Long read: The Baby Bust

In 1968, Paul Ehrlich, an entomologist at Stanford University, wrote a book that incited a worldwide fear of overpopulation. The Population Bomb, which became a best-seller, controversially argued that unless population growth was tackled, the world would face mass starvation, societal upheaval and environmental deterioration. Yet over half a century later, we’re starting to worry more about population decline.

Recent data from the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics Evaluation (IHME) has led to much of the media reporting concerns of a “jaw-dropping” crash in children born worldwide. The data – published in The Lancet – projected that the global population would peak at 9.7 billion around 2064 and then fall to 8.8 billion by 2100. It also claimed that by the end of the century, 183 out of 195 countries would have fertility rates below the replacement level of 2.1 (the number of babies each woman needs to have on average for the country’s population to remain stable).

The IHME projections correspond with other available data that shows a worldwide decline in birth rates. China’s once-a-decade census revealed a dramatically low fertility rate, a shrinking labour force and a rapidly ageing population – a decline which has led to the introduction of a three-child policy, up from two. In the US, fertility rates have fallen below replacement rates, hitting a historic low of 1.7 in 2019 and predicted to drop even further due to Covid-19. In Europe, the number of over-65s will have grown by 40 per cent by 2050. The UN has even predicted that by 2100, the world population growth will be practically zero.

As a result, some demographers have been expressing their concerns over the social, political and economic ramifications of these declining birth rates. They believe an ageing population will mean a shrinking economy and a drag on productivity and that governments will be overburdened by older people needing state assistance.

But why are birth rates declining? And how worried should we be?

What is behind the decline?

For decades, demographers have known that the total fertility rate (TFR) – a measure used to calculate the number of children a woman would have in her lifetime – has been declining worldwide. Countries in southern and eastern Europe have reported extremely low TFRs of 1.3 or below since the early 1990s. Countries in East Asia, like Japan and South Korea, have also reported low TFRs throughout the 2000s; South Korea, in particular, has a TFR of 1.1. According to a research paper by Sidney B. Westley et al. of the East-West Centre in Honolulu, this is due to economic and social modernisation. Gains in education, employment, and living standards combined with breakthroughs in health and family-planning technology have led to lower fertility in every region.

Since the 1960s and the arrival of contraception, women have finally been given a chance to shape and control their lives. In 2019, globally, 49 per cent of women in the reproductive age range (15-49) were using some form of contraception. According to a UN report, if this rise in contraception accelerates, fertility rates may fall faster than expected. The IHME report found that women’s education and access to contraception is underpinning “widespread” and “sustained” declines in global fertility. With a rise in the use of contraceptives combined with greater education and employment opportunities, better sex education and more autonomy, it is no surprise that these birth rates are falling across developed nations.

The cost of raising a family has also played a role. According to the US Department of Agriculture, thecost of raising a child until the age 17 is on average of $233,610. For many millennials experiencing stagnant wages, insecure work and an unstable housing ladder, this price tag is simply too high. As Westley et al. note, “Cost is an important factor when considering having a child – both the cost of raising a child and the opportunity cost for the woman who interrupts her career to give birth and care for a baby.”

The Covid-19 pandemic has exacerbated the trend of declining birth rates. Whilst initially there were high hopes for a baby boom as everyone was stuck inside, in reality it has been more of a baby bust. Preliminary data has revealed that many women of a childbearing age, many of whom are millennials, choose to delay or not have children due to increasing uncertainty and a justifiable concern for the future.

Emerging data from the US and high-income countries in Europe and Asia all suggest that their birth rates fell in December 2020 and January 2021 by between 7 and 22 per cent compared to the previous year. In Italy, births across 15 cities fell by 21.9 per cent in December 2020 compared to the previous year. In France – traditionally the European country with the highest fertility rate – births dropped by 13 per cent in January this year. In the UK, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) found that the average number of children born in the third quarter of 2020 was 1.6 – the lowest figure since records began.

But the most-talked about country has been the US, where a projected 7 per cent decline would mean a quarter of a million fewer babies born. This figure is backed up by data from the Brookings Institution, which predicted the pandemic would lead to “a large and lasting” baby bust. Brookings based this on lessons drawn from fertility behaviour, along with data from the 1918 Spanish Flu and the Great Recession of 2007 to 2009 – both of which led to a significant decline in birth rates. A survey by the New York-based Guttmacher Institute found that 34 per cent of American women have “either delayed their plans to have a child or reduced the number of children they expect to have as a result of the pandemic.”

Part of the reason the decline is obvious: sex has suffered. Marieke Dewitte, a physiologist and sexologist at the University of Maastricht, told the BBC that “people react very differently to how this pandemic affects their sexuality and relationship,” she said. “For some people, stress increases sexual desire, and for other people, it kills sexual desire.” Dewitte’s theory ties in with other published data, which found that “social distancing” rules imposed limits on sex and that nearly half of those studied reported a decline in their sex life.

Some academics believe these startling statistics should not be a cause for concern. Sarah Harper is a professor at the Oxford Institute of Population Ageing, and she believes the rates are just history repeating itself. “You only need to look at the Spanish Flu and the SARS and Ebola outbreaks to see that during a pandemic, people are unlikely to have children,” she says. “When there’s economic insecurity, people hold back for fear of job losses and losing their home. Yes, we will have a little baby bust after this pandemic, but we have lived through it before, and we will do it again.”

Can the decline be stopped?

For his book, The Other Population Crisis: What Governments Can Do About Falling Birth Rates, Stephen Kramer visited countries with low fertility rates, from Sweden to Japan. Kramer noticed that in Singapore and Japan, the work culture was in direct conflict with family life. He believes that to boost fertility rates, governments need to make it possible to reconcile work and family: “You have to have housing and education for these children to develop well, and you have to have programs which are not just monetary programs but social programs [..] If you can’t do that, women are not going to have children.”

For example, France’s fertility rate since 2002 had increased from 1.74 to 2.08 before the pandemic. Kramer believes this is, in part, due to a variety of pro-natalist initiatives such as tax deductions for dependents and paid maternity leave financed through a national health insurance system.

One way to bump up population statistics is to rely on immigrant labour from regions of the world where there are above replacement-level births. Ibrahim Abubakar, a professor at UCL, believes migration is the key. Responding to research published in The Lancet – which said that in the absence of liberal immigration policies, 183 of 195 countries on the planet would not be able to maintain current populations by the end of the century – he argues that if the study were “even half accurate” then migration would become a “necessity for all nations and not an option.”

He adds: “The positive impacts of migration on health and economies are known globally. The choice we face is whether we improve health and wealth by allowing planned population movement or if we end up with an underclass of imported labour and unstable societies.”

How concerned should we be?

Firstly, the IHME projection – which bases fertility on anticipated future access to education and contraception – is just one possible scenario. Using the UN measurement of looking at fertility and mortality alone, you get dramatically different results, with world population peaking at 11 billion in 2100 compared IHME’s 8.8bn.

Even if the IHME estimate is closer to reality, and in spite of economic concerns, lower fertility rates do bring benefits. Having fewer children is often a product of greater female autonomy and education, and helps to combat climate change.

“First of all, let’s put this decline into context,” says Prof Harper. “A decline in birth rate is all part of development. If we look at why women don’t have children, it’s because they have the choice, have access to contraception and healthcare, are highly educated and want to do other things, or delay having their first child. We should be saying this is good, let women decide and don’t penalise them if they want to be child-free.”

Prof Harper says the problem is that we continue to have an ageist society. In the UK, we continue to see older people as unproductive: “There is an increase in people staying in the labour market in developed countries. We need to change perceptions that this age bracket can’t contribute to society because they can, and they do. It won’t lead to a shrinking economy because they will be contributing and consuming.” She refutes policies that try to buck the trend of a declining birth rate; she believes it is inevitable and we shouldn’t try to stop it: “There is nothing wrong with ageing as long as we have policies in place for health and education across the life course.”

She agrees with Prof Abubakar and believes migration is the national balancer when it comes to global ageing: “We in the UK have kept a pretty young population as we have good migration from the Commonwealth and from Europe. But we’ve now stopped that, and we are likely to age like Germany, Greece and Italy.”

What is for certain is that this ongoing debate on population levels is linked with immigration and at a time when national borders are closing more often than they are opening, something will have to give if these trends continue to be of concern.

When asking Dr Harper whether all this talk of a “jaw-dropping” crash is scaremongering, she replies; “Yes, it’s just hype. There is no fear; we just need to adjust our society. It’s an inevitable outcome, and we shouldn’t be trying to stop it. Health, education, and migration; those are the three pillars we need to support our ageing population.

“This decline is good: it’s good for women, good for families, good for communities and good for the planet. It is a natural transition for the 21st century.”