5 ms·
Economic success is associated with reduced fertility, not greater fertility. (And it's almost certainly causal.) If regions don't have economic miracles, that
by jessriedel 3y ago
Economic success is associated with reduced fertility, not greater fertility. (And it's almost certainly causal.) If regions don't have economic miracles, that will mean higher population, not lower.
- satvikpendem 3y agoYes, however it doesn't necessarily mean that the population grows monotonically. It is still based on cycles to some extent.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- roflyear 3y agoWhy are people downvoting this?
- quietbritishjim 3y agoPerhaps because that was already what was said by the parent comment, but the reply is phrased in a tone of disagreement. > If they [developing countries] do utilize it [economic opportunity] well, the population is predicted to drop, ...
- roflyear 3y agoThat isn't how I read it.
- satvikpendem 3y agoThat is how I meant it, yes.
- roflyear 3y agoWell, sure. OK. But it isn't how it comes across IMO.
- satvikpendem 3y agoIndeed, that is basically what I said anyway.
- ben_jones 3y agoIf we can continue to figure out basic needs better like housing and healthcare then it may not always be the case that one must sacrifice progeny for economic progress. Hell just high speed rail could encourage populating less desirable areas if a 30 minute trip to the beach was a weekend event.
- smeej 3y agoOne part of this came up at the end of the article, namely that increased childhood survival rate leads to decreasing number of births. It makes a lot of sense to me that this would correlate with overall improvements of living standards. If you want to have a family four children, I'd think it's pretty universally agreed that it's better if you only have to give birth four times to do it than five, because all four babies survive childhood. That doesn't negate that there are other factors, especially in countries that already have low birth rates and high childhood survival rates. It was just a factor I hadn't paid much attention to before or heard people mentioning very often.
- jessriedel 3y agoIn theory it would make sense that fertility falls a bit with lower childhood mortality, but your explanation doesn't explain the data that lower childhood mortality is associated with fewer surviving children.
- grotorea 3y agoNot an expert but AFAIK these demographic transitions are when an economy has the highest share of its population as economically active adults. It's a well known challenge to use that opportunity to develop and become rich enough to deal with the following ageing population and avoid the middle income trap.
- jessriedel 3y agoFertility continues to fall even lower as the population ages out of prime working age, e.g., Japan.
- Joeboy 3y agoThis is what I've always heard, but I've also heard that the financial precarity of young people in the west is leading them to have fewer children. Which seems mildly contradictory.
- tuatoru 3y agoProspect theory can explain this. If you are precarious now, but expect or hope to be better off in future, you will delay having children. If you don't expect better prospects, then children are the best available investment in your future.
- jessriedel 3y agoThe second thing you've heard is wrong. If you give people resources conditional on them having children (e.g., free child care), they will of course on the margin have slightly more children. But it's a mistake to interpret this as "financial precarity" causing reduced fertility, because if you give them more unconditional money they have fewer children.