The big question in natalism is about whether birthrates fall, primarily, because of culture. Or whether they fall because of economic factors. The argument for culture goes something like this; “most of our great grandmothers gave birth to several children, in two room shacks, and couldn’t afford a spare pair of shoes. We are richer than we’ve ever been. There is no way that people can’t afford to have children. We simply have other priorities now.”
A possible link would be that more progressive countries have more immigrants from places with higher fertility rates, and these immigrants are the ones pushing the TFR up.
What you present is not *the* economic explanation. A macro-economic explanation is the transformation of average daily life (via industrialization) from a labor-intensive to a capital-intensive process. We no longer labor in the forest and field where a large family with lots of children can provide greater labor output and older children offset the cost of raising younger ones - we are in a capital-intensive framework where the limiting factor to family size is parental income, older children are not deemed capable of correctly educating younger children, children cannot work to offset the costs of their own upbringing, and financial investment in formal education is necessary for socio-economic success.
I personally think that this correlation ignores one factor: People afraid of their children being disadvantaged by giving births in a disadvantaged situation will have less children. And that is what those "conservative" value questions you point towards, point out. If you believe that children will be worse off, you will put it off, until you can afford to only have one person within the household work.
Similar to how people living in an urban area have less kids than those living in a rural area: the question of "Do I have space for a kid" makes people put off having kids, until they got enough space by moving into a larger apartment or out of the city.
Have you considered the hypothesis that birthrates simply decline as access to cheap, reliable birth control improves? I strongly suspect culture and economics normally only play a minor role, insofar as they affect the availability of birth control. (Though they may have influence at some extremes.)
[Edit: apologies if this came of as "just asking questions"; I was posting under pressure - there's a more-developed answer below]
Might one contributing factor to these correlations be that there is often a substantial gap between the values people report having and the values they live by in practice? In the wealthy Scandinavian city where I live, for example, the areas where people are most liberal about immigration are inevitably those with the most homogenous white population. And then there is white flight: Young progressives often buy their first apartments in the cheap suburbs where non-Western immigrants are in majority, but almost inevitably move to more affluent/whiter areas as soon as their single child is ready to move from daycare to school.
I think it'd be interesting to see correlations from studies asking personal questions alongside the generic ones, such as
* I'd like to have (more) children but at the moment I choose to prioritize other things
* I'd like to have children eventually, but now just isn't a good time
* I'd have (more) children if my friends and neighbours would. (A social contagion effect that could help explain the post-WW2 euphoria baby boom? At least here the highest fertility was immediately after the war, when living conditions were still quite rough after wartime damage.)
etc.
I think there's also a relative economic argument to consider: in absolute terms having lots of kids might be quite affordable, even more so than in baby boom times; but having fewer children means not just getting to increase your income more but also keep more of it for yourself. Doing so might even be considered a necessity more than a luxury. In this country, for example, people are obsessed with buying their own property, encouraged by tax policy, and this requires years of saving for a down payment. Having a child or two might extend the required savings period by years. Renting a child-friendly apartment or small house in a minor city is thought of as throwing good money out the window, as opposed to cramming into a more attractively located matchbox. I wonder if birth rates here could be boosted by providing interest-free loans for down payments to families with children, enough to give them a substantial edge in the property market.
As an economist I lean toward the economics explanation, but more importantly don't see much milage in litigating the percentages. We know how to manipulate the relative cost of having children vs not having them. So lets look for the keys under the streetlight.
I would however push back at state provided childcare as the policy lever. A refundable child tax credit (US terminology) has the same relative price effects without distorting the decision about whether the childcare should be provided in or out of the home, formally or informally. by parents/family members or not.
Within Country, conservative social values = higher TFR.
So I don't think liberal cultural values are causing high TFR. If I had to guess, liberal Northern Europe is just richer and more functional than Southern Europe due to genetics and that helps a lot.
There are also a few smart TFR policies in some Norther European countries.
The big problem is that getting higher TFR would mean big time subsidies and they have to be direct cash (not subsidized child care). The median voter is 55 years old and uninterested in child tax credits while girl bosses don't want to subsidize stay at home moms.
A possible link would be that more progressive countries have more immigrants from places with higher fertility rates, and these immigrants are the ones pushing the TFR up.
What you present is not *the* economic explanation. A macro-economic explanation is the transformation of average daily life (via industrialization) from a labor-intensive to a capital-intensive process. We no longer labor in the forest and field where a large family with lots of children can provide greater labor output and older children offset the cost of raising younger ones - we are in a capital-intensive framework where the limiting factor to family size is parental income, older children are not deemed capable of correctly educating younger children, children cannot work to offset the costs of their own upbringing, and financial investment in formal education is necessary for socio-economic success.
I personally think that this correlation ignores one factor: People afraid of their children being disadvantaged by giving births in a disadvantaged situation will have less children. And that is what those "conservative" value questions you point towards, point out. If you believe that children will be worse off, you will put it off, until you can afford to only have one person within the household work.
Similar to how people living in an urban area have less kids than those living in a rural area: the question of "Do I have space for a kid" makes people put off having kids, until they got enough space by moving into a larger apartment or out of the city.
Have you considered the hypothesis that birthrates simply decline as access to cheap, reliable birth control improves? I strongly suspect culture and economics normally only play a minor role, insofar as they affect the availability of birth control. (Though they may have influence at some extremes.)
[Edit: apologies if this came of as "just asking questions"; I was posting under pressure - there's a more-developed answer below]
Might one contributing factor to these correlations be that there is often a substantial gap between the values people report having and the values they live by in practice? In the wealthy Scandinavian city where I live, for example, the areas where people are most liberal about immigration are inevitably those with the most homogenous white population. And then there is white flight: Young progressives often buy their first apartments in the cheap suburbs where non-Western immigrants are in majority, but almost inevitably move to more affluent/whiter areas as soon as their single child is ready to move from daycare to school.
I think it'd be interesting to see correlations from studies asking personal questions alongside the generic ones, such as
* I'd like to have (more) children but at the moment I choose to prioritize other things
* I'd like to have children eventually, but now just isn't a good time
* I'd have (more) children if my friends and neighbours would. (A social contagion effect that could help explain the post-WW2 euphoria baby boom? At least here the highest fertility was immediately after the war, when living conditions were still quite rough after wartime damage.)
etc.
I think there's also a relative economic argument to consider: in absolute terms having lots of kids might be quite affordable, even more so than in baby boom times; but having fewer children means not just getting to increase your income more but also keep more of it for yourself. Doing so might even be considered a necessity more than a luxury. In this country, for example, people are obsessed with buying their own property, encouraged by tax policy, and this requires years of saving for a down payment. Having a child or two might extend the required savings period by years. Renting a child-friendly apartment or small house in a minor city is thought of as throwing good money out the window, as opposed to cramming into a more attractively located matchbox. I wonder if birth rates here could be boosted by providing interest-free loans for down payments to families with children, enough to give them a substantial edge in the property market.
As an economist I lean toward the economics explanation, but more importantly don't see much milage in litigating the percentages. We know how to manipulate the relative cost of having children vs not having them. So lets look for the keys under the streetlight.
I would however push back at state provided childcare as the policy lever. A refundable child tax credit (US terminology) has the same relative price effects without distorting the decision about whether the childcare should be provided in or out of the home, formally or informally. by parents/family members or not.
Children are a lot of "work" for women. Our daughter has 2 boys (ages 3 and 7). They are extremely active.
The younger one goes to an excellent daycare at $18k/yr. His older brother got a good start on his education at the same daycare.
Her husband helps, but it is not 50/50.
Within Country, conservative social values = higher TFR.
So I don't think liberal cultural values are causing high TFR. If I had to guess, liberal Northern Europe is just richer and more functional than Southern Europe due to genetics and that helps a lot.
There are also a few smart TFR policies in some Norther European countries.
The big problem is that getting higher TFR would mean big time subsidies and they have to be direct cash (not subsidized child care). The median voter is 55 years old and uninterested in child tax credits while girl bosses don't want to subsidize stay at home moms.