09 Aug 10
1 edit
Iceland had a total fertility rate of 2.14 children per woman in 2008. This makes it the only country in Europe with a fertility rate above replacement level.
Iceland is a largely secular country - a situation that many think leads to lower birth rates. It has remarkably liberal social attitudes - a situation that many think leads to lower birth rates. Until the financial crisis, it was one of Europe's most prosperous countries - a situation that many think leads to lower birth rates. Unlike a country such as France, where the high fertility rate may in part be due to the tendencies of recent immigrants from developing countries to have larger families, Iceland's immigrant population is negligible.
So what makes Iceland unique? And, assuming that other posters agree that Europe ought to be striving to encourage its people to reproduce at replacement or thereabouts, what policies could be adopted to encourage the continent follow the Icelandic lead?
09 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by TeinosukeThat 2.14 is considered so high is the scary part.
Iceland had a total fertility rate of 2.14 children per woman in 2008. This makes it the only country in Europe with a fertility rate above replacement level.
Iceland is a largely secular country - a situation that many think leads to lower birth rates. It has remarkably liberal social attitudes - a situation that many think leads to lower birth rates. reabouts, what policies could be adopted to encourage the continent follow the Icelandic lead?
As for why, maybe there's nothing else to do during those loooooong winter nights.
Edit: As for policies:
- child tax credit
- family leave allowances
- flexible work schedules
- market adoption over abortion (I didn't say "force" I said market)
09 Aug 10
Originally posted by sh76It's not that it's "considered" high; it's that statistically it is high, compared to other countries. Including the United States, by the way, which is just below replacement rate at 2.05 children per women.
That 2.14 is considered so high is the scary part.
As for why, maybe there's nothing else to do during those loooooong winter nights.
Edit: As for policies:
- child tax credit
- family leave allowances
- flexible work schedules
- market adoption over abortion (I didn't say "force" I said market)
As for why birth rates in most developed countries are so low, this has probably been the subject of another thread, but I wonder if one significant factor that doesn't get enough attention is simply that most couples have the attitude that two kids is enough. There have always been people who, for whatever reason, have chosen not to or have been unable to have children; what's unusual today is that so few couples seem to want to have, say, four or five children. In other words, there's hardly anyone balancing the statistics against the childless.
However, I feel pretty sure that there's more to the Icelandic example than your "long winter nights" hypothesis!
09 Aug 10
Originally posted by sh76Ah - I didn't see this edit before posting my droll final comment! All good policies.
Edit: As for policies:
- child tax credit
- family leave allowances
- flexible work schedules
- market adoption over abortion (I didn't say "force" I said market)
09 Aug 10
Originally posted by avalanchethecat1) Because the inevitable consequence of a sub-replacement fertility rate is a large retired and small working age population, and it's difficult to support a society with this kind of age structure.
I entirely fail to understand why we would want to maintain the ridiculously high population levels we now have.
2) Because we in the developed world demonstrably have the wealth and resources to support the populations we have at a reasonable level of comfort and prosperity. Demonstrably, because we do so already. I'm not advocating massive population growth, you understand.
09 Aug 10
Originally posted by TeinosukeReplying to my own question, and speaking from ignorance (since I've never visited Iceland), I wonder:
So what makes Iceland unique?
Rekyavik is, by the standards of most of Europe, more of a town than a city. The rest of Iceland's settlements are even smaller. Could this mean that Iceland might have held on to a sense of community spirit that has been lost in larger European cities? Might people be more likely to feel in Rekyavik than in, say, Stockholm, Oslo or Copenhagen, let alone London or Paris, that they have a network of support, of neighbours and institutions within the community, which will support them in the event that they have children?
09 Aug 10
Originally posted by TeinosukeAbout half of Iceland's population lives in Reykjavik. I don't think there is a significant difference between Iceland and other European countries in terms of whether people live in urban or rural areas.
Replying to my own question, and speaking from ignorance (since I've never visited Iceland), I wonder:
Rekyavik is, by the standards of most of Europe, more of a town than a city. The rest of Iceland's settlements are even smaller. Could this mean that Iceland might have held on to a sense of community spirit that has been lost in larger European cities ...[text shortened]... stitutions within the community, which will support them in the event that they have children?
But in terms of professions, Iceland has relatively many fishermen. Perhaps, when the men have gone out fishing, the women cheat on their husbands and thus produce more children? 😉