本文利用簡單的動態模型，檢驗教育開支增加和休閒效用上升是否造成家庭的生育率下滑。本文所採用的模型，著重在家庭開支(尤其是基本開銷、儲蓄、子女教育開支以及休閒開銷)對生育率的影響。教育開支以及休閒效用是本模型中的重點，基本開銷被視作為固定值，儲蓄則是因為趨勢與生育率有所不同而排除。在模型的運行上，以2000年前後做為分界點，將資料以兩期的方式做處理並取得模型的生育率，藉此與實際生育率做比對。從基礎模型的結果可發現在前期模型的生育率是高於實際生育率，而在後期則是接近實際生育率，這代表休閒效用與教育支出會影響後期生育率；進一步細分兩者的效果，教育支出的效果會大於休閒效用。為了解決早期生育率過高的問題，本文將奢侈消費加入到模型內建立出衍生模型，從中發現在前期奢侈消費確實會減少生育率，但是後期卻會使得人們生育率增加；藉由模型的結果，政府未來可以朝向減少教育支出的方向施政，將有助於生育率的上升。

This paper uses a simple dynamic model to test whether increased spending on education costs or increased leisure utility contributes to a decline in fertility. The model focuses on the impact of household expenditures, i.e., basic expenditures, savings, children's education costs, and leisure expenditures. In particular, we focus on education cost and leisure utility, as we treat basic spending as a fixed value and exclude savings (because its trend differs from the trend of fertility rate). In our analysis, we take 2000 as the demarcation point and explore the factors affecting the fertility rate in the early and late periods.
Based on the results of the basic model, the model's fertility rate is higher than the actual fertility rate in the early period, whereas the model result is close to the actual fertility rate in the late period. Thus, we conclude that the changes in leisure preferences and the rising education costs account for the low fertility rate in the late period. To resolve the issue of the high fertility rate in the early period, we added luxury consumption into the model. It turns out that including luxury consumption in the early period can reduce the fertility rate, but this feature causes the fertility rate to rise in the later period. Accordingly, to raise the fertility rate, the government can design policies to reduce household spending on education.

凌語韓 (2022)，〈探討台灣低生育的可能原因〉，國立清華大學經濟系碩士班碩士論文，新竹市。

Samuelson, P. A. (1948). Economics: The Original 1948 Edition. McGraw-Hill Education.

Tomáš Sobotka, Anna Matysiak, Zuzanna Brzozowska. (2019). Policy responses to low fertility: How effective are they? UNFPA,98.

Doshi, Kokila. (1994). Determinants of the Saving Rate—An International Comparison. Contemporary Economic Policy. 12. 37-45.

Bloom, D. E., Canning, D., & Graham, B. (2003). Longevity and Life-Cycle Savings. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 105(3), 319–338.

Bloom, D. E., Canning, D., Mansfield, R. K., & Moore, M. (2007). Demographic Change, Social Security Systems, and Savings. Journal of monetary economics, 54(1), 92–114.

Heckman, J. J., & Macurdy, T. E. (1980). A Life Cycle Model of Female Labour Supply. The Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 47–74.

Schultz, T. P. (1969). An Economic Model of Family Planning and Fertility. Journal of Political Economy, 77(2), 153–180.

Becker, G. S., & Tomes, N. (1976). Child Endowments and the Quantity and Quality of Children. Journal of Political Economy, 84(4), S143–S162.

Becker, G. S., & Barro, R. J. (1988). A Reformulation of the Economic Theory of Fertility. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 103(1), 1–25.

Bloom, D. E., Canning, D., Fink, G., & Finlay, J. E. (2009). Fertility, Female Labor Force Participation, and the Demographic Dividend. Journal of Economic Growth, 14(2), 79–101.

Hsu, M, Liao, P-J, Zhao, M. (2018). Demographic change and long-term growth in China: Past developments and the future challenge of aging. Rev Dev Econ. 2018; 22: 928– 952.

Pei-Ju Liao, Ping Wang, Yin-Chi Wang, and Chong K. Yip. (2020). Fertility and Internal Migration. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, Fourth Quarter 2020, pp. 429-45.