Why are global birth rates falling? Part 2

In the previous post (Part 1), I started looking into the question of why are birth rates (and fertility rates, which, while not technically synonymous, reflect the same trends) suddenly on the decline all around the globe. In this second part, I will focus more on the reasons behind this decline, both historical and more recent ones.

What causes fertility rates to decline?

It’s probably no surprise that throughout most of human history, fertility rates have always been high, typically between 5 and 7 children per woman. This was because in the past, only a few of those 5 to 7 children would survive into adulthood. The high child mortality rate ensured that populations remained relatively stable (and small) throughout the millennia. Archaeologists often find that the largest cohort in ancient cemeteries consists of small children, especially infants. When child mortality was anywhere between 30 and 50%, it’s no wonder families had many children to ensure that at least some of them survived. Children were also a resource; starting from the age of 6, they were expected to contribute to the household.

This all began to change with the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Advances in medicine and technology meant that more and more infants and children survived into adulthood. Maternal health and life expectancy also increased. However, for a while, people continued to have the same number of children as before (because of tradition, I guess). As a result, the population started to grow – exponentially! – because all those 5 to 7 children now reached adulthood and then had 5 to 7 children of their own. This pattern is evident in many developing countries and is the reason behind the large population explosion in Africa over the last several decades.

However, at some point, you realize that you don’t really need to have that many children anymore. Large families were a necessity in the past, but in modern societies, the more children you have, the more resources you need to spend on them (both in terms of time and attention, as well as food and education). With fewer children in the family but better odds of survival, parents start to emphasize quality over quantity. This shift goes hand in hand with the rise in general levels of education and literacy.

The education of girls and women specifically has been a major factor in decreasing birth rates. There is a clear correlation between the fertility rate and the years girls spend in education, with more highly educated women tending to have fewer children. In Niger, where the fertility rate is one of the highest in the world, women have only one year of education on average. In these high FR societies, women typically have lower social status and few opportunities outside the household.

But once you start educating your girls, a shift will start to appear in society. An educated woman now has options besides staying at home: she can choose to continue her education or start a career, thus postponing having children. An educated woman will also consider the timing and number of children to reduce the negative impact on her education or work, and is more likely to use contraceptives (if available) to further plan any children she may want to have.

Contraceptives in particular have been the third major factor behind declining birth rates. Most Western countries experienced a sharp drop in FR in the mid-1960s. What happened in the middle of the 1960s? Well, I think you can guess where this is going. In 1965, the modern birth control pill became widely available in the US and other countries. And in places where contraception use was not widespread or banned due to religious or cultural reasons, the drop in fertility was much gradual or occurred later.

So it seems that three main factors have historically caused a massive decline in fertility rates: improved child health and well-being, the education and empowerment of women, and access to contraception. These combined factors have led to a sustained decline in birth rates, ending the era of rapid global population growth. But you would expect that at some point a sort of equilibrium would eventually be reached? In most developed countries, infant mortality is already very low (around 0.4%), girls and boys have equal access to education, and contraception options are diverse and widely available. So why are fertility rates still in flux?

This is particularly puzzling when considering that fertility rates were relatively stable in most OECD countries in the early 21^st century. Sure, it was still below the replacement rate, but it was stable, and population levels were mainly maintained through immigration. This all seems to have changed in recent years. It would be easy to attribute this to COVID-19 or the current financial, political, and environmental instability in the world, but the reality is likely more complex. After all, in the US, births actually increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. And in some places like South Korea, the fertility rate was already declining well before 2019, when the pandemic began.

Why are birth rates continuing to decline?

Thus far I have only looked at statistical data, which has created a good framework for understanding why fertility rates change. But I have a feeling that statistics alone won’t provide the answer I am looking for. So to dive deeper, I have to use a more intuitive but also somewhat more subjective approach.

There are certainly ongoing trends affecting birth rates now and in the future. One significant factor is the social aspect. People are getting married later and less frequently, spending more years to become economically established, and delaying having children. This all reduces the fertility window, particularly for women, making it partly a by-product of societal changes. Additionally, being child-free is more socially accepted than ever, and young people today view having children more as a choice rather than a necessity.

Another crucial factor is the economy. In many parts around the world, young people face similar challenges: inflation, expensive housing, high education costs, and intense competition in the workforce. They are also more aware of climate issues and the impact of overpopulation on the planet, leading to genuine concerns about bringing more children into an already troubled world.

And while it takes two people to have a baby, and men report similar concerns as women about not wanting children, the decision ultimately rests (or should rest) with the woman. She risks her personal health and well-being, as well as significant career and education opportunities, for the sake of having a baby. Women are realizing they don’t have to be mothers if they don’t want to or cannot.

Interestingly, this seems to coincide with a growing ideological gender gap all across the world, where women are increasingly more liberal than men. On average, women are now more highly educated than men and are less willing to accept traditional gender roles, especially if the majority of the cost of child rearing falls on them. Instead, they prioritize higher education, career advancement, and personal autonomy. If they don’t have a supporting partner willing to share the workload, a family support system to help with childcare, or a way to have children without sacrificing their personal life, work, and hobbies, they will postpone the decision and may end up having fewer or no children. This trend is evident in places like Japan and South Korea, known for their traditional gender roles and poor work-life balance, but also in completely opposite societies such as in Scandinavia and the Mediterranean.

This all feels like a natural consequence of women becoming more involved in the non-domestic workforce. Historically, despite gender inequality, the division of labor was actually more balanced in the past. Men had jobs outside the home, often physically demanding, and their main role was to provide income or food for their families. Women took care of the house and children. Both had their own responsibilities and worked hard. But as times changed and it became more acceptable for women to work outside the domestic sphere, similar conversations were likely happening all around the world:

Husband: “Why do you want to get a job? I already provide for us, and if you work, who will take care of the kids and the house?”

Wife: “It’s okay, I’ve thought this through. I’ll find a job for my own fulfillment, but I’ll still take care of the kids and the house after work. I’ll also pay someone to look after our children while I’m away because I’ll have my own income. (And I have made sure my decision will create no additional inconvenience for you so that you would have zero reasons to object to this).”

And this was probably convincing enough for the husband (whose life would remain exactly as it was before) so that he was happy to let her wife go and chase her flimsy dreams of ‘self-fulfillment’. However, now women ended up with two jobs: one at home and one at work. For a long time, women put up with this because that’s how things were always done. You could have a career as long as you didn’t neglect your role as a mother. You could have it all!

But turns out, women don’t really want it all. Because it’s freaking exhausting. It’s much easier if you either focus on one or the other. There is too much pressure on parents to work like they don’t have kids and simultaneously raise their kids like they don’t have to work. And even if one of the parents actually wants to leave the workforce and stay home to take care of the kids, this is becoming more and more economically unfeasible, so we couldn’t go back to how things were even if we wanted to.

There’s also the fact that today’s parents are much more involved in their kids’ lives compared to parents of previous generations. A study from 2016 found that mothers in 2012 spent roughly twice as much time with their kids as moms in 1965. This despite the fact that back in 1965 a mother was much more likely to be a housewife. And it’s not just the moms. That same study found that the time fathers spend with their kids had nearly quadrupled between 1965 and 2012. Dads have never been more involved in child rearing than they are today. And if you have a father that contributes equally to the share of raising children, he will grapple with the same issues of having to divide themselves between their work and their family. And to top it all off, parents today don’t have the help and support of the fabled ‘village’ that was common in the past.

So as a result you get parents who are absolutely exhausted from trying to have all and be all. And this notion that parenthood is extremely difficult is further amplified through social media, which notoriously only depicts one side of the issue (the constant exhaustion and burnout of new parents) without really paying much attention to the other side (the fact that most of these exhausted parents would probably say that it is all worth it in the end).

I also wonder how the change towards a more responsive, child-led parenting style in the recent decades has affected how those same children view parenthood themselves when they grow up. Young people today are probably the first generation raised predominantly by ‘gentle’ parents. They grew up in a (over)protected environment, where the child’s well-being was the most important thing in the family. It makes sense then that this generation highly values their own well-being and prioritizes their needs and wants above society’s expectations. Young people today also worry more about the demand to be perfect parents, fearing judgment on social media. They strive to provide their children with only the best education, safety, and gentle parenting, and they fear screwing up their kids. With all that stacked up against them, no wonder they don’t want that sort of responsibility if they have any choice about it. And choice they do have.

---

I feel confident now that I have stumbled upon some of the real reasons behind the sudden drop in fertility rates over the last few years. In a nutshell, the world is changing. And (young) people are changing with it. I’m not even sure whether these changes are good or bad. But one thing is for certain. At the current rate, the global population will stop growing and start to shrink soon. More changes are coming. Let’s take a closer look at them in the third and final part.