臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本文藉由台灣於 1995 年 3 月 1 日實施全民健保所形成的自然實驗，
運用 1994 -- 1995 、 1997 -- 1998 共 4 年的家庭收支調查資料，
以受到全民健保影響的私部門家庭為實驗組，
並以較不受政策影響的公部門家庭為對照組，
使用 differences-in-differences 法估計全民健保對於生育行為的影響。
實證結果顯示，全民健保使得家庭有子女出生的機率較以往成長了約 23.12\%，政策效果為 0.0243 。
在母親是勞保參加者的家庭中，家庭有子女出生的機率更是成長了約 34.67\%，政策效果為 0.0276 。
但在母親不是勞保參加者的家庭中，全民健保對於其生育行為並沒有影響。
雖然本文的實證結果顯示了醫療保險會提高家庭的生育意願，
為了避免因實驗組與對照組的選樣偏誤所導致的估計誤差，
本文也檢視了近 20 年來台灣公、私部門家庭的生育行為，
發現被解釋變數在公、私部門家庭間並不具有相同的時間趨勢，
這也意謂著本文的實證結果可能無法排除 differences-in-differences 法估計上的誤差，因而得到了偏誤的政策效果。
總而言之，雖然本文的實證結果暗示了全民健保使得家庭有子女出生的機率顯著地上升，
醫療保險與生育行為之間的因果關係仍有待後續研究更深入嚴謹的探討。

Taiwan implemented National Health Insurance (NHI) in March 1995.
By reducing health expenditures,
comprehensive health insurance can reduce household''s costs of rearing children,
thereby increase household''s demand for children.
This paper uses data from the 1994--1995 and 1997--1998 Survey of Family Income and Expenditure
and conducts differences-in-differences estimation to investigate the impact of NHI on fertility.
The results show that household''s fertility increase by about 23.12\%, and the effect is about 0.0243.
In households where mom joins Labor Insurance,
fertility increases by about 34.67\%, and the effect is about 0.0276.
However, in households where mom does not join Labor Insurance,
NHI does not have any impacts on fertility.
To avoid possible estimation biases,
we investigate both treatment and control group''s fertility behavior from 1987 to 2007,
and find out that both groups do not have common trend of the dependent varialbe used in this paper.
Therefore, though our analyses show that NHI increases fertility,
the results may suffer from some serious estimation biases.
The causal relationship between health insurance and fertility behavior should still be investigated carefully in the future.

1 前言 1
2 政策背景與文獻回顧 6
2.1 台灣醫療保險制度的演變 6
2.2 文獻回顧 10
3 計量方法與實證資料 18
3.1 計量方法 18
3.2 實證資料 22
3.3 變數設定與敘述統計 26
4 全民健保對生育行為的影響 32
4.1 全體樣本 32
4.2 母親為勞保參加者的樣本 36
4.3 公部門家庭作為對照組的檢驗 39
5 結論 51
參考文獻 54

參考文獻

《各縣市生育津貼政策概況》(2011), 台中市政府主計處統計通報第100-016號。

張瑋珍(2010), “全民健康保險對婦女生育選擇的影響”, 碩士論文, 國立暨南大學。

陳玉華．蔡青龍(2011), “東亞國家超低生育率的成因、困境與策略回應”, 《人口學刊》, 42, 155–163。

陳信木(2012), “我國人口生育政策之研究”, 技術報告, 行政院研究發展考核委員會。

陳彥仁(2006), “台灣生育率下降因素之實證探討”, 碩士論文, 國立成功大學。

陳綾珊(2005), 《社會保險》, 台北市: 華立圖書股份有限公司, 2版。

楊子霆．駱明慶(2009), “誰付退休金?–勞退新制對私部門勞工薪資的影響”, 《經濟論文》, 37(3), 339–368。

駱明慶(2001), “教育成就的省籍與性別差異”, 《經濟論文叢刊》, 29(2), 117–152。

駱明慶(2007), “台灣總生育率下降的表象與實際”, 《研究台灣》, 24(2), 271–291。

駱明慶(2009), “經濟學與公共政策”, URL:http://blog.roodo.com/lakatos/archives/83333.html。

2011 World Population Data Sheet (2011), Population Reference Bureau,USA.

Baughman, Reagan and Dickert-Conlin, Stacy (2003), “Did expanding theeitc promote motherhood?”, The American Economic Review, 93(2), 247–251.

Becker, Gary S and Barro, Robert J (1988), “A reformulation of the economictheory of fertility”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 103(1), 1–25.

Becker, Gary S, Duesenberry, James S, and Okun, Bernard (1960), “Aneconomic analysis of fertility”, in Demographic and economic change indeveloped countries, 225–256, Columbia University Press.

Bertrand, Marianne, Duflo, Esther, and Mullainathan, Sendhil (2004), “Howmuch should we trust differences-in-differences estimates?”, The QuarterlyJournal of Economics, 119, 249–275.

Bitler, Marianne and Zavodny, Madeline (2010), “The effect of medicaideligibility expansions on fertility”, Social Science & Medicine, 71, 918–924.

Bongaarts, John and Feeney, Griffith (1998), “On the quantum and tempoof fertility”, Population and Development Review, 271–291.

Brewer, Mike, Ratcliffe, Anita, and dSmith, Sarah (2011), “Does welfarereform affect fertility? evidence from the uk”, Journal of Population Eco-nomics, 25, 245–266.

Chiang, Tung-Liang (1997), “Taiwan’s 1995 health care reform.”, Health pol-icy (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 39, 225.

Chou, Shin-Yi, Grossman, Michael, and Liu, Jin-Tan (2011), “The impactof national health insurance on birth outcomes: A natural experiment intaiwan”, Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research.

Chou, Shin-Yi, Liu, Jin-Tan, and Hammitt, James K. (2003), “Nationalhealth insurance and precautionary saving: evidence from taiwan”, Journalof Public Economics, 87, 1873 – 1894.

DeLeire, Thomas, Lopoo, Leonard M, and Simon, Kosali I (2011), “Medicaidexpansions and fertility in the united states”, Demography, 48(2), 725–747.

James H. Stock, Mark W. Watson (2007), Introduction to Econometrics,chapter 13, 468–522, USA: Pearson Education, 2 edition.

Joshua D. Angrist, Jorn-Steffen Pischke (2009), Mostly Harmless Econo-metrics: an empiricist’s companion, chapter 5, 221–247, USA: PrincetonUniversity Press, 1 edition.

Joyce, Theodore, Kaestner, Robert, and Kwan, Florence (1998), “Is medicaidpronatalist? the effect of eligibility expansions on abortions and births”,Family Planning Perspectives, 108–127.

Leibowitz, Arleen (1990), “The response of births to changes in health carecosts”, Journal of Human Resources, 697–711.

Lin, Wan-I and Yang, Shin-Yi (2009), “From successful family planning tothe lowest of low fertility levels: Taiwans dilemma”, Asian Social Workand Policy Review, 3(2), 95–112.

Maltus, Thomas Robert (2006), An essay on the principle of population,volume 2, Cosimo Classics.

Manning, Willard G, Newhouse, Joseph P, Duan, Naihua, Keeler, Emmett B,and Leibowitz, Arleen (1987), “Health insurance and the demand for med-ical care: evidence from a randomized experiment”, The American Eco-nomic Review, 251–277.

Meyer, Breed D. (1995), “Natural and quasi-experiments in economics”,Journal of Business Economic Statistics, 13, 151–161.

Peabody, John W, Yu, Joanna Chih-I, Wang, Yi-Ren, and Bickel, Stephen R(1995), “Health System Reform in the Republic of China”, JAMA: TheJournal of the American Medical Association, 273(10), 777–781.

Todaro, Michael P. and Smith, Stephen C. (2006), “Population growth andeconomic development: Causes, consequences, and controversies”, in Eco-nomic Develpoment, chapter 6, 269–310, USA: Cosimo Classics, 11 edition.

Yang, Hsiu-ling (2000), “Education, married women’s participation rate, fer-tility and economic growth”, Journal of Economic Development, 25(2),101–118.