育嬰留職停薪津貼及育嬰假於民國103年11月21日修正，放寬申請門檻，使受雇者任職滿六個月後即可提出申請，目的為保障育齡父母工作權之平等、提高育齡婦女的生育意願。本文使用健保署承保業務資料及內政部新生兒通報系統資料，使用民國104年之前後五年共10 年間之資料。

本研究運用差異中的差異(Difference-in-Differences) 方法比較政策前後兩年的差異，以檢視政策效果。另探討產業特性差異:半導體科技業與政府機關復職率比較，觀察產業特性是否影響請假比例及復職率? 以及探究在民國108~109年間COVID-19疫情對醫療保健服務業申請育嬰假的影響。

研究結果雖然政策效果顯著，但其背後的政策效益並不如預期。藉由復職率檢測政策效果，觀察到雖然件數比例增加，但是復職率較低。任職天數滿6至12個月期間的員工，政策前後的差異；男性比例增加、年輕化、平均薪資較低，就業期間短。推估穩定性較差；或許原本申請時就沒有計畫返回原單位，領滿6個月津貼就離職，導致未復職比例顯著提高。政策立意良善，但有限資源卻遭不當運用。

育嬰假政策雖對符合資格者而言並沒有排他性，但政策的制定往往無法全方位地考量，某些行業的特性及限制的確有可能導致受雇者在利大於弊的狀況下，無法運用這項福利政策。例如半導體科技產業變化快速，員工可能擔心復職時無法跟上公司動態而放棄申請育嬰假。加上半導體科技業平均薪資較高，隨著薪資增加請假比例明顯下降，尤以六萬元以上之請假比例僅7.5%,為三類行業中最低。因為薪資越高者其所面臨的經濟因素選擇問題，關係到機會成本(opportunity costs)。
於五月疫情加劇時，因少數醫師於疫情期間請長假來降低感染風險，進而引發話題。故針對醫療保健行業，探討育嬰假是否受疫情影響。醫療保健業原先因工作時間須輪班，壓力大導致請育嬰假比例較高，又加上疫情因素，造成疫情發生後一年的請假比例上升，可見新冠肺炎疫情對醫療保健業，請育嬰假有正向的影響。

The regulations of parental leave allowance and parental leave have been amended since November 21, 2014. The requirements have been lowered, allowing the employed workers to apply for it after being employed over six months. The purpose is to ensure gender equality in the aspect of employment and to increase the willingness of women of childbearing age to have children. This paper use data from the Bureau of National Health and Insurance and data of birth from household registration system of Ministry of the interior. The period of the data is 5 years before and after 2015. By adopting Difference-in-Difference, we compare the difference between two years before and after the change of policy, respectively for the purpose of reviewing the effectiveness of the policy. In addition, we examine the differences resulting from industrial characteristics. The reinstatement rates of the semiconductor industry and government agencies are compared to see if the industry characteristics will affect the reinstatement rate. We also delve into the seriousness of COVID-19 pandemic which affected parental leave application in the healthcare service industry from 2019 to 2020.

The effect of policy change is statistically significant; however, the benefit did not meet the fertility rate expectation. By inspecting the result, we notice an increase in the percentage of cases but the reinstatement rate is low. The initial purpose of this policy is good but limited resources are not well-utilized. For employees who have worked for 6 to 12 months, we discern the contrast between before - and after – the change of the policy, which is furthered followed by the proportion of men, younger age, lower average salary as well as shorter employment period.

Although the parental leave policy is not exclusivity, the regulation of policy could not consider all the aspects, since some employers are not capable of using this welfare policy due to the characteristics and limitations of their industries. For example, the semiconductor industry is fast-changing. The employees might give up their chance of applying for parental leave because they are afraid that they might not keep up with others after reinstated. In addition, the average salary in the semiconductor technology industry is relatively high. As the salary increases, the proportion of leave requests has dropped significantly. Especially, the proportion of leave requests over NTD 60,000 in semiconductor industry is standing at just 7.5%, which is the lowest of three salary ranges over the three types of industries. Because of people compensated with higher salary, they will be confronted with the economic factor selection problem related to opportunity costs.

In the period of the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak in May 2021, a public discussion occurred because a small portion of doctors took long leave to reduce their chance of getting infected. Thus, we focus on the healthcare service industry to see whether the pandemic has affected their parental leave application. The percentage of applying parental leave was already higher in the healthcare service industry than that in other industries in the first place. The application rate of the year in the healthcare industry in the wake of the pandemic is on the rise. Unexpectedly, the pandemic results in positive effects on the rate of parental leave.

摘要 I
ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………Ⅲ
誌謝 Ⅴ
目錄 Ⅵ
圖目錄 Ⅷ
表目錄 Ⅸ
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機 1
第二節 研究議題 2
第二章 制度背景與文獻探討 3
第一節 育嬰假勞、健保制度沿革及差異 3
第二節 國內外育嬰假相關研究與參考摘要 9
第三節 育嬰假復職 10
第三章 資料敘述 11
第一節 資料來源與樣本選取 11
第二節 解釋變數與被解釋變數 12
第三節 敘述統計與資料分析 16
第四章 實證結果分析 24
第一節 政策效果 24
第二節 行業別差異 28
第三節 新冠疫情對醫療業申請育嬰假的影響 31
第五章 結論與研究限制 34
第一節 研究結論 34
第二節 政策建議 35
第三節 研究限制及後續研究 36
參考文獻 38

1.109年僱用管理就業平等概況調查統計結果摘要
https://statdb.mol.gov.tw/html/svy09/0924NEWS.pdf.
2.內政部戶政司全球資訊網(2021) 人口統計資料、男女婚育年齡中位數及平均數
3.全國法規資料庫:性別工作平等法105年5月18日修正，育嬰留職停薪實施辦法
全國法規資料庫109年1月21日修正
https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=N0030018
4.林靜莉(2012)。我國育嬰留職停薪制度之研究-以中部科學工業園區為例。逢甲大學
公共政策研究所教育行政組碩士班論文。
5.陳宥妃（2014）。育嬰留職停薪假申請意願及復職狀況之研究-以北台灣地區為例。國立中正大學勞工關係學系暨研究所碩士學位班論文。
6.勞動部勞動及職業安全衛生研究所（2014）。受僱者申請育嬰留職停薪之性別差異影響因素研究 。9/08/2018，引自：
https://labor-elearning.mol.gov.tw/base/10001/door/
報告區/846_ILOSH103-R323受僱者申請育嬰留職停薪之性別差異
7.勞動部(2018)。105 年育嬰留職停薪期滿復職關懷調查(AH120003)【原始數據】。取自中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心調查研究專題中心學術調查研究資料庫。doi:10.6141/TW-SRDA-AH120003-1。
8.勞動部(2021)。108年育嬰留職停薪期滿復職關懷調查(AH120004)【原始數據】取自中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心調查研究專題中心學術調查研究資料庫。doi:10.6141/TW-SRDA-AH120004-1
9.華視新聞台大醫院院長批疫情請長假的醫生
https://news.cts.com.tw/cts/life/202105/202105242043577.html
10.趙可欽（2012）。護理人員育嬰假後轉職決策之探討。長榮大學醫務管理學系碩士 班論文。

英文參考文獻
1.Adema, W., C. Clarke and V. Frey (2015), “Paid Parental Leave: Lessons from OECD Countries and Selected U.S. States”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 172, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5jrqgvqqb4vb-en.
2.Marie Evertsson and Ann-Zofie Duvander(2010), Parental Leave—Possibility or Trap? Does Family Leave Length Effect Swedish Women’s Labour Market Opportunities?, European Sociological Review, Volume 27, Issue 4, August 2011, Pages 435–450, https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcq018
3.Thévenon, O. and A. Solaz (2013), “Labour Market Effects of Parental Leave Policies in OECD Countries”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 141, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5k8xb6hw1wjf-en.