參 考 文 獻
一、中文參考文獻
1. 于若蓉(1987),台灣婦女生育質-量聯立模型初探,碩士論文,國立台灣大學經濟研究所2. 于若蓉、朱敬一(1988),婦女勞動參與對生育行為之影響-兩制內生轉換模型之應用,經濟論文叢刊,16(2),225-2493. 行政院主計處,(1990,1993,2000,2003)台灣地區婦女婚育與就業調查
4. 林瑞穗(1977),台灣地區差別生育率相關因素的探究,台大社會學刊,12,101-116
5. 邱榮輝(1981),台灣婦女勞動參與和生育率,碩士論文,國立台灣大學經濟研究所6. 徐美(2004),有偶婦女在台灣勞動市場轉型中參與行為的變動,人口學研討會
7. 張素梅(1976),台灣生育率決定因素分析,社會科學叢論,25輯,399-412
8. 張素梅(1978),台灣都市生育水準對婦女勞動參與行為的影響,經濟論文叢刊,8,227-2739. 張素梅(1987),台灣生育率決定因素的再分析,社會科學叢論,27輯,187-193
10. 張素梅(1988),婦女勞動參與率的研究-聯立模型分析,經濟論文叢刊,16(2),175-19511. 張清溪、曹慧玲(1981),台灣地區生育率的決定因素與婦女勞動參與率的聯立模型分析,台灣大學人口學刊,5卷,71-118
12. 張清溪(1980),結婚、生育、與子女數對有偶婦女勞動供給的影響,經濟論文叢刊,9(2),167-22313. 張清溪(1981),台灣地區婦女生育與就業,行政院主計處統計專題研究報告,第三種
14. 張清溪(1982),台灣有偶婦女勞動參與,中國經濟學會年會論文集,97-127
15. 黃台心(1993),民國68年至79年台灣地區全職與兼職者的工資率變化與差異情形之研究(上)(下),企銀季刊,16(4) ,77-103;17(1),95-109
16. 劉鶯釧(1978),台灣婦女勞動參與率之變動趨勢與預測,科學發展月刊,6(3),298-30617. 劉鶯釧(1988),有偶婦女勞動參與及多重選擇模型,經濟論文叢刊,16(2),133-14718. 劉克智(1966),應用台灣靜態戶籍資料測量生育水準的探討,經濟論文專著選刊之三,中研院經濟所
19. 劉克智(1975),台灣人口成長與經濟發展,聯經出版事業公司
二、英文參考文獻
1. Becker, G. S.(1960), An Economic Analysis of Fertility, Demographic and Economic Change in Developed Countries, National Bureau of Economic Research, Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 209-240
2. Becker, G. S. & Lewis, H. G. (1973), On the Interaction Between Quantity and Quality of Children, Journal of Political Economy, 81(2), 279-288
3. Butz , W. P. and M. P. Ward(1979), The Emergence of Counter-cyclical U. S. Fertility, American Economic Review, 69, 318-328
4. Durand, John D.(1975), The Labor Force in Economic Development, A Comparison of International Census Data,1946-1966, N. J. :Princeton University Press
5. Edlefsen, L. E. (1981), The Effect of Sample Truncation on Estimates of Fertility Relationships, Research in Population Economics, 3,41-66
6. Freedman, R. , A. I. Hermalin and M. C. Chang(1975), Do Statements about Desired Family Size Predict Fertility? The Case of Taiwan, 1969-1970, Demography,12, 407-416
7. Gramm, L. W. (1973), The Labor Force Decision of Married Female Teachers : A Discriminate Analysis Approach, Review of Economics and Statistics, 341-348
8. Greene, William(1990), Econometric Analysis. New York: Macmillan
9. Hotchkiss, L. J.(1991), The Defination of Part-Time Employment : A Switching Regression Model With Unknown Sample Selection, International Economic Review,32(4)
10. Huan, N. D. (1997), A Socioeconomic Analysis of the Determinants of Fertility : The Case of Vietnam, Journal of Population Economics, 10(3), 251-271
11. Long, E. J. and B. E. Jones(1980), Part-Week Work by Married Women, Southern Economic Journal, 716-725
12. Liu, P. K. C. (1965), Socio-economic Development and Fertility Levels in Taiwan, Industry of Free China, 24(2),2-19
13. Montgomery, M. and J. Cosgrove(1995), Are Part-Time Women Paid Less? Model With Firm-Specific Effect, Economic Inquiry, 119-133
14. Morgenstern, R. and Willianm Hamovitch (1976), Labor supply of Married Women in Part-time and Full-time Occupations, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 30,59-67
15. Maddala, G. S. (1983), Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics, Cambridge : Cambridge University Press
16. Robinson, C. and N. Tomes(1982), Family labour supply and Fertility: A two-regime model, Canadian Journal of Economics,15,706-734.
17. Ribero, R. (2000), Family Structure, Fertility and Child Quality in Colombia, Yale University center discussion paper, No.818
18. Simpson, Wayne(1986),Analysis of Part-Time Pay in Cananda, Canadian Journal of Economics, 19(4),789-807
19. Schultz. T. P.(1978) ,The Influence of Fertility on Labor supply of Married Women : Simultaneous Equation Estimates, Research in Labor Economics,2,273-351
20. Schultz. T. P.(1981) , Economics of Population, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley
21. Tilly, Chris(1991), Reasons for the Continuing Growth of Part-Time Employment, Monthly Labor Review,1-6
22. Tomes, N. (1981), A Model of Fertility and Children’s Schooling, Economic Inquiry, 19, 209-234
23. Yen, E. C. ,Yen, G. & Liu, B. C. (1989), Cultural and Fertility Effects on Fertility Decisions in Taiwan, R. O. C. :Traditional Values and Family Structure are as Relevant as Income Measures, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 48(4), 415-426