636. Why Aren’t We Having More Babies?

Episode Summary

Executive Summary: The episode examines why fertility is falling globally, combining economics, history, and reproductive science. Economist Catherine Pakaluk argues childbearing is often framed too narrowly by policy and media, while Matthias Doepke says lower fertility reflects changing incentives, women’s labor-force participation, and intensive parenting. The show also highlights historical fertility policy failures and how little we still know about reproduction itself.

Main Topics: Why fertility is falling (Priority: 5/5): The conversation centers on the global drop in fertility and whether it is a crisis, a success story, or both. Speakers connect lower birth rates to career-family conflict, education, childcare costs, housing, and shifting social norms. Catherine Pakaluk’s qualitative research on large families (Priority: 5/5): Pakaluk discusses her book 'Hannah’s Children,' based on interviews with 55 college-educated, religious women with five or more children, arguing that household-level meaning, faith, and values shape fertility decisions. Economics of fertility and child quality (Priority: 5/5): Matthias Doepke explains Gary Becker’s framework: families choose both number of children and investment per child. As education became more valuable and parenting more intensive, fertility fell. Historical overpopulation and underpopulation fears (Priority: 4/5): The episode contrasts past panic about overpopulation with today’s anxiety over too few births, showing that demographic fears have repeatedly shifted and that forecasts have often been wrong. Policy limits: subsidies, childcare, and pronatalism (Priority: 4/5): Guests debate government attempts to boost births, including baby bonuses, fertility education, tax incentives, and parental leave, with skepticism that such measures can alter deep household preferences. The science of reproduction is underdeveloped (Priority: 4/5): Diana Laird explains that fertility research is constrained by limited funding and legal restrictions on embryo research, leaving major gaps in understanding eggs, implantation, and reproductive aging. Historical attempts to influence fertility (Priority: 3/5): Amy Freud describes earlier efforts in England and France to raise births through taxes, financial incentives, and improvements in midwifery, underscoring how long societies have tried to manage population size.

Key Arguments: Fertility is falling largely because modern life makes children more costly in time, money, and career tradeoffs, especially for women. Lower fertility has historically brought major benefits: mass education, higher child investment, and a demographic dividend during the transition to smaller families. The recent move from about two children per family to around one and a half is different; it no longer mainly reflects better investment in children and can bring labor-force shrinkage and regional decline. Pakaluk argues childbearing decisions are best understood at the household level, not as outcomes that policymakers can precisely engineer. Religious commitment and value formation may influence fertility more effectively than cash subsidies because they address deeper motivations. Historical pronatalist and anti-fertility policies often had unintended consequences and were hard to prove effective. Population forecasts have often been badly wrong because they extrapolated from past trends without anticipating economic and social change. Basic fertility science remains incomplete, so governments trying to influence birth rates are operating with limited knowledge.

Data Points: U.S. total fertility rate: 1.6 babies per woman - Current U.S. record low fertility level discussed in the episode Replacement fertility rate: 2.1 babies per woman - Level needed to keep population steady U.S. fertility in the late 1950s: 3.7 babies per woman - Historical comparison before long decline U.S. fertility in the first half of the 19th century: over 6 babies per woman - Early historical fertility benchmark Global fertility decline: more than half over the past 50 years - Broad international trend cited in the introduction Pakaluk interview sample: 55 women - Women across the U.S. with five or more children interviewed for 'Hannah’s Children' Pakaluk’s biological children: 8 children - Her own family size noted in the interview Pakaluk’s stepchildren: 6 children - Children from her husband’s first marriage Passport ownership in the U.S.: fewer than 3% then; around 50% today - Used to illustrate increased mobility and expanded life options Childcare spending across high-income countries: about 0.5% to 3% of GDP - Cross-country variation linked to fertility differences South Korea fertility rate: about 0.7 children per woman - Example of ultra-low fertility and intensive parenting Female fertility window: about 39 years - From puberty to menopause, as described by Diana Laird Eggs present in fetal development: around 7 million - Approximate number of egg cells before birth Eggs at birth: 1 to 2 million - Estimated ovarian reserve at birth 1 in 3 babies in 18th-century England: dying in childbirth or soon after - Historical infant mortality rate described in the midwifery segment One-child policy duration in China: 1979 to 2015 - Example of coercive population control after overpopulation fears 1930s-style political concern: Population forecasts from 200 years of declining fertility - Explains why earlier demographers expected eventual stabilization near two children

Pivotal Quotes: "For women, of course, time is a rival good, right?" — Matthias Doepke: Explaining why children become costlier as women’s careers and opportunities expand "The household is the correct locus of decision-making" — Catherine Pakaluk: Her argument that fertility choices should remain centered within families, not government "These are the biggest decisions we take in our lives, both at a personal level, but also for the economy." — Matthias Doepke: Why fertility and family formation matter to macroeconomics

Implications: The episode suggests fertility policy is limited unless it addresses work, childcare, housing, and values at a deep social level. It also warns that demographic panic can produce harmful policy, while basic reproductive science still needs far more investment.