Demographic Changes and Fertility Rates

If a country wants to keep its population unchanged, each couple should have 2.1 kids on average. The “extra” 0.1 is to adjust for the odd kid who dies early.

 

In Numbers Don’t Lie, Vaclav Slim points out that a radical change in the demographics of a country (increase or decrease) has historically “had enormous demographic, economic, and strategic implications”. As Europe’s share of global population fell from 18% in 1900 to 9.5% in 2020, so has its global significance. Asia, in the same period, has moved in the opposite direction on both fronts. From now to 2070, by this metric, Africa’s share should increase.

 

No country has ever managed to achieve exactly (or very close to) the replacement rate of 2.1. Japan, (in)famously dipped well below that number. But how far below 2.1 can a country go and still “recover”? Historical data suggests that below 1.5, such reversals are very unlikely. Spain, Italy, and Romania are at 1.3; Japan, Ukraine, Greece, and Croatia are at 1.4…

 

Government policies have helped only so much to change the fertility rate. A radical increase has always required a change in immigration policies. But that, of course, is politically and socially a very hard policy decision to make.

 

So what will happen in China, where the change in demographics made the government reverse its decades old one-child policy? While everything in this blog suggests a recovery is not possible, I am not so sure. After all, China seems to buck the trend on everything.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Killing Gays

Killing in the name of God: it’s been done for centuries and continues to happen today. But killing people because they are gay? That’s a phenomenon unique to the “Abrahamic God of the desert”, writes Richard Rodriguez . The most recent example of that was the massacre in a gay club in Florida, the worst mass murder in the US since 9/11. But what’s the connection of the “desert religions” to homophobia? Is it just coincidence? No, says Rodriguez: “In such a place, the call to belief was tribal, not individualistic. Sexuality was an expression of faith to increase the tribe. Allegiance to God and to one’s ancestors was fulfilled by giving birth.” Rodriguez also raises a very interesting point about context being very important in how we perceive the same (or similar) actions: “(Florida murderer) Mateen might have been offended by the sight of two men kissing in Orlando, but one wonders what he have would made of Arabian and Afghan societies, where men stroll arm in arm and e...
Read more

Brexit

Before the Brexit polls, my dad asked me the reasons for Leave. I googled and didn’t find any reasons which sounded very convincing. And yet Brexit happened. What was I missing? What articles had Google missed?! Today, you’d think that the usual after-the-event geniuses would be able to come up with reasons. So what are we hearing now? Why did they vote to Leave? 1)       There were those who always hated being part of the EU, joined by those who thought immigration was taking away jobs, and the racists who just hated immigrants. (Funnily enough, the immigrant issue wasn’t really that big a deal. At least not for Britain. I wonder if Angela Merkel rolling out the red carpet for Syrians created a perception problem that couldn’t be fought with facts). 2)      Then there were the many who felt that only the city of London benefitted while the rest of Britain got nothing. 3)      For some politicians, this was a...
Read more

Withdrawal Symptoms

Extended deterrence . It refers to America’s promises to use its firepower, including nukes , to protect (some of) its allies. It emerged after World War II, with Europe destroyed and needing to rebuild, not spend on arming itself against the USSR. It extended to Japan since the Americans didn’t want Japan to arm itself and risk another war down the road. It covered South Korea since Korea had become a symbolic line in the sand against communist expansion in Asia.   In this interview/chat , one of the participants said: “We never implemented extended deterrence out of altruism or charity… This allowed us to keep the economies and political systems of our allies free, democratic, and capitalist, which created open markets for the US.”   Another benefit (from the US perspective, that is) of such extended deterrence was that fewer countries pursued nuclear weapons. Of the 34 or so US allies, only France pursued nukes. Why? Because they feared (rightly, as events have pr...
Read more