Recession and Procreation
Economic data confirm a correlation between productivity and fertility—when the gross domestic product goes down during a recession, so does the birth rate. The latest National Vital Statistics Reports document a drop in fertility rates (the number of live births per 1,000 women aged 15-44) in the U.S. after the onset of the previous four recessions, as determined by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). The fertility rate dropped from 68.8 in 1973 to 65 in 1976 (recession of 1973-1975), from 68.4 in 1980 to 65.7 in 1983 (recession of 1980-1982), from 70.9 in 1990 to 68.4 in 1992 (recession of 1990-1991), and from 65.3 in 2001 to 64.8 in 2002 (recession of 2001) According to the U.S. Census Bureau , this trend held true even during the Great Depression, before the advent of hormonal contraceptives, when the birth rate dropped to two children per woman.
As expected, fertility rates lag economic contractions since they reflect decisions made approximately nine months prior. Additionally, declining fertility rates seem to last into the economic recovery period since recoveries are often well underway before their effects begin to be felt in the general population. NBER defines a recession as the period from the peak of economic activity to the trough. However, NBER notes : “The trough marks the end of the declining phase and the start of the rising phase of the business cycle. Economic activity is typically below normal in the early stages of an expansion, and it sometimes remains so well into the expansion.” As a result, consumer behavior, including family planning decisions, in response to negative economic conditions may continue well beyond the official end of a recession.
Anecdotal evidence is beginning to suggest that the current slowdown may present trends in birth rates similar to those in the past. Articles in MSN.com , the Los Angeles Times , and WebMD , among others, quote women who are deferring first and subsequent pregnancies due to financial difficulties and uncertainties brought on by the current economic situation. Several CBS affiliates are reporting increased demand for birth control. Carl Haub of the Population Reference Bureau, a Washington, D.C.,-based non-profit that collects and disseminates demographic information, maintains that there is a very real possibility that, in light of the economic downturn, women will choose either to delay pregnancies or forgo them altogether.
Not all economists agree that recessions result in baby busts. One study in the Quarterly Journal of Economics points out in a review of literature on the subject that when women’s wages fall, they lose less income by taking time out to raise children. As a result, times of low wages become optimal times for raising children. Yet, given historical data, there is reason to believe fertility rates will be on the decline during this recession as well.
But what does this mean for the childfree, who have decided, irrespective of economic conditions, that children are not in our near-term or long-term future? Really, it’s anyone’s guess, but here are some possibilities.
Strength in greater numbers. Undoubtedly, recession birth rates reflect delays in having children, generally not decisions to forgo children completely, and there may even be a small baby boomlet after the economy goes into recovery. However, there may be a number of people who do make the decision to remain childfree or who can’t have kids when circumstances improve. More people without children, though not necessarily childfree, now and in the future, may generate more interest in our demographic from the retail and entertainment sectors, employers, and even government.
Adult-oriented marketing. Time spent watching primetime and cable/satellite television reveals no shortage of advertising geared toward children and parents of young children. Advertisers sell paper towels by showing how well they clean up kid messes. They sell minivans that double as movie theaters by showing how they entertain hyperactive children on the way to the supermarket. A shift toward a less baby-centric culture, both in terms of fertility rate and in terms of more frugal parents, may force advertisers to consider a broader and less childed audience. In addition, if the “anything and everything for my child” mantra falls victim to economic circumstances, child-centric advertising may not be as influential as it is today.
Demand for childfree-friendly benefits. When eventually the economy goes into recovery and employers have to compete for workers, a less childed pool of potential workers may prompt employers to consider competitive benefits packages geared toward those of us who, by chance or by choice, do not have children. But supply (offerings by employers) is ultimately driven by demand from the workforce, so childfree-friendly benefits packages will have to be something we seek in an improved economy. On the other hand, if economic recovery gives way to a baby boom of once-delayed pregnancies, there may also be a demand for benefits packages that favor parents.
Lower property taxes. Like childfree-friendly benefits, this is a result that will only come about if we fight for it. Large portions of local government budgets are allocated to schools. With fewer children, school enrollment will decline, reducing the need for property tax dollars to support as many kids in school. The parent lobby will always demand more money for schools, even if enrollment declines. But if school budgets are kept in line with inflation and enrollment, there’s an opportunity for all taxpayers, including the childfree, to keep more money in our pockets.
Fewer tantrums in public places. With fewer kids, there may be fewer meltdowns and displays of inappropriate behavior by children (and parents) at stores, in places of worship, at doctors’ offices, etc. Maybe that’s a stretch, but one can always hope.
Copyright Julie Nisley. Published 1 March 2009 in Features.
Reader comments
Commenting is closed for this article.