Rather than adapting to persistent low fertility, population ageing, and slower labor-force growth, many governments continue to pursue policies aimed at reversing these trends and restoring demographic conditions more characteristic of the mid-20th century. Credit: Shutterstock

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Jul 3 2026 (IPS)

Demographic realities are well documented, and governments have long been aware of the profound demographic changes now underway. Nevertheless, many policymakers continue to discount or ignore these demographic trends.

This reluctance often reflects the tension between short-term political priorities and long-term demographic realities. As a result, governments are frequently unwilling to acknowledge the full scale of the major demographic transformations reshaping their societies.

In some cases, demographic denialism serves to protect entrenched political or economic interests. More often, however, it reflects an unwillingness to confront politically difficult policy choices, such as raising taxes, expanding immigration, increasing retirement ages, or committing additional resources to pensions, healthcare, and other social welfare programs.

Many countries are already experiencing population decline, with deaths exceeding births. In 63 countries, home to about 28% of the world’s population, population size has already peaked. Over the next thirty years, the populations of an additional 48 countries and areas are also expected to reach their peak before entering a period of decline

Because demographic change typically unfolds gradually, politicians often prioritize policies that deliver immediate political or economic benefits over reforms designed to address long-term challenges such as population decline and demographic ageing. Electoral incentives and short-term political considerations often outweigh the need to adapt to evolving demographic realities.

Governments may also downplay demographic trends because doing so enables them to pursue short-term political priorities and ideological objectives while postponing the more difficult fiscal and policy adjustments required by demographic change.

Moreover, some policymakers continue to pursue measures intended to restore the demographic patterns of the recent past, despite the limited likelihood that such efforts will succeed.

The demographic conditions of the 20th century were historically exceptional. Population growth, fertility rates, age structures, declining mortality, and gains in life expectancy all reached unprecedented levels, particularly during the second half of the century. These conditions were the product of a unique combination of historical, economic, technological, and public health factors and are unlikely to be repeated. Rather than attempting to recreate the demographic environment of the past, governments should focus on adapting institutions, policies, and public finances to contemporary demographic realities.

The world’s population nearly quadrupled during the 20th century, rising from 1.6 billion in 1900, to 2.5 billion in 1950, and then to 6.2 billion by 2000.

Today, the global population is approximately 8.3 billion, more than five times its size in 1900. Although the world’s population is expected to continue growing, the rate of growth has slowed dramatically. According to current projections, the global population is expected to peak at approximately 10.3 in the mid-2080s before declining slightly to around 10.2 billion by the end of the century (Table 1).

Source: United Nations.

The world’s population growth rate, which was 1.7% in 1950, rose to a peak of about 2.3% in the early 1960s. By the end of the 20th century, it had declined to about 1.4%. In 2026, the global growth rate is estimated at approximately 0.8% and is projected to continue decreasing, reaching about -0.1% by the end of the century.

Moreover, many countries are already experiencing population decline, with deaths exceeding births. In 63 countries, home to about 28% of the world’s population, population size has already peaked. Over the next thirty years, the populations of an additional 48 countries and areas are also expected to reach their peak before entering a period of decline.

Fertility levels have also fallen dramatically from the relatively high levels of the mid-20th century. The global fertility rate, which averaged more than five births per woman in the late 1950s, had declined to about half that level by the beginning of the 21st century. By 2026, the world’s fertility rate is estimated at approximately 2.2 births per woman. Furthermore, more than half of all countries now have fertility rates below the replacement level of approximately 2.1 births per woman.

Population ageing is another defining demographic trend. In 1950, only about 5% of the world’s population was aged 65 or older. By 2026, that proportion had more than doubled to nearly 11%. The proportion of the population aged 85 and older has increased even more rapidly, rising from just 0.2% in 1950 to about 1% in 2026.

As populations age, people are also living longer than ever before. Global life expectancy at birth has increased substantially, from about 46 years in 1950 to approximately 74 years in 2026.

Life expectancy at age 65 has also risen substantially. Globally, it increased from about 11 additional years in 1950 to approximately 18 additional years by the mid-2020s. In many countries, however, the gains have been greater, with life expectancy at age 65 exceeding 20 years. In Japan and France, for example, a 65-year-old can expect to live approximately 23 additional years (Figure 1).

Source: United Nations.

Rather than adapting to persistent low fertility, population ageing, and slower labor-force growth, many governments continue to pursue policies aimed at reversing these trends and restoring demographic conditions more characteristic of the mid-20th century.

In many low-fertility countries, governments have devoted substantial public resources to pro-natalist measures such as cash transfers, tax incentives, subsidized childcare, and housing assistance. While these policies may ease short-term financial constraints for families, they have generally produced only modest and often temporary increases in fertility rates.

At the same time, despite rising old-age dependency ratios and persistent labor shortages, immigration policy remains politically contentious, and, in some countries, highly restrictive. This has occurred alongside growing fiscal strain on pay-as-you-go pension systems and increasing demand for healthcare and long-term care services.

Although life expectancy continues to increase, especially at older ages, reforms such as gradually raising retirement ages, broadening the tax base, restructuring pension systems, and adapting healthcare financing have often advanced slowly because of political resistance. As a result, fiscal adjustments frequently lag behind demographic change, contributing to mounting budgetary pressures and, in some cases, greater intergenerational tension.

In some countries, political leaders have responded to inconvenient demographic trends by weakening the independence of statistical agencies, reducing funding for demographic research and data collection, firing statisticians, sidelining professional expertise, or publicly questioning well-established demographic evidence. Such actions can make it more difficult for policymakers and the public to assess demographic change accurately, evaluate policy options, and develop effective long-term responses.

Similarly, rather than modernizing public safety nets, diversifying revenue sources, or implementing gradual reforms to retirement and pension systems, many governments postpone difficult policy decisions to minimize electoral backlash. Prolonged delays, however, can undermine the long-term financial sustainability of public programs and increase the likelihood that pension and social insurance trust funds will become insolvent or require abrupt corrective measures.

Another form of political avoidance is the maintenance of restrictive immigration policies despite persistent labor shortages. In many countries, immigration has historically helped offset population decline driven primarily by sustained below-replacement fertility. Without sufficient immigration, population decline and demographic ageing are likely to accelerate in these societies.

The major demographic shifts of the 21st century – including population decline, demographic ageing, sustained below replacement fertility, increasing longevity, migration, refugee movements, and asylum pressures – are well documented and widely recognized. Nevertheless, many governments continue to prioritize efforts to reverse these trends while devoting comparatively less attention to adapting institutions and public policies to long-term demographic realities.

Rather than focusing primarily on restoring the demographic conditions of the recent past, policymakers may benefit from placing greater emphasis on adapting economic, fiscal, and social institutions to the demographic realities of the present and the decades ahead. Such an approach recognizes demographic change not as a temporary departure from historical norms, but as a defining structural feature of the 21st century that requires sustained institutional adaptation rather than attempts at demographic restoration.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division, and author of numerous publications on population issues.

By Joseph Chamie and Barry Mirkin
NEW YORK, Nov 17 2015 (IPS)

Concerned with the consequences of demographic decline and population ageing, especially with respect to economic growth, national defence and pensions and health care for the elderly, a growing number of governments are seeking to raise birth rates. Whereas nearly 40 years ago 13 countries had policies to raise fertility, today the number has increased four-fold to 56, representing more than one-third of the world’s population.

The most recent and largest addition to this pronatalist group of countries, which includes Australia, France, Germany, Iran, Israel, Italy, Japan, Russia, South Korea, Spain and Turkey, is China. The Chinese government announced that it will change its controversial one-child policy to a two-child policy per couple in order to balance population development and address the challenge of an ageing population.

Assuming a slight increase in its current fertility level, China’s population of 1.38 billion is projected – according to the UN medium variant – to peak by 2030 at 1.42 billion and then decline to 1 billion by the end of the century (Figure 1). However, if fertility were to remain constant at its current level, China’s population would soon begin declining, reaching around 0.8 billion by the year 2100. If fertility were to instantly reach the replacement level, an unlikely event, China’s population would grow to 1.51 billion by midcentury.

Source: United Nations Population Division.

China’s population age structure is also becoming older than any time in the past. Whereas in 1950 less than five per cent of the Chinese were aged 65 years or older, today the proportion has doubled to 10 per cent. By 2035 China’s proportion elderly is expected to double again and reach one-third by around midcentury.

Similar to China, 82 other countries – accounting for almost half of the world’s population – are experiencing fertility rates below the replacement level of about two births per woman. As a result, the populations of 48 of those countries, including Germany, Japan, Russia and South Korea, are projected to be smaller and older by midcentury, even assuming modest gains in birth rates. If fertility rates were to remain constant at their current levels, the declines and ageing would be even more pronounced than currently expected (Figure 2).

Source: United Nations Population Division.

In an attempt to counter those two major demographic trends, many governments have adopted a variety of policies to raise birth rates. At one extreme are draconian measures such as prohibiting contraception, sterilization, abortion and the education and employment of women. As those measures violate basic human rights, few governments are prepared to take such drastic steps to raise fertility. Moreover, such measures have undesirable demographic consequences, including higher levels of unintended pregnancy, illegal abortion and maternal mortality.

Some governments are promoting marriage, childbearing and parenting through public relations campaigns, incentives and preferences. Such programs highlight the vital role of motherhood and its valuable contribution to the welfare and growth of the country. Australia and South Korea, for example, are among those making appeals to women to have one more child. Also, Iran is considering legislation that would encourage businesses to prioritize the hiring of men with children.

Perhaps the most common pronatalist policies aim to reduce parent’s considerable financial costs for childbearing and child rearing. Those policies include cash bonuses at the time of a child’s birth and/or recurrent cash supplements for dependent children

In Turkey, for example, parents are entitled to 300 Turkish lira (108 dollars) for the birth of their first child, 400 Turkish lira (144 dollars) for the second and 600 Turkish lira (215 dollars) for the fourth and subsequent child. One consequence of this legislation, however, has been the need for the provision of government financial assistance to needy families with large families.

Additional policies, especially popular among many Western countries, focus on making employment and family responsibilities “compatible” for working couples, especially mothers. In addition to extended maternity leave as well as paternity leave, other measures include part-time work, flexible working hours, working at home and family-friendly workplaces, including nurseries, as well as pre-school and after-school care facilities.

However, the costs of family friendly policies are not insignificant. For example, with fertility at two children per woman, France’s extensive scheme of family benefits is estimated to cost four per cent of gross domestic product, one of the highest percentages in the European Union.

Some governments are also looking to selective immigration to maintain the size of their workforce and slow down the pace of population ageing. However, a recent United Nations study concluded that international migration at current levels would be unable to compensate fully for the expected population decline. Between 2015 and 2050, the excess of deaths over births in Europe is projected to be 63 million, whereas the net number of international migrants to Europe is projected at 31 million, implying an overall shrinking of Europe’s population by about 32 million.

In addition, the financial costs, social integration and cultural impact of immigration have come to the political forefront in recent months. A growing tide of refugees and economic migrants – mainly from Syria, Afghanistan, Eritrea, Iraq, Nigeria and Pakistan, estimated at over 800,000 – have arrived on the shores of the European Union since the beginning of 2015 to escape war, repression, discrimination and unemployment.

As part of its response, the EU is considering a plan to offer aid money and visas to African countries that agree to take back thousands of their citizens who are unlawfully residing within its borders. Also aiming to stem the record inflows of refugees, various EU members have put up fences, imposed border controls and tightened asylum rules.

Other countries that are averse to encouraging immigration, such as Japan and South Korea, have instead opted to boost labour productivity as a means of compensating for a shrinking labour force. Those governments are also reviewing legislation to encourage more women to join and remain in the labour force by offering them family friendly work environments, improved career mobility and promotions to management and senior positions.

While family-oriented measures may encourage some women to have children, those policies are costly and their overall effect on fertility is weak or unclear. The many forces pushing fertility to low levels are simply too powerful for governments to overcome with dictates, financial incentives and public relations campaigns.

(End)

Excerpt: