1. Introduction
Regardless of the type of political system, the level of economic development, or religious beliefs of a country, family is emphasized as being important for existence and is an institution that supports people’s life development [
1]. However, the process of modernization has had a great impact on families; especially since the 1960s and 1970s, the arrival of the “second demographic transformation” has fundamentally affected the establishment and breakdown of families [
2]. The forms of marriage and family have become diversified, such as the increase in cohabitation and single-parent families [
3], an increasing number of women have entered the labor market, resulting in paid work behavior that has greatly eroded the male breadwinner model, and the adult worker model has become increasingly prominent [
4]. A strong individualization trend [
5], together with the increasing instability and economic vulnerability of families [
6,
7], has led to new divisions between individuals and families. Social policy has had to respond to these new social risks, particularly by considering valuing and supporting the family as a social institution [
5]. Therefore, since the mid-1990s, families and family-related policies have gained increased public attention in Western welfare states [
8].
Scholars have become interested in family policy research in high-income countries. Many studies focus on various trends, results, and development directions of family policies under the “new” political and economic situation [
6,
8,
9], especially with regard to comparing the policy change directions or support levels of different welfare states or high-income countries [
10,
11,
12]. Ferragina and Seeleib-Kaiser (2015) conducted an empirical study of family policies in 18 rich OECD countries and found that almost all the countries analyzed had a significant expansion of family policies [
13]. Although the economic crisis since 2008 has increased the pressure on the public policy of the welfare state, as Pierson (1996) suggests, we have entered an era of “permanent austerity” [
14]. However, the field of family policy has not been negatively affected. Instead, there has been a significant expansion of family policy aimed at promoting women’s employment [
15], which is mainly reflected in public childcare services and more flexible leave policies [
13]. According to a study by Bolzendhal (2009), women’s employment rate and political participation are important reasons for the expansion of family policy and welfare states more generally [
16].
Compared with the sustained expansion of family policy in welfare countries [
9], in the developing country of China, family policy reform began to be valued only after the proposal in the 12th Five Year Plan (2011–2015) that committed China to “establishing and improving the policy of improving the family development ability”. In contrast to other policy areas (such as economic policy, or environmental protection policy [
17,
18]), family policy in China has not been the main focus of social policy, as can be observed in Europe and America (with the exception of Scandinavian countries):
Family policy is not a term widely used by policy makers, journalists, or the public [
19]; it is a policy area that is obviously ignored in China. However, Chinese families face similar and even more severe challenges compared with these high-income states. Since the economic reforms of the post-1970s period and particularly since China’s one-child policy (1979–2015) restricted family size [
20], China’s profound socioeconomic changes have continued to affect the population development trends, greatly undermining the stability of families and the traditional security function of the family [
21,
22]. At the same time, due to rising labor participation rates among women, support from family members is on the decline [
23], and women struggle to balance raising family with employment [
24]. Yet these difficulties faced by Chinese families and the demand for policy support are not fully reflected in the reform of family policy [
25]. With the further development of China’s economy and the aging of the population, the reform and improvement of family policy will become a major factor affecting the sustainable development of China’s economy and society [
26]. Therefore, for the effective reform of family policy, it is necessary to fully understand the current situation as well as the characteristics and shortcomings of China’s family policy.
The effect of implementing family policy is not as sustainable as previously expected, and evaluating the effectiveness of family policy measures has become an important task in research [
27]. This paper argues that scientific policy-making will play an important role in guiding and complementing the sustainable development of families. Taking China as an example, family policy can be divided into two dimensions, the national level and the local level. Considering the effectiveness and scope of the policy, this article mainly discusses family policy formulated at the national level. Currently, family policy at the national level is mainly formulated through the National People’s Congress and its Standing Committee, the State Council and its ministries and commissions, and the Central Military Commission. Specifically, the National People’s Congress, as the highest authority, has the highest legislative power with regard to family policy. The State Council and the Central Military Commission, which are the highest state administrative organ and the highest military leadership respectively, are generated by and responsible for the National People’s Congress. The Central Military Commission is mainly concerned with the preferential treatment and treatment policies for military families, while the State Council and its subordinate ministries and commissions are the core institutions for formulating family policies, involving assistance, health, education, employment, and other aspects.
Family policy in China is mainly implicit with low social investment, and the policy objects are mainly independent individuals instead of entire families [
26]. When assessing family policies, there are often difficulties in obtaining data [
6]. Therefore, a new analytical tool is needed to measure family policy and to draw a comprehensive picture of China’s family policy. This paper constructs a two-dimensional analysis framework of policy instruments and policy themes and uses a content analysis method to conduct a quantitative analysis of China’s family policy texts from 1989–2019. The aim of this study is to reveal the shortcomings of China’s family policy in terms of the choice and allocation of policy instruments, identify the positive policy implications of reforming family policy in China, and detail China’s experience to help developing countries in similar situations.
This article is organized as follows.
Section 2 presents the literature review.
Section 3 summarizes the sample selection and method application. The fourth section presents the analysis based on the quantitative results of policy samples. The conclusion of this study and effective suggestions for promoting policy sustainability are presented in
Section 5.
2. Literature Review
This paper analyzes family policy based on policy documents, so it is necessary to clarify what is meant by “family policy”.
In terms of family policy, there is a broad sense and a narrow sense. From a broad perspective, family policies are instruments that have direct and indirect effects on families and family members [
28]. On this basis, Kamerman and Kahn (1978) distinguished two types of family policies: explicit and implicit [
29]. The former refers to governmental actions that directly target the family; the latter refers to the governmental actions that do not target the family but that ultimately have an impact on the family. Because the broad definition of family policy lacks pertinence and it is difficult to distinguish family policies from social policies, this study defines the explicit family policy in a restrictive way. That is, we define family policy as various institutional arrangements and related interventions made by the government directly for families and family members, with the ultimate goal of improving family welfare (or supporting family development). Although there are different definitions of family policy in the existing literature, there is still a certain consensus on the core areas that family policy should involve, such as financial support for families, services and welfare for working parents, and policies involving health, education, and family law [
6].
Research shows that family policy in different countries is a heterogeneous field in which different objectives [
30], and their development models differ considerably. According to Hantrais (2004), although family changes have similar characteristics in all European countries, there are substantial differences in family policies [
31]. Bable (2008) suggests that the diversity of family policy models depends on the specific historical–cultural context and can distinguish different types of family policy according to the two key dimensions of “national policy on family-work relations” and “state-provided income benefits for families” [
32]. In general, Western Europe can be divided into four models: Nordic, Mediterranean, liberal, and two different subtypes at the center of the continent exemplified by France and Belgium, and Germany and Austria [
12]. For a long time, the classification model and comparative analysis of the family policies of these welfare countries have been strongly influenced by the work “Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism” written by Esping Anderson (1990) [
33]. However, some scholars still have questioned the rationality and applicability of this typology [
34,
35]. On the one hand, whether these types can be modified to include other countries with meaningful analysis results remains a controversial issue [
36]. On the other hand, Ferragina and Seeleib-Kaiser (2011) confirmed the validity of the welfare state regime theory, but more importantly, they observed a dual transformation of the welfare country through a dynamic time method instead of a quite static approach to the welfare regime typology analysis [
34,
37].
Regardless of the development model, the main function of family policies in all countries is to coordinate and meet various goals and needs, such as the balance of work and family life [
38], solving poverty [
39], improving fertility levels [
10], and promoting gender equality [
40]. This means that family policy is a cross-cutting policy area [
41]. Therefore, when analyzing family policy, we need to consider it as a multidimensional concept, rather than a unidimensional concept [
42]. Reasonable measurement tools based on multidimensional thinking and indicators are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of family policies [
43].
As effective subjects of policy analysis, policy instruments, also regarded as “governing instruments”, are the bridge between policy objectives and policy outcomes [
44]. This area has been an important part of public policy research since the 1980s [
45]. Policy instrument analysis, a systematic methodology, evaluates the application of various governance techniques and measures used by governments [
46]. This type of analysis evaluates whether and how policies are implemented, revealing the core value and focus of policy and how much effort should be made by policy makers to achieve the goals [
47]. In the field of family policy, the most widely used analysis in the OECD countries considers the diverse mix of policy instruments around cash benefits, childcare services, and generous leaves [
43,
48,
49], which has resulted in both the convergence and variation of family policy development among countries.
However, there is no consensus in the literature on which specific policy instruments can be used to best describe a country’s family policies. Many studies measure the strength of family policy instruments by constructing a series of proxy variables (family-related leaves such as maternity leave, parental leave, and paternity leave, children’s allowance, and family service expenditures, etc.) [
13,
43,
50]. Although multiple dimensions of family policy are considered in the selection of variables [
12], this analytical method tends to ignore the internal characteristics of the policy itself, and few studies have conducted an overall analysis at the policy level. Most importantly, the selection of indicators is easily limited by data availability [
6,
51], which has a negative impact on the scope and depth of the analysis. As Lohmann and Zagel argue, policy-level analysis is important for the field of family policy [
51]. The use of appropriate qualitative indicators can greatly improve the analysis of family policies [
12]. To systematically describe the Chinese government’s efforts to support the family, this paper proposes a new analytical framework for analyzing the promulgation of China’s family policy that considers the content of the policy text and aims to capture policy characteristics at different levels by using a large number of broad indicators.
Many scholars have studied the choice of indicators, which is based on the classification of the policy instruments [
52,
53,
54]. This paper uses the classification proposed by Rothwell and Zegveld and divides family policy instruments into three categories: supply-side policy instruments, environmental policy instruments and demand-side policy instruments [
55]. Although this classification originated in the field of science and technology innovation policy [
56,
57] and has no obvious connection to the field of family policy, it addresses the mandatory and authoritative features of policy instruments. Moreover, this categorization considers the role of the government in policy promotion, rather than simply intervention and control. At the same time, this classification highlights the role of supply and demand in family development, indicating that the government should not only support families but also let society and the market “invest” in families and promote the internal sustainable development of families (
Figure 1). In addition, this classification has strong applicability due to the integrity and methodical nature of the system. In addition, the use of categorization is not limited to a particular industry.
Supply-side family policy instruments that directly promote the sustainable development of families are divided into five categories: information technology support, public service supply, infrastructure construction, capital investment, and education and training [
58]. Environmental family policy instruments generally focus on laws and regulations, goal programming, tax concessions, financial policies and strategic measures [
58]. These instruments play an indirect role in influencing and creating a family-friendly policy environment. Demand-side family policy instruments reflect the direct driving force for family development and reduce the vulnerability of families in society. Specifically, demand-side family policy instruments involve cooperation and outsourcing, government purchase, reward and encouragement, and market control [
58].
The theme of policy is identified through a high-level summary and refinement of the core content and is used to identify the basic purpose of a policy and the goal of the text [
59], which should indicate that the focus and resources of the policy are related to family policy. As early as the late 1980s, the European Union has identified four common issues considered in family policy: reconciling work and family, assisting poor families, developing community policies for families, and promoting child protection [
60]. However, recent studies have found that some changes and a convergence have occurred in the family policy of the welfare states, which are gradually focusing on the three themes of work/family reconciliation, gender equality, and family income protection [
11]. Another important form of family policy addresses aging and health and seeks to help families deal with the current and future responsibilities of caring for their elderly or sick family members [
1]. Due to their different cultures, institutional configurations and economic development stages, countries have different concerns about family policies [
30,
61], but on the whole, they mainly focus on themes of marriage and its diversified family forms, childbearing and childcare, work-family balance, gender equality, elderly care, and healthcare [
62].
Considering the abovementioned family policy themes and the content of China’s family policy, this paper divides the family policy themes into six categories: economic support, parental welfare and protection, child development, elderly care, special family support, and safeguard measures (
Table 1). It should be noted that the indicator used to measure policy on “parental welfare and protection” is the concentrated embodiment of gender equality and work–family balance, which are two different but inseparable concepts [
43]. To help women achieve gender equality in employment, corresponding measures need to be taken to ensure their work–family balance, such as changing the image of women as traditional caregivers, and increasing opportunities for male spouses to participate in family care [
15,
63]. Although these “safeguard measures” are not directly related to family support, they can only be realized through government guidance, overall planning, management, and close cooperation, which are vital for supporting the effective implementation of family policy.
Based on research on policy instruments and the themes of family policy, this paper constructs a two-dimensional theoretical analysis framework to analyze family policy texts. This framework is shown in
Figure 2.