Why the world is having fewer babies

Why are a bunch of ex-diplomats talking about babies and birth rates?

Sure, it’s like a mango sorbet palate-cleanser amid all the war and rumours of war. But natality is also one of those slow-moving forces that can completely transform our world.

How? Last century, the dominant narrative was that populations were too big, with leaders in China, Vietnam and elsewhere limiting family sizes in an attempt to tap the demographic brakes. Why? The theory (for some) was that overpopulation would…

• Strain limited resources of food, water, and energy
• Cause poverty by swamping job markets and infrastructure
• Fry environments by fuelling pollution and deforestation, and all that would…
• Spark overcrowding, crime, and unrest, in turn straining government responses.

But that demographic pendulum is now swinging in the opposite direction, with capitals now scrambling to offer cash payments, tax breaks, blind dating events (seriously) and even free honeymoons in an attempt to crank out those babies again.

Why? The theory (again, for some) is that higher birth rates will…

• Stabilise economies by maintaining workforces and tax bases
• Rejuvenate ageing demographics that can strain social security systems
• Preserve cultural identities, and
• Restore national strength (military recruitment, economic output, and optimism)

So with all that in mind, we poured ourselves the world’s largest coffee and read all 100+ pages of the latest ‘State of the World Population’ report, surveying 14,000 adults across 14 countries (🇧🇷, 🇩🇪, 🇭🇺, 🇮🇳, 🇮🇩, 🇮🇹, 🇲🇽, 🇲🇦, 🇳🇬, 🇿🇦, 🇰🇷, 🇸🇪, 🇹🇭, 🇺🇸), home to ~37% of the world’s people. And sure, we’ve now got the coffee jitters, but totally worth it because…

Here are four of the report’s most intriguing stats:

1. 39% 

That’s how many folks said ‘financial limitations’ were a factor in having fewer children. Coming in at second was job insecurity at 21% followed by housing at 19%. But of course, these are all economic barriers, jointly accounting for more than half of all responses.

2. 14% 

This one kinda surprised us tbh, because it’s how many people flagged political and social risks (including possible wars or pandemics) as a reason to have fewer kids. It’s almost like the opposite of the post-WWII baby boom, with gloom now tapping those baby brakes rather than any glee smashing that accelerator.

3. 31% 

That’s how many participants over 50 said they had ended up having fewer kids than ideal, versus just 11% for those under 50. That gap could reflect lots of things: shifts in attitudes, more enabling environments, or even just younger folks feeling they have time to hit their ideal number. But it could also reflect a real gap between desired and actual family size, and a ‘window of opportunity’ for concerned governments.

4. Two

That’s the ‘magic number’ when it comes to kids, according to a plurality of respondents (~36%), followed by three children (15%), one (~10%), and then 4+ (~10%).

Those results are interesting for a couple of reasons: first, two is just below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman and below the current global birth rate of 2.3. But second, it’s above the current birth rate for nine out of the 14 surveyed countries. 

Intrigue’s Take

This is one of those issues where there is a clear link between vast, historic, geopolitical forces, and deeply personal decisions shaped by strongly-held worldviews. But allow us to offer a few thoughts on something a little lighter like, ahem… the nature of mankind:

• We’re complex beings: China’s four-decade ‘one child policy’ experiment and subsequent reversal from 2015 all suggests states can indeed suppress birth rates, but as for ramping them back up? Not so easy, pal. It seems our parallel norms, attitudes, and economic drivers are generational. But…
• We’re also such simple beings: one of the clearest messages from this latest report is that if it wasn’t so pricey to (say) buy a pad or throw a few steaks on the grill, plenty of folks would be going full Brady Bunch right now.

So this report is about a lot of things, but it’s also really about the economy, stupid.

Overheard in the Intrigue chat:
(free to join if you refer 5 friends using your unique code!)

• “It’ll be interesting to see how advanced economies will contend with their growing need for immigration as a way to boost their population, and a growing anti-immigration sentiment” -A.P.J
• “I refuse to engage with the research until someone does proper peer-reviewed analysis into the obvious correlation between global fertility decline and World of Warcraft coming out in 2004/5” -D.G