It is well known that Australia has a serious aging problem because our fertility rate is below the level needed just to keep the population steady (namely, 2.1 children per woman).
At present fertility rates (1.88 children per woman) there will be fewer and fewer workers, and their incomes will be supporting more and more old people. Immigration may defer the problem but will not solve it in the long run. The state of national fertility is therefore a matter of great importance.
The conditions that determine parental decisions and a nation’s fertility rate are many and complex. They include government benefits for children, the costs of raising children, social norms and expectations, individual preferences, and broad economic circumstances. The wish for children competes with the wish to maintain a certain lifestyle and hopes for the future. For couples, present realities and future expectations are powerful determinants of human fertility.
This is something we share with kangaroos.
The Wikipedia entry on kangaroo reproduction notes: “Usually, during a dry period, males will not produce sperm, and females will only conceive if there has been enough rain to produce a large quantity of green”. The kangaroo, it seems, has a marsupial womb with a view.
Economically, Australians have been going through a ‘dry period’ for some years now, following the ‘green’ years from 2001 to, say, 2010. How, if at all, will this affect fertility? To see, we need to get a longer perspective on Australian fertility over the last three generations.
Fertility collapsed in the economically desperate years of the Great Depression in the early 1930s, grew steadily after World War II, peaked at 3.5 children per woman in 1961, and began to decline in the recession that began in that year. In 1982 the fertility rate was 1.93 children per woman. From then to 2001 the fertility rate declined steadily to 1.72 children per woman. Then from 2000 – 2012 the fertility rate climbed rapidly to 1.93 children per woman and stalled there. In 2013 the rate declined to 1.88 children per woman.
Explaining these fluctuations is difficult because it is clear that multiple factors — social, cultural and economic — are at work. Nevertheless, we cannot diminish the power of financial ‘dryness’ and drought, and the cost-benefit calculations that men and women make in deciding whether to have children. Correlation does not necessarily show causation; but consider the following.
In a survey by Matthew Gray and others published in 2008, they identified 27 factors likely to be considered of varying importance in the decision of men and women about having children. The factor or condition that was placed first in importance by both women and men was capacity to afford supporting a child.
The rapid increase in fertility between 2001 and 2012 referred to above, occurred at the same time as real net disposable income per capita rose from around $30,000 per annum to around $38,000 per annum. Green-flushed men and women hurried to their beds. This was the era of notable prosperity that began to fade with the advent of the Global Financial Crisis.
So, we have a picture of correlation between rising per capita purchasing power and higher fertility as the relative costs of children decreased.
Determining causation is very difficult in the social sciences, including demography, and fertility prediction is therefore risky. Recent policy and circumstances have led to economic sluggishness and stalling of significant progress in disposable incomes for a great many Australians. If these conditions remain or get worse there are likely to be direct implications for fertility.
We have already seen the return of fertility decline from 1.93 children per woman in 2012 to 1.88 in 2013. This does not yet represent a trend; but if fertility continues downwards in tandem with economic weakness, the suspicion of a causal relationship between the two will be strengthened, with clear implications for policy in relation to the aging problem. The next two or three years will be interesting. We just have to wait and see.
However, the kangaroos seem to be doing quite well; for them, things are still fairly green.
Barry Maley is a Senior Fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies
Home > Commentary > Opinion > Fertility, prosperity and kangaroos
Fertility, prosperity and kangaroos
It is well known that Australia has a serious aging problem because our fertility rate is below the level needed just to keep the population steady (namely, 2.1 children per woman).
At present fertility rates (1.88 children per woman) there will be fewer and fewer workers, and their incomes will be supporting more and more old people. Immigration may defer the problem but will not solve it in the long run. The state of national fertility is therefore a matter of great importance.
The conditions that determine parental decisions and a nation’s fertility rate are many and complex. They include government benefits for children, the costs of raising children, social norms and expectations, individual preferences, and broad economic circumstances. The wish for children competes with the wish to maintain a certain lifestyle and hopes for the future. For couples, present realities and future expectations are powerful determinants of human fertility.
This is something we share with kangaroos.
The Wikipedia entry on kangaroo reproduction notes: “Usually, during a dry period, males will not produce sperm, and females will only conceive if there has been enough rain to produce a large quantity of green”. The kangaroo, it seems, has a marsupial womb with a view.
Economically, Australians have been going through a ‘dry period’ for some years now, following the ‘green’ years from 2001 to, say, 2010. How, if at all, will this affect fertility? To see, we need to get a longer perspective on Australian fertility over the last three generations.
Fertility collapsed in the economically desperate years of the Great Depression in the early 1930s, grew steadily after World War II, peaked at 3.5 children per woman in 1961, and began to decline in the recession that began in that year. In 1982 the fertility rate was 1.93 children per woman. From then to 2001 the fertility rate declined steadily to 1.72 children per woman. Then from 2000 – 2012 the fertility rate climbed rapidly to 1.93 children per woman and stalled there. In 2013 the rate declined to 1.88 children per woman.
Explaining these fluctuations is difficult because it is clear that multiple factors — social, cultural and economic — are at work. Nevertheless, we cannot diminish the power of financial ‘dryness’ and drought, and the cost-benefit calculations that men and women make in deciding whether to have children. Correlation does not necessarily show causation; but consider the following.
In a survey by Matthew Gray and others published in 2008, they identified 27 factors likely to be considered of varying importance in the decision of men and women about having children. The factor or condition that was placed first in importance by both women and men was capacity to afford supporting a child.
The rapid increase in fertility between 2001 and 2012 referred to above, occurred at the same time as real net disposable income per capita rose from around $30,000 per annum to around $38,000 per annum. Green-flushed men and women hurried to their beds. This was the era of notable prosperity that began to fade with the advent of the Global Financial Crisis.
So, we have a picture of correlation between rising per capita purchasing power and higher fertility as the relative costs of children decreased.
Determining causation is very difficult in the social sciences, including demography, and fertility prediction is therefore risky. Recent policy and circumstances have led to economic sluggishness and stalling of significant progress in disposable incomes for a great many Australians. If these conditions remain or get worse there are likely to be direct implications for fertility.
We have already seen the return of fertility decline from 1.93 children per woman in 2012 to 1.88 in 2013. This does not yet represent a trend; but if fertility continues downwards in tandem with economic weakness, the suspicion of a causal relationship between the two will be strengthened, with clear implications for policy in relation to the aging problem. The next two or three years will be interesting. We just have to wait and see.
However, the kangaroos seem to be doing quite well; for them, things are still fairly green.
Barry Maley is a Senior Fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies
• Subscribe
Subscribe now and stay in the loop with our giving appeals, event alerts, newsletters and research updates.
We are always pleased to hear from you. If you have any questions or feedback, please contact us here: