A society that doesn’t respect its women, is a society planning for its own demise. Many countries are grappling with the consequences of negative population growth characterized by aging, inefficient and unproductive workforce. Consumption expenditure has gone down and supply of young laborers is decreasing. China is becoming old, Japan is facing a demographic crisis and South Korea is next on the line to face the consequence of low population growth.
Other developed economies are awaiting for the inevitable doom of declining birth rates in their society. It makes one wonder what could’ve been done differently? What is an optimal level of fertility that ensures the longevity of the economy? The answer lies in the choices of women, who in many societies are deciding to remain childless. There are many reasons associated with childlessness, including the economic aspects mentioned by neoclassicals, the nature of capitalism, and the changing perception of women in society. Women in modern society can choose to be voluntarily childless. A woman’s choice to remain childless is not out of vices against men or to start a revolution, but due to institutions that instill inequality between the sexes.
Pre-scientific societies placed reproduction as a social obligation for women. Her worth lay in getting married early and conceiving as many children as possible for the family. However, modernization has brought a shift in this perception as more women are childless by choice. The nature of the demographic transition is such that during the last stages of a country’s development, it will undergo negative population growth and a declining fertility rate. Neoclassical and Marxist economists believe that economic conditions play a role in family planning.
In primitive societies, fertility rates were high. Birth rates were followed by high death rates due to a lack of medical facilities and education. The cost of raising a child was low, and they brought wealth to the family once they reached adulthood. However, the advent of industrialization brought a shift in the perception of natalism. Family-run businesses were replaced by large firms willing to pay higher wages to laborers. Markets for commodities expanded as people sought higher incomes for consumption. Due to changes in the labor and product markets, families started prioritizing the quality of education for children.
Various institutions were set up to protect children’s rights, making them more dependent than those from pre-scientific societies. Therefore, raising a child became an economic burden, with increasing costs and decreasing returns on investment. Modernization is followed by reduced family size and less support from adult children during old age.
Additionally, constant changes in the job market leave adult children vulnerable to unemployment. Therefore, parents invest heavily in raising a child but do not receive the dividends later in life. Advances in healthcare reduced death rates, which automatically brought birth rates down. These developments, along with the introduction of contraceptive technology, led individuals to adopt fertility control measures.
The main problem with the neoclassical perspective is that fertility decisions are considered externally determined—exogenous. Internal structures, such as economic inequality within families, also influence the fertility rate in an economy. Fathers reap the benefits of women’s fertility, as wealth is concentrated among men in households. When children grow up and start earning, it adds to the patrilineal family’s wealth.
Children are thus seen as progeny of the father’s lineage. Fathers, therefore, seek to control a woman’s sexuality and reproductive capacity. Women, however, have minimal influence on resource allocation in the family. Even if they have bargaining power over household decisions, they do not receive an equal share of the wealth or resources. Women also receive less nutrition and work harder than men in the household. The appearance of female labor force participation in work settings does not improve a woman’s bargaining power either.
Early economists like Engels believed that women’s wage labor would replace child-rearing; however, in reality, women have compromised on their leisure time. Within a household, a woman is expected to raise a child and earn income. This increases the opportunity cost of child-rearing, as she must compromise on education, vocational training, leisure time, and earning potential.
Institutional inequality also forces women to rely on traditional marriages. Even when women are employed, they face horizontal and vertical discrimination. Horizontal discrimination results in less diversity of sexes in various economic sectors, forcing women to pursue niche jobs or become part of the informal economy. Vertical discrimination is hierarchical, with higher job positions that provide greater job satisfaction and income predominantly occupied by men.
Women end up in low-paying positions with minimal scope for career advancement. Institutions also set barriers for working women, either directly through law or indirectly through discrimination, humiliation and verbal abuse. In Japan, for example, a woman may be fired when managers find out she is pregnant. In the Philippines and Senegal, husbands have legal rights to prevent their wives from working outside the home. The purdah system, which requires women to conceal themselves from society, makes it difficult to enter the labor market in some Muslim countries. In many countries, such institutional barriers make women more economically dependent on their husbands and traditional marriages.
The political trend surrounding this topic is a clash between conservatives and feminists, the needs of the patriarchs versus a woman. When capitalism emerged, patriarchs responded to the decrease in the economic value of a woman’s household labor just as passionately as the feminists. The patriarchs never objected to women’s participation in the labor market as it brought additional income for the family. However, there was open resistance when women’s empowerment threatened men’s bargaining power in household decisions.
While patriarchs care about a woman’s value in society, they are unwilling to compromise on the division of household labor. Due to their resolve to preserve the traditional division of labor, they are not willing to change with the needs of a modern woman- who is empowered, educated and self-driven. Institutions also discourage men from child-rearing by criticizing and humiliating fathers for spending time on childcare. For example, there was an uproar in Japanese society when Japan’s Environment Minister, Shinjiro Koizumi, took paternity leave. The fact that this news made headlines is a telltale sign of society’s mindset towards childcare responsibilities.
“There are men who are going through similar difficulties. They want to take the leave, but it’s hard. Child-care leave will not be prevalent unless we change not only the system but the atmosphere as well.” Mr. Koizumi wrote in one of his blogs. (Rich)
As women prioritize education, they also see the rising opportunity cost of marriage, which discourages them from childbearing. Marriage often means lower bargaining power, fewer resources, less job satisfaction, and less control over reproduction for women. Therefore, there is a tug-of-war between the interests of women and patriarchs in society.
Fathers have historically spent little time caring for children. If there were an equal division of child-care responsibilities, fertility would rise at an optimal rate. Countries that treat women equally and distribute child-rearing responsibilities tend to have higher fertility rates. Sweden and Denmark are countries that have a higher fertility rate compared to their neighboring countries. They also adopt family-compatibility approaches through paternity leave policies that encourage men to take leaves for child-care. Therefore, society must decide between preserving its ego or ensuring long-term welfare.
If ego is prioritized, long-term welfare will be jeopardized as negative population growth will catch up and impede on economic development. If welfare and economic growth are prioritized, patriarchs must compromise on their rigid mindsets and adapt to the current paradigm.
By: Vishnu Priya Sankara Narayanan
Write and Win: Participate in Creative writing Contest & International Essay Contest and win fabulous prizes.
