Taux de natalite et population vieillissante (complet )

Bon avec du retard ( et encore j'en suis pas completement content ) , le rapport complet que j'ai fait sur la baisse de population au japon , avec analyse économique et tout le tintouin. Par contre desolé pour les puristes, mais c'est en Anglais. Bon evidement pour certain graphique je sais pas vous les mettres alors..; ben on fera sans.

( et merci a tchotto pour ses corrections, meme si il doit encore y avoir pleiiiins de fautes :oops: ) .

Bonne lecture.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JAPAN BIRTH RATE AND
THE FORTHCOMING PROBLEMS


While France is seeing a boom in its birth rate recently ( with a natural birth rate of 1.94 ) , japan, in the opposite, is facing a real problem with a birth rate of only 1.29,that has started , for the first time in Japan history , a decrease in the total population in 2005: In 2005 Japan lost 30 000 people. And this not going to stop anytime soon:

http://japanfocus.org/images/600-1.jpg

http://www.seikatsusoken.jp/1982-200...ES/data1_3.gif


What are the reasons ,what are going to be the consequences and what can do Japan, to reverse this trend. We are going to discuss these issues.
There must be some reasons to explain that trend.
What are the consequences of such trend ? And , is there something Japan can do about it to reverse that trend.

I)Sociological factors

If we compare Japan to France , 2 rich countries experiencing the same trends:


-The number of women working has dramatically increased on the labor market ,
- especially among young women , there is an increase of ‘ singles ‘
- the wedding’s rate is decreasing (France : 4,9/1000 Japan: 5,7/1000 )
-nowadays, the first child, in a couple, comes later than before.


In japan , the outlook on numbers of never-married individuals stands as follows: The number of marriages is expected to fall from 600,000 in 2003 to the 400,000- level in 2030, since the marriageable age of the second baby-boomer generation will come to an end. Meanwhile, 85 percent of single 30-years-old women responded, "will marry eventually" (the figure was 77 percent for 35-years-olds). On the other hand, the probability for single 30-year-old women today to get married in the future is estimated at 50 percent (30 percent for 35-years-olds). Thus, a large gap is observed between the will to marry and the actual probability of getting married.

In fact , just like in France, Japanese young people tend to get married later.
Then, have their first baby later also.
But in France this has only little effect on the birth rate. Why?

Japan has a long confucianist tradition, in which wedding is very important if you want to have children, while in France it is now common to have children without getting married.
Therefore, even if the mentality is evolving ( changing slowly ) in Japan, , the wedding is still necessary if a young couple wants to have children.

Even more, in Japan, a child born from unmarried couple , or from a single mother, will often suffer discrimination. In 2005 in France, 48,3% of the children are born without their parents being married ( 60% for the first one) , while in Japan this is only 1,6% !

Today , marriage in Japan is considered a lost of freedom from lots of young couples and japanese women, who talk about the burden of raising children and staying at home, while the man works outside . Nowadays, this traditional view is rejected by young women who want to work and also be independent.

There are three factors that prescribe marriage patterns. First, is the "desire to marry," which is related to how one feels about the benefits of getting married, and also to the existence of a lifestyle that competes with marriage. When we look at the benefits of marriage in a time series, for women, "having children and a family" and "having economic ease" is rising. On the other hand, "obtaining social trust" and "responding to the expectation of parents and others" has dropped. There is a similar tendency in men, but a special characteristic is that the increase in those who feel that there is no merit in marriage is more than in the case of women. The benefits that have dropped are "obtaining social trust" and "convenience in everyday life."

Second is the "easiness of getting married. " This concerns socio-economic conditions for engaging in married life. When we look at the percentage of those who responded as having obstacles in marriage within a year, in a time series, there is a rise after 2000. As specific descriptions of obstacles, "professional or occupational problems" increased. The principal obstacles for marriage by age group are "marriage fund" for those in their twenties and "work" for those in their thirties. In the case of women, "living with parents and providing for them" rises upon entering the thirties.

Third is the "ease of choosing a spouse or husband." This is related to the demographic balance of men and women in their ideal marrying age, as well as the existence of matching cultures. When looking at the gender balance of single men and women in the same age group by educational background, where there were two males with two-years-or-more university education for every female with two-years-or-more university education in 1970, this falls short of one in 2000, showing that the marriage gradient of women is structurally becoming more difficult. In the United States, women who have received higher education have the tendency not necessarily to stick to the marriage gradient; if anything, the marriage rate of women with higher education is rising. Meanwhile, when we look at how couples meet, the drop in arranged marriages and marriages with a co-worker directly lead to a drop in the rate of first marriages.

Overall, the reasons for staying single are "no need to marry" and "wanting to prioritize work and study" in the twenties, and "non-existence of a suitable partner" followed by "no need" and "not wanting to lose easygoingness" for those in their thirties.

Those women don‘t want to loose their new social status and the income they gained by going to university


The birth rate tends to be higher in OECD countries with a high female employment rate.
I n OECD countries, although the correlation between the female employment rate and the birth rate was a negative until the early 1980s, presently it is positive.

Sweden has a solid child-care leave system. "Parental insurance" guarantees 80 percent of the income immediately before taking leave for 390 working days. In addition, if a subsequent child is born within two and a half years, 80 percent of the income before taking leave for the first child is guaranteed once more.
In Sweden, more than 70 percent of women who gave birth took child-care leave for more than a year. On the other hand, this rate is a mere 64 percent in Japan, and the period of leave is shorter.


Sweden has a solid nursery service. In addition, there is no income restriction to receive child-care benefits, which are provided for children under 16.
In Sweden, 60 percent of women return to their jobs with a shorter working schedule after giving birth.
As for the time one comes home from work, in Sweden, most men arrive home at 5 PM and women arrive home between 3 and 5 PM. On the other hand, most Japanese men arrive home around 9 or 10 PM.
Sweden's birth rate is supported by a strong family policy. Although the burden is high, the cost of raising a child is borne by the society as a whole. Fiscal expenditure for family policy is 3.31 percent of GDP-a high level. Japan's figure, on the other hand, is a low 0.47 percent.
In industrialized countries, there is a moderate positive correlation between the proportion of family policy fiscal expenditure in GDP and the birth rate.
In France, the employment rate of women in their maternity period is lower than Sweden's, but higher than Japan's. In addition, France maintains a high level of birth rate among industrialized countries at 1.88.
France has strong benefits for families with numerous children. Their tax system also benefits families with more children.
Countries with a strong family policy not only have a higher birth rate; the female employment rate also tends to be high. As a result, there is a positive correlation between the female employment rate and the birth rate.

So, why is there such a difference between both countries, France and Japan?

Lets take a look at some economical facts.

II)Economical factors

Sweden has a solid child-care leave system. "Parental insurance" guarantees 80 percent of the income immediately before taking leave for 390 working days. In addition, if a subsequent child is born within two and a half years, 80 percent of the income before taking leave for the first child is guaranteed once more.

There is a huge difference, indeed, between France and Japan: France subsidizes children, Japan don ‘ t. ( See chart below)

In Japan ,the cost of education is almost entirely assumed by the family , while in France the network of « free » public schools and subsidies are important.
In Japan , education fees are around Yens 30 000 000 (220 000 euros). In France « free » school can start at age 3 , while in Japan its age 6. The difference must be payed by the parents who have to find a nursury by their own. Even if waiting lists exist in France too , to find someone look after your children in France is easier, because of the fiscal gift.
Japan spent only 3,7% of the social spendings on family and birth policy, while 55% towards the elderly.

Let us now look at the flow of income of the elderly from a slightly different angle. Redistribution of income is accomplished through taxation and social security systems. The analyses by age groups of households show that the income is redistributed from the households of younger working generations to those of older generations. For older generations, their income after redistribution is significantly larger than the initial income. It is true particularly for the households headed by the elderly aged 70 and older.

http://www.seikatsusoken.jp/1982-200...ES/data1_9.gif

The per-capita income is highest for those in their 50s, but it gradually decreases with age. However, those older than 60 can still enjoy per-capita income higher than the per-capita income of those in their 20s and 30s.. With the average of all age groups set at 100, the per-capita income after redistribution for those between the ages of 40 to 44 is only 87 while for those between 65 and 69 is 111 and 119 for those aged 75 to 79.

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7...children.0.jpg

( We assume here that French are economically « blind », because they do in fact pay their school with much higher tax rates, but they do not realize it immediatly because it is delayed in time.
We can see this with the difference in the chart: average income tax, in France, is over 30 % for singles and 18 % for couples, while it is 19% for single and 15% for couples. In France, the singles pay for the couple

So here is a important difference as seen in the Chart: When you are single, you have a average 19% of income tax , while in couple 15%, which is a minus 4% only. Its almost nothing compare to the almost minus 15% of difference in tax burden over French couples.
This is a powerfull incentive to have children. Here ,the difference between the two states is the important point.

If we look at some labor laws in France , we learn that a company is not allowed there to fire a pregnant woman, and, even more !, has to re- employ her after the birth of the child and +/- 14 weeks of ‘ birth holidays’ .
This means that French women can work , earn their money , be independant and still can manage to have children. Something which is impossible in Japan.

Sweden has a solid nursery service. In addition, there is no income restriction to receive child-care benefits, which are provided for children under 16.
In Sweden, 60 percent of women return to their jobs with a shorter working schedule after giving birth.


III)Conclusion: The forthcoming problems and possible solutions

http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/j...mg/15k16-3.gif

Japan has a aging and declining population, and this brings faces some serious problems:

An decreasing work force means a decreasing domestic market( a large part of Japan recent economic recovery comes from the domestic market) , an decrease in the tax revenues ( less households taxable incomes ,less companies, etc...) , while with the increase of the numbers of elderly, a huge increase in fiscal spendings and social security spendings towards old people ( national retirement programs , hospital and nurses shortage ,etc.) .

According to a recent Cabinet Office survey, only about 40% of Japanese parents said they wanted to have more children, the lowest percentage among the five countries surveyed (the others were Sweden, the US, France and South Korea). Of the Japanese polled who did not want to have more children, 56% cited financial reasons for their reluctance. Meanwhile, 81.1% of Swedes polled said they wanted to have more children, with the comparable number reaching 81% in the US and 69.3% in France.
Another record low birth rate, if confirmed, will highlight once again that a series of measures taken - and highly publicized - by the Japanese government in the past decade or so to reverse the declining trend have been a complete failure. Among those measures are the Angel Plan, introduced in 1994, and the New Angel Plan, introduced in 1999. Under those plans, wide-ranging programs were implemented to encourage people to have children.
Critics point out that government measures taken to date have been almost useless. They even claim that the government has not been serious enough about the problem, citing the fact that 70% of the social-welfare budget goes to programs for the aged, such as pensions and medical services, with only 4% set aside for services for children, such as child benefits and child-care services. The government's education-related spending is also the lowest among industrialized countries in terms of its ratio to gross domestic product (GDP).
Japanese have become increasingly concerned about the future as social-security costs, such as pension contributions and insurance premiums for medical care and nursing care for the elderly, as well as tax burdens, are expected to keep rising sharply amid declining birth rates and the rapid graying of society. While having to pay more pension premiums today, current Japanese workers face the prospect of reduced pension benefits after retirement as the ratio of employees to retirees plummets.


Japan has to face these problems both on the short-term and the long-term:

On the short term , an increase of immigration workers. Today Japan has 1% of immigrants !
But, to sustain the actual economic(al) power (level) with the actual population’s(declining) trend, they will need to increase new immigrant task force up to 18 % ! Which implies … giving up their ethnic homogeneity.
They could choose ‘ not to do so ‘ but the situation then could be painfull for the japanese population: unemployement , etc...)

The rapid demographic changes have alarmed Japanese policymakers. In addition to a further shrinkage in the working population, the continuous decline and rapid graying of the population are matters of deep concern because they will ultimately mean lower consumer spending as well as a drop in the savings rate. All of this poses a serious potential threat to the competitiveness of the world's second-largest economy.
Meanwhile, pressure is also growing, especially from domestic industries, to accept more foreign workers to alleviate an anticipated serious labor shortage.
The Council on Fiscal and Economic Policy, headed by Prime Minister Koizumi Junichiro, released an interim report on the government's global strategy to reinvigorate the economy, which calls for the acceptance of foreign workers in fields that are not currently open to them, to help maintain high economic growth in light of the low birth rate and the graying of society. The global strategy, to be finalized this month, will be incorporated into the annual basic policy on economic and fiscal management and structural reform to be compiled in June.
The interim report calls on the government to review the types of jobs open to foreign nationals and allow greater flexibility in hiring foreigners in service fields, such as the nursing-care industry where demand for workers has increased because of the graying of society. The report also calls on the government to seek to attract more foreign workers. In mid-May, the council will draw up guidelines for increasing the number of foreigners employed in Japan.
The council's call to allow more foreigners to work in Japan highlights its deepening concerns over the possibility of maintaining high economic growth if more foreigners not permitted to obtain jobs here. According to estimates by the Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry, by 2030 the number of workers will drop by about 10 million from its current level to about 56 million. The Cabinet Office also forecasts that one in every 20 people will have to be employed in the nursing industry in 2030 to provide the current level of care.
But many Japanese remain concerned about a possible influx of foreign workers. They fear, among other things, that public security would deteriorate, as the number of crimes committed by foreigners has been rising sharply in Japan. Echoing such concerns, Health, Labor and Welfare Minister Kawasaki Jiro cautioned recently against allowing more foreign workers. Kawasaki said the government should expand employment opportunities for senior citizens, women and young men for the time being.
Kawasaki also noted that a rise in foreign workers would reduce employment opportunities and lower salary levels for Japanese. Experts state that if the government decides to allow greater numbers of foreigners into the country, it must first act to prevent public discord or disorder that could result from cultural differences. The council's interim report says the government will map out general guidelines this year for solving problems foreign workers might face in areas such as health and education, as well as measures to prevent friction between Japanese and foreigners.

On the long run , Japan need to cut spending for the elderly and give this money to women and couple as an incentive to have children, while passing law to change minds faster.
As long as young couple is considering having children as a burden, and as long as company can fire pregnant women, Japan population will shrink.
Japan also needs to increase the tax revenue to have a balanced budget, otherwise, the fiscal burden could become unsustainable in the near futur.



Refs:
- http://www.stat.go.jp/english/index.htm /
- http://www.insee.fr /
- OECD http://www.oecd.org/home/0,2605,fr_2..._1_1_1,00.html
National Institute Institute of Population and Social Security Research http://www.ipps.go.jp /
Takatoshi Ito and Hugh Patrick (2005 )

Special Thanks to Setooka Hiroshi !

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Si vous voulez reproduire , demandez moi s'il vous plait.
Ce papier devrait etre publié en Janvier.

Morrisson ( qui a tjrs pas le net chez lui , RAHHHH :evil: )

Et ben quand morrisson revient c est avec du lourd!! On le changera pas celui ci... :D

t'ain l'agression de bon matin... :p

Ton sujet est intéressant. Neanmoins je me permet de te faire quelques critiques si tu permets.


Je trouve que l'introduction manque de substance. Des parties de la conclusions poserai le problème. Le 1er pay mentionné dans ton intro, c'est la France. Bizarre pour une étude sur le Japon.
La grande partie de ton analyse est basée sur la comparaison entre 4 pays très différents (Japon, France, US et Suède), cela merite d'être expliqué dès le début pour présenter la méthode. D'autres part, tous les graphiques ne concerne que le Japon, des graphiques identiques pour chacuns des 4 pays etayerait tes analyses.

Ensuite (et tu le mentionnes dans ta conclusion), la politique de l'immigration est surement un facteur important dans la faible natalité Japonaise par rapport à des pays comme la France ou les US.

ikkyu: merci de tes critiques. Comme j'ai dit j'en suis pas super contetn car j'ai du le finir en tres tres peu de temps, et moins de pages que prévu.

En fait j'aurai voulu retourner certain passage. Mon but est pas tellement de comparer formellement que de prendre a certainmoments certain exemples qui me semblaient appropriés.

Quand a l'immigration, c'est clairement ( a mon avis ) un problème important pour le japon. Comme je le dit il faudra probablement que le japon choisisse entre homogénéité ethnique et démographie...