A Shrinking Population or a Broken System? The Fertility Debate Reexamined

In 2023, the UK hit its lowest fertility rate on record at 1.44 children per woman. While high income countries are experiencing below-replacement fertility rate (defined as fewer than 2.1 children per woman, the level needed to sustain population size) more rapidly, this trend is predicted to spread globally. By 2050, 76% of countries will have a fertility rate below replacement level, rising to 97% of countries by 2100.

This demographic reality will have profound impacts on our economic and social systems that are based on replacement-level population growth, as countries navigate new demographic dynamics within consumption patterns and the labour market, as well as the impact on service provision including pension schemes, healthcare, education and elderly care.

How it is being handled so far

Declining fertility rates and their potential threat to economic growth and strain on public budgets has prompted a range of policy responses from governments. Two-thirds of European countries and almost 30% of countries globally have implemented pro-natalist policies from baby bonuses to subsidised childcare. South Korea, facing the world’s lowest fertility rate, has invested over 270 billion USD worth of incentives since 2006, including direct financial compensation, tax breaks, investment in infertility treatment, caretaking services and more. Meanwhile, Hungary now spends 6% of its national GDP on pro-natalist policies including subsidies for homeownership, and income tax exemptions for those with four or more children.

And it’s not just governments scrambling for solutions. Academics and consultants have also entered the conversation, offering strategies that either attempt to reverse the trend or adapt to withstand it.

A recent McKinsey report, “Confronting the consequences of a new demographic reality”, explores exactly how many more hours and years people will have to work to sustain pension systems, while a Financial Times podcast discusses suggestions to promote more opportunities for people to couple up, including investment in community spaces and promotion of in-person work.

The importance of framing and what we should do instead

While the realities societies will face are significant, we should be cautious in considering how conversations are framed and the policies that follow.

The reasons why people are having fewer children are multifaceted, including a complex mix of systemic economic and social factors intertwined with broader health and education improvements and evolving personal preferences. Because of this complexity, government interventions and consultant-driven strategies aimed at simply increasing birth rates or optimizing work and social structures often fall flat, not only because they fail to address the root causes, but because they reinforce the flawed premise that fertility should be shaped to serve economic demands.

Even more troubling, pro-natalist narratives have increasingly been co-opted by nationalist and white supremacist movements, as it has in Hungary, framing declining birth rates as a threat to national identity or ‘racial purity’. Some even blame feminism for the “abandonment of family values”, positioning women’s pursuit of education and careers as a societal problem rather than a personal choice. When fertility is treated as a duty rather than a right, it risks justifying policies that restrict freedoms rather than expand them.

We should absolutely be making it easier for people to have children if they want them by prioritizing things like paid parental leave, flexible work, better healthcare and more affordable and accessible childcare, and re-thinking how we value and organise care work.

Yet, crucially, the promotion of these policies must be motivated by the desire for equality, and not as a bargaining chip to incentivize more births.

This approach centers people and their wellbeing — not the continuation of growth-dependent systems — at the heart of policy. This distinction requires a fundamental rethink of our economies and a push forward to improving quality of life so that the ultimate goal can be met: ensuring people have the agency and support to choose whether or not to have children and the opportunity to live a prosperous life either way.

How we frame the so-called “fertility crisis” carries real risks including opening the door to nationalism, racism, and the rollback of women’s rights. But it can also offer a powerful opportunity. By recognizing this not as a crisis of fertility, but as a failure of economic systems, we can push for bold, transformative policies that put people first and help shape a future where the system serves us — not the other way around.

Hanna Dooley is a MSc candidate at London School of Economics with a professional background in education policy and international development.

_______________________

The views and opinions expressed in this blogpost are those of the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the official policy position of the Women’s Budget Group.