The Role of Economic Costs and Immigration in Global Fertility Decline

Preamble

This study examines the complex drivers of declining fertility rates worldwide, with a focus on whether the economic costs of raising children (including schooling and higher education) are the primary reason for this trend. It explores the top seven factors contributing to fertility decline, evaluates the unique case of Israel, and assesses the role of immigration in mitigating fertility declines in Europe and the United States. Additionally, it investigates whether regions without significant immigration, such as Japan and South Korea, reflect the potential trajectory of Western nations absent immigration. The study concludes with examples of government interventions aimed at reversing fertility declines and draws conclusions on their efficacy. By synthesizing data from demographic studies, policy analyses, and statistical reports, this essay provides a comprehensive understanding of global fertility trends and the interplay of economic, cultural, and policy factors.

Executive Report

• Primary Question: Is the cost of raising children the major reason for declining global fertility rates?
  • Finding: Economic costs are a significant but not the dominant factor. Women's education and access to contraception are more influential globally, though costs play a larger role in high-income and urbanizing regions.
• Top Seven Factors (in order of importance):
  1. Women's education and empowerment
  2. Access to contraception and family planning
  3. Economic costs of childrearing
  4. Urbanization and lifestyle changes
  5. Delayed marriage and childbearing
  6. Declining child mortality
  7. Cultural and gender norms
• Israel's Exception: Israel's high fertility rate (TFR ~3.0) is partly driven by ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) Jews (TFR 6.5–7.5), but secular and traditional Jews also maintain above-replacement fertility (TFR 2.2–3.0) due to cultural pronatalism and universal subsidies.
• Immigration’s Role: In Europe and the U.S., immigration boosts fertility by 0.1–0.3 TFR points through higher immigrant fertility, younger age structures, and economic contributions. Without immigration, TFRs would approach Japan (1.2–1.3) or Russia (1.4–1.5), though not South Korea’s ultra-low 0.78 due to policy and cultural differences.
• Government Interventions: Examples include Sweden’s parental leave, France’s childcare subsidies, Hungary’s tax exemptions, Singapore’s baby bonuses, South Korea’s childcare support, and Poland’s family allowances. These typically yield modest TFR increases (0.05–0.2) but rarely reverse long-term declines.
• Conclusion: Fertility decline is multifaceted, with education and contraception outweighing economic costs in most contexts. Immigration mitigates declines in the West, but cultural and structural barriers limit policy effectiveness. Sustained reversal requires addressing both economic and societal factors.

---

Essay: The Role of Economic Costs and Immigration in Global Fertility Decline

Introduction
Global fertility rates have been declining for decades, raising concerns about aging populations, economic sustainability, and societal structures. Total fertility rates (TFRs) have fallen below the replacement level of 2.1 in most high-income countries and are declining in developing regions. This study investigates whether the economic costs of raising children, including schooling and higher education, are the primary driver of this trend, identifies the top seven contributing factors, and examines Israel as an outlier. It further explores how immigration has mitigated fertility declines in Europe and the United States, comparing these regions to low-immigration countries like Japan, South Korea, China, and Russia. Finally, it analyzes government efforts to reverse fertility declines, drawing on specific examples and their outcomes.

Top Seven Factors Driving Fertility Decline
Fertility decline is a complex phenomenon driven by multiple interrelated factors. The following are the top seven, ranked by their global impact based on demographic research:

1. Women’s Education and Empowerment
   Increased education, particularly for women, is the most consistent driver of fertility decline. Educated women delay marriage and childbirth, pursue located employment, and prioritize careers, raising the opportunity cost of childbearing. A study by Lutz et al. (2018) shows that an increase from 0 to 6 years of schooling can reduce fertility by 40–80%. In Iran, women with nine years of schooling by 2010 had a TFR of 1.8, compared to seven children with three years in the 1950s (Abbasi-Shavazi et al., 2009).
2. Access to Contraception and Family Planning
   Widespread access to modern contraceptives enables couples to control family size. The contraceptive prevalence rate (CPR) is negatively correlated with TFR, with Western Europe’s 64% CPR linked to a TFR of 1.6, compared to Sub-Saharan Africa’s 23% CPR and TFR of 4.8 (UN, 2022). In the U.S., the birth control pill accounted for 40% of marital fertility decline from 1955–1965 (Westoff & Ryder, 1977).
3. Economic Costs of Childrearing
   The financial burden of raising children, including education, childcare, and higher education, discourages larger families. In high-income countries, parents invest heavily in fewer children (the “quantity-quality trade-off”), reducing TFR. For example, in the U.S., raising a child to age 18 costs $310,000 on average (USDA, 2020).
4. Urbanization and Lifestyle Changes
   Urbanization reduces the economic value of large families (e.g., children as rural labor) and increases living costs. Urban lifestyles prioritize careers and smaller living spaces, lowering fertility. East Asia’s rapid urbanization correlates with TFRs below 1.5 (UN, 2019).
5. Delayed Marriage and Childbearing
   Social and economic pressures delay marriage and childbirth, shortening the reproductive window. In China, marriage delays accounted for 90% of the TFR decline from 1990–2020 (Cai & Morgan, 2022). Delayed childbearing also increases infertility risks.
6. Declining Child Mortality
   Historically, high child mortality prompted large families. As mortality plummeted (e.g., global under-5 mortality fell from 93 to 38 per 1,000 from 1990–2020), the need for many children decreased (UNICEF, 2021).
7. Cultural and Gender Norms
   Shifts toward gender equity and secularization reduce fertility. In Sweden, high gender equity supports a TFR of 1.7, higher than South Korea’s 0.78, where gender inequities persist (OECD, 2023). Changing norms also reduce stigma around smaller families.

Is Economic Cost the Major Reason?
While economic costs are significant, particularly in high-income and urbanizing countries, they are not the primary driver globally. Women’s education and contraception access have a stronger impact, especially in developing regions. Costs amplify other factors (e.g., delayed marriage, urbanization), but their influence varies. In Sub-Saharan Africa, low education and contraception access outweigh costs, while in East Asia, high costs and education dominate (Bongaarts, 2017).

Israel: An Outlier in Fertility Trends
Israel’s TFR of ~3.0 is exceptional among high-income countries. The ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) Jews (12–14% of the population) have a TFR of 6.5–7.5, driven by religious norms and early marriage, contributing 20–25% of births (Cahaner & Malach, 2018). However, secular Jews (TFR 2.2–2.5) and modern Orthodox (TFR 3.0–4.0) also maintain high fertility, supported by cultural pronatalism, universal subsidies (e.g., child allowances, subsidized childcare), and early childbearing (age 27–28 at first birth vs. 30–32 in Europe) (ICBS, 2022). While Haredi fertility skews the average, Israel’s broader population defies global trends due to state support and societal values, not solely Haredi subsidies.

Immigration’s Role in Europe and the U.S.
Immigration mitigates fertility declines in Europe and the U.S. by boosting TFR, rejuvenating age structures, and supporting economic stability.

• Higher Immigrant Fertility: In Europe, immigrant women from Africa and the Middle East have TFRs of 2.7–4.0, compared to 1.5–1.8 for natives, contributing 10–20% of births (Eurostat, 2021). In the U.S., foreign-born women have a TFR of 2.0 vs. 1.5 for natives, with immigrants accounting for 23% of births (CDC, 2020).
• Younger Age Structure: Immigrants’ median age (30–35 in Europe, 80% under 45 in the U.S.) increases the reproductive-age population, boosting crude birth rates (UN, 2019).
• Second-Generation Impact: Second-generation immigrants have TFRs of 1.9–2.2, sustaining higher fertility (Sobotka, 2017).
• Economic Contributions: Immigrants bolster workforces, supporting family-friendly policies. In Germany, 2015–2020 immigration stabilized the working-age population (Destatis, 2021).

Without immigration, Europe’s TFR would be 0.1–0.3 lower (e.g., Germany’s 1.5 to 1.2–1.3), and the U.S.’s 1.6 would approach 1.4–1.5. Median ages would rise to 45–50 by 2050, resembling Japan (49) or South Korea (44) (UN, 2022).

Comparison to Low-Immigration Countries
Countries with minimal immigration—Japan (TFR 1.26), South Korea (0.78), China (1.0–1.2), and Russia (1.4–1.5)—face sharper fertility declines and aging populations due to negligible demographic buffers (UN, 2022). Without immigration, Europe and the U.S. would approach Japan or Russia’s TFRs, with Southern Europe (e.g., Italy, TFR 1.2) already similar. However, South Korea’s ultra-low TFR is an outlier driven by extreme social pressures, unlikely to be fully replicated in the West due to stronger policies (e.g., France’s subsidies) and cultural diversity (e.g., U.S. Hispanic fertility) (OECD, 2023).

Government Interventions to Reverse Fertility Decline
Governments worldwide have implemented policies to boost fertility, with varying success. Below are six examples with details and outcomes:

1. Sweden: Generous Parental Leave and Childcare
   • Policy: Sweden offers 480 days of parental leave at 80% pay, subsidized childcare, and flexible work arrangements.
   • Impact: TFR rose from 1.54 in 1999 to 1.67 in 2010, stabilizing at 1.7 (SCB, 2022). High gender equity and work-family balance encourage childbearing.
   • Source: Statistics Sweden (SCB), 2022.
2. France: Family Subsidies and Tax Breaks
   • Policy: France provides childcare subsidies, tax breaks for larger families, and rewards for three or more children.
   • Impact: TFR stabilized at 1.8–2.0, higher than European peers (INSEE, 2022). Policies reduce financial barriers and support early childbearing.
   • Source: National Institute of Statistics (INSEE), 2022.
3. Hungary: Pro-Natalist Incentives
   • Policy: Hungary offers tax exemptions for mothers of four or more children, vehicle subsidies, and grandparental leave.
   • Impact: TFR increased from 1.23 in 2011 to 1.59 in 2020 (KSH, 2021). Financial incentives boosted fertility, but sustainability is uncertain.
   • Source: Hungarian Central Statistical Office (KSH), 2021.
4. Singapore: Baby Bonus and Housing Support
   • Policy: Singapore’s Baby Bonus provides cash payments (S$10,000 per child), housing grants, and paternity leave.
   • Impact: TFR rose slightly from 1.1 in 2010 to 1.14 in 2020 but remains ultra-low due to high costs and workism (SingStat, 2021).
   • Source: Singapore Department of Statistics (SingStat), 2021.
5. South Korea: Childcare and Work-Life Reforms
   • Policy: South Korea offers childcare subsidies, expanded parental leave, and campaigns to reduce work hours.
   • Impact: TFR fell to 0.78 in 2022 despite $200 billion in spending since 2006, as cultural and economic barriers persist (KOSTAT, 2022).
   • Source: Statistics Korea (KOSTAT), 2022.
6. Poland: Family Allowance Program
   • Policy: Poland’s “500+” program provides 500 PLN monthly per child, regardless of income.
   • Impact: TFR rose from 1.29 in 2015 to 1.38 in 2017 but fell to 1.3 by 2022, suggesting temporary effects (GUS, 2022).
   • Source: Central Statistical Office of Poland (GUS), 2022.

Policy Effectiveness
Pro-natalist policies typically yield modest TFR increases (0.05–0.2) and rarely sustain replacement-level fertility. Success depends on reducing work-family conflicts (e.g., Sweden) and financial burdens (e.g., France). However, structural factors like education and urbanization limit long-term reversal (Bongaarts & Sobotka, 2012).

Conclusions
The economic cost of raising children is a significant but not primary driver of global fertility decline. Women’s education and contraception access are more influential, particularly in developing regions, while costs amplify declines in high-income countries. Israel’s high fertility, driven by both Haredi and non-Haredi populations, highlights the role of cultural pronatalism and universal subsidies, distinguishing it from global trends. Immigration has mitigated fertility declines in Europe and the U.S. by boosting TFR by 0.1–0.3, rejuvenating populations, and supporting economies. Without immigration, these regions would resemble Japan or Russia’s low TFRs, though not South Korea’s extreme due to policy and cultural buffers. Government interventions, from Sweden’s parental leave to Hungary’s tax exemptions, show modest success but face challenges against entrenched social changes. Addressing fertility decline requires holistic strategies balancing economic support, gender equity, and cultural shifts, though sustained reversal remains elusive.

References

• Abbasi-Shavazi, M. J., et al. (2009). The Fertility Transition in Iran. Springer.
• Bongaarts, J. (2017). “Africa’s Unique Fertility Transition.” Population and Development Review, 43(S1), 39–58.
• Bongaarts, J., & Sobotka, T. (2012). “A Demographic Explanation for the Recent Rise in Global Fertility.” Population and Development Review, 38(4), 571–593.
• Cai, Y., & Morgan, S. P. (2022). “Fertility Decline in China.” Demography, 59(2), 401–422.
• Cahaner, L., & Malach, G. (2018). The Haredi Sector in Israel. Israel Democracy Institute.
• CDC. (2020). National Vital Statistics Reports. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
• Destatis. (2021). Population and Migration Statistics. Federal Statistical Office of Germany.
• Eurostat. (2021). Fertility Statistics. European Statistical Office.
• GUS. (2022). Demographic Yearbook of Poland. Central Statistical Office of Poland.
• ICBS. (2022). Israel Statistical Yearbook. Israel Central Bureau of Statistics.
• INSEE. (2022). Demographic Report. National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies.
• KOSTAT. (2022). Vital Statistics of Korea. Statistics Korea.
• KSH. (2021). Demographic Yearbook. Hungarian Central Statistical Office.
• Lutz, W., et al. (2018). “Education and Fertility: A Global Perspective.” Population and Development Review, 44(3), 433–458.
• OECD. (2023). Gender Equality Indicators. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
• SCB. (2022). Population Statistics. Statistics Sweden.
• SingStat. (2021). Population Trends. Singapore Department of Statistics.
• Sobotka, T. (2017). “Childbearing among the Second Generation in Europe.” Population, Space and Place, 23(2), e1994.
• UN. (2019). World Urbanization Prospects. United Nations Population Division.
• UN. (2022). World Population Prospects. United Nations Population Division.
• UNICEF. (2021). Child Mortality Estimates. United Nations Children’s Fund.
• USDA. (2020). The Cost of Raising a Child. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
• Westoff, C. F., & Ryder, N. B. (1977). The Contraceptive Revolution. Princeton University Press.

---