0
0
Birth rates are falling in Austria and in many other wealthy countries. According to two demographers writing in a recent commentary, this trend is likely to continue. But they argue that this does not have to become a burden for society. Better education and higher productivity could compensate for a shrinking population.
Austria’s fertility rate has dropped to a historic low of 1.29 children per woman, according to Statistics Austria. Many other affluent countries show similar patterns, and in some Asian nations the rate has already fallen below 1. South Korea, the global low, recently recorded just 0.8 children per woman.
For a long time, experts assumed that birth rates would initially fall as prosperity increased, but would rise again once a certain level of development was reached—helped by gender equality and improved social services such as childcare. Northern Europe seemed to support this idea for a while. However, data from the past 15 years tells a different story, write Guillaume Marois and Wolfgang Lutz of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Laxenburg, Austria, in their commentary published in Nature Human Behaviour.
In highly developed countries, fertility rates have continued to decline. This surprised many specialists, Marois noted in an IIASA statement: “Even countries once seen as models for balancing work and family life have experienced dramatic drops in fertility.” The assumption that social progress alone would push birth rates back up has not been confirmed. A reversal of the trend appears highly unlikely today.
No Such Thing as an “Ideal” Birth Rate
Falling birth rates are often viewed as a threat to economies and societies: populations age, workforces shrink, and health, social, and pension systems seem harder to sustain. But Marois and Lutz argue that these fears rely on outdated assumptions that no longer reflect demographic realities.
One such outdated idea is the “ideal” fertility rate of 2.1 children per woman, supposedly needed to maintain a stable population without migration. They describe this figure as an artificial construct that only works under unrealistic conditions. Declining mortality, for example, is not factored in. And even a stable population does not guarantee social or economic prosperity.
In fact, Marois told ORF Wissen that a fertility rate above 2 could be economically and ecologically problematic in the long run: “If the global rate stabilized at around 2.35, the world population would grow to about 38 billion. At a rate of 1.35, there would still be around two billion people—roughly the population of the 1920s.” Even after three centuries, humanity would be far from extinction. A smaller global population would also be easier to manage. And over such long time spans, countless other factors could reshape the situation, making today’s debates inherently uncertain.
Population Size Isn’t What Matters Most
According to the authors, the structure of the population matters far more than its size. Under the right conditions, living standards can rise even when the number of people falls. Key factors include better education, higher workforce participation, and increased productivity.
Lower birth rates allow societies to invest more in each child, increasing overall human capital. In other words: if fewer young people are better educated, their productivity rises. Rapid technological progress can further offset the decline in labor supply. And with fewer children, the number of dependents in childcare and schools decreases, partially balancing the age dependency ratio—as shown in calculations from China.
What About Migration?
In Europe, migration is often cited as essential for maintaining population levels. Marois views this primarily from a global perspective: migration does not change the size of the world population; it only redistributes people between countries and shifts the challenges around.
“In individual countries, migration can influence population size in the short term,” he says. But its long-term impact on age structure is limited. Most migrants arrive as young adults, but they too grow older. The challenges of aging societies therefore remain, unless life expectancy were to fall dramatically—which no one wants.
Fewer People, More Prosperity
Under the right conditions, prosperity could even increase with lower birth rates, because wealth is shared among fewer people, the authors argue. A fertility rate of around 1.5—or even slightly below—could be sufficient for this. Marois notes that low fertility is not something to “celebrate,” but as long as the global rate does not fall to 0.8, it is far easier to manage than excessively high birth rates.
The political implications, according to Marois and Lutz, are clear: governments should focus less on trying to raise birth rates. Low fertility is neither inherently good nor bad, Lutz says. “There is no ‘ideal’ birth rate that guarantees prosperity. Instead of chasing an arbitrary number, governments should adapt social systems to demographic realities and invest more in education and productivity.”
- source: orf.at/picture: pixabay.com
This post has already been read 26 times!
