Can governments ever convince women to have more babies? Here’s what other countries can teach us
- Written by: Weekend Times
Australia will see more deaths than births by the 2060s according to the Intergenerational Report released by the treasurer last week. Two trends are working together: Australians are living longer and having
fewer babies.
Birthrates are falling everywhere on Earth. Only one developed country has enough children to replace its adults: Israel, with its singularly child-focused culture.
Australia’s birthrates are about middle of the pack, with 1.48 children per woman. But if Australia’s births continue at this rate, the population will age and shrink.
The question is whether the government has a role in either extending lifespans or increasing births, and what that role should be.
Parenting advocate Georgie Dent used a speech at the National Press Club to suggest some ways the government might relieve the burden of parenting: long paid parental leave, affordable child care and child-friendly employment.
But would these policies encourage young people to start a family? Would they nudge a couple to have one more child?
Luckily, we have a rich array of data on family-friendly policies from around the world to assess whether government strategies like these can actually encourage people to have children.
Hungary’s short-lived success
Hungary and the Nordic countries have remarkable pro-natal benefits.
In 2011, Hungary had an alarmingly low birthrate of 1.23 children per woman. The country’s leaders reacted with a multi-pronged plan, including:
cash payments for marriages and births
subsidised loans that are forgiven as family size increases
tax relief that increases by number of children, with women having four or more children exempt from tax for life
a car subsidy
affordable child care.
Hungary did not achieve replacement fertility, but with these investments, it seemed to be getting closer, climbing to 1.63 children per woman by 2021.
After that, births started dropping, and by 2025, there were 1.31 births per woman.
The speed and severity of the drop surprised observers. One theory is that Hungary’s family benefits encouraged women to change the timing of births they would have had anyway.
When that temporary acceleration of births ended, one of the most comprehensive pro-natalist programs in the world landed Hungary in the same place it had been before the laws changed.
What about the Nordic countries?
The Nordic countries – Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland and Iceland – have rich, stable economies, high employment and cradle-to-grave welfare systems.
Their pro-family policies have been sustained over several decades. They are designed to make it less expensive to have a child, and to encourage egalitarian division of labour between mothers and fathers at home and at work.
All the Nordic countries have generous parental leave schemes, with Norway being highest ranked in the world, offering almost a year at 100% pay, which can be shared between parents. Sweden offers 15 months at 80% pay.
Norway, Iceland, Sweden and Denmark are also top-ranked globally for child care, which is heavily subsidised and can be at home or in a formal setting.
The Nordic countries’ pursuit of gender equity means that the burden for women at home is reduced. By encouraging women to stay in the workforce, the adverse effect on women’s income and wealth is diminished.
Altogether, the Nordic countries are the gold standard in parental leave, child care, father involvement and mother career success. Until 2010, their birthrates were also significantly higher than most of the developed world.
And then, after 2010, something changed. Birthrates declined by about 20–30% simultaneously in the Nordics. The biggest change is that women are resisting having a first child.
How is this possible?
The most generous, egalitarian countries on the planet were able to keep their births high despite the decline in the rest of the world. But now, they, too, have falling birthrates, which are now around the same or lower than Australia’s.
Why has this happened? There is no agreed-upon answer. Women’s dreams for an adequate standard of living to start a family might be inflating faster than even the best government benefits.
Or it may be that no amount of money can convince a woman to have a child. She may be waiting for the perfect moment, or the perfect partner, or she may be choosing another path in life.
Read more: How much does it really cost to raise a child? An expert does the maths
So why do women have children?
In my research, I have been talking to women who have four or more children. When they explain why they have children, they talk about what gives them meaning. They talk about continuity, about family and community.
Most women want to parent with a partner, someone who will get up in the night and also be making breakfast in the morning. Someone who shares their values and their sacrifices.
As a result, women are getting increasingly choosy about who they want to spend their lives with. They’d rather be without a partner, and without children, than make the imperfect choice.
Can governments encourage births?
There is nostalgia for the Peter Costello-era baby cash bonus in Australia in the 2000s, which gave a $3,000 lump sum payment to new parents. It did increase births, but probably, like in Hungary, only by changing the timing of births that would otherwise have happened anyway.
Study after study shows government policies can change the timing of births, and even shift birthrates at the margin.
But no policy has been able to raise births to replacement levels in the long term.
There are good reasons to support paid parental leave and affordable daycare, but they are not likely to motivate women to start a family. For that, women need to have a good partner, a supportive family and a community. That’s probably more than we can ask elected officials to provide.
Viva Hammer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
