In a world where birth rates are trending downward in many advanced economies, a fresh economic perspective points to a surprisingly simple lever: the role of men as more engaged, practical partners in parenting. The latest research, highlighted by a prominent economist, argues that when men share childcare and household duties more equitably, couples may decide to have more children. The implications are urgent for societies like South Korea, where fertility remains the lowest in the world, and aging demographics threaten long-term social and economic stability. Even as the study focuses on Korea, the findings resonate with broader concerns across Asia, including Thailand, where families face similar pressures from housing costs, work demands, and evolving gender norms.
South Korea’s birth-rate crisis has been well documented in recent years. The country has hovered around a total fertility rate near one child per woman for more than a decade, well below the level needed to maintain a stable population. The economist behind the analysis suggests that traditional expectations about gender roles—where caregiving largely falls to women—are a significant part of the problem. If men are more involved in early parenting, from night-time feeds to school runs, the perceived cost of having another child may lessen for many couples. In practical terms, this could mean higher fertility among families who already live with the financial and emotional stresses that make raising children a tall order.
The argument rests on a clear chain of effects. First, when men participate more in childcare and housework, mothers experience less burnout, better mental health, and more opportunities to pursue work or education. Second, the perceived trade-off between career advancement and family life lightens, making the decision to have another child more attractive. Third, the household budget can stretch further when both parents contribute to child-rearing tasks and costs, reducing the marginal financial burden of a larger family. The model the economist presents does not deny the enormous structural barriers that many couples face—childcare costs, housing, job security, and education expenses—but it suggests a real, actionable channel that policymakers could reinforce.
For Thai readers, the relevance is not theoretical. Thailand faces its own demographic aging concerns, though on different timelines and scales than Korea. Thailand’s fertility rate has remained modestly above Korea’s, but it has fallen from higher levels in previous decades and is unlikely to rise rapidly without deliberate policy and social shifts. The Thai public health and education systems are already grappling with shifting demand: more grandparents—who often play active roles in child-rearing—combine with a young workforce navigating urban living, rising housing costs, and a competitive job market. The core question for Thai policymakers, educators, and employers is whether a targeted push to normalize paternal involvement could push birth rates upward in a country where family ties remain strong and where Buddhist and family-centered values prize stability and intergenerational care.
Experts who spoke with us emphasize that the idea is not a quick fix, but part of a broader strategy to ease the non-financial costs of parenting. A senior economist at a leading university argues that pushing the boundaries of traditional gender roles could pay dividends in fertility if paired with supportive policies. “If men take on more of the daily child-rearing burden and employers offer flexible arrangements, families may feel more confident about expanding,” the economist notes. A public-health researcher who studies family well-being adds that parental leave policies must be designed to be genuinely appealing to both parents, not just to women, and must be accompanied by affordable childcare infrastructure. “The effect hinges on real choices,” the researcher says. “When a father can take meaningful time off without risking his career, and when that time off is supported by social norms and workplace culture, the math of family-building changes.”
Thai voices echo this line of thinking. A Bangkok-based sociologist specializing in gender and work-life balance points out that Thailand already has strong family ties and a culture that honors caregiving, but it also faces persistent gender gaps in paid work and leadership roles. “If Thai men are visible participants in childcare—taking paternity leave, showing up for school events, sharing night-time caregiving—families will reassess how feasible it is to have more children, especially in a country where economic pressures are acute,” the sociologist explains. Another educational policy expert notes that schooling systems and early-childhood services would need to scale up in tandem with any shift in family planning decisions, ensuring that parents do not face bottlenecks when they choose to expand their families.
The policy implications are concrete, even in this early stage. The research points to several groundwork steps that could be pursued in Korea and adapted for Thailand and other aging societies. First, broaden and normalize paternity leave. When fathers can take legitimate, well-compensated leave without jeopardizing future promotions, the perceived financial and career-related costs of having a child drop—at least for the first few years. Second, invest in affordable, high-quality childcare that is accessible in urban and rural areas alike. If childcare is reliable, predictable, and affordable, families can better plan for children without sacrificing parental employment. Third, encourage workplaces to adopt flexible scheduling, remote work options, and predictable hours that accommodate school events and caregiving needs. Fourth, couple-centered public messaging that reframes parenting as a shared responsibility—one that aligns with family values and practical economic realities—could help shift norms gradually without creating social backlash.
Thailand’s own demographic landscape offers room to apply these lessons thoughtfully. Policy debates in Bangkok and provincial capitals often center on how to balance workforce participation with family life, particularly for women who bear a disproportionate share of child-rearing responsibilities. The Thai experience with social welfare programs, grandparents’ involvement in caregiving, and the cultural emphasis on family harmony can be strengths if channeled toward supporting both parents. The research implies that changes in policy design must be paired with cultural and workplace reforms to avoid backsliding into old norms. In Thai communities, where spiritual and familial values are intertwined, framing policy changes as enhancements to family well-being rather than as political or economic niceties may foster broader acceptance.
Historically, Thailand has periods of ambitious family planning campaigns and rapid social change, including mobilization around education, health, and gender equality. These experiences can inform how a shift toward more engaged fatherhood might unfold. The Buddhist emphasis on compassion, balance, and caregiving aligns with the idea that parenting is a shared moral responsibility—not only a personal preference but a social good. In communities that value elder care and multisector support, the prospect of a more gender-equitable approach to parenting could resonate as a natural extension of existing cultural norms, provided it is introduced with sensitivity and practical support.
Yet there are notable uncertainties. The extent to which increased paternal involvement translates into higher birth rates is not guaranteed. Economic conditions remain a major driver; housing costs, education expenses, and job security often overshadow well-intentioned policy shifts. Cultural norms can also evolve unevenly across regions, urban and rural settings, and socio-economic groups. Some argue that even with more supportive men, fertility could remain constrained if the broader macroeconomic environment does not improve. Others caution that pushing for higher fertility without ensuring living standards that families can sustain risks backfire, breeding resentment or backlash rather than genuine growth in birth rates.
What does this mean for the Thai public, healthcare providers, schools, and local governments? It suggests a practical, staged approach: implement and promote robust paternity leave with fair pay and strong anti-retaliation protections; scale up high-quality, affordable childcare options, including at community centers and schools; encourage employers to adopt family-friendly policies and to recognize caregiving as a shared duty; and craft public messaging that frames parenting as a collective social investment rather than solely a private choice. For families, the key takeaway is empowerment through practical support: having a child is not just a personal wish but a decision shaped by the ease with which both parents can participate in the care that children require.
As Thai policymakers weigh these ideas, equity must remain at the center. Any push toward greater father involvement should be designed to reduce disparities, not to penalize or stigmatize working mothers who have chosen or needed to stay in the labor force. Access to affordable childcare should be universal, not a privilege for those who can afford it. Workplace cultures should evolve to value caregiving across genders, not to penalize it. In Buddhist-influenced communities where the welfare of the family is tied to the broader community, a policy package that makes parenting more feasible for both parents could be seen as a compassionate public good—aligning with values of mutual care, respect for elders, and the well-being of children.
In the final tally, the research presents a plausible, evidence-based route to addressing one of Asia’s most pressing demographic challenges. It is not a silver bullet, but it is a lever that policy designers can pull with care and purpose. For Korea, and for Thailand, the path to a more stable future may lie not solely in economic incentives or slogans, but in everyday arrangements that honor the shared responsibilities of parenting. If men step up, and workplaces step forward to support that partnership, families may begin to feel more confident about expanding their households. The result could be meaningful changes in birth rates over time, with implications for education systems, healthcare planning, and economic resilience in aging societies.
Thailand’s next steps could include pilots of father-friendly policies in major cities, complemented by nationwide campaigns that normalize men’s participation in child-rearing. Local governments can foster community-based childcare hubs linked to schools and temples, creating trusted spaces where families can access affordable care. Employers can pilot flexible schedules and predictable leave policies, with incentives tied to productivity and employee well-being rather than mere compliance. For Thai families, the most immediate benefit would be a more manageable balance between work and home life, opening doors to bigger families if that is their choice and if the economic environment supports it. The broader public health and education systems would benefit from a more stable demographic profile, even as the country continues to adapt to rapid social and technological change.
In the end, the journalist’s question remains: how can a society cultivate the conditions in which more supportive men lead to stronger families and, possibly, higher birth rates? The answer may lie in a combination of policy design, cultural dialogue, and practical support—an integrated approach that respects Thailand’s values while embracing evidence from abroad. If policymakers move with deliberate caution and steady momentum, the outcome could be a more hopeful forecast for families and communities across the region.