Demography is destiny

In today's Washington Post Robert Samuelson addresses collapsing birthrates in Western Europe, Russia and Japan. All have birthrates well below the level of replacement, and should begin shedding population in the next decade or so.

Samuelson attributes this to the usual suspects of urbanization, improved health care(more babies survive,) contraception, and more women in the workplace and college.

He also points out the birthrate in the United States is right at the level of replacement and hypothesizes this is because of greater optimism, greater patriotism and stronger religious values in America when compared to our Western counterparts.

(Some, but not the bulk of the discrepancy between birthrates in the US and the rest of the advanced world can be attributed to the birthrates of recent immigrants to the US.)

To expand upon Samuelson's article, here are the Total Fertility Rates* in the developed vs. the developing world. Link.

------------------------------------------ '90 '00 '10 '25
World ------------------------------------3.4 2.8 2.5 2.3
Less developed countries---------------- 4.7 3.1 2.7 2.4
More developed countries--------------- 1.9 1.6 1.7 1.7
(2.1 equals the level of replacement)

It's plain to see declining birthrates are not just an issue in the developed world. In fact, TFR's are declining much more precipitously in less developed countries.

Also of note is the world's lowest TFRs are in Eastern Europe.

And of course there is China, where it's hard to believe the one child per couple policy, when combined with a preference for male children, won't result in a dangerously unbalanced gender ratio.

What does this all mean?

Nobody knows for sure. As Samuelson points out, these declines were never anticipated and the ramification have yet to be fully explored.

I'll start with the obvious -- as birth rates decline and life expectancy increases the population ages. The fewer workers per retiree, the more pressure there is to stretch dollars allotted for health care and social security. The United States and its relatively favorable birth rate is still facing a crisis on this front. The rest of the developed world is due to be absolutely slammed by state obligation to the elderly.

In the less developed world the burden of caring for the elderly falls more on the family than the state. This leaves them even less prepared to deal with a birthrate decline. Although I would expect third world life expectancy to stabilize, if not shrink, decreasing the burden.

It had been argued in the past that the third world would catch up to the first world through "people power." Now this seem highly unlikely. If anything the gap between have and have nots widens.

Eastern Europe and Russia will be the big losers. If current trends continue their populations will shrink so quickly it's hard to believe any of these countries can remain politically stable -- let alone flourish in their new capitalist incarnation.

Western Europe faces a rocky road. But they shouldn't be ruled out. As Eastern Europe crumbles one could anticipate an even larger scale migration from Eastern to Western Europe. Since Western Europe has no history of open immigration it wouldn't be difficult for them to institute a policy which cherry picks the best and the brightest from Eastern Europe.

Following that logic, we could see increased immigration from Western Europe to North America as talented young people stripped of the remnants of their national identity through an influx of immigrants and a decline in native birthrates decide, in absence of this tie, it would beneficial to decamp to a place with less tax and more opportunity.

It's hard to imagine a scenario where xenophobic Japan gets out of their population rut through immigration, but Japan has been an isolated and highly organized society since the beginning. Therefore, I wouldn't bet against Japan maintaining, if not improving, their current standard of living indefinitely.

The decline in birth rate in the Arab world (75 percent in the last 30 years) should be seen as a positive development. The Middle East is a highly volatile region that produces and subsists upon a solitary commodity (oil.) Since it doesn't require a large number of people to harness oil, I can't see any downside to a stabilization or decline in Arab population.

China and India are the wild cards in this equation. These two country are still all potential, so it's difficult to project how they would react to a sudden decline in population if and when they do reach the heights some predict. But, as I mentioned before, the gender gap China is creating is unsettling. It's hard to believe it won't be severely damaging to Chinese society in the long run

As for the US, we are in better shape than most, but still face an aging population and an inadequate social security system. On the bright side, many of the current concerns over immigration will alleviate as the birthrate in Mexico (150 percent in last 30 years) continues to decline. A stabilized rate of immigration from the south with an (potential) influx of highly educated young immigrants from Europe (and Asia) would allow the United States to continue to grow slowly, without the risk that immigrants from one particular region of the world overwhelm our national character.

Of course this is all wild speculation.

Something I am fairly sure of is TFR's will have a big say in the fate of all nations and should be paid close attention.

*Total Fertility Rates are the number of children that would be born to each woman if she were to live to the end of her child-bearing years and bear children at each age in accordance with prevailing age-specific fertility rates. (2.1 equals the level of replacement.)