A Cross-Cultural Analysis

By Emily Lupinacci

In the eyes of global governments, families are more than just people who come over on Thanksgiving to talk about school and the weather. The unique traditions, historical contexts, and economic development of individual countries greatly influence social attitudes toward work and family policies. Recently, these policies have evolved as a result of the increasing number of women in the workforce, as well as due to the shift in the perception of marriage from a primarily economic and institutional matter, to one centered on emotional connection and community. The family policies in China, Sweden, and Japan all reflect their respective socio-economic values, but their polarization evokes global discussion regarding the efficacy of the policies and their broader social implications. With the major decline in fertility rates and the drive for families to support both cultural and economic values, comparing the policies in these countries creates intriguing perspectives on how policymakers aim to provide holistic solutions.

While Xi Jinping has been encouraging mothers to “rejuvenate the nation” by rebuilding families, the lasting impacts of China’s previous One-Child Policy has led Chinese families to desire small households. From 1979 to 2015, during the One-Child Policy, major anti-daughter sentiments rose as a result of families abandoning their daughters, as sons were considered more valuable for the purposes of inheritance and carrying the family name. Having a daughter was pejoratively considered a “small happiness” because they would grow up and ultimately live and serve their husband’s family, in contrast to the “big happiness” associated with having a son. This resulted in an infanticide epidemic amongst newborn daughters, prompting the Chinese government to issue an amendment allowing families to have a second child if their first was a girl. Still, this policy signified that a daughter’s existence was subsequent to a son’s in society’s dominant view of family. China now has a Three-Child Policy, but its fertility rate is at a low 1.18 births per woman, among the lowest it’s been in Chinese history. While Xi encourages women to step up and “embody the traditional values” of marriage and children to rebuild the country and promote economic growth, the lasting impacts of the One-Child Policy have resulted in limited progress in female liberation, and growing reluctance to have children.

Similar to China, Japan’s family models are also geared toward bolstering the country’s economy, but contrarily, the Japanese government has enacted policies to stimulate child development and encourage women to work. The highly-regulated public daycare systems not only help the development of Japanese children, but also incentivize women to work because they are able to trust the well-mannered facilities to take care of their children while they are at their jobs. However, the demand for public childcare is much higher than its availability, forcing mothers to resort to private daycare, which has lower standards and higher prices. Furthermore, despite the government’s mission to establish a healthy work-life balance, Japanese women struggle to maintain this due to the traditional expectations that they devote ample time to raising their children to ensure they grow to be benign citizens. This leaves women with the ultimatum–to either fully dedicate themselves to either being a mother and domestic laborer, or to be a full-time worker. Regardless of Japan’s superb childcare developments and pro-natalist attitudes, Japanese women are not encouraged to have children if they are full-time workers, as they do not want to sacrifice their professions to succumb to traditional maternal expectations.

Like Japan, Sweden has also encountered the shift from the male breadwinner model to the dual-income model. However, their government has established a social-democratic ideology that includes welfare policies to strengthen familial development and workforce involvement. The implementation of paid parental leave, free universal childcare, and child allowances incentivize both parents to play active roles in their children’s lives while also being dedicated laborers. Sweden especially prioritizes paternal involvement, recognizing the importance of fathers gaining early care experience to establish independence and strengthen their connections with their newborns. This supports Sweden’s priorities of welfare, equality, and justice, where parents acknowledge their shared responsibility to care for their children. While the disparate impacts of these policies are still skewed towards women, Sweden’s cultural emphasis on social-democracy and welfare enable its policies to promote the highest degree of social cohesion for families, while still allowing for a baseline level of productivity in the economy.

As our tour of family and work policies concludes, it is clear that policies functioning in one country may not necessarily be suitable for another. While China’s motives are primarily economic, Sweden’s policies reflect its social-driven attitudes, and Japan’s progress exhibits the battle between progressive, capitalistic, and traditional mindsets. Analyzing the different ways countries aim to address falling fertility rates reveals the priorities of the governments and how they aim to help their citizens socially, economically, or both.

This piece is a reproduction from its original issue in Hemispheres Volume 48 Issue 1. Read more here.