Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Low Fertility, Institutions, and their Policies pp 49–76Cite as

The Influence of Family Policies on Fertility in France: Lessons from the Past and Prospects for the Future

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

France stands out from most other European countries because of its high and relatively stable fertility rate among the cohorts born since the 1950s. France’s broad, long-standing, and consistent family policies contribute to this stability, although the exact contribution is hard to quantify. This chapter presents the main fertility trends in France and the characteristics of French family policies that may influence fertility. It emphasizes the broad spectrum of policy measures that cover a wide range of families, regardless of their civil status, number of children, or the working status of parents. These policies offer continuous support to children throughout childhood. One strength of family policies in France has been their effective adaptation to the increasing diversity of family forms. Population aging, however, requires further adaptations that are also discussed in the chapter.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The proportion of childless women is quite constant, as is the proportion of men and women wishing to remain childless (Debest and Mazuy 2014). A minority of couples are sterile, and only a small proportion of the couples who have difficulty conceiving and who resort to assisted reproductive technologies (ART) succeed in having children (de La Rochebrochard et al. 2011).

  2. 2.

    The quotient familial (“family quotient”) mechanism used to calculate income tax is original to France. Its basic purpose is to compensate for the cost of children by taking the presence of a partner and children into account in the calculation of income tax. The family quotient operates as follows: Total household income is divided by the number of “adult equivalent units” in the household (with the first and second child counting as one-half adult each and the third child counting as one adult), and the relevant tax rate from the progressive scale is applied to this income per unit. The resulting tax rate is then applied to household income.

  3. 3.

    Although not their primary objective, the Prestation d’accueil du jeune enfant (PAJE)—replacement income for parents who stop working or work part time in order to care for a child—and childcare services for young children have an influence on fertility by facilitating parents’ return to work after the birth of a child.

  4. 4.

    Other evaluations have highlighted the impact of the 1994 policy that extended the stay-at-home allowance to the second child. Piketty (2005) has estimated that this reform encouraged an additional 110,000 women to stop working. Over the long run, it seems that this allowance has held back the workforce participation rate of mothers of two children, compared with an increase in workforce participation among mothers of one child or of three children (Thévenon 2009).

  5. 5.

    Additionally, 13 % of children from households in the lowest income quintile are cared for during the day by a childminder, compared with only 3 % of children from households in the first and second quintiles.

  6. 6.

    Free public preschool is provided for children age three to six in France. There are also a limited number of places in preschools for two-year-old children, but the priority is given to children age three and above, and the number of places available for younger children has shrunk. More than one-third (35 %) of two-year-olds attended preschool in 2000, but only 13.6 % in 2010.

  7. 7.

    These studies are said to lack external validity, which can be due to the fact that the experience evaluated is limited to a highly specific sub-population with precise characteristics. This might be, for instance, a family policy measure (such as a financial-support mechanism) that targets a specific population group. The measure would not necessarily have a proportional impact if it were extended to the whole population. Similarly, there is no guarantee that the policy result would increase in the proportion measured by the experiment if the financial value of the mechanism were increased.

  8. 8.

    Moreover, we can fear that, unless fathers are highly motivated, those most inclined to stop working to take long leave will most likely be employees on low incomes, whose spouses also earns a relatively low income. An increase in the risk of poverty can therefore be expected in families that make this choice.

  9. 9.

    Employees with a parent whose life is in danger can also apply for family leave. This type of leave, of three months’ duration, renewable once, can be taken part time and includes daily compensation that can be received for up to 21 days.

  10. 10.

    Some studies suggest that access to preschool education is a positive factor in workforce participation and welfare uptake (Havnes and Mogstadt 2011; Algan et al. 2012).

References

  • Ajzen, I., & Klobas, J. (2013). Fertility intentions: An approach based on the theory of planned behavior. Demographic Research, 29(8), 203–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Algan, Y., Beasley, E., Tremblay, R. E., & Vitaro, F. (2012). The long-term impact of social skills training at school entry: A randomized controlled trial. Paris: Sciences Po.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bechtel, J., Caussat, L., Courtioux, P., Laib, N., Le Minez, S., & Mirouse, B. (2005). La politique familiale française: Coûts et bénéficiaires. In M. Godet & E. Sullerot (Eds.), La famille, une affaire publique (pp. 409–37). CAE Rapport no. 57. Paris: Conseil d’Analyse Economique.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breton, D., & Prioux, F. (2005). Deux ou trois enfants? Influence de la politique familiale et de quelques facteurs sociodémographs. Population, 60(4), 489–522.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breton, D., & Prioux, F. (2009). The one-child family: France in the European context. Demographic Research, 20(27), 657–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caillé, J.-P. (2003). Faut-il développer la scolarisation à deux ans? Éducation et formations, 66, 7–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charpin, J. M. (2011). Perspectives démographiques et financières de la dépendance. Rapport de groupe de travail. Paris: Ministère de la Cohésion Sociale.

    Google Scholar 

  • Courgeau, D., & Lelièvre, E. (1992). Interrelations between first home ownership, constitution of the family, and professional occupation in France. In J. Trussel, R. Hankinson, & J. Tilton (Eds.), Demographic applications of event history analysis (pp. 120–140). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davie, E., & Mazuy, M. (2010). Women’s fertility and educational level in France: Evidence from annual census surveys. Population, 65(3), 415–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de La Rochebrochard, E., Troude, P., Bailly, E., Guibert, J., & Bouyer, J. (2011). Rentrer à la maison avec un bébé après avoir initié un traitement par fécondation in vitro. Actualité et Dossier en Santé Publique: Revue du Haut Conseil de la Santé Publique, 75, 20–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Singly, F., & Wisnia-Weill, V. (2015). Pour un développement complet des enfants et des adolescents. Rapport de la Commission Enfance et Adolescence. France Stratégie. http://www.strategie.gouv.fr/sites/strategie.gouv.fr/files/atoms/files/fs_rapport_commission_enfance_29092015_bat.pdf.

  • Debest, C., & Mazuy, M. (2014). Childlessness: A life choice that goes against the norm. Population and Societies, 508.

    Google Scholar 

  • Debré, R., & Sauvy, A. (1946). Des français pour la France: Le problème de la population. Paris: Gallimard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desplanques, G. (2011). Les disparités géographiques de fécondité en France. Espaces, Population, Sociétés, 2011(3), 459–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dumas, C., & Lefranc, A. (2012). Early schooling and later outcomes: Evidence from pre-school extension in France. In J. Ermisch, M. Jäntti, & T. M. Smeeding (Eds.), From parents to children: The intergenerational transmission. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekert, O. (1986). Effets et limites des aides financière aux familles: Une expérience et un modèle. Population, 41(2), 327–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fanjul, G. (2014). Children of the recession: The impact of the economic crisis on child well-being in rich countries. Innocenti Report Card 12. Florence: UNICEF Office of Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gauthier, A., & Hatzius, J. (1997). Family benefits and fertility: An econometric analysis. Population Studies, 51(3), 295–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goux, D., & Maurin, E. (2010). Public school availability for two-year olds and mothers’ labor supply. Labor Economics, 17, 951–962.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harknett, K., Billari, F. C., & Meladia, C. (2014). Do family support environments influence fertility? Evidence from 20 European countries. European Journal of Population, 30(1), 1–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Havnes, T., & Mogstadt, M. (2011). No child left behind: Universal child care and children’s long-run outcomes. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 3(2), 97–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • HCF (Haut conseil de la famille). (2011). Architecture des aides aux familles: Quelles évolutions pour les 15 prochaines années? Memo. April 28, 2011. Paris: Haut conseil de la famille.

    Google Scholar 

  • HCF (Haut conseil de la famille). (2012). Familles et logement. Memo 14/05. http://www.hcf-famille.fr/IMG/pdf/note_logement_14maiVb.pdf. Accessed November 13, 2015.

  • HCF (Haut conseil de la famille). (2013). Point sur l’évolution de l’accueil des enfants des enfants de moins de trois ans. http://www.hcf-famille.fr/IMG/pdf/point_accueil_jeunes_enfants13_juin_2013.pdf. Accessed November 13, 2015.

  • Human Fertility Database. (2015). Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research and Vienna Institute of Demography. http://www.humanfertility.org/. Accessed November 13, 2015.

  • INSEE (Institute national de la statistique et des études économiques). (2015). Indicateurs clés: Population. http://www.insee.fr/fr/default.asp. Accessed May 14, 2015.

  • Jacquey-Vazquez, B., Sitruk, P., & Raymond, M. (2013). Evaluation de la politique de soutien à la parentalité. Paris: Inspection Générale des Affaires Sociales.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalwij, A. (2010). The impact of family policy expenditures on fertility in Western Europe. Demography, 47(2), 503–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landais, C. (2003). Le quotient familial a-t-il stimulé la natalité française? Économie publique, 13(2), 3–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laroque, G., & Salanié, B. (2014). Identifying the response of fertility to financial incentives. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 29, 314–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legendre, E., & Vanovermeir, S. (2011). Situations professionnelles à l’entrée et à la sortie du complément de libre choix d’activité (CLCA). Etudes et Résultats No. 750. Paris: Direction de la recherche, des études, de l’évaluation et des statistiques (DREES), l’Administration centrale des ministères sanitaires et sociaux.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lequien, L. (2012). The impact of parental leave duration on later wages. Annals of Economics and Statistics, 107(108), 267–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luci-Greulich, A., & Thévenon, O. (2013). The impact of family policies on fertility trends in developed countries. European Journal of Population, 29(4), 387–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, C., & Zagheni, E. (2014). The sandwich generation: Demographic determinants of global trends. Paper presented at the European Population Conference, Budapest.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazuy, M., Barbieri, M., & d’Albis, H. (2013). Recent demographic development in France: Fertility remains stable. Population-E, 68(3), 329–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moschion, J. (2010). Reconciling work and family life: The effect of the French paid parental leave. Annales d’économie et de statistiques, 99(100), 217–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulder, C. H. (2006). Population and housing: A two-sided relationship. Demographic Research, 15(13), 401–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulder, C. H., & Billari, F. (2010). Home-ownership regimes and low fertility. Housing Studies, 5(4), 527–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). (2011). Doing better for families. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). (2014). OECD Family Database. http://www.oecd.org/social/family/database.htm. Accessed May 13, 2015.

  • Piketty, T. (2005). L’impact de l’allocation parentale d’éducation sur l’activité féminine et la fécondité en France, 1982–2002. In C. Lefèvre (Ed.), Histoires de familles, histoires familiales: Les Cahiers de l’Ined, 156 (pp. 79–109).

    Google Scholar 

  • Prioux, F. (2007). L’évolution démographique récente en France: La fécondité à son plus haut niveau depuis plus de trente ans. Population, 62(3), 489–532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosental, P.-A. (2003). L’intelligence démographique: Sciences et politiques des populations en France (1930–1960). Paris: Odile Jacob.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruhm, C. J., & Waldfogel, J. (2011). Long-term effects of early childhood care and education. IZA Discussion Paper No. 6149. Bonn: Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Testa, M. R. (2012). Family sizes in Europe: Evidence from the 2011 Eurobarometer Survey. European Demographic Research Papers 2. Vienna: Vienna Institute of Demography, Austrian Academy of Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thévenon, O. (2006). Régimes d’Etat Social et convention familiale: Une analyse des régulations emploi-famille. Economies et Sociétés, série Socio-Economie du Travail, 27(6), 1137–71. https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00407181/document. Accessed November 13, 2015.

  • Thévenon, O. (2009). Increased women’s labor force participation in Europe: Progress in the work-life balance or polarization of behaviors? Population, 64(2), 235–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thévenon, O. (2011a). Does fertility respond to work and family-life reconciliation policies in France? In N. Takayama & M. Werding (Eds.), Fertility and public policy: How to reverse the trend of declining birth rates. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thévenon, O. (2011b). Family policies in OECD countries: A comparative analysis. Population and Development Review, 37(1), 57–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thévenon, O., & Gauthier, A. (2011). Family policies in developed countries: A fertility booster with side-effects. Community, Work, and Family, 14(2), 197–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toulemon, L., Pailhé, A., & Rossier, C. (2008). France: High and stable fertility. Demographic Research, 19(16), 503–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanovermeir, S. (2012). L’accueil des jeunes enfants: Axe majeur de la politique familiale française depuis les années 1970. Dossiers Solidarité et Santé 31. Paris: Direction de la recherche, des études, de l’évaluation et des statistiques (DREES), l’Administration centrale des ministères sanitaires et sociaux.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut National d’Etudes Demographiques (INED), Paris, France

    Olivier Thévenon

Authors
  1. Olivier Thévenon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olivier Thévenon .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA

    Ronald R. Rindfuss

  2. East-West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA

    Minja Kim Choe

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Thévenon, O. (2016). The Influence of Family Policies on Fertility in France: Lessons from the Past and Prospects for the Future. In: Rindfuss, R., Choe, M. (eds) Low Fertility, Institutions, and their Policies. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32997-0_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32997-0_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-32995-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-32997-0

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation