South Korea’s Birth Rate Falls Through the Floor

The BBC’s Caroline Gluck recently reported on some astounding birth statistics from South Korea. That country may have the lowest birth rate in the world as new figures suggest the average South Korean woman has less than 1.2 children — well below the 2.1 level needed to maintain a stable population.

South Korea’s population is still growing, albeit at less than 1 percent annually, and will continue to grow for another decade or two, followed by a period of population decline. The United Nations estimated that by 2050 South Korea’s population could be declining by 1 percent annually, and that was before these newer figures were released.

South Korea is leading the way, but Singapore, Japan and Hong Kong are also facing rapidly declining birth rates and the prospect of future declines in population. Many Asian nations are discussing plans to encourage more births. One village head in South Korea, for example, is offering couples US$80 for each additional baby they have, but this doesn’t offset the main reason that couples seem to be avoiding having more children — they’re just too darn expensive. According to the BBC,

More working couples are thinking twice before having a baby.

They are put off by the high costs of raising children and the lack of adequate childcare and social welfare facilities.

Think about this for a second, because it is extremely odd. South Korea today has a per capita income of around US$12,000. But back in 1970, per capita income in South Korea was a mere $248 and the birth rate was an average of 4.5 children per woman.

Now it’s understandable that very poor people would have lots of children, but why would those same people begin to dramatically reduce childbirths as their income exploded. This is the exact opposite of the convention wisdom of overpopulation scaremongers, who insisted that as available resources went up, population would obviously follow. And in some respects, the extreme drop off in births is a bit odd — a couple with $12,000 in income is certainly better able to provide for 4 children than is a couple making $248 and yet the birth rates at those income levels are the reverse of what the population experts like Paul Ehrlich insisted they should be.

The obvious answer to this puzzle is that as people’s income increases their perception of what counts as the “good life” expands as well. This is most obvious in an extremely wealthy nation such as the United States where what counted for luxurious living just a few decades ago would be frowned upon as downright Spartan today. A car in every garage and a chicken in every pot has been replaced with an SUV for every family member over 16 and more calories than you can shake a stick at.

Which is the true irony of the overblown population crisis. Ehrlich and others who claimed the world would soon face its doom constantly cited the tragedy of the commons problem — that each individual acting for his own selfish interest in having more children was imposing externalities that were borne by everyone else. Today, however, the opposite is true — sheer materialistic greed has us limiting the number of children we have so that we can wallow in luxury.

Greed, it turns out, really is good after all.

Source:

South Korea’s dwindling population. Caroline Gluck, BBC, May 2, 2003.