In 2016, Finland’s fertility rate was 1.5, which could be a suitable level, says Professor Mikko Myrskylä. It is considerably lower than previously thought.
By: YLE
Until now, it has been thought that significantly too few babies are being born in Finland and many Western countries for society to remain viable.
What if the number of children needed has long been overestimated?
This idea is put forward by Professor Mikko Myrskylä , Director of the Department of Demography at the Max Planck Institute for Population Sciences . He is one of the world’s leading researchers on the relationship between fertility and well-being. The fertility rate is a key factor in fertility. It tells us how many children a woman of childbearing age has on average.
Let’s take an extreme example. South Korea has by far the lowest birth rate in the world. Last year, the fertility rate was 0.72, but last year it rose slightly to 0.75. In practice, this means that three out of four South Korean women of childbearing age have one child on average, and the rest do not even have their first child.
So what does that mean for future generations? This graphic explains it:
The birth rate in Finland is also low, although clearly higher than in South Korea. Last year, the fertility rate was 1.25, meaning that women of childbearing age have that many children on average. This year, the number will rise slightly.
If the birth rate in Finland remains at 1.25, it would affect future generations as follows:
According to statistics, there are differences in birth rates between language groups. The fertility rate of Finnish-Swedish speakers is higher than that of Finnish-speaking and foreign-speaking people.
According to Anna Rotkirch , research professor at the Finnish Population Association, the reasons include a higher ideal number of children, education levels and more lasting marriages. Religiosity and wider support from the local community also explain the issue in some places.
The fertility rate of 2.1 is yesterday’s day
What would be a good fertility rate for Finland?
The general perception is that 2.1 guarantees the current population status. This has been repeated in numerous news stories over the years . Mikko Myrskylä says that this is still an unfortunate misconception that “may apply to caged animals, but not to human populations.” He thinks, for example, that 1.5 could be an excellent fertility rate. Finland last reached that level in 2016. At the same time, mortality surpassed birth rates.
– Increased life expectancy, improved health, technological development and migration mean that even a much lower birth rate is economically and demographically quite sustainable, Myrskylä thinks.
Immigration to Finland has been in the tens of thousands in recent years.
Anna Rotkirch sees nothing good in Finland’s current low birth rate. According to him, it is difficult to determine the ideal fertility rate. A more sustainable fertility rate than the current one would be at least 1.7, which would also better meet people’s wishes for children. Young adults, on average, want about two children. The pension system was built so that the figure would not fall below 1.5. It turned out differently.
– But economic sustainability is only one dimension. There are also, for example, creativity, amenity, and cultural and language development, Rotkirch lists.
The problem in Finland is the decline in the number of firstborns. Those who have their first child typically have almost the same number of children as before.
– Without large families, we would have a significantly lower birth rate, similar to East Asia, says Rotkirch.
Religious families in Ostrobothnia, for example, are maintaining Finland’s birth rate at a peak.
Child education a burden for South Korean parents
Let’s return to East Asia, to South Korea. As recently as the 1950s, South Korean women had an average of six children. The birth rate has since collapsed by a third twice. First in the 1980s, the fertility rate was around 2, and now it is only a third of that.
Why is the birth rate in prosperous and increasingly prosperous South Korea so low?
Mikko Myrskylä says that the most important reasons are the child’s education and old-fashioned, traditional family roles. A good education is considered a prerequisite for a good life, and competition for places at the best schools and universities is fierce. It eats up parents’ money and time – especially mothers’. “Educating even one child is a huge burden. That’s why we only have one child, if at all,” Myrskylä says. The attitude towards childlessness has also changed in South Korea. The shame has disappeared.
– As elsewhere, childlessness has been stigmatized. Before we were childless , now we are child free , Myrskylä says.
Having a large family is even considered irresponsible.
– If in Finland we think that a large family is perhaps four children or more, in South Korea two children can already be a large family.
If South Korea’s birth rate continues at its current rate, the proportion of older generations will increase dramatically.
What does this mean for the functioning of society? The dependency ratio, that is, the relationship between the employed and the rest of the population, will become, to say the least, difficult. Too few support too many.
However, Myrskylä does not consider South Korea’s economic future hopeless.
– Korea is a rich, safe, absolutely fantastic country. There would be people coming if they were allowed. Raising the retirement age, regulating immigration policy, and supporting families would go a long way, he says.
According to Myrskylä, the situation is very different compared to Finland.
– South Korea invests little financially in families, it is very difficult for mothers to work, and education is extremely competitive. These are big differences from Finland. At the moment, it seems that there are so many points of similarity.
There will inevitably be many other changes in South Korea. Activities aimed at children, families with children and parents of children will shrink because there are fewer of them, and other things will take their place, Myrskylä believes.
Loneliness is already common in the country. Every year, thousands of South Koreans – usually middle-aged men – die alone. There is even a word for the sad phenomenon , godoksa .
In a few decades, a large proportion of the country’s elderly will have no relatives at all, and many may not even have any friends.
Written by: Heikki Ali-Hokka