The EU's baby blues

Birth rates in the European Union are falling fast.

 

No EU country has the 2.1 birthrate needed to keep a population stable

Europe's working-age population is shrinking as fertility rates decline. In a fit of gloom, one German minister recently warned of the country "turning the light out" if its birth rate did not pick up.

 

Efforts to encourage couples to breed have a chequered history and, for many, recall fascist pasts. Mussolini heavily taxed single men in his Battle for Births, Hitler awarded medals to women with large families in his quest for a superior German race.

 

No-one is yet berating bachelors or mooting medallions for multiple births. But Europe's many governments are scrambling to find a solution.

 

Who cares?

 

Demographic decline causes anxiety because it is thought to go hand-in-hand with economic decline.

 

with fewer, younger workers to pay the health and pension bills of an elderly population, states face an unprecedented fiscal burden.

 

The dependency ratio of those aged 65 and over to those of working age looks set to double from one-to-four to one-to-two in 2050.

 

 

How can Europe, which increasingly sees itself as a counterweight to US hegemony, claim equal status when it is being outpaced by American population growth?

 

If current forecasts prove correct, then the US - which currently has 160m fewer people than the EU - will have equalled it by 2050.

 

Increasing immigration is, in theory, one option for Europe, but most agree it is politically unfeasible in the current climate.

 

Others stress that it would not in any event solve the problem in the longer term - the migrants would themselves grow old and their own fertility patterns would start to match those of the country which received them.

 

Another option is to increase the productivity of the working population, drawing more people into the workforce - and more controversially - making them stay there longer. But moves to raise the retirement age tend not to play well with electorates.

 

That leaves boosting birth rates.

 

Some analysts believe the fears are exaggerated. It seems richly ironic, they argue, to be worrying about falling numbers of people and, at the same time, to be fretting about the drain on natural resources, and the jostle for living space.

 

In addition, women's ability to control the number of children they have is a positive development, freeing them from a life of ongoing pregnancies.

 

Those who want to boost the birth rate do not necessarily disagree on this last point.

 

But, they wonder, are women restricting the size of families through free choice - or because financial concerns and worries about their position at work prevent them from having as many children as they might like.

 

Mixed messages

 

Many European countries already have policies in place - some more explicitly pro-natal than others.

 

Sweden, stressing gender equality rather than stating directly that it wants to boost birth rates, provides a mixed package of higher pay for women, flexible working for both parents and high quality childcare.

 

 

Who will support an ageing populace?

France, meanwhile, is positively proud of its avowed pro-natalism, providing a series of tax and cash incentives for those having babies.

 

 

Other countries have also started toying with the idea of straight payments. Poland, where the population has fallen by half a million in the last six years, has recently passed legislation that will see women paid for each child they bear.

 

In Italy, where the population could shrink by as much as one third by 2050, one town has started offering couples 10,000 euros for each newborn baby.

 

 

How successful cash is as an incentive is still unclear. One study suggests that, even when cash allowances are boosted by 25%, the fertility rate climbs just marginally - perhaps by as little as 0.6%.

 

And the impact of generous maternity leave schemes and state-subsidised child care has also yet to be fully established.

 

Swedish and French birth rates may be higher than in much of Europe, but despite their respective systems, both countries still lag behind the holy grail of 2.1 children per woman needed to keep a population stable.

 

Europe is still feeling its way in this area, and may, some say, have to come to terms with the fact that there are women remaining childless or having small families by choice.

 

Recent evidence from Germany suggests that women may actually want fewer children than the two so often seen as the desirable norm - indeed some are happy with none at all.

 

Are falling birth rates something Europe should be worrying about? Or should countries embrace natural decline? What would persuade you to have more children?

Should Europe worry? Yes they should. european population continues to age without anyone to look after them and fill in the work vacancies created by their retirement. However, the poor countries outside of the continent are more than happy to disgorge their citizenry into your very happy pro-immigrant/pro-asylum societies where they will fill in the gaps. Then, 20-50 years from now, european will all scratch their heads and wonder, "What happened to Europe?"

Edited April 18, 200817 yr by Big Mistake

Although the birth rate is declining, and life expectancy is rising which means based on that there will soon be more dependent members of society than economicaly active, that article completly ignores the effect immigration has on population levels. With high levels of immigarations to some europian countires (mainly western) it actualy causes the population to increase, so although the natural levels of popultaion maybe decreasing, with immigation the total population is still rising. However the immigration may cause decreasing populations in the countries that have been left, such as poland.

 

 

Hello ideas from my ALevel geogrpahy coursework essay last year lol

where did this statistic come from?... i have very grave doubts that the birth rate is that low in this country tbh.

where did this statistic come from?... i have very grave doubts that the birth rate is that low in this country tbh.

 

Actually they are lower:

 

A European Union of 490 million

 

On 1 January 2007, the European Union welcomed two new accession countries as members, expanding the EU 25 to 27 member states and raising EU population by nearly 30 million overnight to 490 million as Bulgaria and Romania joined. This followed the accession of 10 countries (Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia) on 1 May 2004, which had added to 3,154,000 sq. km. of land to the EU15 and reduced overall EU population density.

 

The population of the EU25 member states is expected to reach 470.1 million, excluding the addition of Bulgaria and Romania, on 1 January 2025. It will then begin to decline to more environmentally sustainable levels, reducing both Europe's demand for non-renewable resources and its environmental impacts on the rest of the world - if these are not increased by other factors. By 2050, according to the Eurostat 2004-based Principal Projection, total EU25 population will decrease to 449.8 million - seven million fewer people than today.

 

However, for the UK a different picture emerges:

 

From an official Government documentation

 

Growth has been repeatedly underestimated

 

The latest population projection from the Government Actuary's Department [2006-based, published 23 October 2007, GAD] indicates even faster population growth than in previous projections. Population is now expected to reach 77 million by 2050 and 85 million by 2081, with further growth beyond that. In GAD's 1994-based principal population projection, the number of people living in the UK was expected to reach 60.7 million in mid-2031. Barely a decade later, with our numbers already more than 60 million, the 2031 figure has been revised upwards by 4.1 million people. Research and the actual experience of local authorities coping with increasing numbers of people flooding into their areas suggests that the population size estimates on which projections are based have also been underestimated, and actual growth has repeatedly outstripped official projections, with population increasing by an average of more than 0.5% a year from 2000-2006.

 

On average parents in the UK have decided that large families are not for them: the total fertility rate (TFR*) was 1.84 children per woman in 2006, up from a record low of 1.63 in 2001, but below the replacement** rate of an average 2.1 children needed to stabilise population in the long term.

 

The UK's fertility rate fell consistently until 2001, but the total number of births has increased each year since then, while increasing life expectancy has reduced the number of deaths. Births have exceeded deaths every year since 1901, except in 1976, and natural increase (births minus deaths) rose to 176,339 in 2006. The total fertility rate is below replacement** level, though natural increase is still causing population to grow. Net immigration, however, is now the main contributor to unsustainable levels of growth, and is expected to account directly, and indirectly due to its effect on fertility, for 69% of population growth from 2006 to 2031.

Very interesting! :huh:

 

Although there is a huge population decline in the Ukraine and Russia (they are the only two I know of), population is also rising dramatically in other European countries. The population of Ireland is now growing by 100,000 a year. It may not sound much, but it's a lot for this country.

The decline in population may not be a bad thing either. Yeah okay, the economy will get weak. But there are some benefits of this. In some European countries (like Ireland), the population puts a huge amount of stress on the Health and Education system. The hospitals and schools in most counties in Ireland are overcrowded. This leads to poorer efficiency (did that make sense? :wacko:) and all that money invested in health and education goes down the drain.

Oh, and if there is less population.... then car emissions will decline... meaning cleaner air! :P

 

 

I could've missed the point completely, but meh. ^_^

Very interesting! :huh:

 

Although there is a huge population decline in the Ukraine and Russia (they are the only two I know of), population is also rising dramatically in other European countries. The population of Ireland is now growing by 100,000 a year. It may not sound much, but it's a lot for this country.

The decline in population may not be a bad thing either. Yeah okay, the economy will get weak. But there are some benefits of this. In some European countries (like Ireland), the population puts a huge amount of stress on the Health and Education system. The hospitals and schools in most counties in Ireland are overcrowded. This leads to poorer efficiency (did that make sense? :wacko:) and all that money invested in health and education goes down the drain.

Oh, and if there is less population.... then car emissions will decline... meaning cleaner air! :P

I could've missed the point completely, but meh. ^_^

 

It makes senses, except for the part of car emissions... Couples without children, or couples with just 1 children use cars aswell as big families. People will not join their neighbours in the same car just because their family isn´t big enough to fill a car. It´s hard to meet people that have more then 1 children today. With the niilism that dominates european mentality today, and pregancy being considered as a "disease", it´s no wonder these population will shrink since people consider meaningless, or even evil, to bring more people into this life.

It makes senses, except for the part of car emissions... Couples without children, or couples with just 1 children use cars aswell as big families. People will not join their neighbours in the same car just because their family isn´t big enough to fill a car. It´s hard to meet people that have more then 1 children today. With the niilism that dominates european mentality today, and pregancy being considered as a "disease", it´s no wonder these population will shrink since people consider meaningless, or even evil, to bring more people into this life.

 

wheres this 'pregnacy is a disease' coming from?....

 

sorry but statistics can be made to say anything, i dont believe europes population is decreasing.

wheres this 'pregnacy is a disease' coming from?....

 

sorry but statistics can be made to say anything, i dont believe europes population is decreasing.

 

From the young couples you know, how many of them plans to have 3 or more children? The growth is because immigration, but couples tend to have much less children then it would be necessary to repopulate the countries naturally. I know for a fact that my family was huge since my grandmother had 13 kids, but my parents and uncles/aunts had all gone for 2 or 3 kids. The current generation even considers if they want to have kids. So, as the older are dyng, younger people don´t want to reproduce and it causes population to decrease sooner or later...

From the young couples you know, how many of them plans to have 3 or more children? The growth is because immigration, but couples tend to have much less children then it would be necessary to repopulate the countries naturally. I know for a fact that my family was huge since my grandmother had 13 kids, but my parents and uncles/aunts had all gone for 2 or 3 kids. The current generation even considers if they want to have kids. So, as the older are dyng, younger people don´t want to reproduce and it causes population to decrease sooner or later...

 

thats obvious if what you say is correct across europe.... but i dont believe it is.

 

id be happy to see not only europes population falling but the worlds... that is the only way to 'save the planet' (awful phrase) and help ease starvation, deprivation etc.

I don't think we need to worry about less population. GDP per person probably won't suffer but it will probably hurt the economy obviously. Its a little harsh but i think healthy people should work till 70 or 72.

 

And a bribe would be catastrophic for poor families because birth rates are higher there anyway. I think more low income families would mean more poverty.

 

I don't think population decline really is too much of a problem. But the thing is i think in middle class societies one child will be the norm in a few decades. But in the UK Eastern Europe immigrants (although the populations are declining there also i think) and poor familes the birth rate will be higher, i can imagine the birth rate to be higher

I don't like any of the poll options, but voted for the first option as it's the one least incorrect.

No problem with population in the UK, Europe or the world.

 

A false impression is given by control issues. Particularly around distribution of wealth, resources and food etc.

.

No problem with population in the UK, Europe or the world.

 

sorry m8, but thats blinkered. surely you cannot be advocating wholesale and unsustainable breeding of the parasitical human race? even with TOTAL equality of wealth and food distribution the planet simply cannot sustain an ever increasing population. its population that is killing the planet, its population that is polluting the planet, its population that supposed to be driving global warming. the planet has finite rescources, the sooner they are used up the sooner the human race dies.... but not before years of termoil, torment, unhappiness, violence and suffering.