You can read this newsletter online at this link: https://lesglorieuses.fr/falling-birth-rates

Not too long ago, Finland was held up as an example of a country that had got it right when it came to fertility rates. At a time when birth rate levels were falling in many countries, Finland’s fertility levels were on the up, climbing from 1.7 babies per woman in 2000 to 1.9 in 2010. Policymakers from around the world, worried about their birth rates dropping too far below the 2.1 “replacement level”, travelled to Finland to learn from the world-famous Nordic model.

But around 2010, everything changed. Finland’s birth rate began to drop precipitously, reaching just 1.26 in 2023 – the lowest since records began in 1776, below many other Northern European countries and in line with Italy, Spain and Japan, nations which had long been regarded as having “lowest low” fertility levels. France now has the highest fertility rate in Europe, at 1.79. Its success has been attributed to everything from the age at which children start school to the significant portion of GDP spent on family-friendly policies.

So what went wrong for Finland? The truth is that no one really knows – it has surprised experts, and cannot be explained by traditional theories. But the country is not alone. Germany, at 1.35 babies per woman, has recently joined the ranks of countries experiencing « ultra-low” fertility rates: below 1.4, the point at which reversing the decline is understood to become especially difficult. The Italian birth rate, at 1.2, has been described as “irreversible”. The rate in England and Wales has dropped to the lowest rate on record (1.44). In Japan (1.2), a demographic expert has warned that if the country’s birth rate continues to fall at its current pace, by January 5, 2720, there may be only one child under the age of 14 in the entire country.

South Korea’s birth rate, meanwhile, is the lowest on the planet. It dropped to 0.72 in 2023. This means that each generation will be less than half the size of the previous one. At the current rate, every 100 South Koreans living today will have only 15 grandchildren.

It has been predicted that by the end of the century, 97% of the world will have fertility rates below 2.1, the level needed to sustain populations. This has commentators pretty concerned, with talk of “pension timebombs” caused by not enough young people to support ageing populations, and the prospect of a “sharp decline in living standards”.

In Russia, “child-free propaganda” has been banned. In Japan, the Tokyo government has given its employees a four day workweek with the aim of boosting fertility. South Korea is organising state-sponsored dating events. Hungary has eliminated income tax for mothers under the age of 30. Meanwhile, pronatalism has become the latest trend in Silicon Valley. As these examples show, policy responses to the fall in birth rates vary wildly. And while some do bolster gender equality, many others dramatically curtail women’s rights.

The macroeconomics of babies

Traditionally, falling birth rates have been understood in relation to economic development. As societies develop, birth rates tend to decline due to improved healthcare, urbanisation, education and contraception access. Meanwhile, raising children becomes more expensive, and women’s increased education and workforce participation heighten the trade-offs associated with having children.

This is why policymakers used to flock to Finland – feminist measures like improved childcare provision, parental leave and maternity services were seen to be the solution for societies struggling to adapt to households with two breadwinners. However, this has not tended to explain wide differences in the rate of fertility decline. A recent working paper from the Nobel Prize-winning economist Claudia Goldin provides a new perspective.

Goldin compares two groups of countries. The first – Denmark, France, Germany, Sweden, the UK and the US – are countries that developed at a steady rate. Their fertility rates have been declining since the 1970s, but at a relatively low rate of change. The second group – Greece, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Portugal, and Spain – all developed at pace, with very quick rates of urbanisation and rapid growth in GDP per capita during the 60s and 70s after a long period of stagnation or decline. These countries had relatively high fertility levels until the 1980s or 90s, after which they suddenly dropped to become the lowest in the world.

This, she suggests, could explain the difference. “Traditions and beliefs change more slowly than do economies,” she writes, noting that countries where economic progress outstrips social progress – and which see less gender equality in household division of labour – see the most rapid falls in fertility. “Rapid economic change often challenges strongly held beliefs, and beliefs change more slowly than technology does and economies do. Traditional people are often catapulted into modernity with little time for beliefs, traditions, and social mores to adjust.”

Goldin is an economic historian, and so wouldn’t speculate on the potential drivers of the recent sudden drop among countries in or similar to her first group – the UK, Germany, and Finland.  But her insights are interesting to consider in relation to countries such as Finland. If in previous decades, more traditional people were catapulted into modernity “with little time for beliefs, traditions, and social mores to adjust,” then what is the new reality that we are currently being catapulted into, and how can we adjust?

Clearly, while policies like parental leave and childcare can provide support, they are not sufficient. Finland is one of the world’s most supportive states when it comes to new parents, yet this doesn’t seem to be having an impact. I spoke to two Finnish experts to find out more.

‘It’s something cultural’

Julia Hellstrand is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Helsinki who has published multiple papers on Finland’s fertility decline since 2010. She told me that the decline has surprised experts, as it cannot be easily explained by the usual theories.

“The drop has been observed across all population groups, including by region, education, and native background, which suggests there is not a single, simple cause behind the decline. However, the most significant decline has been in first births. Surveys indicate that a childfree lifestyle is becoming more common.” Meanwhile, the ways people partner up also seem to play a role, she says: “It seems that commitment and taking the next step in relationships has become more difficult.”

Economic factors do seem to play a role, but people “seem to have become more sensitive to their circumstances, rather than economic conditions worsening,” Hellstrand says.

“While lack of a partner and economic uncertainty were previously the most common reasons for postponing or forgoing childbearing, a notable shift has occurred. Increasingly, one of the primary reasons cited in recent years is prioritising other interests in life.”

Anna Rotkirch, a research professor from the Family Federation of Finland, agrees. “The current decline is mostly due to cultural changes in lifestyle aspirations and lack of support to young adults, the relationship recession, mental health challenges, and so on,” she told me. 

I asked Goldin whether any countries had historically reversed a declining birth rate.

“There is really only one example of a country that has come back from ‘lowest low’: the US after World War II. Almost all combatant countries had a baby boom of some type, but most were very short-lived and were only seen in the cohort that was still fertile after the war. They were baby boomlets. The US’s baby boom, meanwhile, continued.”

This was achieved by glorifying marriage, motherhood, the idea of the good wife and the home – ideals that are not compatible with gender equality. Rather than reverting to outdated gender norms, could a turnaround today be accomplished by glorifying parenthood, especially fatherhood, Goldin wonders?

The problem is that policy efforts to turn fertility rates around are notoriously unreliable, and incredibly expensive. This is not surprising when the factors at play seem to be largely cultural. However, “there is much that can be done,” says Rotkirch, who was recently commissioned by the Finnish government to write a report on the barriers to childbearing and how to better support families.

She put together a list of 20 policy proposals, some of which are aimed at raising cultural kudos around parenthood. Her proposals range from the cheap and easy (teach fertility in schools to avoid involuntary childlessness) to more costly (offer support for young adults with relationship problems) and utopian (fully compensate parents for their expenses related to childrearing).

What is clear is that countries are going to need to adapt to low fertility levels. The climate crisis is ramping up, food shocks are on the rise, technological disruption caused by AI is on the near horizon, pandemics are a real and increasing risk. Uncertainty in general seems to be a given and, as Goldin told me: “Instability, volatility and uncertainty are killers for personal relationships and for planning for the future.”

Ultimately, we need to work out how to create caring communities for those who want to have children and for those who don’t. And clearly that’s going to involve getting a lot more creative.

Research Round-up

Here’s what else is making the news:

1. 🦴 Celtic Britain seems to have been matriarchal, new research has discovered. This is the first time such a female-centric social system has been documented in European prehistory.

2. 🥱 Most people can’t tell when women are tired, according to a new study from NASA. Tiredness in women was found to be consistently underestimated, while men’s was overestimated.

3. 🧪 More female scientists are quitting the profession than male scientists, even in biological-science disciplines that have roughly equal representation.

About The Evidence

The Evidence is a supplement to the Impact newsletter designed to help you understand gender inequality – and show how we might fix it. Impact is a weekly newsletter of feminist journalism, dedicated to the rights of women and gender-diverse people worldwide.

This is the English version of our newsletter; you can read the French one here.