Family Policies That Work

The Hon Kevin Andrews MP*

A presentation to the World Congress of Families, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, August 12, 2009.

Wednesday 9th September 2009

Functional families are crucial for the raising of children and the stability of society.

[Note: This is the short version of the paper delivered at the Congress. A longer written version is available from the author.#]

What is happening with families?

At the first World Congress of Families at Prague in 1997, I summarised those patterns that pointed to a decline in marriage and a weakening of family life:

A decade later, it is timely to review these trends. As the appended charts indicate, generally birth rates and marriage rates have continued to fall, pre-marital cohabitation has become the norm in most countries, the median age of first marriage has risen, divorce rates have increased, out-of-wedlock births have grown, as has the proportion of sole-parent families, and the population continues to age. [See appendices]

The policy response to date

The responses to date fall into four major categories.

1.        Countering ageing

Policy makers have generally adopted three approaches to the ageing of their populations, namely increasing immigration, pronatalist inducements, and family-friendly measures.

Immigration

Many governments have resorted to immigration to ameliorate the impact of ageing populations.

There are  limitations on immigration. Settlement issues, especially in larger cities, effectively cap likely increases. Secondly, a worldwide demand for skilled immigrants also restricts the numbers.  Immigration does little to influence the age structure of the population, as immigrants also grow older.

Thirdly, the assumptions about population increase over the next 50 years take little account of any possible reversals of life expectancy.

Finally, population issues cannot be isolated from other national trends, including lower levels of marriage, the higher incidence of separation and divorce, and the consequences for children.

Immigration therefore is a lazy, and, ultimately limited, response to the ageing of the population.

First, changing economic circumstances can result in migration reversals. The recent movement of migrants in Europe is one example.

Secondly, although generally younger, the new arrivals also age along with the rest of the population.  A record annual number of immigrants would be necessary, for example, if Europe was to counter the impact of ageing. This would result in greater congestion and more dense settlement, neither of which would be popular.

Pronatalist inducements

A number of countries have offered direct incentives to couples who have children and disincentives to those who choose not to. These approaches include cash payments for each child, privileged access to state housing, medical or education services, and taxation incentives or disincentives related to children.

While it is relatively easy to reduce national birthrates, it is very difficult to reverse a decline. Singapore provides a good case study.

Case Study: Singapore

From the late 1950s, the island state adopted a strong antinatalist program.  The total fertility rate fell from 6.56 in 1957 to just 1.42 in 1986. By the early eighties, the national government became alarmed about the trend. It subsequently introduced measures to encourage more births, including privileged access to high-quality education, income tax relief, childcare leave and subsidies, part-time work rights in the public service, and housing entitlements.

A government office has developed monetary and workplace incentives.  In what it calls the Baby Bonus Scheme, the government is offering cash to couples who have second and third children. It is extending maternity leave and adding a brief paternity leave for government workers. It is experimenting with flexible working hours to make child rearing easier. It is offering special deals on apartment rentals for young couples.

Despite these endeavours, Singapore’s fertility rate has fallen to 1.28 according to the latest data.

The Singapore study illustrates the point that whereas the birthrate can be reduced significantly within the space of a generation, it is much more difficult to increase again. Direct pronatalist measures alone seem insufficient to reverse declining birthrates. For this reason, policy makers also have turned to family friendly and economic policies.

2.        Economic support for families

Most governments have sought to provide economic support for families. Using the rhetoric of ‘family friendly policies’, measures range from direct taxation and social security benefits, to parental leave, and flexible working hours.

Direct economic support for families

Australia provides a case study for examining the impact of economic measures on family life.

Case Study: Australia

 Australian governments raised the tax free threshold - that is, the level of income before tax is paid - for families with children.

From July 1, 2000, all single income families, including sole parents, with one child under 5 years have an effective tax free threshold of $13,000, more than double the new general threshold of $6,000.

The government subsequently introduced significant family tax benefits. The effect of these payments is that for a family earning less than about $42,000 per year, there is a net contribution by the government to them, after taking into account taxes and benefits. In addition, the previous government introduced a baby bonus, which is a payment of $5,000 on the birth of a child. Parents also receive childcare subsidies, depending upon their level of income.

While it is too early to claim conclusively that there is a causal connection between these measures and the stability of families in Australia, recent data is encouraging. The long-term decline in the birth rate appears to have been arrested and has risen slightly to 1.91.

The marriage rate has risen in the past five years, and the divorce rate has fallen, again reversing long-term trends.

Case Study: France

France has had a long history of support for families.

In particular, France has a deliberate third child policy. Whereas Australia, for example, pays a bonus on the birth of each child, France pays a greater amount for third and subsequent children. This is in addition to parental and maternity leave and childcare and family allowances.

The combination of these policies would appear to have had a mixed impact. The birth rate has stabilised at around 1.9, the second highest in Europe (after Ireland). However, other indicators of marital and family health have declined. The marriage rate has fallen from 7.8 in 1970 to 4.4 in 2006; the divorce rate has risen from 2.05 in 1995 to 2.3 in 2006; Out-of-wedlock births have jumped from 11.4 per cent in 1980 to over 50 per cent by 2006; and the proportion of single-parent families has almost doubled to 19.8 per cent since 1980.

Work and family measures

It is often claimed that generous provisions that enable women to enter and remain in the paid workforce contribute to higher fertility levels.

The Scandinavian countries are often cited in this respect. However the approaches have differed amongst the northern European nations.

Case Study: Sweden

Beginning in the 1930s, Sweden introduced policies that enabled women to maintain their position in the paid workforce whilst having children. In the 1980s, the fertility rate climbed to 2.02, leading some commentators to conclude that the reversal was due to the cumulative impact if public daycare, child benefits, parental leave, parent’s rights to part time work and other measures. The growth was temporary, falling to the lowest rate ever for the country of 1.52 by the end of the century. It would appear that the birth rate related to the economic cycle, and the impact of the so-called “speed premium” whereby parents were entitled to the same income replacement for a second child born within 30 months of their first, irrespective of the level of income between the two births. The policy would appear to have resulted in births being brought forward, rather than a permanent increase in the number.

Other measures of family stability in Sweden reveal trends found elsewhere. Cohabitation before marriage is commonplace. More than half of children are born out-of-wedlock. The divorce rate has fallen slightly in recent years.

Case Study: Norway

Another approach is the policy of the Norwegian Government to pay parents the same amount that childcare centres or kindergartens receive in state subsidies - approximately $US 6,000 per year per child – which enables parents a choice about staying at home with children up to the age of three years.

If the work of Catherine Hakim at the London School of Economics is correct, then Norway’s approach better reflects that choice that parents’ desire. In Australia, for example, most child care is provided informally, by other family members and friends, but this is not subsidised by the state.

If this analysis of family – work choices is correct , policies that impact upon the 60 per cent or more of women who are adaptive in their work-family lifestyles are the most likely to provide the choice that families desire. Hakim rightly argues that the role of government is not to favour any of these families. The goal is government neutrality towards all families.

Policy approaches

These observations suggest a number of policy approaches. First, parents should have flexibility and choice in their family and work arrangements. Such choice is not just about the hours worked at any one time, but about the arrangements they make over the course of their lives.

The emphasis on short-term paid maternity leave for those in the workforce ignores the reality that parents balance their family and work responsibilities between them over decades, not just a few weeks after the birth of a child.

Secondly, financial encouragement for having and raising children should not be work related.

If children are critical to our future, which I strongly believe they are, encouragement of parenthood and support for families is a national responsibility. It is not primarily an issue of work, but of children. Nor is it an issue that benefits from a ‘one size fits all’ industrial approach. Hence, any financial benefits should be available to families whether or not they have both parents in the paid workforce. This is not only equitable, it recognises the fact that parents want the flexibility to choose their family and work arrangements over the life course.

 As to how this goal is best achieved while balancing the needs of children and maintaining the stability of the family remains elusive. Given the continuing high levels of marital dissolution and divorce, policy makers have also turned their attention to family law and marriage support.

3.        Discouraging divorce

From time to time, policy makers have suggested changes to the no-fault divorce laws that exist in many nations today.

Apart from the personal trauma, a number of studies have reported the significant costs resulting from separation and divorce. In 1998, an Australian Parliamentary inquiry reported that the direct cost to the nation was more than $3 billion a year, and as much and $6 billion when indirect costs were included. The Canadian Institute for Marriage and Family found the cost in that country to be around $7 billion a year.The British Relationships Foundation put the cost of family breakdown at 37 billion pounds annually,while the Centre for Social Justice estimated that it was 20 billion pounds per year.

Case Study: USA

In the US, at least 20 states have introduced bills to change divorce laws, either by extending waiting periods, repealing no-fault divorce, mandating counselling, or encouraging pre-marriage education. In Louisiana, the first state to pass such a law, couples can choose between the existing marriage regime based on no-fault divorce, and a new form of covenant marriage. Both must sign a notarised affidavit, swearing they have talked about the nature, purposes and responsibilities of marriage during their premarital counselling. They are legally required to seek marital counselling if problems arise in their marriage.Two other states, Arkansas and Arizona, have enacted similar laws.

The primary argument for covenant marriage is that it may lower the divorce rate, resulting in stronger, happier marriages and more stable conditions for children. It would appear however, that few couples are attracted to the alternative marriage model. Overall the uptake of covenant marriage is less than two per cent across the three states.

Paradoxically, the divorce rate increased significantly for those couples who chose to undertake marriage counselling as part of their covenant marriage arrangements.

These results suggest that the objective of strengthening marriage and family by lowering the divorce rate is unlikely to be achieved, at least in the foreseeable future, by the widespread introduction of covenant marriage.

4.        Supporting marriage

Rising divorce rates and family instability have led many churches, community organisations and governments to introduce programs of marriage preparation.

Case Study: Australia

Since 1960, the Australian Government has provided grants to both church and secular marriage counselling and education organisations.

The number and quality of services gradually increased over the years along with modest increments of government support. A Parliamentary Committee reviewing divorce laws urged more funding for marriage education in 1992. Funding was increased again following the publication of the To have and To Hold report, which I chaired.

Challenges

A number of challenges remain. In a nation where the majority of weddings are now conducted by civil marriage celebrant most couples participating in education programs are referred by a religious marriage celebrant.

Secondly, far fewer couples marrying for a second or subsequent time utilise the services. This mirrors the experience in the US.

How to increase participation remains a challenge. Following the To have and to hold report, a pilot scheme of education vouchers was introduced, and although successful, was never implemented universally. The Australian government introduced a series of Family Relationship Centres across the nation in 2004.Designed to offer early, practical intervention for couples before conflict became entrenched, the Centres theoretically embrace education as well as counselling and mediation services. However it remains to be seen whether they will serve any purpose beyond the conciliation of marital separation.

Case Study: USA

Led by family scholars from the beginning of the 1990s, the nation’s attention, including that of key policy makers, increasingly turned to the critical role of marital and family stability for the prospects of both children and adults.

The US government under the Bush – Clinton – Bush Administrations gradually focussed more attention on the growing concerns about family instability, especially the impact on children.

Concerned about the connection between family breakdown, sole parenthood and poverty, US legislators endorsed a preamble to the 1996 welfare laws that stated that “marriage is the essential foundation of a successful society.” More significant was the development of the Healthy Marriage Initiative in 2002 by the Bush Administration. The Initiative had parallels with the Australian model. Grants to various organisations, including State government agencies and civil sector organisation, were a feature of the Initiative.

Marriage Movement

A significant factor in the renewed focus on marriage and family is the network of individuals, scholars,researchers,think tanks, and authors that has been loosely described as ‘the marriage movement’. It is an example of how the groups that stand between the state and the individual can have a major impact on pubic discussion and national action. Significantly, these groups have not waited for government to act. Recognising the limitations of the state, and the realm of activity that exists outside the state, they have driven the national agenda by persuasion and activity. An important part of that activity involves direct community action.

Community Marriage Policies

Like other countries, community organisations of both a religious and secular constitution have offered programs of marital education for many years in the United States.

One of the most significant features has been the success of Community Marriage Policies.

To date, 226 communities have adopted the policies which have five key components: Marriage preparation of at least four months, including a premarital inventory and skills training; an annual enrichment retreat for married couples; mentoring for couples with troubled marriages; reconciliation for the separated; and support for stepfamilies and parents in a remarriage.

A study of the first 114 Community Marriage Policies revealed reductions in the divorce rate by more than two per cent a year, compared to the comparison counties.The authors noted that some well-implemented policies had much stronger results than reflected in their analysis. This accords with Marriage Savers own data, which shows that divorce rates fell nearly twice as much for cities with the Policies.The data also revealed that cohabitation rates fell in cities which implemented Community Marriage Policies.

These outcomes commend further study and widespread implementation of Community Marriage Policies. They also reinforce the benefits of premarital education.

A series of studies since the 1970s have demonstrated the value of marriage education programs.

Some attention is also being paid to encouraging couples to marry earlier.

Recent work suggests there is a significant difference between marrying as a teenager versus marrying in the early twenties.Researchers have found that the age-divorce link is most prominent for teens, but much less significant for people in their early twenties.If true, there may be value in encouraging people to marry a little earlier than the present trend towards the age of 30.

There remains today a conflict between the institutional and individual view of marriage.  Despite this, many leading social scientists believe that governments should support marriage and family. Paul Amato concludes that policies should support marriage and family:

One widely replicated finding tilts the argument in favour of promarriage policies. That is, studies consistently indicate that children raised by two happily and continuously married parents have the best chance of developing into competent and successful adults. . .  Because we all have an interest in the well-being of children, it is reasonable for social institutions (such as the state) to attempt to increase the proportion of children raised by married parents with satisfying and stable marriages.

Merely decreasing the rate of divorce is insufficient, he adds.

Let me conclude.

•       Family policies have had mixed results:

•       In order to strengthen the family, we require a combination of policies that:

The family is the hope of humanity, not just because it is an historically ubiquitous institution, but also because it is supported by the mounting social science research.

Marriage and family life remain the optimal conditions for the socialisation and education of children's character and values, without which liberal democracy cannot properly flourish. For these reasons, we cannot ignore the trends affecting families today.

The tragedy of marriage and family breakdown is not the billions of dollars it costs each year: It is the personal and emotional trauma which research increasingly indicates affects many children, even into their adulthood; and the consequent diminution of health, educational opportunities, and well-being, including the stability of relationships of children whose parents divorced.

Our choice is clear. We can throw up our hands in despair, unwilling or unable to purpose a solution to family breakdown and falling fertility rates, with all the social consequences that follow; or we can take a positive step forward, committed to the aspiration so many people share, in the hope that with practical support and encouragement, we can continue to build strong nations based on a healthy society with its foundation of stable family life.

Ends.

*Member, Australian Parliament (1991-); Australian Minister for:  - Ageing (2001-03); - Employment and Workplace Relations (2003-07); - Immigration (2007); Chair, House of Representatives Committee report To have and to hold (1998).

# Contact: Kevin.andrews.mp@aph.gov.au

Note:  A complete list of footnotes accompanies the full written paper.