The latest issue of Foreign Affairs included "The Age Of Depopulation," a fascinating article by Nicholas Eberstadt analyzing the consequences of the demographic winter now experienced by countries throughout the world.
Mr. Eberstadt, a prominent scholar of population, seems to suggest that depopulation is inevitable. I disagree.
We both do agree that anti-natalist policies have a significant impact on the choice to have children.
To understand the relationship between bad public policies and personal childbearing decisions, we must first address the difference between direct and indirect government policy actions
Some of the perverse direct anti-natal acts committed by progressive governments include reproductive health programs exclusively focused on promoting contraception and abortion. These programs encourage the mindset that "having fewer children is better," and they provide the means to achieve that goal.
Other anti-natal actions committed by progressive governments are indirect. These include economic measures such as removing tax exemptions for large families, providing more assistance to childless couples than to those with children, or failing to implement policies that make it easier for families to afford decent housing or eliminate child-related salary bonuses.
Direct actions discourage having children, while the indirect anti-natal policies create the sense that being generous with having children is financial suicide.
In the West, especially in progressive countries like Spain, governments believe that initiatives like "baby bonuses" (cash assistance for having a child) will reverse the depopulation cycle. This mistake arises from not considering Lant Pritchett's statistics, cited by Eberstadt, which found that the key predictor of growth or decrease in reproduction is women's desire to have more children. So, solutions focused on resolving issues in the economic and social contexts alone always fail.
For instance, if direct anti-child messages (through comprehensive sex education in schools, intense promotion of contraception and abortion, and media discouragement of marriage) abound, it should not surprise anyone that indirect pro-natal measures like giving money to couples fail to change the trend. While indirect pro-natal measures should not be abandoned - it is always reassuring to know the State will help if you have a child - they are not nearly enough to reverse the trend.
On the other hand, according to Pritchett's findings, direct pro-natal actions are the most important factor: they yield the most results in the medium term, although they are currently scarcely utilized. While indirect pro-natal actions alone have no significant impact, they might be effective as a complement to direct pro-natal actions, which do have that impact.
Societal changes have created more obstacles than ever both to young people getting married early and to those marriages producing children.
Allowing mothers to have the number of children they want is not simply a matter of wealth or state support. As Spanish demographer Alejandro Macarron points out, removing societal obstacles for young people to have children is often insufficient to increase birth rates.
When societies put many obstacles, either societal or governmental, in the way, birth rates decline. However, removing those obstacles does not always lead to increased birth rates. Europe has been trying this - removing indirect barriers - but it is not yielding results.
The critical factor is women's - or couples' - decision-making. That is at the heart of the problem.
This decision-making is not just about the number of children desired: it's fertility desire plus fertility decision-making. Desire can have a romantic component, but making an actual decision requires facing reality. A person might say they desire three children, but that desire may be unrealistic. What is real is the decision to have one child (and a decision is a desire plus the will, energy, and planning to act on it). So, couples may then end up having "powerful" reasons for choosing fewer children, such as lack of housing, unstable jobs, insufficient income, women's need to work, etc. These reasons explain the gap between desired fertility and actual numbers.
Eberstadt also mentions that the types of couples encouraging higher birth rates are those with strong bonds between spouses. Cohabitations without marital commitment or temporary unions - or worse, single-person households - do not contribute meaningfully to birth rate statistics. The type of marriage that makes a difference aligns with the sacrament of marriage (or, in the case of other religions, the corresponding act).
To understand the strength of these unions, it is worth noting that Eberstadt highlights the power of religious beliefs, particularly those that promote and sustain the idea that marriage and having children are suitable.
Thus, if we combine these two sociological data points, it seems evident that marriage, especially religious marriage, has an extraordinary strength that helps women fulfill their desire to have children. Catholics attribute this to the sacrament of marriage. But even those without faith must acknowledge the evidence: this type of union, as lived by Catholics, provides families with an extra energy reflected in statistics.
The decline of marriage in the West is indeed "a new challenge" that did not exist 50 or 100 years ago. The absence of a marital union undermines people's ability to achieve their dreams regarding the number of children they want. The weakening of sacramental marriage - and even of marriage in general - through postponement or outright avoidance makes individuals less equipped to face the usual challenges of having multiple children.
Simply put, less marriage logically leads to lower birth rates.
If women (alone or with their husbands) decide to have children - and want it intensely and have the strength and skills to do it - they will do so even if society and government policies are against them.
In order to encourage couples to have more children, governments must undertake to promote childbearing using both direct and indirect pro-natal measures.
This is why efforts must focus on changing mindsets through education, family roles, and messages from the Church. Addressing the core issue - what sociologists call human agency - is essential. However, it's also important to work on removing indirect obstacles so that couples are encouraged to have more children and do not face insurmountable barriers.