront of demographic change, with the ageing of the labour force becoming a growing concern. This study delves into the fertility policies of both countries, aiming to understand the complexity of policy shifts between them. Using a combination of literature review and secondary data analysis, the study reveals the nuances of policy making in the two countries. A thorough exploration of the social consequences of these policies provides a holistic view of their real-world implications. The analyses reveal commendable strengths and apparent weaknesses in the strategies employed by Japan and South Korea. Based on this, the study presents viable recommendations for effective policy transfer, incorporating best practices from both countries. Finally, the study provides a succinct summary of its findings, highlighting the inherent limitations of the research conducted. It also highlights the need for future investigations in this area, laying the groundwork for a more comprehensive study of fertility policies and their long-term social impact.
Publisher
Darcy & Roy Press Co. Ltd.
Reference12 articles.
1. Centre for Public Impact (2017). Tackling the Declining Birth Rate in Japan. [online] Centre For Public Impact (CPI). Available at: https://www.centreforpublicimpact.org/case-study/tackling-declining-birth-rate-japan.
2. Defourny, J. and Kuan, Y.-Y. (2011). Social enterprise in eastern Asia. Emerald Publishing Limited, p.Are there specific models of social enterprise in Eastern Asia?
3. Haub, C. (2010). Did South Korea’s Population Policy Work Too Well? [online] PRB. Available at: https://www.prb.org/resources/did-south-koreas-population-policy work-too-well/.
4. Holliday, I. (2000). Productivist Welfare Capitalism: Social Policy in East Asia. Political Studies, 48(4), pp.706–723. doi:10.1111/1467-9248.00279.
5. Ilmarinen, J.E. (2001). AGING WORKERS. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, [online] 58(8), pp.546–546. doi:10.1136/oem.58.8.546.