Opinion & Commentary
Fertility incentives off the mark
The low fertility rate in this country is just as much about women having fewer children as it is about fewer women having children. Although childlessness has increased in the past two decades, around 85 per cent of women still have babies - they are just not having as many.
Those who do not have any at all are predominantly women who are focused on their careers and are voluntarily childless.
Sociologist Catherine Hakim, visiting Australia from the London School of Economics, says women fall into three categories: work-centred, family-centred and adaptive. The adaptive women, who form a majority of around 60 per cent, want to combine family with part-time work, and many hope to enjoy the best of both worlds.
It is important to remember that working mothers do not value their jobs and children equally. They lie closer to the family-centred than the work-centred women.
The mental image of a woman juggling her children and her job implies that working mothers have a loose grasp on both of their responsibilities, but for most it's more a case of having their children firmly clasped to them, while desperately trying to keep their jobs aloft with their other hand.
This is the group with the most potential for increased birth rates. Any policies that seek to increase fertility levels must accommodate this large majority of women who most want to have children - the family-centred and adaptive women. These women require support that allows them to put their families first.
Family and paid work are direct competitors. This doesn't mean that you can't be successful at both, just that it's not easy. Mothers know this, and most would prefer to concentrate on caring for their children, especially when they are very young.
Mistakenly, the current focus of family policy debate is on provisions that would largely benefit work-oriented women: paid maternity leave and child care. It is unlikely that the offer of a few months' paid leave would persuade anyone to make a decision that will change their lives forever, no matter what quality child care is available.
It is hard to argue that paid maternity leave is a bad thing, but we must examine the objectives. It targets the smallest group of women, those least likely to elevate fertility rates. It may also work to the detriment of young women by discouraging employers from hiring them.
Hakim suggests that policies should cater for all preferences of women. Barry Maley of the Centre for Independent Studies has argued support should be centred on the child. A child-centred subsidy is independent of the work preferences of mothers (and fathers), and can be spent on child care or to offset income forgone by the caregiver. It makes no assumptions about which parent will be the primary caregiver, as maternity leave does.
The simplicity, flexibility and neutrality of this form of family support make it preferable to the current and proposed muddle of payments and services. It provides mothers and fathers with the means and opportunity to care for their children in the way they think best.
Jennifer Buckingham is a policy analyst with the Centre for Independent Studies (www.cis.org.au). CIS is hosting a lecture by Catherine Hakim in Sydney on Thursday 27th February 2003.
