Title: Singapore’s Pro-natalist Policies: To What Extent Have They Worked? | Obgyn Key
Headings: Singapore’s Pro-natalist Policies: To What Extent Have They Worked?
Singapore’s Pro-natalist Policies: To What Extent Have They Worked?
Trend in Singlehood
What Is Driving Trends in Fertility?
Policy Development: Singapore’s Switch from Anti-natalism to Pro-natalism
The Development of Singapore’s Pro-natalist Policies
Categories of Pro-natalist Policies in Singapore
Financial Incentives
Support for Combining Work and Family
Broad Social Change Supportive of Children and Parenting
Marriage Policy
Timing and Nature of Policies: Comparison between Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan
Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

Content: 2009, p. 184; Saw 2005, p. 212). These policies proved to be very unpopular with broad sections of the public. They were abandoned in 1985, followed by the closure of the Singapore Family Planning and Population Board in 1986. The following year (1987), the fertility policy in Singapore took on a broadly pro-natalist stance, with the introduction of both slogans and policies to support having three or more children based on affordability. This stance has shaped Singapore’s fertility policy until the present, with various policies to increase fertility introduced and strengthened over the years. There was an interval of 15 years between the time fertility first dipped below replacement level and the introduction of pro-natalist policies directed at the population as a whole. As the pioneer in fertility decline in the region, with a history of strong and effective anti-natalist policies, it is perhaps not surprising that there was hesitation to reverse these policies until it was clear that no resurgence in fertility was likely. The subsequent history of policy reversals in other Asian countries shows that Singapore was no exception in delaying its policy reversal (see Table 3.1 ). Table 3.1
Delays in reversing anti-natalist policies, selected East Asian countries
Country
Year in which replacement fertility was reached
Year in which anti-natalist policy was reversed
Number of years elapsed
Percent below replacement when policy reversed
Comments
Singapore
1975
1984
9
25
Selective pro-natalist policies for highly educated
Singapore
1975
1987
12
25
More general pro-natalist measures
South Korea
1984
1996
12
20
Very mildly pro-natalist policies
South Korea
1984
2004
20
50
More serious pro-natalist measures
Taiwan
1984
1992
8
20
Pro-natalist statement but no measures
Taiwan
1984
2006
22
47
Specific pro-natalist measures introduced
Japan
1973 a
1990
17
25
Mildly pro-natalist measures
Japan
1973
1994
21
32
Angel plan introduced in 1994, revised in 1999;