We all dream of having a perfect family — a father, a mother and two children. This seems like an ideal family size. For a country as a whole, it ensures two young workers will replace their parents in the workforce, and they will have children of their own to keep the population stable. This perfect scenario, however, is hardly enough now, given the current state of the global population.
Population numbers have grown almost uninterrupted for hundreds of years. But suddenly in our time, this has changed. Fewer and fewer children are born each year, and half the world now has a fertility rate below replacement level.
In order for a society to keep its population stable, each woman needs to have an average of 2.1 children — the rate required to replace both parents, when infant mortality is taken into account. This statistic is called the total fertility rate or the average number of births per woman. Any country with a rate below 2.1 for any period of time will begin to shrink. It will also become older.
Recently, I had a look at fertility statistics and found the rates everywhere had been declining since long before I was born (in 1975). It also seems I was born in time for perhaps the greatest demographic change in history — global average fertility has declined from 4.1 in 1975 to only about 2.4 today.
What is worrying is the fertility rate has now fallen below replacement level in a growing number of countries, especially in high-income nations. Fertility rates in Europe and the US, for example, have been below replacement level since the 1970s and are now only 1.6 and 1.8, respectively. In Japan, the fertility rate has been declining for ages and is only at 1.4 now.
Evidently, money cannot buy you children. In fact, fertility is known to be inversely correlated with income — the higher the income, the lower the fertility rate. The average fertility rate in high-income economies is the lowest at 1.6 compared with those of middle-income (2.3) and low-income (4.1) countries.
In the short term, a declining population could help to preserve natural resources in countries that have been affected by rapid population growth, and households could benefit from lower parenting costs. In the long term, however, low fertility rates have dire implications for economic growth as the labour force falls and the population ages — a situation we have seen in Japan.
In Thailand this greying trend is no less serious, and there is already a sense of looming crisis. Our fertility rate has been falling very sharply and is now only 1.4 compared with 4.4 in 1975 — lower than in most high-income countries in Europe and North America. The country's fertility rate has been below replacement level since the 1990s, and not enough is being done to prepare the country for this demographic change.
While most of our Southeast Asian neighbours are expected to have relatively young populations in the decades ahead, Thailand will emerge as the old man of the region. About 8.9% of the Thai population was over 65 in 2010, but by 2040 the ratio will reach a quarter of the population.
There are a number of factors contributing to lower fertility. These include women's age at marriage, education, labour force participation and access to birth control.
Women now tend to delay having children in order to spend more time in education, marry later and thus have fewer children. Increased women's participation in the workforce is another important factor. In Thailand, women make up almost half the labour force (46%).
The low fertility rate is potentially one of the biggest economic and social challenge we face, yet it hardly comes up in popular debate. I would say falling population growth is no longer a trivial issue for Thailand, and we should include and prioritise this on our "reform" agenda.
In fact, there is no shortage of good examples to boost population growth. Singapore, for instance, has enhanced a package that provides comprehensive support for Singaporeans for getting married and starting their families. The government has set aside an annual budget of US$1.6 billion for government-funded childcare leave, healthcare costs and financial support for housing to married couples. It also pays 75% of the cost of reproduction technology treatments.
In Australia, the government has publicly funded assisted reproductive technology services since 1990 through the universal insurance scheme. The Japanese government has recently taken new measures to fund matchmaking and dating services in hopes of encouraging more young people to marry and have children.
Although Thailand's ageing population is long overdue, it is not too late to start planning seriously for our demographic transition. The future of our population growth will be the outcome of our choice today, not an inescapable force of nature. It is something we can design.
Dr Tientip Subhanij holds a PhD in economics from the University of Cambridge and has a dual career in banking and academia. She can be reached at
tien201@yahoo.com