Jeffrey Miron and Jacob Winter
Fertility rates—the average number of births per woman—have been falling around the world since 1950. The current rate in the US of 1.6 is about half the rate in 1960, and the UN projects it will remain stable through 2100.
Some, including President Trump, Vice President Vance, and Elon Musk, are concerned about this trend and are considering government policies to address it. A recent study, however, casts doubt on whether these policies would be effective.
The authors examined the UK’s
introduction of [a] two-child limit for cash benefits to low-income families.
They explain that the policy
was justified partly by the argument that benefit payments to low-income families with children incentivized those families to have more children. Implicitly, the objective of the policy was not only to decrease spending but also to reduce fertility among low-income households.
But their
findings suggest that the effect of the policy change on fertility, if any, was relatively small … cuts to benefits mainly increased the prevalence and severity of child poverty.
The authors acknowledge that benefit expansions could have an effect even if benefit cuts do not. But other studies have found that cash benefits minimally affect fertility in the long run. And it’s unclear why governments should take a stand on fertility in any direction, especially given the personal nature of the decision.