Americans
just don’t make babies like they used to. The U.S. birthrate is the
lowest in nearly a century, according to a study released last year by
the Pew Research Center. It’s half the level of the Baby Boom years
after World War II. American women, on average, are likely to have fewer
than two children during their lifetime, which means not enough babies
are being born to maintain the current population size. Even among new
arrivals, the trend is declining: The birthrate among Mexican immigrants
to the U.S. has plummeted 23 percent since 2007.
This
reproductive recession is not unique to America; it’s a global
phenomenon. Women just about everywhere are having fewer kids and having
them later in life. The world is about to get a lot older very fast.
Planetary
senescence casts a shadow on the world economy’s long-term prospects
for growth. Already, the burden of supporting aging populations with a
shrinking pool of able-bodied workers threatens the solvency of
governments in advanced economies. Even so, the Baby Bust doesn’t need
to be a disaster. Policymakers and the public will have to adjust to
changes in the way we allocate resources and define work, but an older,
grayer world may turn out to be a better place.
In 1970 the
average woman on the planet gave birth to 4.7 children in her lifetime.
By 2011 that number had dropped to 2.5. Even in the world’s most fecund
region, sub-Saharan Africa, the fertility rate fell from 6.7 to 4.9
between 1980 and 2010—and births among women under 20 dropped 20 percent
in the first decade of the new millennium.
In many places,
populations have peaked or will soon do so. Out of 196 nations for which
the World Bank had data in 2010, 71 saw fertility rates lower than two
children per woman; that’s up from 26 out of 187 countries in 1980.
Although population levels are still rising in some of those countries,
it’s either because people are living longer or the country is
attracting a lot of immigrants. By 2050 the United Nations estimates
that 48 countries and territories out of a world total of 229 will have
smaller populations than in 2010. Nations likely to shrink include
China, Russia, Japan, Germany, Ukraine, Poland, and Cuba.
The
combination of falling birthrates and longer life expectancies also
means the world is rapidly adding wrinkles. In 1980 the median age was
23; by 2050, according to the UN, it will be 38. In 1970 about half of
the world’s population was younger than 20; by 2011 that figure had
dropped to a little more than one-third, and the UN predicts it will be
closer to one-quarter by mid-century. Meanwhile, the number of people
older than 65 increased from 5 percent to 9 percent between 1970 and
2011 and will climb to 20 percent by 2050. Despite the global population
being about 2 billion higher, the absolute number of young people at
mid-century will be no larger than today. The global elderly will have
increased from 648 million to 1.9 billion.
In the U.S. the
young-old split will be 23 percent to 27 percent. In Europe the
proportion will be 19 percent teens or younger vs. 33 percent
post-retirement. China is projected to become just as sclerotic:
17 percent young to 31 percent old.
Aging populations pose some
real challenges, especially for industries that provide services either
to the young or the old. About 5 percent of global gross domestic
product is spent on education, for example; dwindling numbers of
children could mean a lot of teachers will be out of work.
Expenditures
on the old, meanwhile, are sure to skyrocket. Pension spending in the
European Union already equals about 12.5 percent of GDP. As the region’s
65-plus population increases from a fifth to a third, either those
payments will rise or old age will get considerably less comfortable.
Supporting the aged is going to be a particular problem for developing
countries, such as China, that have traditionally relied on families to
look after their old and infirm. The burden on children may become
unbearable without considerably expanded safety nets.
Yet the drop
in birthrates is also cause for celebration. For a start, it reflects
growing gender equality: Surveys suggest women usually want to have
fewer children than do men. One major reason women around the world are
choosing to have fewer babies is that the kids they do have are far more
likely to survive and thrive. Global under-5 mortality declined by
two-thirds from 1970 to 2011. Education rates, meanwhile, have been
rising rapidly, especially among girls. We’re close to seeing every
child on the planet complete primary education. By 2050, the
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis predicts, more than
four out of five adults worldwide will have completed junior,
secondary, or higher education.
The secret to wealth
isn’t more young people, it’s more productive people. Economies can
continue to grow—creating demand and supplying the resources necessary
to care for the infirm—if they focus on increasing the productivity of
those fit and keen to work. Globally the labor supply has plenty of
slack.
If the rich world as a whole increased immigration from the
still-expanding populations of the developing world, that alone would be
a powerful dynamo for the world economy. In many developing regions,
including sub-Saharan Africa and India, as much as three-quarters of all
employment is in the informal sector, where productivity tends to be
abysmal. By providing workers with better education and moving them into
higher-output employment, countries can generate more wealth with
smaller populations.
Over the long run, stabilizing global
population may help alleviate fears of climate Armageddon. The richest
10 percent of the planet, which spends about 100 times a year what the
poorest 10th does, is responsible for today’s stress on the global
environment. The big challenge in combating climate change is to ensure
that a given income per person can still be delivered to everyone, but
more sustainably. A smaller number of people would clearly help in that
regard.
And while having fewer young people around may make the
world more boring, it might also make it more peaceful, since youths
commit far more than their fair share of violent crimes. Rachel Margolis
and Mikko Myrskylä, in research for the National Institutes of Health,
even suggest fewer kids might make for a happier planet. Their analysis
of worldwide survey data from 86 countries finds that childless people
are considerably happier than those with children. The gap between
childless adults and parents of four kids is as big as the gap between
people living in middle-income countries and those living in high-income
countries.
A significantly declining global population will, of
course, mean lost opportunities. Every child born might be the next
Picasso or Einstein. The vast majority of people on earth are happy to
be alive. But the benefits associated with stabilizing birthrates are
also considerable—not least greater freedom for women and better health
and opportunities for their children. The Baby Bust is nothing to fear.
Kenny is a fellow at the Center for Global Development and the New America Foundation.
