The Confucian Fertility Paradox: Education Competition and Ultra-Low Fertility in East Asia
NBER Working Papers · 2026 · [{"name": "Hanming Fang", "affiliation": []}, {"name": "Chang Liu", "affiliation": []}]
中文摘要
东亚地区的总和生育率已降至史无前例的水平,尽管该地区的儒家传统长期以来极其重视家族延续和多子多福。我们认为,只要区分这一传统的两条脉络,并认识到现代化对二者产生了截然不同的影响,这一“儒家生育悖论”便不复存在。第一条是鼓励生育的脉络,它建立在宗族延续、祖先崇拜以及养儿防老的基础之上;随着儿童死亡率下降、收入提高、女性进入劳动力市场,以及国家养老金取代家庭成为老年保障的主要来源,这条脉络逐渐失去作用。延续下来的是第二条脉络:对教育以及通过科举成功获得地位的推崇,其根源在于科举传统。在现代条件下,这条延续下来的脉络对生育的影响发生了符号反转。历史上的科举制度奖励多生儿子,以期其中一人能够取得成功;而现代单一排名的锦标赛则奖励家庭将资源集中投入一两个接受高强度教育的子女,数量-质量权衡由此将一种曾经鼓励生育的文化转化为推动低生育率的强大引擎。基于中国和韩国近期的经验证据,我们展示了教育竞争如何成为传统价值观如今抑制生育的渠道。我们解释了为何取消生育限制或提供现金补贴等常规鼓励生育政策,在根本问题是父母投入的竞争性均衡时收效甚微;并指出,针对扭曲根源的政策,例如对教育路径进行结构性改革,可能更具成效。
Abstract
Total fertility rates in East Asia have fallen to levels without historical precedent, even though the region’s Confucian heritage long placed extraordinary emphasis on family continuity and large families. We argue that this “Confucian Fertility Paradox” dissolves once we separate two strands of the tradition and recognize that modernization affected them very differently. The pro-natal strand, built on lineage continuity, ancestor worship, and reliance on sons for old-age support, was gradually switched off as child mortality fell, incomes rose, women entered the labor force, and state pensions replaced the family as the main source of security in old age. What survived was the second strand: the veneration of education and of status won through examination success, rooted in the imperial examination tradition. Under modern conditions this surviving strand reverses sign with respect to its effect on fertility. Where the historical examination system rewarded having many sons so that one might succeed, the modern single-ranking tournament rewards concentrating resources on one or two intensively educated children, and the quantity–quality tradeoff turns a once pro-natal culture into a powerful engine of low fertility. Drawing on recent empirical evidence from China and Korea, we show how education competition becomes the channel through which traditional values now suppress childbearing. We explain why standard pro-natalist policies, such as removing birth restrictions or offering cash subsidies, accomplish little when the underlying problem is a competitive equilibrium in parental investment, and we argue that policies aimed at the source of the distortion, such as structural reform of educational pathways, hold more promise.