Leaders of the Utah House of Representatives are worried about Utah’s fertility rate, and rightly so.
In 2014, Utah led the nation in the per capita production of babies. That was well-known and sometimes fodder for jokes. But by 2023, the last year for which figures are available, Utah ranked 8th, well behind No. 1 South Dakota, which was third back in 2014.
Falling fertility rates are a problem in nearly every part of the world and every state in the nation, but Utah’s fall has been especially dramatic.
In 2014, Utah led the nation in the per capita production of babies. That was well-known and sometimes fodder for jokes. But by 2023, the last year for which figures are available, Utah ranked 8th, well behind No. 1 South Dakota, which was third back in 2014.
Falling fertility rates are a problem in nearly every part of the world and every state in the nation, but Utah’s fall has been especially dramatic.
When asked this week why this was important, House Speaker Mike Schultz told the Deseret News/KSL editorial board, “It’s one of the things that makes Utah unique and different. We are a family friendly state.”
It’s just that fewer people are in a family way these days.
The lack of children comes with a host of long-term social problems. On a national scale, these range from the inability to fund Social Security, Medicare and the nation’s fondness for accumulating debt, to a collapse of innovation and business dynamism and the inability to maintain armed forces.
On a personal level, it can lead to loneliness and mental health challenges.
But is fertility a problem the government can solve?
Utah legislative leaders seem to think so, or at least they’re willing to give it a try. They talk about wanting to eliminate or reduce what are seen as barriers to childbearing, such as the cost of daycare, or the number of children both licensed and unlicensed daycare centers are allowed to serve. They talk about providing generous maternity leave for public school teachers.
This has become a key conservative issue.
The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington, has proposed tax credits for large families and a cap on alimony payments. It suggests governments find ways to discourage online dating and to create marriage “bootcamp” classes for young people.
President Trump already has a program to provide $1,000 in investment accounts for every newborn baby.
But will these really cause reluctant potential parents to have children? The record of such attempts in other countries is dismal.
A few years ago, Poland passed laws that would pay women to have babies, providing monthly stipends. The birth rate actually dropped
Other countries have tried similar measures. A publication called Worldcrunch said South Korea spent the equivalent of $6 billion over 16 years on initiatives, from giving parents pensions to direct payments.
South Korea has a birth rate of 0.7 babies per woman of childbearing age (the U.S. rate was 1.6 in 2023). After the incentives, the rate dropped. In 2020, the nation tallied more deaths than births.
China, which once famously limited families to one child, also has started paying families $500 for each child. The birthrate there is at 1.0.
Finland now offers 13 months parental leave (6.5 for each parent), and heavily subsidized daycare, according to PassBlue. Still, a low birth rate threatens the country’s social welfare system.
Not all the news is bad. The Institute for Family Studies reports that France’s incentives, including flexible child care and large tax breaks, can be connected to a modest 0.1 to 0.2 increase in the fertility rate.
The institute says it’s important to note this, because “defeatism about pronatalism can lead to complacency by policymakers and thus even worse outcomes.”
Yes, of course, governments should remove impediments and disincentives for child bearing. Tax laws should be family friendly. And, above all, the current population trend should be seen for the future disasters it portends.
But there is one more important factor that should not be overlooked.
A study published several years ago by PubMed said “women who report that religion is ‘very important’ in their everyday life have both higher fertility and higher intended fertility than those saying religion is ‘somewhat important’ or ‘not important.’
TheAmerican Enterprise Institute said this may not hold for all nations, but, “In the U.S., falling birth rates have accompanied a dramatic decline in formal religious participation.”
Speaking recently at BYU, Catherine Ruth Pakaluk, an economist from the Catholic University of America, said, “Marriage and childbearing belong to the domain of the spirit, the rational part of the rational animal.”
According to an account of her talk by BYU’s Daily Universe, Pakaluk didn’t call for any new programs. She said the answer lies in faith.
“By the fire of faith our hearts are softened and our selfishness burned away,” she said. “By its light, we seek children when the world seeks comfort; we live for the eternal and not for the present…”
A list of bills and incentives at the Legislature may sound more convenient, but Pakaluk’s answer sounds more hopeful.
It’s just that fewer people are in a family way these days.
The lack of children comes with a host of long-term social problems. On a national scale, these range from the inability to fund Social Security, Medicare and the nation’s fondness for accumulating debt, to a collapse of innovation and business dynamism and the inability to maintain armed forces.
On a personal level, it can lead to loneliness and mental health challenges.
But is fertility a problem the government can solve?
Utah legislative leaders seem to think so, or at least they’re willing to give it a try. They talk about wanting to eliminate or reduce what are seen as barriers to childbearing, such as the cost of daycare, or the number of children both licensed and unlicensed daycare centers are allowed to serve. They talk about providing generous maternity leave for public school teachers.
This has become a key conservative issue.
The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington, has proposed tax credits for large families and a cap on alimony payments. It suggests governments find ways to discourage online dating and to create marriage “bootcamp” classes for young people.
President Trump already has a program to provide $1,000 in investment accounts for every newborn baby.
But will these really cause reluctant potential parents to have children? The record of such attempts in other countries is dismal.
A few years ago, Poland passed laws that would pay women to have babies, providing monthly stipends. The birth rate actually dropped
Other countries have tried similar measures. A publication called Worldcrunch said South Korea spent the equivalent of $6 billion over 16 years on initiatives, from giving parents pensions to direct payments.
South Korea has a birth rate of 0.7 babies per woman of childbearing age (the U.S. rate was 1.6 in 2023). After the incentives, the rate dropped. In 2020, the nation tallied more deaths than births.
China, which once famously limited families to one child, also has started paying families $500 for each child. The birthrate there is at 1.0.
Finland now offers 13 months parental leave (6.5 for each parent), and heavily subsidized daycare, according to PassBlue. Still, a low birth rate threatens the country’s social welfare system.
Not all the news is bad. The Institute for Family Studies reports that France’s incentives, including flexible child care and large tax breaks, can be connected to a modest 0.1 to 0.2 increase in the fertility rate.
The institute says it’s important to note this, because “defeatism about pronatalism can lead to complacency by policymakers and thus even worse outcomes.”
Yes, of course, governments should remove impediments and disincentives for child bearing. Tax laws should be family friendly. And, above all, the current population trend should be seen for the future disasters it portends.
But there is one more important factor that should not be overlooked.
A study published several years ago by PubMed said “women who report that religion is ‘very important’ in their everyday life have both higher fertility and higher intended fertility than those saying religion is ‘somewhat important’ or ‘not important.’
The
Speaking recently at BYU, Catherine Ruth Pakaluk, an economist from the Catholic University of America, said, “Marriage and childbearing belong to the domain of the spirit, the rational part of the rational animal.”
According to an account of her talk by BYU’s Daily Universe, Pakaluk didn’t call for any new programs. She said the answer lies in faith.
“By the fire of faith our hearts are softened and our selfishness burned away,” she said. “By its light, we seek children when the world seeks comfort; we live for the eternal and not for the present…”
A list of bills and incentives at the Legislature may sound more convenient, but Pakaluk’s answer sounds more hopeful.
RSS Feed
