


An exercise in fertility

In Asia’s “little tigers”, big families went out of vogue decades ago, and have stayed there

See article

Readers' comments



Fertility rates are declining because of existing public policies that increase the "economic cost" of rearing children. It goes back to basic economics, simple supply and demand curves. If the Price (cost) of children increases, the demand for children will decrease!

For questions or comments simply visit my blog and email me. http://economicsforliberty.wordpress.com


huhahuha writes:

'Honestly I don't know. I once thought the equality spirit of the Christian religion is a solution. Apparently it is not. South Korea has a huge Christian population, but South Koreans are the worst in this snobbishness.'


South Korea's Christian population isn't by any means huge. Its Protestant population is slightly above 15% of the total population, and its Catholic one (the difference between the two sect is significant in Korea, politically and socially) is around 10%. On the other hand, more than half of South Koreans are irreligious and I bet you a great number of them are atheists as well.

South Koreans are, yes, quite snobbish. But I hardly think this is a matter to be blamed at religion, Christianity or Buddhism. I actually believe that you were right in your original conclusion - that the egalitarian spirit of Christianity can be used to tame snobbishness. The largely Christian West is far less snobbish than us Asians.


If you want to pay more taxes for elderly care as a consequence of demographic decline, you are welcome to it. Just don't drag me into your tree-hugging nonsense.


The Economist always gets my angry up with these stupid population articles. How completely stupid do you think we are? "More people means bigger economy" - so if Singapore had a population of 1 trillion people it would be the worlds richest country, and therefore I guess, the best place to live. If only Singapore could get everyone on planet earth to just migrate there, I'm sure it would have economic growth that would put China to shame.

Come ON!! STOP THESE STUPID ARTICLES. Guess what, we will HAVE to stop our population growth at some point in the future, even stupid children know that. Try and turn on your brains and think about what economic growth in a world with a static or declining population might look like, because if we intend to exist on this planet for another 5,000 years, that is what the bulk of recorded human history is going to have to look like.

Sorry, had to get that off my chest, time to go hang out with my 10 kids....

Sense Seeker

In the past decades the little tigers (and many other countries) have enjoyed a demographic dividend from having few old people and few children and a thus very favourable ratio of working population over dependent population. That is now coming to an end. The same will happen in China not long from now. This will create problems and it will lower economic growth.

But I agree with Ohio that this is a necessary phase to go through. The world population has not yet peaked and we are already wrecking many of the ecosystems that feed us. Nearly all large animal species are endangered or already extinct or only available in zoos. We'll just have to accept the inevitability of a world with many more old people and fewer young. And prepare for it.

Can TE get some futurologists to debate the probable scenarios? This change is going to be profound and I find it difficult to oversee all the consequences.

Likely, when population growth stops, housing prices will stagnate or come down. Labour will be more expensive, because old people (many of whom are quite wealthy) need a lot of care of which only a small part can be mechanised. The rest of the economy also has to compete more for labour, so while the baby boomers now seem rich, it is possible that they will see part of that wealth eaten away by inflation and lower house prices. On the other hand, if they have sufficient electoral power, they might prevent wages from rising, forcing the economy to serve their needs at the expense of education and innovation? Would societies become more conservative and averse to change, with more well-educated older people who hold much of the wealth and voting power?

I am not so sure IanBio's desired growth in GDP per capita terms will be achievable. But that's not to say the quality of life cannot improve. After all, pcGDP is a measure that cares nothing for affordable housing, a less crowded living environment or well-functioning ecosystems.


Huhahuha isn't wrong about South Korean snobbishness, though I don't think the cause is religious in nature. I strongly disagree with the "Christian equality" hypothesis. To give another example than our snobbish Korean ways, Brazil has the fourth highest Gini index in the world and is over 70% Roman Catholic. As for Buddhism being based on the Hindu caste system... Suffice it to say that Buddhism differentiated itself from Hinduism by accepting all castes, and even today holds appeal for low-caste Indians. Religion is of course influential on human behavior, but in complex and far from straightforward ways. Any religious doctrine has to do business with the cultural conceptions, politics, social structure, etc. etc. of the receiving society, so Malaysia is a very different place from Afghanistan, and so on.

With South Korea, I think it basically comes down to fierce competition for wealth and prestige. A huge part of that is education, and many Koreans are insane about giving their kids an edge. For some that includes becoming a gireogi-abba (wild goose dad) who sends his wife and kid(s) to the U.S. or Canada so the kid can gain English fluency and a Western education, while the dad lives alone in Korea and sends money abroad to his family. Even for those who don't go quite that far, the cost of tutoring and extracurricular activities can add up to thousands of dollars a month. This kind of effort and cost are just not sustainable for three or sometimes even two kids. The very thought makes my uterus clamp up and say "hell no."

But hey, if our national tragedy contributes to a healthier planet, why the hell not. I'm all for open immigration myself, so that lots of people (not just foreign brides, but men, families, children) from all over the world can prosper here and make a life out of the economic opportunities. I just hope they can stay sane about education.



If I had wanted to structure my lifestyle (veganism, small living space, no car) to best benefit the species and the planet, I'd have been born a worker bee and gladly spent my short life living for the glory of the hive collective and the queen. But I want to live in a world with open spaces, abundent resources, and a nice back yard in which to barbecue my steak and cater to my many other material desires. If we can arrive at that world through a process of urbanization that makes children expensive enough that most people choose not to have them, then let's do it.


The coming fall in population can only be (in truly macroeconomic terms) a good thing that we should not fight. There are two major challenges that it brings however.

1) Our economic systems are build around growth and I am not aware of any significant body of economic research that attempts to show us the way to an economy that shrinks in GDP terms but grows in GDP per capita terms. Step up "The Economist" and encourage and highlight such research
2) Hidden within the average population growth figures for any developed country is the unmentionable fact that there is a negative correlation of pretty much any desirable trait (intelligence, health, wealth, contribution to society) and number of children. In the medium term (100 years) that will reverse much of the benefits of improved health and intelligence that arose in the 20th century through medicine, nutrition and education. Will our advanced economy still function with the level of talent seen in the 18th century I wonder?


To Kwin and Ohio,

Frankly, I don't think population is the major problem, but rather how efficient resources are utilized. The planet can't sustain even 10 million people if everyone lives in a McMansion and drives a Hummer. The world can probably sustain >10 billion people if everyone lives in a condo, recycles everything, eats vegetarian, takes the subway or ride a bike to work, and takes rail for traveling.

For a national economy to be healthy, I believe that a fertility rate of 2.1 (replacement rate) to be the most sustainable. The US is doing good, but the rates in East Asia are truly depressing!


I often reflect on how remarkably prescient Huxley was in writing 'Brave New World'. I believe the solution there was to have the government incubate and raise children industrially. Please note that I don't mean to say I find Huxley's distopia appealling, just prophetic.

What do we really want demographically? We're headed for a population that peaks at 9 billion. I find that number rather too large. We displace out so much of what is wonderful about the planet when we have to house and feed so many. A world with a billion or less people would have so much lebensraum (living room) both for humanity and the rest of the world's flora and fauna. If we can decrease the population dramatically without any coercion from a government, why fight it?

A world with fewer workers makes each worker more valuable. A world where each individual is valued is a world pre-disposed to freedom and individual rights, including the freedom to move to any country that values a worker's contribution. If we're headed for a world which needs a few highly trained workers with the rest left to menial tasks (see last weeks Economics focus) we should really be looking to minimize 'the rest', so that their contribution is more highly prized due to the scarcity of that labor.

A world that is full of old people is a world with some problems, but they are manageable. We just have to change our social policies, which were designed for a world that grew exponentially more populous. A world that forever grows is the only world we've ever known, but that doesn't mean that it is the best world for this century and beyond. Is it impossible to create a world where the population shrinks but people are happy? Call me an optimist, but I think we can adapt, and I think it's the only way forward. Let's direct our energies to dealing with the implications of a shrinking world, rather than try to reverse what is a necessary and welcome trend.


We have been breeding like resources are unlimited. It must be stopped, either by us voluntarily, or by Mather nature forcefully.

Prosperity centered on population growth is the most dangerous pyramid scheme and the most absurd theory in history.

It is inhumane, not to mention unfair, to later generations. Why would they have to work 50 years for a house so the current generation only need 15? From a certain perspective, living our lives on rising home prices, or other investments based on population growth, is enslaving our children.

Returning the human population to a reasonable and sustainable level is imperative. The journey to that goal may be punishing at times, but we have to march on.

We are paying for the mistakes the previous generations had made. However, we should not use this an excuse to pass the burden on to our children or grandchildren.


I think there are several reasons for this phenomenon.

(1) Hierarchical (Confucian) social structures: let's face it, Confucian societies still have a hierarchical social structure, reflected both in social circles and companies. Prestige, wealth, and power are all concentrated on the upper echelons. People on top rarely treat people in lower levels with respect. Thus, Asians tend to be hyper-competitive since people try to climb up the ladder. In this never-ending race, children are becoming distractions and burdens.

(2) Urbanization (as mentioned by Banyan): I once read a comment saying that cities are consumers of population and countryside is the generator. With the rapid urbanization of Asian tigers (not to mention the city-states), this is quite true.

(3) Empowerment of Asian Women.


Honestly I don't know. I once thought the equality spirit of the Christian religion is a solution. Apparently it is not. South Korea has a huge Christian population, but South Koreans are the worst in this snobbishness. They disdain Korean-Chinese and treat North Koreans in the South worse than dirt. Buddhism, with its deities structured like the Indian Caste system, is not a solution, either.

The only solution might be like this:
(1) China should reverse the one-child policy and let its country-side be a population generator.
(2) The Asian tigers should allow more migration from mainland China.

I think this is what HK, Macau, and Singapore are doing. It is not easy with the ingrained bias toward mainland Chinese (another symptom of a Confucian society). But their leaders are smart enough to push through this policy (quietly). So I believe that they have a brighter future.

In comparison, Japan, S. Korea, and Taiwan are doomed. They can't do this for cultural, historical, and political reasons, and will have to face this demographic onslaught on their own.

China should definitely revise the one-child policy, otherwise, the iron law of demographics will finally catch on and China will face the same problems that Japan is facing today.


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
GM's recall woes: Much old in the new
Schumpeter 1 hrs 2 mins ago
Daily chart: Who pays as America greys?
Graphic detail 1 hrs 13 mins ago
Climate science: Touchy subjects
Babbage 1 hrs 20 mins ago
GM crops, Indian farmers and suicide: GM genocide?
Feast and famine 1 hrs 13 mins ago
Herbalife: The House of Cards put
Schumpeter 2 hrs 58 mins ago


Products & events