The most developed countries have declining birth rates, endangering their economies—or maybe not

Low fertility rates—the average number of children born to a woman—may not spell economic trouble after all, scientists say. 

In a new study, demographers from the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) challenge the widespread beliefs that fertility rates will eventually rebound as countries become more developed and that persistently low fertility is inherently harmful to society or the economy

Instead, they argue that low fertility rates are likely to persist—and that enduringly low fertility can be sustainable and even economically desirable.

Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.

For decades, policymakers and demographers have worried that birth rates falling below the so‑called “replacement level” of 2.1 children per woman would lead to shrinking populations, labor shortages and economic decline.

The researchers argued that economic sustainability depends far more on population structure than sheer size. Higher education levels, increased labor force participation and rising productivity can offset the effects of fewer births, and in some cases, may outweigh them entirely.  

Lower fertility, they suggested, can even bring advantages. With fewer children, societies may be able to invest more resources per child, strengthening human capital, innovation and long‑term productivity. 

This is an excerpt. Read the original post here

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

ChatGPT-Image-May-7-2026-12_32_36-PM
Viewpoint: The state of U.S. vaccine policy? Dismal nationally, but some states are stepping up.
Screenshot-2026-04-22-at-10.46.29-AM
Viewpoint: How to counter science disinformation? Science journalist offers 12 practical tips
Screenshot-2026-04-13-at-1.39.26-PM
Viewpoint: ‘Safer for children?’ Stonyfield yogurt under fire for deceptive organic marketing
ChatGPT-Image-May-7-2026-12_16_37-PM-2
Viewpoint: Are cancer rates ‘skyrocketing’ as RFK, Jr. and MAHA claim? The evidence says mostly the opposite
the magic of mRNA
Viewpoint: Anti-vax fake ‘turbo cancer’ claims threaten cancer treatment breakthroughs
ChatGPT-Image-May-7-2026-01_23_27-PM-2
Viewpoint: Will AI democratize personalized cancer treatment or fuel medical misinformation?
Defense_Secretary_Ash_Carter_tours_the_Microsoft_Cybercrime_Center_in_Seattle_March_3_2016
How criminals are using AI to target social media users and steal their money and confidential data
artificial intelligence brain think illustration md
Viewpoint — Digital gods and human extinction: Will we be the first species ever to design our own descendants?
Picture1-1
Cooling the planet with balloons: Could a geoengineering gamble slow global warming?
ChatGPT-Image-May-12-2026-08_39_41-PM
GLP podcast: Big Pharma, Big Ag, Big Food—health harming industries or life-saving innovators?
ChatGPT Image May 12, 2026, 01_21_30 PM
How big health brands are funding online medical misinformation 
RFKjr-Tech-Vax-Misinfo
As U.S. officials spread medical misinformation, scientists fact check online
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.