Even in 2023, nine in ten American adults still report wanting to have kids.1 Moreover, the ideal family size they reported in a recent Gallup survey is the highest figure recorded in over fifty years, defying the overall postwar trend of survey participants desiring smaller families over time.2 While this study represents only a single data point seeking to measure Americans’ sentiments on family life, such results suggest the tide may be turning in favor of families. Additional evidence for this argument lies in the upsurge of interest in pro-natal policy. In response to the economic and social problems caused by declining birth rates, the effects of which are already seen in many developed nations, some policymakers and scholars have advocated the adoption of pro-natal policies. These policies take a variety of proposed forms. Some, like expanded child tax credits or “baby bonus” programs, offer financial incentives to have children. Others, like mandatory parental leave, are intended to make life easier for new parents. But while these policies vary in their exact design, all seek to encourage the creation and growth of families.
Evaluating these policies requires understanding the developed world’s current demographic situation. An oft-cited challenge of an aging population is its effects on government spending. “As Americans live longer, pressure will continue to rise on government retirement and safety net programs. A majority of older Americans live with a chronic disease, and those figures will only grow over time,” explains Paula Campbell Roberts, Chief Investment Strategist for Global Wealth at KKR.3 As the elderly dependent population grows and fewer young workers pay into social safety net programs, government expenditures are poised to skyrocket.4 In America, a Social Security system already facing immense pressure threatens to collapse entirely should these demographic trends persist. In Japan, the outlook is even more dire. Describing the need for pro-natal policies in a 2023 speech, Prime Minister Fumio Kishida stressed that the fertility rate is on “the brink of not being able to maintain a functioning society.”5 Declining birth rates lie behind stagnating growth in the world’s third largest economy and threaten to unleash both economic and social ills.
Clearly the threat of a shrinking population demands a robust policy response. But while pro-natal policies provide one promising avenue to address these historic challenges, they are not without critics. Self-described libertarians often view pro-natal policy as overly intrusive in people’s personal lives. They argue that the scope of the government's involvement in social issues should be extremely limited to reduce unintended consequences. As such, the libertarian is reasonably skeptical of any government program that enters into the realm of the citizen’s personal affairs. Indeed, pro-natal policy certainly constitutes government efforts that seek to influence citizens’ intimate behavior. The consequences of inaction, however, are quite dire. Perhaps a proactive pro-natal policy to avoid such costly dangers outlined above, even if it demands a significant government response, is justified.
The threat of a shrinking population demands a robust policy response.
Indeed, libertarians often cite market failures as one of the few justifications for governments to intervene in the economy to facilitate better outcomes. Any student of introductory economic theory knows that situations involving externalities and public goods serve as the primary instances in which government involvement is broadly accepted. In fact, pro-natal policies can be promoted on these grounds with children qualifying as a public good. One might scoff at the concept of children as a “good” of any sort, but the concept of a public good as defined in economic thought reflects the idea that certain goods will be underproduced in the market.6 The idea that incentives may prevent actors in an economic system from “producing” a critical “good” for society has long been applied to children in economic research.7 Casting children as a public good can thus justify government involvement in helping to facilitate an increase in this good from an economic perspective. As such, libertarians would be prudent to reassess the importance of children in society and the merits of the argument that they qualify as a public good. In doing so, they would find that government involvement in this area is not only defensible but necessary in order to ensure a sustainable future for Western societies.
Progressives, for their part, sometimes see pro-natal policy as a threat to the place of women in the workforce; they worry that it creates an incentive structure that will inevitably reinforce tyrannical gender norms. To understand why progressive critiques fall short, consider again the Gallup study of American family planning preferences. It’s not just men who are looking to start bigger families again; Gallup found very little difference in the views of men and women on the subject.8 Far from forcing women into social roles they don’t want to fill, pro-natal policies can empower them to build the kinds of families they want in the first place. Most proposed pro-natal policies have no effects on women who genuinely do not want to have children. All they do is make another mode of life more feasible again.
Downplaying the importance of family in favor of career is a recipe for despair.
The puzzle of why “Americans have been increasingly likely to say larger families are preferable, but birth rates in the U.S. have been declining” remains.9 It can be explained in part by those who have conflicting desires that trump their hope for children. People have been encouraged to prioritize their careers over starting families. That phenomenon has been bolstered by a progressive cultural focus on the importance of opening opportunities in the workforce to women, a focus which too often accepts the corporate narrative that professional life is a higher calling than family formation. Unsurprisingly, family size suffers as a result of this dominant cultural paradigm; even those who maintain their desire for children often feel that they must delay having them until they reach a certain level of professional success.10 But this is more of the same failed outlook that has left so many couples with emptier homes than they hoped for. In the end, family fulfills and sustains us far more than professional successes can. Findings from Harvard’s celebrated “Study of Adult Development” reveal that lasting happiness comes through deep, frequently-nurtured relationships.11 Moreover, such relationships are most readily found within the family. Downplaying the importance of family in favor of career is a recipe for despair.
Pro-natal policies can fight these narratives by providing financial incentives for people to have children, replacing the potential loss of earnings produced by taking time away from the workforce. As economist Lyman Stone contends, “Pro-natal incentives do work: more money does yield more babies. Anybody saying otherwise is mischaracterizing the research.”12 But noting the cost of these measures, Stone also advocates for a combination of cash incentives with cultural messaging in order to boost birth rates in a fiscally responsible manner. Just as important as the economic incentives at play are the cultural messages such policies send. In embracing a pro-family posture, governments might inspire greater family creation and growth than a simple cost-benefit analysis would suggest. They could compound individuals’ desire to have children with the knowledge that family formation is socially beneficial, inspiring them to overcome the obstacles that currently prevent Americans from building their ideal families. While financial motivations undoubtedly factor into family decisions, strengthening this culture through clear national messaging would be a powerful step. Such a shift in top-down attitudes would better reflect and bolster the increasingly pro-family sentiments expressed by the American people.
Criticism of pro-natal policy largely stems from a poor assessment of the problem and its gravity. The libertarian perspective fails to recognize the broad positive impact of children as seen through the lens of public goods while the progressive view rests on mistaken conceptions of human fulfillment. Careerism, a primary obstacle to family formation, can be effectively combatted through a combination of financial and cultural measures, making pro-natal policies a powerful tool to reverse declining birth rates and the catastrophic effects they entail. If enacted, such policies will enable couples to confidently choose a life with family at the forefront and thus attain the depth of fulfillment they are too often struggling to find today.
SENECA
A version of this article originally appeared in A Modest Proposal, the December 2023 print issue of the Salient.
Megan Brenan, “Americans’ Preference for Larger Families Highest since 1971,” Gallup, Sep. 25, 2023.
Ibid.
Paula Campbell Roberts, “What Does an Aging Population Mean for Economic Growth and Investing?” Georgetown University Center for Retirement Initiatives, McCourt School of Public Policy, Sep. 2018.
Ibid.
Qtd. in Thisanka Siripala, “Japan’s Population Crisis Nears Point of No Return,” The Diplomat, Jan. 28, 2023.
Such goods are defined as non-rivalrous and non-excludable, meaning that the benefits of the good can be enjoyed by many and cannot be easily excluded from others. See subsequent source for further details on the definition of public goods and a classic argument for children qualifying as a public good.
Nancy Folbre, “Children as Public Goods,” American Economic Review, 1994.
Megan Brenan, “Americans’ Preference for Larger Families Highest since 1971,” Gallup, Sep. 25, 2023.
Ibid.
Consider the increasingly ubiquitous nature of egg-freezing procedures—offered as a “benefit” by many employers—as one example of this trend.
Robert Waldinger and Marc Schulz, “What the Longest Study on Human Happiness Found is the Key to a Good Life,” The Atlantic, Jan. 19, 2023.
Lyman Stone, “Pro-Natal Policies Work, But They Come With a Hefty Price Tag,” Institute for Family Studies, March 5, 2020.