Pro-natalists (or natalists) are opportunistic in their choice of methods, and will use the coercive power of the state when necessary. Unfortunately, no one knows why fertility levels change, and so it is impossible to predict the effect of proposed policies. It was not predicted, for example, that China’s one-child policy would result in a decline of the female population. ((Connelly, Matthew. “Pro-natalism’s Checkered Past”. Cited April 5, 2012. Available: http://www.cato-unbound.org/2011/05/06/matthew-connelly/pro-natalisms-checkered-past/))
In addition to the absence of a theory of fertility there is a lack of consensus among demographers that population decline is actually a bad thing. According to Michael Teitelbaum and Jay Winter, authors of “The Fear of Population Decline”, a statistical decline in the birthrate results in both rational and irrational fears. One of the more rational fears is that the current decline in a few countries will spread to the rest of the world and lead to destabilization on a global scale. However such an outcome is sheer speculation because population decline is a new phenomenon. On the irrational side, social, political and economic problems are explained through biological metaphors. ((Riche, Martha Farnsworth. “Low Fertility and Sustainability”. Worldwatch Institute. 2004. Cited April 5, 2012. Available: http://www.worldwatch.org/node/561))
The United Nations predictions of population growth are stated in terms of a range of possibilities suggested by current trends. For demographers the high and low bounds of the predictions are helpful but not taken literally. But many non-demographers treat the low end of the projection as gospel. As mentioned before, the ideological explanations trace the problem to the sixties and blame the feminists and counterculture for the decline in the birthrate. They don’t mention that there was also a decline in births before the baby boom. In the 1940s Phillip Hauser projected that U.S. population would peak in 1990 at 190 million. But by 2004 we were more than 100 million past that figure. And today, although current population declines are expected in Germany, Japan, and Italy, the world’s population is growing.
The Influence of Government Policy on the Birthrate
There is some evidence that government policies as well as cultural attitudes make a difference in the birthrate. In Northern Europe, relatively large numbers of children are born outside of marriage, and fertility rates are only slightly below replacement level. Children are considered more important than marriage (even if marriage is preferred). And if necessary, moderate levels of immigration can sustain or grow the population. But in the countries facing population decline, cultural traditions limit both fertility and immigration. Also these societies do not accept cohabitation in lieu of marriage.
Public policies that seem to improve the birthrate include flexible working conditions and/or generous national child benefits. France has a relatively high fertility rate for Europe, and also a high rate of female participation in the labor force. There are many part-time work schedules, childcare is subsidized, and the government gives generous child allowances. Similarly, higher fertility has been correlated in the United States since 1990 with two-earner households and high levels of child benefits.
However, countries with low fertility are experiencing what demographers call maternal role incompatibility. Both work and family systems are less egalitarian: stores aren’t open when working mothers need to shop, husbands don’t share child care and housework, and employers don’t offer flexible working conditions. The effects of these policies play out differently in each country. Japanese women delay marriage. In Spain, women are choosing between work and family, once they’ve had their first child. In Italy, both working and non-working women limit themselves to one child.
It is agreed that if institutions and families adapt to the increasing costs of children, it increases the likelihood that couples will have at least two children, but in countries with modern conditions, policy can’t seem to do much better than 1.6 to 2.0 children per woman. Many of the concerns of low-fertility countries arise from the disparity with other countries, especially Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and the Middle East. Currently, 99 percent of the world’s population growth is in developing countries. In developed countries, fears are heightened by attitudes about national power and cultural heritage.
A more common fear is that the large number of youth in developing countries may cause an increase in the number of immigrants to developed countries as well as more unemployed youth at home. It might also stimulate more employer migration to low-wage labor markets.
But often popular interpretations of low fertility rates are aimed at influencing policymakers, although this is not stated openly. This allows flawed rationales to remain unquestioned. For example, it has been argued that if world fertility rates will eventually match the rates in developed countries, wealthy countries should stop helping women in poor countries gain control of their fertility. However, with one in three of the world’s population under the age of 15, under such a policy the total population could exceed 10 billion in the next 40 years.
Common Sense Solutions
Grim portrayals of population decline tend to use facts taken out of context, and overlook the possibility that a change in one variable could cause everything else to change. No one has done a systematic dynamic analysis; population decline is too new. But even if it is agreed that something must be done, there are promising solutions that don’t depend on the subjection of women. The most common scenario given a low birthrate focuses on funding shortfalls for entitlement programs. Alternative solutions include raising the age of retirement. Another obvious solution for entitlement funding might be the acceptance of more immigrants. And John Bongaarts estimates that in Italy, simply erasing the gap between men’s and women’s wages would bring more women into the workforce and cut the pensioner/worker ratio by over 20 percent by 2050.
Questionable Interpretations of Population Decline
On the other hand, Phillip Longman’s solutions seem to address a different set of concerns. Longman thinks that a small youth population will make military actions more difficult. It is not just the numbers; parents with fewer children will be less willing to put them in harm’s way. Finally with more resources going to pensions and healthcare, there will be less money to increase military technology in order to compensate for fewer soldiers.
The Argument for Population Stabilization
Regardless of whether we agree with Longman’s priorities, his policy recommendations are in direct opposition to those who advocate for population stabilization and sustainability. In 1972, the Rockefeller Commission on Population and the American Future recommended to President Nixon that America grow no more. ((Population Stabilization. The Rockefeller Commission on Population and the American Future. Center for Research on Population and Security. Cited April 5, 2012. Available: http://www.population-security.org/rockefeller/012_population_stabilization.htm)) While many people, including Nixon, saw the importance of these recommendations none of them were ever implemented. ((Population and the American Future. The Rockefeller Commission Report. cited April 5, 2012. Available: http://www.population-security.org/rockefeller/001_population_growth_and_the_american_future.htm)) It seems the strongest resistance came from the Catholic Church. As a result, the United States does not have an official population policy. Unfortunately, it is becoming clear that the U.S. does have an unofficial policy.
The United Nations has made similar recommendations for global sustainability. ((Statement on Population Stabilization by World Leaders. United Nations Population Information Network (POPIN). Cited April 5, 2012. Available: http://www.un.org/popin/icpd/conference/gov/940906154057.html)) These have also met resistance. ((Testimony on Stabilization and Government Intervention. Cato Institute. cited May 5, 2012. Available: http://www.cato.org/publications/congressional-testimony/international-population-stabilization-reproductive-health-act-s-1029))
The Environmental Impact of Population Increase
In 1973, one year after the Rockefeller Commission report, an article was written by Professor John Holdren in support of its recommendations. He argued that the environmental impact of an increasing population is not a sum, but a product of all the variables. ((Holdren, John P. Population and the American Predicament: The Case Against complacency. Negative Population Growth, Inc. cited April 5, 2012. Available: http://www.npg.org/library/recommended-reading/notable-papers/population-and-the-american-predicament-the-case-against-complacency.html)) By contrast, the religious dogma behind the ongoing legislation says that God will provide a new world–there is no need to limit population. If the recommendations of these reports had been implemented, the world would be a very different place today.
Holdren agreed with the general direction of the Rockefeller Commission’s report, but he argued for more urgency in its implementation. Regarding the environmental impact of population, the Commission acknowledged that any benefit derived from the reduction of emissions per person would be negated by an increase in population. It also acknowledged that population size is actually a multiplier of other causes of damage. However, the Commission said population stabilization was merely desirable, rather than urgent. Regarding mineral resources, they anticipated few problems of absolute supply. The most serious resource-related problems they anticipated were regional water shortages, increased pressure on recreational land, and higher food prices. Holdren’s paper explained his grounds for advocating a stronger approach. Of course, the more relaxed position of the Commission was completely ignored and Holdren’s arguments were disregarded as well.
The Birthrate in the Untited States
Finally, natalist policies in the United States are difficult to defend regardless of one’s ideological viewpoint. Such policies have been in place for several decades and as of 2006, the U.S. birthrate was not in decline. There were a record number of births in 2007, but the birthrate declined in 2008. According to the Pew Research Center, this is the result of economic stress. ((Livingston, Gretchen. In a Down Economy, Fewer Births. Pew Social and Demographic Trends: Pew Research Center. Oct. 12, 2011. cited April 8, 2012. Available: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/10/12/in-a-down-economy-fewer-births/?src=prc-headline))
Allan Carlson has said that the “The pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of independence means domestic happiness, the joys of marriage and home life. According to Carlson, social scientists attribute happiness to marriage but recent ideologies have tried to re-engineer human nature. Again, it is Carlson’s contention that the baby boom was the result of good policies and that disorder only entered the picture in the sixties, although most analysts say there is no consensus on the cause of the baby boom. In any case, several ‘innovations’ have been implemented as a result of Carlson’s dubious history:
1. Tax Reforms that double the income tax exemption for children, create a new $1,000 per child tax credit, and reduce the tax code’s “marriage penalty,” all of which encourage parents to invest in children
2. The Fatherhood Initiative, which provides grants to states and voluntary organizations (NGOs) for programs to help men improve their fathering skills and to reconnect unmarried fathers with their children
3. The Marriage Initiative, which offers federal grants to states and NGOs for improved pre-marital counseling, and “marriage saving” strategies
4. Welfare reforms that eliminate incentives to births-out of-wedlock and allow states to experiment with benefit packages that reward marriage
5. And Educational reforms that expand parental choices in schooling, ranging from “charter schools” to the legal recognition of “home schools” (now involving nearly 2 million American children).
As of 2006, the fertility rate in the United States rose to 2.04, the highest in the developed world. Even so, in 2006 Carlson announced plans to:
1. Create stronger benefits for all families with pre-school children
2. Offer credits against payroll taxes for families bearing children
3. Put policies in place that will encourage home business, telecommuting, and related strategies so parents of young children can work in their homes. ((Carlson, Allan, Ph.D. The Family of the Future III. The Howard Center. 2006. cited April 5, 2012. Available: http://profam.org/docs/acc/thc.acc.060215.korea.htm ))
See also:
[intlink id=”6″ type=”post”]Western Patriarchy[/intlink] and [intlink id=”849″ type=”post”]Fatherhood Initiatives and Grothman’s Senate Bill 507[/intlink]
Leave a Reply