Does there exist any sort of libertarian insight into the question of why have the birth rates in many developed countries fallen to levels that guarantee that population is going to shrink or stagnate? Or perhaps some of our forumites have insights of their own into this question?
It is an interesting topic that eg Pat Buchanan talks a lot about. It does not sound like a very natural behaviour and development to have birth rates that if you assume the trend continues for the next one hundred years (which I think it will probably not mind you) would lead to the halving of many peoples.
So do you think the state might had some role in bringing this about? There does seem to be a correlation globally looking with having a functioning social state and not having kids.
The forced retirement saving schemes for one have impact. In the olden days many children were insurance that you would be taken care of in your old age. But now the state promises to take care of you. But I do not think this is sufficient explanation of such a radical fall in birth rates as we have seen occured.
I think only anthropologists would be able to answer this properly and even they wouldn’t agree among themselves.
There are many causes for this.
First is the switch from an economy based on labour intensive agriculture to a much diversified economy. Up to the first part of the XX century agriculture was still king and it required lots of manpower. Having many children in the family assured a ready supply of cheap manpower for the fields and the stables. As economical activity switched away from agriculture and agriculture itself changed shape the need for a big family providing plenty of manpower fell away.
Second is the drop in infant and children mortality. Again, up to the beginning of the XX century it was still very high by today’s standards. Having lots of children was more or less an assurance some would reach adult age. This became particualrly true starting from the '50s, when birth rates in Western countries fell hand in hand with the sharp drop in infant mortality.
Third is a cultural change in the role of women. Until recently there weren’t many women which took up jobs outside the family. Sure, they raised the children, helped out in the fields and the stables, cooked, spun etc but very few of them worked outside of the household. The Industrial Revolution changed all of this when some industries started to rely heavily on female labour (steel and silver polishing, needlemaking etc). A woman employed as, say, a doctor in a hospital has much less time available to become a mother.
Fourth is the expense associated with raising children. Let’s not beat around the bush: having a child in the modern world is bloody expensive, especially in light of some recent cultural changes. I am not talking about spoiling children, just raising them as society expects. Imagine sending a children to school with clothes passed on from an elder son: it was barely acceptable in the late '70s, today is completely verboten.
Fifth is time. How many persons have the time to be proper parents? That’s why I consider homeschooling parents halfway between great heroes and complete nutjobs: it takes real guts (or clinical insanity) to do what they do. And save the hate mail: being a hero is often only one step removed from being a madman.
I think we have to seperate the question. First, why do birth rates sink? Second, why do they sink beyond two children per woman? The first question is quite easily explained and answers part of the second question: Children are mainly a security for one self and with bad hygenic standards the mortality is very high so one has to have many children in hope that some will survive long enough to take care of one in old age.
Thus, today the mortality is very close to zero and only one or very few children are needed to secure oneself. With the advent of retirement plans, irrespective if private or public, one doesn’t even need to have children to be safe at old age. (Note: In a truly free market, would retirement insurances require lower fees if you have children?) Thus children are a pleasure to have and a very expensive one. Rising costs to raise a child at identical desire to have one reduce the incentive to have one therefore many pairs decide not to have children or just one for sake of having one.
The question really is, what advantages do those have who have children and what disadvantages? D. Friedman writes at the end of his “Hidden Order” that he once tred to find out whether having a child is beneficial or not in sum and he contends that he has no idea how to calculate that.
Maybe Clayton has some insight, he writes about family as the institution that privatises benefits and costs of raising children to the parents. Having written this, I think big parts of modern legislation, especially divorce law, are deterring for couples, especially men. Here in Germany we have the lowest birth rate in europe and the most horrible laws. Therefore someone should investigate the economics of raising a child.