Sign up to access the complete lesson and track your progress!
Unlock This CourseSome governments are worried that too few babies are being born. Others are worried that too many are. Both can cause problems. Too few births means fewer workers and taxpayers in the future. Too many births can mean there are not enough schools, homes, jobs and food. So governments sometimes step in with a policy.
Key terms:
Countries use these when the fertility rate is well below replacement level and the population is ageing or may start to shrink. The usual tools are incentives that make having children cheaper and easier.
France pays family allowances to parents and cuts income tax for families with more children. Singapore introduced a baby bonus in 2001: a cash gift plus government money added to a savings account for the child. Hungary has offered loans that are cancelled if a couple has children, and no income tax for mothers of four or more children.
Paid parental leave, subsidised childcare and help with housing let parents keep working while raising a family. Russia has paid a 'maternity capital' sum to families since 2007, at first for a second child and from 2020 for a first child too. It can be spent on things like housing or education.
Countries use these when the population is growing so fast that services and food supplies are struggling to keep up. The most successful policies help people to choose smaller families rather than forcing them.
Free or cheap contraception and clinics, with advice for couples. In Iran a national family planning programme was revived in 1989. Contraception was made free and couples had to take family planning classes before marriage.
Campaigns tell people about the benefits of smaller families, and girls are kept in school for longer. In Thailand a national programme began in 1970, and campaigners used humour and creative public demonstrations to make contraception talked about openly.
To evaluate a policy, look at what it achieved (its strengths) and what it failed to do (its limitations).
| Policy | Strengths | Limitations |
|---|---|---|
| Pro-natalist (France, Singapore, Hungary) | France has long kept one of the higher fertility rates in Europe. Hungary's rate rose for about ten years after new family policies. | Singapore's rate stayed well below replacement level even after the baby bonus. Hungary's rate rose and then fell back again. Money helps with cost, but cannot change everything, such as housing, long working hours or personal choice. |
| Anti-natalist (Iran, Thailand) | Iran's fertility rate fell from almost 6 in 1988 to about replacement level by 2000. In Thailand it fell from above 6 in the 1960s to about 2 by the early 1990s. | The fall can go too far. Both countries now have fertility rates below replacement level, so they face an ageing population. Results also depend on women having access to schools and clinics. |
It is hard to be sure how much of any change was caused by the policy. Education, incomes and the cost of living were changing at the same time.
Do not mix up the two words: pro-natalist means more babies, anti-natalist means fewer. Do not say a policy 'worked' only because the rate changed: say what it was compared with, and whether other things changed too. Avoid just saying 'it was a good policy'. Give a strength and a limitation, then reach a judgement.
Fig. 1.1 shows made-up data for Country X, which introduced a baby bonus in 2005. A fertility rate of about 2.1 is replacement level.
| Year | Fertility rate (children per woman) |
|---|---|
| 2000 | 1.3 |
| 2005 | 1.3 |
| 2010 | 1.5 |
| 2015 | 1.6 |
| 2020 | 1.4 |
(a) Define the term pro-natalist policy. [2 marks]
(b) Describe the changes in the fertility rate shown in Fig. 1.1. [3 marks]
(c) Evaluate how successful pro-natalist policies are at increasing birth rates. [6 marks]
(a) A policy by a government (1) that encourages people to have more children, for example by giving money or tax savings (1).
(b) The rate stayed the same at 1.3 from 2000 to 2005 (1). It then rose to a peak of 1.6 in 2015 (1) before falling to 1.4 by 2020 (1).
(c) Level 3 answer: Pro-natalist policies have had some success. In Country X the rate rose from 1.3 in 2005 to 1.6 in 2015 after the baby bonus, which suggests the money helped. France, which gives family allowances and tax cuts, has had one of the higher fertility rates in Europe. However, the policies have clear limits. The rate in Country X fell again after 2015 and was still below the replacement level of 2.1, and in Singapore the rate stayed well below replacement level after its baby bonus. Many couples have fewer children because of housing costs, long working hours and personal choice, which money cannot easily fix. Other things may also have changed, so the rise may not be only due to the policy. Overall, such policies can slightly raise birth rates but rarely bring them back to replacement level, so they are only partly successful.
In an 'Evaluate' answer, use the figures in Fig. 1.1 and a named example, give a strength and a limitation, and finish with a clear judgement such as 'partly successful' or 'only a small effect'.