教育對生育行為的影響

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：45

、訪客IP：3.149.251.155

姓名

林侑靜(You-Jing Lin) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

產業經濟研究所

論文名稱

教育對生育行為的影響
(The Effect of Education on Fertility)

相關論文

★ 投資者之風險屬性與基金理財績效之實證研究	★ 企業經營績效的影響分析-以台灣醫療器材產業為例
★ 銀行財富管理業務手續費收入影響因素之實證研究	★ 母親的教育程度對兒童醫療利用行為之影響
★ 地區醫院的存亡與轉型	★ 教育對健康的影響—臺灣地區老人之實證研究
★ 醫院購置高科技醫療儀器與市場結構的關聯	★ 台灣地區醫院最適效率規模的估計-倖存者分析方法應用
★ 出口與生產力的關聯 —台灣電子業廠商之實證研究	★ 社會資本與家庭結構對健康及醫療資源利用之影響 —台灣地區老人之實證研究
★ 醫療利用可近性—台灣老人之實證研究	★ 父母健康知識與其子女健康狀況之關聯
★ 臺灣股市之效率檢定及多因素模型之探討—長期追蹤資料之計量分析	★ 醫療資源與國人健康的關聯
★ 青少年菸害的健康風險認知與吸菸行為的關聯─台灣地區的實證研究	★ 醫療資源可近性對個人醫療利用的影響 ――台灣地區的實證研究

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

[檢視]

[下載]

本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。

摘要(中)

由於良好的人口控制與一國的經濟發展以及社會資源的分配有著極為密切的關係，而許多文獻也指出教育程度的提升有助於降低育齡婦女的生育率，以減緩過快成長的人口數，因此本文試圖以台灣為研究對象，從控制人口成長的面向去討論女性教育程度的提升對其生育行為的影響效果。本文主要利用台灣在1968年時所實施的義務教育改革做為女性教育程度的外生變異來源，並以兩階段最小平方法估計教育程度對於小孩個數的影響效果。本文的資料來源為1990年的台閩地區戶口及住宅普查資料，其中年齡介於31–39歲（不包含35歲）的已婚女性為我們主要的研究對象。本文利用受教育改革政策影響指標，即31–34歲的世代，做為女性教育程度的工具變數之一，另外再以受教育改革政策影響指標與女性年齡的交叉項做為其他的工具變數，試圖檢定教育改革政策是否造成女性在教育程度上的差異，最後再將此差異與女性的小孩個數做連結。我們發現相對於36–39歲的世代，受教育改革政策影響的31–34歲的世代，其教育程度明顯較高，且此政策效果會隨著世代年輕化而增強。另外，教育程度越高的女性，其生所生的小孩個數會越少，並進一步發現女性的教育程度與生一個小孩以上或是兩個小孩以上的情況並無顯著的負向關係，但此教育效果會顯著降低女性生三個小孩以上的機率。最後本文進一步將樣本縮小為34–37歲（不包含35歲）的女性，結果發現教育程度於小孩個數所產生的負向效果變得更大且更為顯著。

摘要(英)

The literature generally points to a strong negative relationship between female education and fertility. In view of the above, many policymakers have adopted policies designed to reduce rapid population growth. However, due to the endogeneity of schooling, the causality between female education and fertility remains open. In this paper, I use 1990 Population and Housing Census and exploit the reform in compulsory education in Taiwan to estimate the effect of female education on fertility accounting for the endogeneity of schooling. First, we study women aged between 31 and 39 in 1990, excluding aged 35, and we form a reform indicator of women between 31 and 34 to reflect an individual who was affected while the education reform was implemented. Thus we exploit the reform indicator and the interaction between the reform indicator and age as instruments for female education, and employ the two-stage least squares to estimate the effect of female education on her number of children. Our results suggest that women with additional one year of schooling would have on average 0.04–0.05 less children, and women with education attainment above junior high school have on average 0.18–0.21 less children. Moreover, our study suggests that the fertility-reducing effect of education attainment for women with more than 3 children is the most evident. We further limit our sample to women aged between 34 and 37 in 1990. Our further results indicate that the fertility-reducing effect of education attainment gets larger and much more evident. These results imply that rising level of education attainment can account for a sizable fraction of the decline in fertility rates, especially for women with education attainment above junior high school.

關鍵字(中)

★ 工具變數法
★ 義務教育改革
★ 小孩個數
★ 女性的教育程度
★ 台灣

關鍵字(英)

★ Female Education
★ Fertility
★ Instrumental Variables
★ Compulsory Education
★ Taiwan

論文目次

摘要----------------------------------------------------- i
Abstract------------------------------------------------- ii
致謝辭--------------------------------------------------iii
目錄-----------------------------------------------------iv
圖目錄---------------------------------------------------vi
表目錄--------------------------------------------------vii
第一章緒論-----------------------------------------------1
第一節、研究動機------------------------------------------1
第二節、研究目的------------------------------------------5
第二章文獻回顧-------------------------------------------7
第一節、教育程度與個人經濟結果----------------------------7
第二節、探討小孩健康的實證文獻----------------------------9
第三節、探討生育行為的實證文獻---------------------------11
第四節、小結---------------------------------------------14
第三章台灣的義務教育改革--------------------------------16
第一節、義務教育的演變與改革背景-------------------------16
第二節、義務教育的成效-----------------------------------17
第四章實證分析方法--------------------------------------20
第一節、工具變數的建構-----------------------------------20
第二節、實證模型架構-------------------------------------21
第五章資料與變數說明------------------------------------24
第一節、資料來源-----------------------------------------24
第二節、資料處理-----------------------------------------25
第三節、變數說明-----------------------------------------30
第四節、樣本特性-----------------------------------------40
第六章實證結果分析--------------------------------------44
第一節、教育改革政策與教育程度---------------------------44
第二節、教育程度與小孩個數-------------------------------48
第三節、教育程度與小孩數指標-----------------------------52
第七章結論----------------------------------------------60
第一節、結論與討論---------------------------------------60
第二節、研究限制-----------------------------------------62
參考文獻-------------------------------------------------64
附錄-----------------------------------------------------68

參考文獻

中文部分：
1. 中華民國教育部統計資料，民國63年，行政院教育部。
2. 內政部戶政司之人口戶籍統計資料：http://www.ris.gov.tw/version96/stpeqr_01_04.html。
3. 李棟明（1993），「台灣地區完成緩和人口成長家庭計劃成果之評估」，臺灣省家庭計畫研究所，人口與家庭計畫研究報告第22號。
4. 汪知亭，台灣教育史料新編，台北市：台灣商務，民國五十七年。
5. 教育部主計處網站：http://www.edu.tw/statistics/content.aspx?site_content_sn=8869。
6. 黃芳玟（2001），「九年國民義務教育之回顧與其教育面、經濟面之影響」，台灣經濟預測與政策。
英文部分：
1. Becker, Gary S. (1960), “An Economic Analysis of Fertility,”Demographic and Economic Change in Developed Countries. 225-256.
2. Becker, Gary S. and Lewis, H. Gregg (1973), “On the Interaction between the Quantity and Quality of Children,”The Journal of Political Economy, 81(2): S279-S288.
3. Becker,Sascha O., Cinnirella, Francesco and Woessmann, Ludger (2009), “The Trade-off between Fertility and Education: Evidence from before the Demographic Transition,” Stirling Economics Discussion Paper No. 2
4. Becker, G.S. and Mulligan, C.B. (1997), “The endogenous determination of time preference,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 112 (3): 729–758.
5. Breierova, Lucia and Duflo, Esther (2004), “The Impact of Education on Fertility and Child Mortality: Do Fathers Really Matter Less Than Mothers?”National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper NO. 10513.
6. Currie, Janet and Moretti, Enrico (2003), “Mother’s Education and the Intergenerational Transmission of Human Capital: Evidence from College Openings, ”The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(4): 1495-1532.
7. Chou, SY., Liu, JT., Grossman, M, Joyce, TJ. (2007), “ Parental Education and Child Health: Evidence from a Natural Experiment in Taiwan, ” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. W13466.
8. Duflo, Esther (2001), “Schooling and Labor Market Consequences of School construction in Indonesia: Evidence from an Unusual Policy Experiment,” The American Economic Review, 91(4): 795-813.
9. Gertler, Paul J. and Molyneaux, John W. (1994),“ How Economic Development and Family Planning Programs Combined to Reduce Indonesian Fertility, ”Demography, 31(1)：33-63.
10. Galor, Oded and Weil, David N. (2000), “Population, Technology, and Growth: From Malthusian Stagnation to the Demographic Transition and beyond,”The American Economic Review, 90(4): 806-828.
11. Grossman, Michael (2006), “Education and Non-market Outcomes.”In Handbook of the Economics of Education Vol. 1, edited by E. Hanushek and F. Welch. Amsterdam: North-Holland, Elsevier Science, 557-633.
12. Lefgren,Lars and McIntyre, Frank (2006), “The Relationship between Women’s Education and Marriage Outcomes,”Journal of Labor Economics, 24(4): 787-830.
13. Lam, David and Duryea, Suzanne (1999), “Effects of Schooling on Fertility, Labor Supply, and Investments in Children, with Evidence from Brazil, ” The Journal of Human Resources, 34(1): 160-192.
14. Monstad, K., Propper, C., Salvanes, K.G. (2008), “ Education and Fertility: Evidence from a Natural Experiment,”Centre for Economic Policy Research Discussion Paper No. 6816.
15. McCrary, Justin and Royer, Heather (2006),“ The Effect of Female Education on Fertility and Infant Health: Evidence From School Entry Policies Using Exact Date of Birth,” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. W12329.
16. Martine, George (1996),“Brazil’s Fertility Decline, 1965-95: A Fresh Look at Key Factors , ”Population and Development Review, 22(1): 47-75.
17. Osili,Una Okonkwo and Long, Bridget Terry (2008), “ Does female schooling reduce fertility? Evidence from Nigeria,” Journal of Development Economics, 87(1): 57-75
18. Qian, Nancy (2009), “Quantity-Quality and the One Child Policy: The Only-Child Disadvantage in School Enrollment in Rural China,” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper NO. 14973.
19. Rosenzweig, Mark R. (1990) ,“ Population Growth and Human Capital Investment: Theory and Evidence, ”The Journal of Political Economy, 98(5): S38-S70.
20. Schultz, T. Paul (1994), “Human Capital, Family Planning, and Their Effects on Population Growth,” The American Economic Review, 84(2): 255-260.
21. Spohr, Chris A. (2003), "Formal schooling and workforce participation in a rapidly developing economy: evidence from "compulsory" junior high school in Taiwan" Journal of Development Economics, 70(2): 291-327.
22. Staiger, Douglas and Stock, James H., ( 1997)“Instrumental Variables Regression with Weak Instruments, ”Econometrica, 65(3): 557-586
23. Tray, Dennis N. De (1973), “Child Quality and the Demand for Children,” The Journal of Political Economy, 81(2): S70-S95.
24. Willis, Robert J. (1973), “A New Approach to the Economic Theory of Fertility Behavior, ” The Journal of Political Economy, 81(2): S14-S64.
25. World Bank (2009). World Development Indicators 2009. Washington, DC: World Bank.

指導教授

蔡偉德、簡錦漢
(Wei-Der Tsai、Kamhon Kan)

審核日期

2010-6-25

推文