Posted by As I scroll through headlines about plummeting birth rates across the developed world, I’m struck by how often the proposed solutions miss the mark entirely. Country after country throws money at the problem (baby bonuses, childcare subsidies, tax breaks) while birth rates continue their relentless slide. The numbers are stark: 1.6 in the U.S., a devastating 0.7 in South Korea, 1.3 across the European Union (United Nations, 2022). We’re witnessing what demographers now call a “demographic emergency,” yet our policy responses feel like bringing a checkbook to an earthquake.
After studying fertility trends across dozens of countries, I’ve become convinced that we’re fundamentally misunderstanding what drives people to have children in the modern world. The solution isn’t more generous handouts—it’s reimagining how we structure society itself.
The Expensive Failure of Financial Incentives
The evidence against cash-based fertility policies is both overwhelming and depressing. I’ve watched Singapore offer S$10,000 per child while maintaining sub-replacement fertility. Germany provides €250 monthly per child, yet German women average just 1.5 children. Most heartbreaking of all, South Korea has escalated to offering ₩70 million per baby (roughly $52,000) only to watch their birth rate plummet to 0.84, the lowest in human history (Jones & Tertilt, 2021; OECD, 2023).
The numbers tell a brutal story about cost-effectiveness. France, despite spending more on family benefits than almost any other nation, requires €1.1 million in incentives to achieve each additional birth, more than most children will contribute economically over their entire lifetimes (Laroque & Salanié, 2014). Hungary’s loan-forgiveness program, which erases debt for families with multiple children, has failed to reverse their demographic decline (Hazan & Zoabi, 2015).
Even childcare subsidies, which seem more logical than direct cash payments, deliver disappointingly modest results. Norway’s universal daycare system (a model many countries aspire to) increased fertility by a mere 0.07 children per woman (Havnes & Mogstad, 2011). Across multiple studies, expanded childcare access raises birth rates by only 0.1 to 0.3 points, nowhere near the 0.6-point increase needed to reach replacement level.
Why do these approaches consistently fail? Because they treat children like any other consumer good that can be made more affordable through subsidies. But as I’ve learned from speaking with young couples across different countries, the decision to have children is existential, cultural, and deeply personal. As demographers note, “Children are consumption goods” that no subsidy adequately prices (Baudin et al., 2015).
A Case Study in Cultural Support
One country stands out as a demographic outlier: Israel, with a total fertility rate of 3.0 (the highest in the developed world) (Okun, 2013). What makes Israel’s success particularly intriguing is that it’s not driven by economic incentives or religious extremism, as some assume. Instead, it represents a masterclass in how cultural support and institutional design can create an environment where people genuinely want larger families.
When I examine Israel’s approach, several factors emerge that other countries consistently overlook:
Cultural elevation of parenthood: In Israel, 76% of women report that motherhood is “central to their identity” (not because they’re forced into this role, but because society genuinely values and supports it). This isn’t about restricting women’s choices; it’s about making parenthood a respected, culturally valued path alongside career achievement.
Removing barriers to wanted pregnancies: Israel provides unlimited subsidized IVF cycles until couples have two children (Birenbaum-Carmeli, 2016). Here, we observe that money is very much secondary to sending a clear message that society will help you achieve your family goals. The psychological impact of this support extends far beyond the couples who actually use IVF.
Integration that preserves fertility: Perhaps most remarkably, former Soviet immigrants to Israel (now 15% of the population) maintain a birth rate of 2.3 while achieving 75% workforce participation (Tolts, 2020). This demolishes the false choice between integration and fertility that haunts European immigration debates.
Male participation that actually matters: Israeli men perform 40% of childcare tasks, double the rate in Germany (Mundlak & Shamir, 2022). This isn’t coincidental; it’s the result of cultural expectations and workplace policies that make male caregiving normal and expected.
The Israeli model reveals something profound: gender equality doesn’t kill fertility, it enables it. When women can trust that they won’t bear the full burden of child-rearing, they’re more willing to have the children they want. College-educated Israeli women have actually increased their fertility by 15% since 2000, inverting the global education-fertility correlation (Feldman, 2018).
Why Couples Aren’t Having the Babies They Want
Here’s where our conventional wisdom goes completely wrong. We assume couples aren’t having children because they can’t afford them. But recent research reveals a more complex and troubling reality: many couples disagree about having children, and women are increasingly the ones saying no (Doepke et al., 2022).
This pattern appears across low-fertility countries with remarkable consistency. In Germany, surveys show that 50% of men want more children, but only 20% of women agree (Bünning, 2015). The reason is that they rationally anticipate bearing most of the burden.
Consider the arithmetic from a woman’s perspective: In Germany, men perform just 22% of childcare tasks. Each child represents not just financial cost, but a significant reduction in career mobility, earning potential, and personal autonomy. When workplace flexibility is limited and cultural expectations unchanged, having a child becomes a rational choice to avoid rather than embrace. Women rationally anticipate children will reduce career mobility, and where men contribute minimally, each child represents net autonomy loss (Goldscheider et al., 2015).
This “disagreement dynamic” explains why financial incentives fail so spectacularly. No amount of money compensates for the opportunity costs when the burdens are unfairly distributed. It’s like trying to convince someone to take a job by offering a signing bonus while ignoring that the working conditions are miserable.
The False Trade-Off: Education, Gender Equality, and Fertility
Some voices in the fertility debate argue that we need to choose between women’s education and higher birth rates. This reactionary logic not only offends basic principles of gender equality—it’s also empirically wrong.
The data reveals that male education correlates with fertility decline just as strongly as female education (Baudin et al., 2015). Educated men, like educated women, tend to delay marriage and childbearing, invest more heavily in each child, and prefer smaller families. Restricting women’s education while ignoring men’s would accomplish nothing except creating massive gender inequalities.
More importantly, educated women don’t forgo children. They delay them and need more support to achieve their fertility goals. In the United States, college-educated women ultimately achieve 80% of their stated fertility intentions by age 40, compared to just 60% for women without college degrees (Hazan & Zoabi, 2015). The problem isn’t that educated women don’t want children. It’s that our support systems are designed for a world where women have children in their early twenties.
Countries that have successfully combined high female education with sustainable fertility rates, such as Norway, where the birth rate rose to 1.9 as female workforce participation hit 80% (Myrskylä et al., 2009), prove that gender equality and fertility can be mutually reinforcing when properly supported.
What Actually Works
After studying fertility policies across dozens of countries, I’ve identified several interventions that actually move the needle:
Social recognition of caregiving: Mongolia’s motherhood awards might seem symbolic, but they signal that society values the work of raising children. This cultural shift matters more than we typically acknowledge.
Father-specific incentives: Sweden’s “daddy months” (parental leave that can only be taken by fathers) increased second births by 15% (Duvander & Jans, 2022). This isn’t just about giving women a break; it’s about changing cultural expectations around male caregiving.
Workplace flexibility mandates: Portugal’s “right to disconnect” law, which limits after-hours work communications, reduced parental attrition by 28% (Eurofound, 2022). When both parents can maintain career momentum without sacrificing family time, fertility decisions become less zero-sum.
Grandparent activation: Countries like Italy are experimenting with policies that encourage grandparents to participate in childcare, recognizing that extended family support can be more valuable than formal daycare.
Building Resilient Societies
Countries that focus on supporting wanted births can build resilient societies where every child arrives wanted and well-supported. Supporting wanted births through expanding IVF access addresses infertility affecting 1 in 6 couples (ESHRE, 2023), while Israel proves that babies and gender progress coexist (Feldman, 2018).
The path forward is about creating societies where people can have the families they want, where parenthood is supported rather than penalized, and where the next generation grows up knowing they were genuinely welcomed into the world.
References
Arpino, B., Pronzato, C., & Tavares, L. P. (2014). The effect of grandparental support on mothers’ labour market participation: An instrumental variable approach. European Journal of Population, 30(4), 369-390.
Baudin, T., de la Croix, D., & Gobbi, P. E. (2015). Fertility and childlessness in the United States. American Economic Review, 105(6), 1852-1882.
Birenbaum-Carmeli, D. (2016). Thirty-five years of assisted reproductive technologies in Israel. Reproductive Biomedicine & Society Online, 2, 16-23.
Bünning, M. (2015). What happens after the ‘daddy months’? Journal of Marriage and Family, 77(2), 516-529.
Cabinet Office, Government of Japan. (2023). Annual report on the aging society.
Doepke, M., Hannusch, A., Kindermann, F., & Tertilt, M. (2022). The economics of fertility: A new era. NBER Working Paper No. 29948.
Duvander, A. Z., & Jans, A. C. (2022). Sweden’s parental leave policy and its effect on fertility. Journal of European Social Policy, 32(1), 73-88.
ESHRE. (2023). ART fact sheet. European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.
Eurofound. (2022). Right to disconnect: Evidence from Portugal. Publications Office of the European Union.
Feldman, H. (2018). The paradox of high fertility in a high-tech society: The Israeli case. Contemporary Jewry, 38(2), 205-229.
Goldscheider, F., Bernhardt, E., & Lappegård, T. (2015). The gender revolution: A framework for understanding changing family and demographic behavior. Population and Development Review, 41(2), 207-239.
Havnes, T., & Mogstad, M. (2011). Money for nothing? Universal child care and maternal employment. Journal of Public Economics, 95(11-12), 1455-1465.
Hazan, M., & Zoabi, H. (2015). Do highly educated women choose smaller families? Economic Journal, 125(587), 1191-1226.
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC). (2023). Express Entry Year-End Report 2022.
Jones, L. E., & Tertilt, M. (2021). An economic history of fertility in the U.S.: 1826-1960. In Handbook of Cliometrics. Springer.
Laroque, G., & Salanié, B. (2014). Identifying the response of fertility to financial incentives. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 29(2), 314-332.
Ministry of Manpower, Singapore. (2023). SkillsFuture Annual Report.
Mundlak, G., & Shamir, H. (2022). Gender equality in Israel’s welfare state. Israel Studies Review, 37(1), 1-25.
Myrskylä, M., Kohler, H. P., & Billari, F. C. (2009). Advances in development reverse fertility declines. Nature, 460(7256), 741-743.
OECD. (2023). Family Database. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Okun, B. S. (2013). Fertility and marriage behavior in Israel: Diversity, change, and stability. Demographic Research, 28, 457-504.
Tolts, M. (2020). Post-Soviet immigration and population dynamics in Israel. Demographic Research, 42, 883-914.
United Nations. (2022). World Population Prospects 2022. Department of Economic and Social Affairs.