Natalism (also called pronatalism or the pro-birth position) is an ideology that promotes the reproduction of human life as an important objective of being human and advocates high birthrate.^[1] According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the term, as it relates to the belief itself, dates from 1971 and comes from French: nataliste, formed from French: natalité, birthrate.^[2]

Natalism promotes child-bearing and parenthood as desirable for social reasons and to ensure the continuance of humanity. Some philosophers have noted that if humans fail to have children, humans would become extinct.^[3][4] While many reproductive rights advocates and environmentalists see it as a driver of reproductive injustice, population growth, and ecological overshoot.^{[5][6][7][8][9][10]} Natalism in public policy typically seeks to create financial and social incentives for populations to reproduce, such as providing tax incentives that reward having and supporting children.^[6] Those who adhere to more strict natalism may seek to limit access to abortion and contraception, as well^[11]. The opposite of natalism is antinatalism; however most feminists and reproductive rights advocates challenge natalism in order to elevate procreative freedom, and do not align with antinatalism.^[12][6]

Motives[edit]

Religion[edit]

Many religions encourage procreation, and religiousness in members can sometimes correlate to higher rates of fertility.^[13] Judaism,^[14] Islam, and major branches of Christianity, including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints^[15] and the Catholic Church^{[16][17][18][19]} encourage procreation. In 1979 one research paper indicated that Amish people had an average of 6.8 children per family.^[20] Among some conservative Protestants, the Quiverfull movement advocates for large families and views children as blessings from God.^[21][22][23]

Intention to have children[edit]

An intention to have children is a substantial fertility factor in actually ending up doing so, but childless individuals who intend to have children immediately or within two or three years are generally more likely to succeed than those who intend to have children in the long term.^[24] There are many determinants of the intention to have children, including:

• the preference of family size, which influences that of the children through early adulthood.^[25] Likewise, the extended family influences fertility intentions, with increased numbers of nephews and nieces increasing the preferred number of children.^[24][8]
• social pressure from kin and friends to have another child.^[24][6][8]
• social support. However, a study from West Germany came to the result that both men receiving no support at all and men receiving support from many different people have a lower probability of intending to have another child, with the latter probably related to coordination problems.^[24]
• happiness, with happier people tending to want more children.^[24] However, other research has shown that the social acceptability of the choice to have or not have children plays a significant factor in reproductive decisions.^{[26][6][10][27][28]} The social stigma, marginalization, and even domestic violence that accompanies those without children, by choice or chance, is a significant factor in their feelings of happiness or belonging within their communities.^{[6][5][10][29]}
• secure housing situation.^[30]

Natalistic politics[edit]

The 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae criticized artificial contraception and advocated for a natalist position.^[31]

According to the UN, the share of countries with pronatalist policies had grown from 20% in 2005 to 28% in 2019.^[32]

Some countries with population decline offer incentives to the people to have large families as a means of national efforts to reverse declining populations. Incentives may include a one-time baby bonus, or ongoing child benefit payments or tax reductions. Some impose penalties or taxes on those with fewer children^[7][8]. Some nations, such as Japan^[33], Singapore,^[34] and South Korea,^[35] have implemented, or tried to implement, interventionist natalist policies, creating incentives for larger families among native stock. Immigrants are generally not part of natalist policies.

Paid maternity and paternity leave policies can also be used as an incentive. For example, Sweden has generous parental leave wherein parents are entitled to share 16 months' paid leave per child, the cost divided between both employer and state. Unfortunately, it appears not to work as desired.^{[36] [37]}

Books advocating natalist policies include What to Expect When No One's Expecting by Jonathan V. Last^[38] such as Selfish Reasons To Have More Kids by Bryan Caplan.

Books, films, and advocates that warn of the harms of natalism on reproductive rights and planetary health include The Baby Matrix: Why Freeing Our Minds From Outmoded Thinking About Parenthood & Reproduction Will Create a Better World by Laura Carroll, To Kid or Not to Kid by Maxine Trump, My So-Called Selfish Life by Therese Shechter, and The Overpopulation Podcast by the US nonprofit Population Balance. In her book The Patriarchs: The Origins of Inequality, British science journalist, broadcaster and author Angela Saini identifies the emergence of states and empires about 5000 years ago as the roots of patriarchy and institutionalized pronatalism.^[39]

Russia[edit]

Natalist thinking was common during the Soviet times. After a brief adherence to the strict Communist doctrine in 1920s and attempts to raise children communally, coupled with the government-provided healthcare, the Soviet government switched to neo-traditionalism, promoting family values and sobriety, banning abortions and making divorces harder to obtain, advancing natalist ideals that made mockery of irresponsible parents. The expanded opportunities for female employment caused a population crisis in 1930s, government had expanded access to child care starting at age of two.^[40] After the Great Patriotic war the skewed ratio of men to women prompted additional financial assistance to women that had children or were pregnant. Despite the promotion and long maternity leave with maintenance of the employment and salary modernization still caused the birthrates to continue to unfortunately slide into the 1970's.^[41]

The end of USSR in 1991 was accompanied by a large drop in fertility.^[41] In 2006, Vladimir Putin made the demographics an important issue,^[42] instituting a two-prong approach of direct financial rewards and socio-cultural policies. The notable example of the former is the maternal-capital program where the woman is provided with subsidies that can be spent only on improved housing or the education of a child (and can also be saved for the retirement). ^[43]

Hungary[edit]

The Hungarian government of Viktor Orbán in 2019 announced pecuniary incentives (including eliminating taxes for mothers with more than three children, and reducing credit payments and easier access to loans), and expanding day care and kindergarten access.^[44]

See also[edit]

• "Be fruitful and multiply"
• Child tax credit
• Baby bonus
• Tax on childlessness
• Helicopter parent
• Cost of raising a child
• Family policy in Hungary
• Gender role
• Population decline
• Political demography
• Population ethics
• Replacement fertility rate
• Decree 770 and abortion in Romania

References[edit]

Sources[edit]

• Kouprianova, Nina (December 2013). "Modernity and natalism in Russia: Historic perspectives". European Journal of Government and Economics. 2 (2): 149–159. doi:10.17979/ejge.2013.2.2.4293. hdl:2183/23366. ISSN 2254-7088. S2CID 142587197.

Further reading[edit]

Calder, Vanessa Brown, and Chelsea Follett (August 10, 2023). Freeing American Families: Reforms to Make Family Life Easier and More Affordable, Policy Analysis no. 955, Cato Institute, Washington, DC.