The BBC Show on Migration from Accession countries and Low European Fertility Rates

by Martin Varsavsky, who kindly sent me his report on that session by email. Thank you Martin !

Very interesting session TV show on Migration.  The session was attended by various ministers and presidents from Europe and it was both a session with a moderator, and a TV show for the BBC channel.  Highlights of this session which blog readers can view on BBC this weekend:
 
Firstly we learned that as opposed to what British and German tabloids are saying, migration from accession countries will be minor.  Population experts told us that presently there are 800,000 people from accession countries living in the European Union out of 370 million and that the new EU will have around 450 million but we should only expect around 2 million people to migrate from accession countries to the rest of the EU.
 
Secondly we learned that rather than fearing migration it is time we start fearing population extinction....yes Malthusians get this, extinction and that is because regardless of the Italian minister´s comments that Itaaaaleeans like making babies....they don´t, and neither do the Germans, or Spaniards, or everyone else in the EU to the tune of 2.1 babies per couple that is needed to keep population levels as they are.
 
So why is it that we don´t have babies in Europe?  Many, many theories circulated in the session.  I will report on some and leave my own theory as a last comment.  Here´s a list.
 
-because men don´t help working women raising them.
 
-because there´s not enough child care, in France for example, where there is, there´s seems to be a higher fertility rate.
 
-because many couples choose what in China they take by force, the one child policy.
 
-because the welfare state has secured pensions and people used to raise children as genetic insurance for retirement.
 
-because as opposed to what happens in America Europeans have little hope about the future and they don´t want to raise children into a hopeless world or in other words that there´s a correlation between having a positive spirit and wanting to have children.
 
Now before giving my theory let me ask blog readers that this may be a good time to stop and comment on your own theory.
 
Here´s mine.
 
I think that there´s something wrong about democracy and children.  I believe that children have been left out of the democratic process and as a result democracies tend to produce too many benefits for old people, who vote, and few for children, who don´t vote.  So here´s my solution, I would lower voting age to 12 years of age.  I think it would do wonders for the democratic process by getting children to become interested at an early age in their own destiny.  And of course they would be influenced by their parents but so what?  I believe that either children should be allowed to vote or that parents should be custodians of their children´s votes until children reach voting age.  In this way much many more resources of society would shift to programs that benefit the very young and people who have children would feel the added responsibility of voting for programs that help them.  And most likely this policy would lead to a more children friendly society and to people having more children.
 
Now what´s your theory and solution?

Comments

[François Granger]

The first and real question is "Is the continued increase of poulation in developped countries a "good thing" ?".

The impact on ecology of each baby born in Europe or the US of A is many time worse thant the impact of a baby born in a third world country. And Earth being a limited supply, with the current standard of leaving in US of A, Earth could sustain only a total population of 1 to 2 billions inhabitants.

[antoin o lachtnain]

It seems to be a pretty universal phenomenon that as wealth increases, the birth rate decreases. It even happened in Ireland, which definitely proves the rule.

Nobody seems to be able to put their finger quite on why it happens. One possible reason (that hasn't been suggested) is that women have more control over their fertility in wealthier countries.

We definitely have to make it easier for middle-class people to have babies. I don't know quite how this could be done. Lowering house prices or increasing salaries is very unlikely to have the desired effect.

I don't think lowering the voting age would do much for encouraging people to have babies.

[Olivier Travers]

Another factor working against fertility is that Europeans, while they have first world expectations about comfort, tend to live in cities and are crammed into much smaller lodging than Americans who tend to live in suburbs (and have more kids). It takes room to have more kids (of course dismal lodging doesn't prevent people in the third world from having more kids, but they don't have the same expectations about standards of living). This can be solved with more lenient rules about personal debt (i.e. let people have more financial leverage against their income and house), with more flexible retail banking (how come it's almost impossible to refinance mortages in Europe when interest rates are lowered?), and favorable taxation (in France for instance you pay significant taxes proportional to home floor surface just for the right to live somewhere).

However, I suspect housing is a secondary factor, and a mix of lack of discretionary income, people starting their "adult life" later on, and pessimism about the future, is what's primarily at play here. Deep roots need real structural reforms to be addressed, not Agenda 2006/2010 cosmetics...