Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/137011


Title: 育嬰假對於幼兒發展的影響:臺灣幼兒發展資料庫之運用
The Impact of Parental Leave on Preschoolers’ Developmental Outcomes: Applying Data from Kids in Taiwan Study
Authors: 蔡昂叡
Tsai, Ang-Ruei
Contributors: 蘇昱璇
Su, Yu-Hsuan
蔡昂叡
Tsai, Ang-Ruei
Keywords: 育嬰假
學齡前幼兒
認知發展
語言發展
社會情緒發展
身體動作發展
parental leave
preschoolers
cognitive development
language development
social-emotional development
motor development
Date: 2021
Issue Date: 2021-09-02 17:15:41 (UTC+8)
Abstract: 近年來,臺灣面臨少子化困境,新生兒的數目逐年下降,在2020年首次出現了人口負成長,使得臺灣在未來可能會遇到消費力降低、政府稅收減少、人才短缺等問題。政府在推出各式政策鼓勵生育的同時,亦須思考如何使每個出生的幼兒獲得妥善照護,才可能促使人口的「量」跟「質」同時提升,讓臺灣持續保持競爭力。過去研究指出,高品質的早期幼兒照護能夠使他們在未來有更好的發展,造成的影響包含了幼兒健康、智力、未來的勞動收入、犯罪率、教育程度等,而育嬰假(Parental Leave)是實務上常用來做為鼓勵生育、同時提供幼兒照護的政策之一。本研究使用「臺灣幼兒發展調查資料庫」之統計資料,探討育嬰假對於36月齡和48月齡幼兒發展的影響,使用主成分分析(Principal components analysis, PCA)篩選幼兒發展變項,並透過傾向分數配對法(Propensity Score Matching, PSM)處理內生性問題,以估計育嬰假之影響程度。
研究發現在t檢定之下,有經歷父母請育嬰假的幼兒各項發展均較佳,但納入控制變數以及經過傾向分數配對法處理後,育嬰假對於幼兒發展幾乎沒有顯著相關。其他因素如女性幼兒、母親國籍為臺灣人、是家中第一個出生的幼兒、父母教育程度愈高和家庭月收入中位數以上,與幼兒發展具有顯著正相關。請育嬰假與36月齡到48月齡的進步幅度亦無顯著關聯。Logit模型發現教育程度較高的母親較可能請育嬰假,本研究推論這樣的母親在請育嬰假的同時也運用各種資源與努力促進幼兒的發展,可能解釋了為何在完整的迴歸模型中,育嬰假與幼兒發展的關係不再顯著。
In recent years, Taiwan’s birth rate has been decreasing. In 2020, the negative population growth occurred for the first time and may induce problems such as consumption declines, lower government tax revenues, and talent shortages in the future. While the government uses various pronatalist policies, it is important to make sure that the “quantity” and “quality” of population can be improved at the same time. Studies have pointed out that the investment in early childhood can lead to better development in the future, including child health, intelligence, future labor income, crime rate, education level, etc. Parental leave is one of the most commonly used policies to encourage childbirth and provide child care. Using the data from “Kids in Taiwan: National Longitudinal Study of Child Development and Care” to explore how parents’ choice of taking the parental leave relates to preschoolers’ developmental outcomes at 36 months old and 48 months old. This study also utilizes the principal components analysis (PCA) to select variables for the developmental outcomes and uses propensity score matching (PSM) to mitigate the potential threat of endogeneity from the ordinary least square (OLS) estimations.
Preschoolers with parents taking parental leave show better developmental outcomes in t tests. After controlling for additional variables and applying the PSM, there is almost no statistically significant relationship between parental leave and developmental outcomes. Estimation results suggest that other factors including female children, Taiwanese mothers, firstborns, higher education level of parents and higher monthly income are associated with better developmental outcomes. The progress between 36 and 48 months old is also not significantly correlated with parental leave status. According to the Logit model, higher educated mothers are more likely to take the parental leave, and these mothers may also utilize more resources to promote children’s development. This may explain why we do not observe significant correlations with parental leave in the regression models.
Reference: 王俞媗(2016)。育嬰假對小孩健康的影響。未出版之碩士論文,國立臺灣大學社會科學院經濟學系。
王珮玲(2016)。幼兒發展評量與輔導。新北市,心理出版社
王静、何守森、王慧、关春荣、袁强、袁春香、黄晓玲、安祥美、周亚平(2013)。幼儿社会情绪发展影响因素的研究。中国儿童保健杂志,21, 1250-1253。
李秋霞(2005)。幼兒發展評估之研究。幼兒保育研究集刊,1(1),99-122。
李品靜(2014)。嬰幼兒動作發展與家庭環境關係之研究。未出版之碩士論文,國立臺北護理健康大學嬰幼兒保育系,臺北。
李庭欣、王舒芸(2013)。「善爸」甘休?「育爸」不能?與照顧若即若離的育嬰假爸爸。臺大社工學刊,28,93-136。
林佳慧、劉惠美、張鑑如(2019)。家庭脈絡下的親子共讀與幼兒發展關係-臺灣幼兒發展調查資料庫的應用與分析。教育心理學報,51(1),135-59。
林岱嬋(2010)。親職角色的認同、自我定位與能力評估對嬰幼兒行為動作發展之影響-親子相處狀況之中介效果初探。未出版之碩士論文,中山醫學大學公共衛生學系碩士班。
林東龍、劉蕙雯(2016)。照顧男子氣概與男性公務人員育嬰留職經驗。女學學誌:婦女與性別研究,39,59-109。
洪宜芳(2014)。淺談『讀寫萌發』思潮。檢自:https://www.kln.mohw.gov.tw/?aid=509&pid=83&page_name=detail&iid=956

陳清檳、鄭博文、賴慧敏、蕭錫錡(2015)。大學畢業生取得證照與薪資所得- 傾向分數配對法之分析。 當代教育研究季刊,23(1),71-111。
孫麗卿(2011)。父母親的兒童發展信念和幼兒社會情緒行為之相關研究。幼兒教保研究期刊,6,41-63。
張紹勳(2020)。研究方法:社會科學與生醫方法論。臺北市,五南出版社。
張鑑如、聶西平、周麗端(2018)。當代臺灣幼兒家庭基本資料 、生活環境樣貌及能力發展:KIT資料庫樣本。人類發展與家庭學報,19,45-63。
張鑑如,(2019)。幼兒發展調查資料庫建置計畫:36月齡組第一波36月齡(D00168)【原始數據】。取自中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心調查研究專題中心學術調查研究資料庫。
張鑑如,(2021)。幼兒發展調查資料庫建置計畫:36月齡組第二波48月齡(D00187)【原始數據】。取自中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心調查研究專題中心學術調查研究資料庫。
許秀萍、張玲芬、丘嘉慧、梁珀華、蘇慧菁(2015)。兒童發展。新北市,心理出版社。
黃毅志(2008)。如何精確測量職業地位?「改良版臺灣地區新職業聲望與社經地位量表」之建構。臺東大學教育學報,19(1),151-159。
黃瓊慧(2020)。認識動作發展。檢自:https://www.ylh.gov.tw/?aid=612&pid=70&page_name=detail&iid=31
潘文雅(2016)。“80 后”父母教养方式与 3-6 岁幼儿精细动作发展的关系研究。天津市教科院学報,4,85-87。
謝宜君(2020)。家庭環境、親子互動時間與三歲幼兒螢幕時間之關聯研究。未出版之碩士論文,國立臺灣師範大學教育學院人類發展與家庭學系,台北。
蔡彣娟(2017)。養兒育女對育齡婦女勞動市場結果的影響-論2009年育嬰假政策改革之效果。經濟論文,49(3),423-467。
蔡昆瀛、陳介宇(2011)。嬰幼兒社會情緒發展與評量之探討。國小特殊教育,51。
鍾玉梅(2018)。三至四歲兒童語言發展之觀察項目及促進策略參考。檢自:https://wd.vghtpe.gov.tw/PMREIP/Fpage.action?muid=10172&fid=9797
關秉寅、李敦義(2010)。國中生數學補得愈久,數學成就愈好嗎?傾向分數配對法的分析。教育研究集刊,56(2),105–140。

Albagli, P., & Rau, T. (2019). The effects of a maternity leave reform on children’s abilities and maternal outcomes in Chile. Economic Journal, 129(619), 1015–1047.
Almond, D., & Currie, J. (2011). Human capital development before age five. In Handbook of Labor Economics (Vol. 4).
Baker, M., & Milligan, K. (2010). Evidence from maternity leave expansions of the impact of maternal care on early child development. In Journal of Human Resources (Vol. 45).
Baker, M., & Milligan, K. (2015). Maternity leave and children’s cognitive and behavioral development. Journal of Population Economics, 28(2), 373–391.
Behrman, J. R., & Deolalikar, A. B. (1944). Health and nutrition. In Handbook of Development Economics (Vol. 1, pp. 631–711).
Berger, L. M., Hill, J., & Waldfogel, J. (2005). Maternity leave, early maternal employment and child health and development in the US. Economic Journal, 115(501), 29–47.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design.
Burger, K. (2010). How does early childhood care and education affect cognitive development? An international review of the effects of early interventions for children from different social backgrounds. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25(2), 140–165.
Campbell, F. A., Ramey, C. T., Pungello, E., Sparling, J., & Miller-Johnson, S. (2002). Early childhood education: Young adult outcomes from the abecedarian project. Applied Developmental Science, 6(1), 42–57.
Carneiro, P., Løken, K. V., & Salvanes, K. G. (2015). A flying start? Maternity leave benefits and long-run outcomes of children. Journal of Political Economy, 123(2), 365–412.
Cools, S., Fiva, J. H., & Kirkebøen, L. J. (2015). Causal Effects of Paternity Leave on Children and Parents. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 117(3), 801–828.
Corekcioglu, G., Kunze, A., & Francesconi, M. (2020). Do Generous Parental Leave Policies Help Top Female Earners? SSRN Electronic Journal, (May).
Dahl, G. B., Løken, K. V., Mogstad, M., & Salvanes, K. V. (2016). What is the case for paid maternity leave? Review of Economics and Statistics, 98(4), 655–670.
Danzer, N., & Lavy, V. (2018). Paid Parental Leave and Children’s Schooling Outcomes. Economic Journal, 128(608), 81–117.
DeMulder, E. K., Denham, S., Schmidt, M., & Mitchell, J. (2000). Q-sort assessment of attachment security during the preschool years: Links from home to school. Developmental psychology, 36(2), 274-282.
Denham, S., Salisch, M. von, Olthof, T., Kochanoff, A., & Caverly, S. (2011). Emotional and Social Development in Childhood. In Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Social Development, 307–328.
Desai, S., & Alva, S. (1998). Maternal education and child health: Is there a strong causal relationship? Demography, 35(1), 71–81.
Dustmann, C., & Schönberg, U. (2012). Expansions in maternity leave coverage and children’s long-term outcomes. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 4(3), 190–224.
Evertsson, M., & Duvander, A. Z. (2011). Parental leave-possibility or trap? does family leave length effect swedish women’s labour market opportunities? European Sociological Review, 27(4), 435–450.
García, J. L., & Heckman, J. J. (2020). Early childhood education and life-cycle health. Health Economics (United Kingdom).
García, J. L., Heckman, J., Leaf, D. E., & Prados, M. J. (2016). The Life-cycle Benefits of an Influential Early Childhood Program.
Harry N. Boone, J., & Boone, D. A. (2012). Analyzing Likert Data. Journal of Extension.
Heckman, J. J. (2011). The economics of inequality: The value of early childhood education. American Educator, 31–36.
Heckman, J., Stixrud, J., & Urzua, S. (2006). The Effects of Cognitive and Noncognitive Abilities on Labor Market Outcomes and Social Behavior. In Journal of Labor Economics, 24, 411–482.
Heiland, F. (2009). Does the birth order affect the cognitive development of a child? Applied Economics, 41(14), 1799–1818.
Hoem, J. M. (1993). Public Policy as the Fuel of Fertility: Effects of a Policy Reform on the Pace of Childbearing in Sweden in the 1980s. Acta Sociologica, 36(1), 19–31.
Hoff-Ginsberg, E. (1998). The relation of birth order and socioeconomic status to children’s language experience and language development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19(4), 603–629.
Hoff-Ginsberg, E. (2003). The Specificity of Environmental Influence: Socioeconomic Status Affects Early Vocabulary Development Via Maternal Speech. Child Development, 74(5), 1368–1378.
Laible, D. J., & Thompson, R. A. (1998). Attachment and emotional understanding in preschool children. Development Psychology, 34(5), 1038–1045.
Lalive, R., & Zweimuller, J. (2009). How Does Parental Leave Affect Fertility and Return to Work? Evidence from Two Natural Experiments. The Wuarterly Journal of Economics, 124(3), 1363–1402.
Lugo-Gil, J., & Tamis-LeMonda, C. S. (2008). Family resources and parenting quality: Links to children’s cognitive development across the first 3 years. Child Development, 79(4), 1065–1085.
Muennig, P., Robertson, D., Johnson, G., Campbell, F., Pungello, E. P., & Neidell, M. (2011). The effect of an early education program on adult health: The Carolina abecedarian project randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Public Health, 101(3), 512–516.
Mulligan, G. M., Hastedt, S., & Mccarroll, J. C. (2012). First-Time Kindergartners in 2010-11: First Findings From the Kindergarten Rounds of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010-11 (ECLS-K:2011). 11.
Nakajima, R., & Tanaka, R. (2014). Estimating the effects of pronatal policies on residential choice and fertility. Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, 34, 179–200.
Nepal, A. K. (2018). What matters more for child health: A father’s education or mother’s education? World Development Perspectives, 10, 24–33.
Paxson, C., & Schady, N. (2007). Cognitive development among young children in Ecuador: The roles of wealth, health, and parenting. Journal of Human Resources, 42(1), 49–84.
Price, J. (2008). Parent-child quality time: Does birth order matter? Journal of Human Resources, 43(1), 240–265.
Pronzato, C. D. (2009). Return to work after childbirth: Does parental leave matter in Europe? Review of Economics of the Household, 7(4), 341–360.
Pungello, E. P., Iruka, I. U., Dotterer, A. M., Mills-Koonce, R., & Reznick, J. S. (2009). The Effects of Socioeconomic Status, Race, and Parenting on Language Development in Early Childhood. Developmental Psychology, 45(2), 544–557.
Rasmussen, A. W. (2010). Increasing the length of parents’ birth-related leave: The effect on children’s long-term educational outcomes. Labour Economics, 17(1), 91–100.
Rehel, E. M. (2014). When Dad Stays Home Too: Paternity Leave, Gender, and Parenting. Gender and Society, 28(1), 110–132.
Rønsen, M. (2004). Fertility and public policies - Evidence from Norway and Finland. Demographic Research, 10, 143–170.
Rosenzweig, M. R., & Schultz, T. P. (1983). Estimating a Household Production Function: Heterogeneity, the Demand for Health Inputs, and Their Effects on Birth Weight. Journal of Political Economy, 91(5), 723–746.
Schweinhart, L. J., Montie, J., Xiang, Z., Barnett, W. S., Belfield, C. R., & Nores, M. (2005). The High / Scope Perry Preschool Study Through Age 40 Summary, Conclusions, and Frequently Asked Questions. Lifetime Effects: The High/Scope Perrry Study through Age 40, 40, 194–215.
Schweinhart, L. J., & Weikart, D. P. (1981). Effects of the Perry Preschool Program on Youths Through Age 15. Journal of Early Intervention, 4(1), 29–39.
Strauss, J., & Thomas, D. (1995). Human resources: Empirical modeling of household and family decisions. In Handbook of Development Economics (Vol. 3, pp. 1883–2023).
Suess, G. J., Grossmann, K. E., & Sorufe, L.A. (1992). Effects of infant attachment to mother and father on quality of adaptaion in preschool: From dyadic to individual organisation of self. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 15 (1), 43-65.
Thomas, D., Strauss, J., & Henriques, M.-H. (1991). How Does Mother’s Education Affect Child Height? The Journal of Human Resources, 26(2).
Ting, H.-L., Ao, C.-K., & Lin, M.-J. (2014). Television on Women’s Empowerment in India. The Journal of Development Studies, 50(11), 1523–1537.
UNESCO. (2018). Metadata for the global and thematic indicators for the follow-up and review of SDG 4 and Education 2030.
UNICEF. (2019). Family-Friendly Policies: Redesigning the Workplace of the Future.
Van Gameren, Edwin. (2013). The Role of Economic Incentives and Attitudes in Participation and Childcar Decisions. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 34(3), 296-313.
Description: 碩士
國立政治大學
國家發展研究所
108261010
Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0108261010
Data Type: thesis
Appears in Collections:[國家發展研究所] 學位論文

Files in This Item:

File Description SizeFormat
101001.pdf3254KbAdobe PDF0View/Open


All items in 學術集成 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


社群 sharing