Showing posts with label fertility rates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fertility rates. Show all posts

Friday, September 13, 2013

Fertility, Faith, and Culture

Paul Adams

I started to respond in the combox to Joseph Pearce's response on the Ink Desk blog of St. Austin Review to Austin Ruse's response to Sanyeev Sanjal's report (which I guess you have to be a Deutsche Bank customer to get) on the effects of the current global fertility decline.  Neither a report of a report of a report nor a post here can adequately cover all the findings, projections, and possible effects, but I think caution and a still wider perspective are needed.

Demographic projections have proved notoriously unreliable because people's behavior changes in ways demographers cannot predict.  It is true that demographic decline can lead to economic, cultural, and civilizational decline, as happened with the Roman Empire.  But that example also shows how the situation can be reversed as the rise of Christianity brought with it a new social and sexual ethic as well as, in consequence, a differential ability to survive plagues (see Rodney Stark's The Rise of Christianity, ch.4 on all this).  More recently, Mary Eberstadt's book, How the West Really Lost God, shows a profound effect of fertility decline on Christianity - decline of the family and fertility leads to the decline of Christianity as well as vice versa, in a double helix type of relationship.

But we should be cautious about the economic data.  There are factors than can offset some of the economic effects of fertility decline.  For example, Joseph's statement that "The proportion of the population who are of working age will shrink and the proportion who are retired will expand" needs to be qualified with the recognition that the overall dependency ratio reflects the proportion of children below working age as well as of adults above it.  Fewer children means fewer schools, fewer women at home caring for them (and so more in the workforce), less delinquency and associated costs, and so forth. At the other end, the number of seniors out of the workforce is a function of the retirement age for public and private pensions and this can be expected to continue to rise.  Immigration can offset the decline in native workers, although the effect is temporary (in many cases, though not so much in the UK, immigrants adopt host country patterns of fertility as of diet, etc.) and is complicated at a global level when poorer countries lose their most educated workers and professionals to richer ones so can end up with fewer children, more elders, AND fewer and less productive workers.  And then there is the effect of productivity increases, which enable fewer workers to produce as much as or more than the workers before them.  These are hard to predict over a long period, especially at global levels.

Still, with all these qualifications, the demographic winter is upon us.  Iran, to take one case, is undergoing the most rapid fertility decline in recorded history.  I have no doubt that such rapid declines will prove economically, socially, politically, and culturally disruptive and debilitating.  The same is true for other countries Sanyal/Ruse cites - Brazil, Mexico, and the rest.  Anyone who has visited Italy or Greece in recent years after an absence of a few decades is struck by the change in the attitudes toward children, family, and faith.  The cultural implications of a narcissistic turn away from children, from the future, from the demands that children make for self-giving and sacrifice and adult responsibility are profound.

Saturday, April 23, 2011

The Kinderwunsch Gap

Why is there such a gap between the number of children European women say they would like to have (their Kinderwunsch) and the number they actually have? As the story I posted yesterday points out,
Indeed, surveys taken a few years ago by Eurobarometer of women’s child preference came up with a majority response of two or three children.
Yet almost all European countries have fertility rates below, and many well below, the natural replacement rate of 2.1 births per woman. The latest data showed a rise in the fertility rate from 1.47 children per woman in 2003 to 1.60 in 2008-2009, but this is still below the natural replacement rate and well below the average Kinderwunsch.

EU countries vary widely in the extent and generosity of their family policies - paid parental leave, day care, and the like, but it is not clear that these policies make much difference. (One exception was East Germany - German Democratic Republic) - which had a very low fertility rate and very high female labor force participation. The introduction of a very generous paid maternity leave policy did lead, nine months later, to a marked increase in the birth rate.)

Clearly, the wish for children competes with many other desires - especially but not only for female labor force participation (especially important for survival, not just self-realization, where there are high rates of divorce, single parenthood, and cohabitation). Even a generous substitute provider in the form of the 'cuckolding state' cannot ensure anything close to the optimal family structure for bearing and raising children. Later marriage also produces lower fertility and the sandwich generation stresses of caring simultaneously for dependent children and those children's grandparents.

It used to be that low fertility was associated with the northern European welfare states like the Scandinavian countries and high rates with southern European countries like Italy, Spain, and Greece. For some time, we have seen the opposite tendencies, with rising fertility in Sweden, where female labor force participation is still very high, and the lowest fertility in countries like Italy, Spain, and Greece. France now has a natural increase in population (net of immigration) not seen in 30 years. Outside Europe, such widely different countries as Iran and Brazil, India and China have all undergone rapid declines in fertility rates.

Some decades ago, I developed a theory - well no, I didn't develop it, it was never more than an idea - that there is a curvilinear relationship between the status of women and their total fertility rate (TFR). As the opportunities for women increase, the opportunity costs (the sacrifices required, the desired goods given up) of having children, and so of realizing their Kinderwunsch, increase. But as their prosperity grows and family policy supports a balance of family and work life and spreads the cost burden of childrearing more evenly between men and women, parents and non-parents (as Swedish family policy aims to do), so the sacrifices or tradeoffs of having the number of children you want begin to decline.

So as a country develops and industrializes, fertility first expands and more babies survive, (the first great demographic transition). Then it declines rapidly as the economy grows and the status and opportunities of women increase, leading to a big gap between Kinderwunsch and TFR. (As formal replaces informal old age and disability insurance (aka children), your 'social security' also ceases to depend on having your own children and socializing them effectively in an ideology of filial piety.) Then, as prosperity and status increase further, women are able to come closer to having the number of children they desire. They come somewhat closer to being able to have it all.

OK, it's just a thought, and doesn't explain a lot of things like the postwar baby boom.

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

Declining Fertility as a Policy Problem


At the end of June, Moscow is to host the first 'international demographic summit' with over 1,000 participants. It is sponsored by the World Congress of Families.

Russia has a total fertility rate of about 1.2 lifetime births per woman (2.1 being the population replacement rate) and a decline of 6 million people over the past 20 years (12 million without immigration). According to Premier Vladimir Putin,
"Without exaggeration, the central problem of contemporary Russia is demography, strengthening the family, increasing the birth rate..."

In Russia, demographic decline is particularly evident, but throughout Europe, East and West, countries are not reproducing themselves. The conference will cover a number of fascinating topics, including culturally induced desire for smaller families, voluntary childlessness, low birthrates and economic decline, problems of an aging society and alcoholism's negative effects on demography.

The problem of low fertility, with the prospect of population decline and a rapidly increasing old-age dependency ratio is a challenge for Asia as well as Europe. According to a Reuters article,

By 2030, the share of the population aged over 60 in Japan will have grown to 37 percent from 30 percent last year. Germany and Italy will be just behind on 36 percent.

Just as striking, the proportion of elderly South Koreans is projected to double to 32 percent, according to the McKinsey Global Institute, the economics research arm of consultants McKinsey & Co.

China, of course, faces a particular policy-induced problem as a result of its one-child policy, in force for the Han majority since 1979. But China is not alone:
Right now, China has an old-age dependency ratio of 0.11, meaning there is just over one elderly Chinese for every 10 of working age. This will rise to 0.24 in 2030 and may exceed 0.43 by 2050, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, a Paris-based forum for industrial democracies…China is not alone in facing a pensions bulge. In a report published last week, the World Bank said middle-income countries in East Asia can expect five times as many people as now to become eligible for a pension over the next two to three decades. Health care costs for a greying population will also jump.

I recall commenting 30 years ago to a social work dean in the region that China's policy would create future challenges as there came to be a big increase in the numbers of old people relative to those of working age and that increases in productivity and immigration would be unlikely to offset them. My impertinence elicited the response, "Do you think they haven't thought of that?" Of course I did not know then, and do not know now, how carefully China's ruling class considered the unintended side effects of its draconian state regulation of women's childbearing decisions - like the drag on economic growth that would come eventually from the high old age dependency ratio, the imbalance of the sexes that would result from sex-selective abortion and the social consequences of having large numbers of unattached, 'untamed' young adult males, and so forth.

Sources include: http://www.mercatornet.com/demography/view/8945/
http://www.mercatornet.com/demography/view/8943/
On the Moscow Demographic Summit, see http://www.worldcongress.ru/en/home
See also, Alan Wheatley, "Analysis: Asia braces for its date with demographic destiny" at http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/29/us-asia-economy-demographics-idUSTRE72S0KP20110329?pageNumber=1