The disruptive effect of falling fertility – the real population question?

v4306_mid_Adnan_Nevic_ananhappening this week to Adnan Nevic (see pic, with Kofi Annan), now a 12 year old in Sarajevo who in 1999 was named the 6 billionth. Much of the press coverage is pretty awful (see below), but I really enjoyed the Economist’s 3 page briefing. Some excerpts: “The world’s decline in fertility has been staggering (see chart). In 1970 the total fertility rate was 4.45 and the typical family in the world had four or five children. It is now 2.45 worldwide, and lower in some surprising places. Bangladesh’s rate is 2.16, having halved in 20 years. Iran’s fertility fell from 7 in 1984 to just 1.9 in 2006. Countries with below-replacement fertility include supposedly teeming Brazil, Tunisia and Thailand. Much of Europe and East Asia have fertility rates far below replacement levels. The fertility fall is releasing wave upon wave of demographic change. It is the main influence behind the decline of population growth and, perhaps even more important, is shifting the balance of age groups within a population. A fall in fertility sends a sort of generational bulge surging through a society. The generation in question is the one before the fertility fall really begins to bite, which in Europe and America was the baby-boom generation that is just retiring, and in China and East Asia the generation now reaching adulthood. To begin with, the favoured generation is in its childhood; countries have lots of children and fewer surviving grandparents (who were born at a time when life expectancy was lower). That was the situation in Europe in the 1950s and in East Asia in the 1970s. fertility declineBut as the select generation enters the labour force, a country starts to benefit from a so-called “demographic dividend”. This happens when there are relatively few children (because of the fall in fertility), relatively few older people (because of higher mortality previously), and lots of economically active adults, including, often, many women, who enter the labour force in large numbers for the first time. It is a period of smaller families, rising income, rising life expectancy and big social change, including divorce, postponed marriage and single-person households. This was the situation in Europe between 1945 and 1975 (“les trente glorieuses”) and in much of East Asia in 1980-2010. But there is a third stage. At some point, the gilded generation turns silver and retires. Now the dividend becomes a liability. There are disproportionately more old people depending upon a smaller generation behind them. Population growth stops or goes into reverse, parts of a country are abandoned by the young and the social concerns of the aged grow in significance. This situation already exists in Japan. It is arriving fast in Europe and America, and soon after that will reach East Asia.” And some interesting thoughts on China: “With its fertility artificially suppressed by the one-child policy, it is ageing at an unprecedented rate. In 1980 China’s median age (the point where half the population is older and half younger) was 22 years, a developing-country figure. China will be older than America as early as 2020 and older than Europe by 2030. This will bring an abrupt end to its cheap-labour manufacturing. Its dependency ratio will rise from 38 to 64 by 2050, the sharpest rise in the world. Add in the country’s sexual imbalances—after a decade of sex-selective abortions, China will have 96.5m men in their 20s in 2025 but only 80.3m young women—and demography may become the gravest problem the Communist Party has to face.” Overall message? “If you look at the overall size of the world’s population, then, the picture is one of falling fertility, decelerating growth and a gradual return to the flat population level of the 18th century. But below the surface societies are being churned up in ways not seen in the much more static pre-industrial world.” I tend to avoid the ‘population control’ issue because it is so polarized that it is almost impossible to have an intelligent conversation. But here are some past thoughts on the link (or lack of it) with climate change and why the whole issue makes NGO types uncomfortable and a more slapstick discussion of pets and climate change, (which at least one person told me persuaded them not to get a dog – does that count as evidence of impact?). Overall, I have a lot of sympathy with Claire Melamed in her recent counterblast against sloppy thinking on the issue (and with this polemic from George Monbiot) but the level of vitriol in the comments shows just how polarized and unproductive the debate has become. I would much rather reframe the whole thing in terms of reproductive rights and women’s education, but even if you do that, it’s very hard to shake off the underlying frame that ‘they’ are the problem, (and less of ‘them’ the solution). That is a real shame. Plus here’s a nice interactive feature from the Guardian. How big was the world population when you were born?]]>

Subscribe to our Newsletter

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. For information about our privacy practices, please see our .

We use MailChimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to MailChimp for processing. Learn more about MailChimp's privacy practices here.


6 Responses to “The disruptive effect of falling fertility – the real population question?”
  1. We have to stop seeing world population ageing as a problem, understand the crucial contributions that older people make and stop regarding them as an entirely dependant section of society.
    Tens of millions of older people care for their families, continue working well into older age and put their pensions (if they get one) back into their communities and sending their grandchildren to school.
    Until we start observing a more balanced point of view when it comes to ageing, we’re not going to progress is in this debate.
    More here:

  2. Great summary; among all the terrible and sloppy coverage butchering Malthus and/or using birth rates and fertility rates as synonyms, which tends to be common when demography is concerned, this is satisfying.
    And i agree that The Economist’s article is one of the most solid on the issue. (It made me think that The Economist should stay away from economics and focus on the other social sciences as well as culture and technology, where they seem to be better.)

  3. Nice piece. I would add to it: sloppy thinking on fertility decline is a problem that is as big.
    Indeed, the fertility is not an homogeneous number over the whole of the population. Some families have more children than others. The fertility index of these subgroups is different, and causes the overall index to change over time.
    The whole political economy of how many children we have is still in upheaval. We could expect, if current trends continue, that subgroups “liking” children will tend to have more of them, while subgroups that hate them will die out.
    The demographics of Israel have been discussed (sloppily) in the press, where the orthodox and Arab subgroup seem to have more children than the rest.
    It is to be expected that birth rates go somewhat up again over the coming generations. (if there is no new policy set in place).
    More interestingly (more hypothetically) , society might also become way more child friendly, because more people in the society chose for children.

  4. Lucy

    Dear Duncan,
    Good to see population as a subject again but why not dive in earlier and address it as a women’s reproductive rights issue. You, Claire Melamed and George Monbiot all only reach this conclusion at the end and take it no further.
    CM – there is a huge problem with population growth, and that’s if it’s not wanted by the people who are actually having the children. Population is a women’s rights issue. If women don’t have access to contraception and abortion to control their fertility then individual lives can be limited…
    GM – Of course we should demand that governments help women regain control over their bodies. But beyond that there’s little that can be done.
    DG – I would much rather reframe the whole thing in terms of reproductive rights and women’s education
    So, what’s next , will we make demands of governments about women’s reproductive rights? Will we see some figures and lobbying about access to family planning? Will it go further, will we see discussions about rape being used as a weapon?
    What is happening with agencies, governments, individuals? Do tell us

  5. Lucy

    Finally saw the figures (The Week, November 2011) the number of women today without access to contraception 200,000,000 (Two hundred million).
    Wonder where they are? I think we can guess.