Myself, I tend to define geo-Europe differently based on the debate. In this debate I define Europe as Cultural Europe, ie. Western and Eastern Europe, without Russia or any of former Soviet republics. I’m strange that way.
Purely anecdotal: From conversations with friends (and friends of friends) in Europe, I gathered that fewer young people plan on getting married - live-in relationships seemed to be the way to go. Not too many of my friends (mostly my age) intended on having kids either. Most of them said they were too focussed on their careers. A live-in arrangement allowed them the commited relationships without legal entanglement, or something along those lines. I found this a strange reason, but then again, I’m not living there so I’m not in a position to judge.
This trend seemed more pronounced amongst those from northern Europe, especially the Scadinavians. IIRC, one couple told me the state (they were Swedes) recognised live-in relationships and gave them the same rights (insurance, tax benefits, etc.) as married couples - I could be wrong about this though, since there was much alcohol involved that evening…
Why does Europe have such low birth rates? Well, it probably a consequence of several factors, one of which is
Economic development - if you were to examine and compare the fertility rates of the most economically developed nations in the world, you would find that almost all of them hover around the replacement rate or below. From an economic perspective, it’s much more expensive to have kids in an industrialized, urbanized society. Inded, if you were to plot the rise in economic development with fertility rates for all the developed nations of the world, there is a distinct pattern - as a society becomes more industrialized and urban, the fertility rates decline.
As to why Europe has a rate less than the United States, this too can be attributed to several factors.
- More restricted immigration - this, of course varies from country to country and at different times, but if you were to compare the immigration rates of various European countries with those of the US, I think you would find that the US rates have been historically higher. And as it has been shown that (at least in the US), the immigrant population has generally had a higher fertility rates than the non-immigrant population (over time).
A case in point may be to compare, say, the Muslim immigrant population to France versus the non-immigrant population with the immigrant/non-immigrant population of the US.
- Europe generally has higher rates of taxation, which contributes (comparatively speaking) to the higher cost of living from a societal perspective. Positively, it sends a message throughout society that the needs of the population will be met (thus precluding the need to have more children - children being seen in times past as a means of security). Negatively in that the higher rats of taxation that go into meeting this results in higher costs born by people in raising kids (again, kids are expensive to have and rear in modern, industrialized societies).
Another way of looking at this would be to compare the degree of wealth concentration - Europe versus the US. In Europe, wealth is more evenly distributed, wheras in the US there is a greater wealth disparity (comparatively speaking).
- Degree of religiosity - The US, compared to any other developed country in the world, has a higher degree of “religiosity” than any other developed nation. Religiosoty can be defined as how much religion has an impact or affect on the daily lives of individuals. Both Spain and Italy, for example, are prominantly Roman Catholic. But largely in name only (the Church, although important, doesn’t play a major role in the lives of people in Spain and Italy as it once did). This is born out by such things as a larger percentage of the workforce being female, easy access and use of contraception, higher education/literacy rates, and others.
Note: my religiosity point might not hold up well as Japan, for example, is also experiencing similar dire straights as Europe (Aging population and fertility rates well below replacement level).
Alien writes:
> If we remove the immigration factor, is the difference between Europe and the
> US really that big?
It’s certainly significant. In Europe, the birth rate is about 1.6. In the U.S., it’s about 2.1. So the U.S., if immigration were ignored, is approximately at the level where new babies replace people dying, while Europe, again ignoring immigration, is at a level where it would be slowly losing population.
I’m at work so I don’t have time to scrape up a cite, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that even at the beginning of the 20th century before contraception and abortion were readily available, the average number of kids per family in France was something like half that in the US. This was attributed to the difference in the economic prospects available for the children and the fact that kids had a lower opportunity cost in the US.
Given that the cost to raise a kid in the UK nowadays is roughly comparable to that of a family house, it’s hardly surprising that most people only have one or two whereas *everything *is cheaper in the US 
.
Also the career aspect is important. Scandinavia has the most liberal laws around maternity leave/pay and therefore has the highest birthrates, even higher than in Catholic Italy. The US gives less protection to working mothers, but then has a much higher proportion of stay-at-home career housewives to help with cranking out those future taxpayers.
And it’s true that in Scandinavia the forms have a tick-box for ‘Sambo’ which means ‘person who I live with who is my lover, not just a housemate, but who I am not married to’. It’s sort of like a self-declared civil union type arrangement.
Could living space also be a minor factor? Houses in the United States (and Canada, Australia and New Zealand) tend to be much larger, and generally more affordable, than those in Europe. Children can make things rather crowded when you’re living in a small Paris apartment or suburban London semi-detached house, but in a four bedroom, three bathroom house on a quarter acre lot in the suburbs of Chicago or Melbourne, there’s more room for kids.
What’s interesting are the differences within Europe. France, for instance, has a higher birth rate (12.1 births/1,000 population, 2001 figures) than its neighbors, and has been known to boast publicly about how it’s kept its natalité up. You’d think France and Italy would be comparable, but they’re in fact quite different.
As an aside, it’s conventional wisdom in the U.S. that the poor have more children, allegedly – among other reasons – because they get extra welfare payments that way. Is this view also held in Europe? My impression is not so much, but I may be wrong.
I have read reports that the particular problem in Italy is the difficulty young couples have in setting up their own homes due to various quirks in the mortgage system and economy. Hence people tend to live with their parents for a very long time, and having kids in that situation is obviously not so common.
The welfare thing is commonly brought up in the UK at least, and I would imagine leads to the exact same discussion as in the US, with the exception that the racial element is not so pronounced.
Sal Ammoniac writes:
> As an aside, it’s conventional wisdom in the U.S. that the poor have more
> children, allegedly – among other reasons – because they get extra welfare
> payments that way.
I’ve read that research has shown that this is wrong. The chances that an American woman will have a baby in a given year (given her age, race, ethnic group, religion, social background, etc.) has no relation to whether she is on welfare in that year. Among other things, the increase in welfare payments is so small compared to the increase in her expenses because of the baby that it makes no financial sense for her to have the baby.
This I can confirm… I had an Italian flatmate for about a year when I was living in Germany, and he often had friends from home driving up to visit. They did say that it is common for young men and women past their mid-twenties to continue to live with their parents.
I remember this in particular because that’s pretty much how it is in much of India (and for more or less the same reasons), a fact which I had a hard time explaining to other European friends.
France IIRC has deliberately arranged tax cuts etc to favour those with a large family, regardless of whether they are poor or not. Is this true, I’m trying to remember from a BBC news report form a while ago.
The higher birth rates in France by comparison to other european countries is quite always attributed to the large availability of public daycare centers (by the age of two, most toddlers, at least in urban areas, are in such a daycare center while both parents have resumed working, which, I understand, isn’t true in Germany, for instance).
France also have a rather generous “family benefit” system (you’re handed money monthly for each child you have, regardless of your income) when you have more than two chldren (below, the amount isn’t very significant) plus of course very significant tax rebates. Plus a rather long paid maternity leave that can be extended for a long time (two more years, maybe?) as an unpaid leave. But these are rarely mentionned as an explanation, so I assume these advantages aren’t very different from thoses implemented in other european countries.
It doesn’t explain the difference with the USA, though. Quite the contrary.
Yes, it’s true. Besides the “family benefit” I mentionned above which isn’t dependant on income but only on the number of children, the taxable income is divided by the number of people in the household (simplifying a lot, here). So, if you’re a couple with one child, for instance, you’re taxed on the basis of your total income/3. So, in this case, it’s a regressive system. The richer you are, the larger the tax rebate. Many middle class people with children won’t pay any income tax as a result, and if they do, they’ll be in the lowest brackets. This irritates me to no end, since the benefit can become enormous if you have a high enough income. I’d rather have a fixed tax rebate (X €/year), like the family benefit.
There is one important factor that has not been mentioned.
The high levels of infertility (causal and non-causal infertility) which can be attributed to many sources such as,
Environmental influences (biological & physicological)
Genetic Influences (one or both have a genetic or biological impediment)
For example - It is estimated that a conservative 18-19% of Italian couples (be they married, co-habiting or other) cannot conceive naturaly and must resort to medical intervention. Which is not allways appropriate or feasable for biological or economic reasons.
Colour me as voting for the cost of children being a factor here in the U.K. Not just the cost of feeding, clothing, etc, but also the loss or diminution of income. Unless you’re on welfare or rich, children are d*mn expensive and people just aren’t willing to give up their lifestyles. Property is expensive to buy or rent: prices are geared to both partners working. There is also the issue of women putting - or having to put - careers before family.
But surely successful people are exactly those whom you wish to encourage to procreate? Surely you wish to encourage good genes?
Tell me about it, my diminiuitive accommodation costs me £150 per month, I’m paying out roughly £150 a month in repayments for credit cards and an overdraft then payments for my child to be born (fingers crossed) in the new year are at least £150 through the government (cos the mother and I are unlikely to be together) All this and I was hoping to try and re-enter education after flunking university :rolleyes: