You can tell a lot about a country by what it subsidises. Some fund housing. Others, baby formula or education. And in most places fighting low birth rates, governments offer incentives for women: longer maternity leave, more generous tax breaks, cash payouts for each additional child. But what if the way to boost fertility isn’t to subsidise women more—but to support men differently?
That’s the question raised by a quiet but groundbreaking study by researchers from Fudan University and the University of Hong Kong. Their findings suggest that offering childcare subsidies directly to fathers—not mothers—has a much stronger long-term effect on fertility. It’s a provocative idea. And one that suggests parenting is not just a private act, but a system that can be redesigned—ritually, structurally, and yes, financially.
For decades, policymakers trying to reverse declining birth rates have focused almost exclusively on women. The logic: if you ease the burden on mothers, they’ll be more willing to have more children.
But the real burden, the study finds, isn’t just the number of kids. It’s the lack of shared responsibility. Subsidising men creates a powerful new signal. It tells households: parenting is not hers alone. It tells workplaces: caregiving isn’t a female detour—it’s a family investment. And it tells society: if we want demographic stability, we must shift how time, labour, and love are valued at home.
The emotional logic is even simpler. When men are supported to take on more at home—early, visibly, and consistently—women aren’t just less exhausted. They’re also more hopeful. The idea of having another child doesn’t feel like a personal sacrifice. It becomes a shared dream. And perhaps most importantly, that early shared rhythm becomes a repeatable one.
Without shared domestic labor, even generous maternity benefits fall short. In countries like China, Japan, and South Korea, where state support for mothers has expanded but male caregiving remains culturally and structurally limited, fertility continues to plummet. In 2023, China recorded just 9 million births—a steep drop from previous decades and far below the 2.1 births per woman needed to maintain population stability.
What’s happening isn’t a rejection of parenthood. It’s a rational response to the imbalance it creates.
When caregiving is seen as a woman’s duty—no matter how educated, employed, or empowered she may be—the cost of children feels infinite. Every hour at home becomes a tradeoff. Every promotion passed up, a price paid. Every night of solo parenting chips away at joy, stamina, and desire for more. Subsidies that reinforce this imbalance—even when well-meaning—only deepen the problem. Maternity-only leave. Mother-centric tax rebates. Birth payments tied to the mother’s employment. These designs entrench inequality, not fix it.
Subsidising fathers isn’t just a policy tweak. It’s a re-design of how family life flows. And like all good systems, it starts with rituals.
1. Paternity Leave That’s Paid, Protected, and Modeled
Not just allowed, not just theoretically encouraged—but funded and expected. Countries like Sweden and Iceland offer months of “use it or lose it” paternity leave. The result: over 90% of new fathers take time off, and parental roles feel more balanced from the start. China, by contrast, offers two weeks of paternity leave in some provinces. In practice, few men take it—either because it’s unpaid, culturally discouraged, or career-limiting.
Design matters. When paternity leave becomes a ritual—normal, supported, visible—it builds caregiving muscle early. That rhythm tends to last.
2. Shared-Time Subsidies, Not Gendered Ones
Instead of only paying mothers to stay home, imagine a structure where households receive full benefits only if both parents participate in early caregiving. Split the payout. Tie it to equal leave. Reward overlap time, not just birth outcomes. This isn’t about forcing choices—it’s about nudging shared ones.
In pilot programs across Europe, dual-participation subsidies have shown promising results: higher male involvement, longer breastfeeding durations, and stronger postnatal mental health for both parents.
3. Workplace Design That Supports Co-Parenting
Subsidy signals must be reinforced by daily structures. Flexible hours, remote options, reduced penalties for leave-taking—especially for men—build a world where caregiving is seen as a professional norm, not a personal inconvenience.
And when fathers model this rhythm—leaving early for daycare pickup, attending parent-teacher meetings, declining travel in the newborn phase—it shifts what leadership looks like. The goal is simple: parenting becomes a pattern anyone can see, absorb, and adopt. The home rhythm ripples into office culture, and vice versa.
Some countries are already seeing results from more gender-balanced policy designs.
In Norway, fathers now take an average of 10 weeks of paid leave. Fertility is still below replacement, but higher than peers like Italy or Japan. More importantly, gender equity in both childcare and employment remains among the strongest globally.
South Korea, by contrast, has among the lowest fertility rates in the world—just 0.72 births per woman. Despite generous financial incentives for families, social expectations still frame parenting as a maternal duty. Paternity leave exists on paper, but only 1 in 5 eligible fathers use it.
The difference? Ritual reinforcement.
Where caregiving by men is common, visible, and supported, fertility decline slows. Where it remains rare or stigmatised, no amount of mother-centric funding seems to help.
Even Singapore, with its extensive “baby bonus” scheme, has struggled to raise fertility above 1.2. Its recent pivot toward encouraging paternity leave and co-parenting initiatives signals a quiet recalibration: support must follow structure—not just sentiment.
Redesigning family systems doesn’t begin with cash. It begins with the rhythms that define a day. Who wakes the baby? Who warms the milk? Who books the immunisation? Who leaves work early when school calls? These are not just tasks. They are moments that form memory, identity, and relational trust.
Subsidising fathers is not about economic efficiency. It’s about making caregiving sustainable. Not heroic, not optional. Just normal. Practiced. Embedded. Remembered. Because the real crisis behind birth rate decline isn’t money—it’s burnout. It’s the silent knowledge that parenting, as currently structured, asks too much of one person, and too little of the other.
The solution isn’t to push women harder. It’s to pull men closer. When fathers are supported to participate early, the entire system shifts. Parenthood becomes partnership. Childhood becomes co-anchored. And society starts to reflect what the next generation quietly craves: balance, fairness, and families that function not as obligations, but as shared homes.
WhatsApp
Instagram
Threads
