The prevailing narrative surrounding the so-called fertility crisis highlights a significant decline in birth rates in the United States over the past two decades, a trend mirrored in many affluent nations. Conventional wisdom suggests that enhanced government financial support for parents could reverse this trend and boost birth rates. However, emerging perspectives challenge this assumption.
In 1960, American women had an average of 3.6 children; by 2023, this number had plummeted to 1.62, the lowest ever recorded and well below the replacement rate of 2.1. Furthermore, the proportion of childless women aged 40 to 44 rose from one in ten in 1976 to over one in seven in 2018. Recent data from Pew Research Center reveals that 47% of Americans under 50 now express doubts about having children, an increase of 10 percentage points from 2018. While economic factors such as high child care costs, insufficient parental leave, and wage penalties for mothers are frequently cited, some policymakers and citizens argue that substantial government interventions could shift public attitudes.
Yet, evidence from countries with extensive family support policies challenges this view. Despite South Korea’s $200 billion investment in fertility-boosting measures over the past 16 years, including financial stipends, extended parental leave, and subsidized prenatal care, its fertility rate has decreased by 25% during this period. France, despite its high family support expenditure, recorded its lowest birth rate since World War II last year. Even Nordic countries, known for their robust welfare systems and extensive parental leave, are experiencing significant declines in fertility.
This persistent low fertility trend suggests that beyond financial and policy incentives, there might be a more profound, less tangible factor influencing people’s decisions about parenthood—namely, the search for meaning. While traditional explanations focus on economic constraints and logistical challenges, a deeper existential uncertainty about life’s value and purpose appears to play a crucial role. Many young adults today grapple with questions about their own purpose and the broader purpose of humanity, which may overshadow any potential financial incentives.
Gary Becker’s 1960s economic analysis posited that household decisions, including fertility choices, could be viewed through an economic lens, comparing children to other goods. According to this perspective, lowering the costs of raising children through subsidies and financial support should theoretically increase birth rates. Governments have largely adhered to this approach in their pronatal policies. However, recent explorations into why people do or do not have children challenge this economic model.
In “Hannah’s Children: The Women Quietly Defying the Birth Dearth,” economist and Catholic mother Catherine Ruth Pakaluk presents interviews with 55 women in the U.S. who have five or more children. These women, representing a minority of U.S. mothers, share a common belief in the intrinsic value of having children and the positive meaning derived from raising them.
Conversely, “What Are Children For? On Ambivalence and Choice” by Anastasia Berg and Rachel Wiseman delves into the philosophical and psychological struggles associated with parenthood. The authors explore the profound doubts and anxieties surrounding the decision to have children, suggesting that current political strategies fail to address the deeper existential concerns that drive this ambivalence. They argue that economic incentives alone cannot overcome the lack of meaning that many people feel about parenthood.
The contrast between Pakaluk’s and Berg and Wiseman’s perspectives underscores a critical insight: meaningfulness and purpose play a pivotal role in the decision to have children. For those who perceive child-rearing as deeply meaningful, financial incentives are secondary. Conversely, for those uncertain about life’s purpose, no amount of financial support can outweigh the perceived challenges of parenthood.
The pursuit of meaning, as highlighted by Robert F. Kennedy’s 1968 speech, emphasizes the limitations of policy-driven solutions to fertility issues. Meaning, which cannot easily be quantified or provided by government interventions, often emerges from personal beliefs, cultural norms, or collective crises. Countries like Israel, with a strong cultural emphasis on procreation, demonstrate how deeply ingrained beliefs can counteract declining birth rates.
Ultimately, addressing declining fertility rates may require more than just financial incentives or policy adjustments. It calls for a broader consideration of the existential questions surrounding the value and purpose of life, which cannot be easily resolved through government measures alone.
Related Links:
