生育率如何?一个北欧国家的无意识催生主义

R. Hart, Cathrine Holst
{"title":"生育率如何?一个北欧国家的无意识催生主义","authors":"R. Hart, Cathrine Holst","doi":"10.1093/sp/jxad033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Combining high birth rates with gender equality and women’s reproductive choice is often put forward as a Nordic success story. We analyze Norwegian governmental commission reports delivered 1984–2017, tracing how fertility issues are approached in policy-making under shifting demographic conditions. We focus on four key topics—pro-natalism, individual versus societal level effects of policies, socioeconomic differences in fertility, and immigration. We see little or no attention given to the fact that policy effects may vary by class background or preferences. Relatively high fertility is considered positive, but pro-natalist intent is downplayed or absent, even when fertility is falling. We connect these findings to the distinctive Nordic dual earner/care-giver model, a historical legacy of “unintentional” pro-natalism, and features of the commission system. We call for more interchange between demography and institutionalist scholarship and argue that questions of macro-level fertility effects of family policies could be better handled in a more explicit debate.","PeriodicalId":517187,"journal":{"name":"Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society","volume":"73 1-3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What About Fertility? The Unintentional Pro-natalism of a Nordic Country\",\"authors\":\"R. Hart, Cathrine Holst\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/sp/jxad033\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Combining high birth rates with gender equality and women’s reproductive choice is often put forward as a Nordic success story. We analyze Norwegian governmental commission reports delivered 1984–2017, tracing how fertility issues are approached in policy-making under shifting demographic conditions. We focus on four key topics—pro-natalism, individual versus societal level effects of policies, socioeconomic differences in fertility, and immigration. We see little or no attention given to the fact that policy effects may vary by class background or preferences. Relatively high fertility is considered positive, but pro-natalist intent is downplayed or absent, even when fertility is falling. We connect these findings to the distinctive Nordic dual earner/care-giver model, a historical legacy of “unintentional” pro-natalism, and features of the commission system. We call for more interchange between demography and institutionalist scholarship and argue that questions of macro-level fertility effects of family policies could be better handled in a more explicit debate.\",\"PeriodicalId\":517187,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society\",\"volume\":\"73 1-3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxad033\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxad033","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

高出生率与性别平等和妇女的生育选择权相结合,常常被视为北欧的成功故事。我们分析了1984-2017年提交的挪威政府委员会报告,追溯了在不断变化的人口条件下,生育问题在决策中是如何被处理的。我们重点关注四个关键议题--生育论、政策对个人和社会的影响、生育率的社会经济差异以及移民。我们发现,政策效果可能因阶级背景或偏好而异,但这一点却很少或根本没有得到关注。相对较高的生育率被认为是积极的,但支持生育的意图却被淡化或不存在,即使在生育率下降时也是如此。我们将这些发现与北欧独特的双职工/照顾者模式、"无意 "支持生育的历史遗产以及委员会制度的特点联系起来。我们呼吁在人口学和制度主义学术研究之间进行更多的交流,并认为在更明确的辩论中可以更好地处理家庭政策对宏观生育率的影响问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
What About Fertility? The Unintentional Pro-natalism of a Nordic Country
Combining high birth rates with gender equality and women’s reproductive choice is often put forward as a Nordic success story. We analyze Norwegian governmental commission reports delivered 1984–2017, tracing how fertility issues are approached in policy-making under shifting demographic conditions. We focus on four key topics—pro-natalism, individual versus societal level effects of policies, socioeconomic differences in fertility, and immigration. We see little or no attention given to the fact that policy effects may vary by class background or preferences. Relatively high fertility is considered positive, but pro-natalist intent is downplayed or absent, even when fertility is falling. We connect these findings to the distinctive Nordic dual earner/care-giver model, a historical legacy of “unintentional” pro-natalism, and features of the commission system. We call for more interchange between demography and institutionalist scholarship and argue that questions of macro-level fertility effects of family policies could be better handled in a more explicit debate.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A Comparison of the Socioeconomic and Gendered Organization of Social Reproduction in the United States and the United Kingdom, 1973–2013 Do Men Care about Childcare? Women’s Relative Resources and Men’s Preferences for Work–Family Reconciliation Policies Rethinking Part-Time Outsiders’ Risks and Welfare Attitudes What About Fertility? The Unintentional Pro-natalism of a Nordic Country
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1