Labour pains: Why the Government’s pronatalist rhetoric is unlikely to help

“Our present-day civilisation is so complex a thing, that it seems to have no room for the baby.”

One would be forgiven for thinking these were the words of a right-wing pundit in the 2020s.

Alas, they were written 115 years ago by John Ballantyne, an influential Scottish doctor. He concluded that “the persistent decline of the birthrate (is) from a sociological standpoint, an irreparable disaster”.

Dr Ballantyne’s concerns are shared, though not quite so dramatically, by Bridget Phillipson, the Minister for Women and Equalities. She wrote recently in the Daily Telegraph that there were “worrying repercussions” of the decline in birthrates and that she “want(s) more young people to have children”.

Would-be parents often list financial limitations as a major reason for not having kids

The total fertility rate for England and Wales dropped to 1.44 children per woman in 2023, the lowest value recorded since data began in 1938. This is below the ‘replacement rate’, or the amount needed to sustain population numbers, which is two children per woman.

Dr Ballantyne proposed an economic explanation for this trend: “Parents argue that children are expensive in every sense, and they grudge, more especially in early married life, the time and resources required (…) for the upbringing of offspring.”

Many others agree with him, including Dr Natalia Kanem, Director of the UN Population Fund, who claims that “the issue is lack of choice, not desire”. This is supported by survey data, in which would-be parents often list financial limitations as a major reason for not having kids. Phillipson argued that “the cost of living has soared, dominated by the vast increase in the cost of housing”.

History is littered with failed attempts to increase birth rates. Both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy tried, lavishing generous benefits and even medals on couples who had lots of children, to little avail

However, this argument faces some strange exceptions. Sweden, a country with a generous welfare state and 480 days of paid parental leave, has a lower birth rate than the United States, a country infamous for its lack of parental protections. Instead, Swedes often said that they thought raising a child would take up too much time and energy.

Cheap housing doesn’t seem to be able to change couples’ minds either. South Korea, where households spend one of the lowest amounts on housing relative to their incomes in the OECD (a club of rich countries), has the lowest birth rate in the world.

History is littered with failed attempts to increase birth rates. Both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy tried, lavishing generous benefits and even medals on couples who had lots of children, to little avail. Romania’s communist regime unleashed terror on its population, employing a secret policy to restrict access to abortion and contraception, and forcing all women to attend monthly fertility checkups. This initially succeeded at increasing birth rates, but each time a new initiative was introduced, rates would quickly fall after an initial rise. Each time, the effect of the programs would diminish further. More recently, Hungary’s government has introduced large incentives for having more children, with very little long-term success.

Higher levels of education are likely a major contributor; couples around the world are more aware of the potential downsides of parenthood. And why shouldn’t they be? Raising children comes with a great deal of strain for parents

One feature of the fertility decline is that it is occurring nearly everywhere. By 2100, only a few countries are projected to have birth rates above the replacement level. The decline has been ongoing for over 100 years in some areas of the world, as demonstrated by Dr Ballantyne’s overdramatic concern. Despite this, incomes and standards of living have risen in most parts of the world, posing a difficult challenge for those who seek an economic explanation.

Ultimately, this implies that the declining birth rate is something cultural and intertwined with modernity as we know it. Higher levels of education are likely a major contributor; couples around the world are more aware of the potential downsides of parenthood. And why shouldn’t they be? Raising children comes with a great deal of strain for parents, both physically and mentally. For many, this is something that no subsidy or amount of money can compensate for.

Instead of trying to pay citizens to do something they don’t want, governments should accept that low birth rates are here to stay. Focus should be on accommodating the increasing number of people who choose not to have children. Immigration will help in the short term, but the development of technologies such as AI will be crucial to sustaining living standards worldwide.

Dr Ballantyne would be shocked to see how much better the UK is today than 115 years ago, despite our much lower birth rates. Perhaps Bridget Phillipson should follow the lessons of history and make the state work for what individuals want, and not the other way around.