A population decline (or depopulation) in humans is a reduction in a human population caused by events such as long-term demographic trends, as in sub-replacement fertility, urban decay due to violence, disease, or other catastrophes. According to a controversial theory: shrink and prosper, the accompanying benefits of depopulation could be identified after the post-Civil War Gilded Age, post-World War I economic boom, and the post-World War II economic boom.
Paul: Lower demand for government support and spending. Lower demand for healthcare. Less traffic. Smaller class sizes in school. Less competition for housing. Less pollution.
Dear László Vértesy,
In developed countries and fast-developing economies there are analogous processes of changes in the demographic structure of society consisting in the aging of the population and the accompanying process of depopulation of cities, agglomeration, declining births, decreasing fertility rate in families. These processes, which are unfavorable for the economic development of the country, usually have at least several causes.
Extending the average life expectancy of citizens results from improved living standards, increased income and related improvements in quality of life, improvement of nutrition and improvement in the health care services sector. In addition, some of the lowly, educated people go to look for more interesting jobs and higher salaries by hiring in other countries. In a situation where young people paying off housing loans, are also burdened with various taxes, they are forced to work, to professional activity all adult members of the family of working age.
As a result, the pressure, the need to have more than 1 or 2 children are decreasing, and then the fertility decreases, which contributes to the decline in the number of citizens in the long term. In order to counteract this disadvantage for the national economy, this country should develop social policy to support young people, including subsidizing the purchase or rental of housing, establishing guaranteed income related to raising children, developing programs supporting the nursery, pre-school and education, pediatric health care system, etc.
I described this issue in my publications on the Family 500 Plus Program and the Flat Plus Program (Proghram Mieszkanie Plus). Because these programs have been developed only for 3 years, so you can not objectively assert how they affect the demographic structure of society, or motivate you to make decisions about having a larger number of children. To objectively, ie taking into account relevant scientific data, to answer such questions, these Programs should be conducted with a minimum of 2-3 next generations of citizens.
On the other hand, there has already been a noticeable increase in consumption for various types of goods purchased by citizens, which has a pro-development effect on the economy as it increases the level of economic growth. It may be one of the key elements of the socio-economic policy of anti-crisis, countercyclical importance, ie increasing the resilience of the domestic economy to global economic crises and the slowdown in global economy growth, e.g. the currently observed slowdown in global economy caused by the so-called war wars and other restrictions on the development of international trade.
Best wishes
Well, looking at Croatia, we only see negative effect - aging population, incrasing bourden on medical and pension system, insufficient workforce....positive effects might happen in less developed countries
Paul: Lower demand for government support and spending. Lower demand for healthcare. Less traffic. Smaller class sizes in school. Less competition for housing. Less pollution.
Advantages: Less mouths to feed, easier to manage the country with fewer people
Disadvantage: Less people available in the workforce and thus to support the economy, final death of a certain group of people along with their associated culture
Dear László Vértesy
increasing population is not necessarily positive for the economy, as decreasing population is not in all aspects disadvantageous.
However, typically a shrinking population is considered to be an economical burden in the long run. Initially, a reduced total fertility rate (TFR) leads to less children and the corresponding resources for education and child care release a demographic dividend. That changes, once fewer young people enter the labor force.
The after-war booms in many economies are driven by the huge potential for growth, once a country has undergone vast destructions. Also the potential for population growth in depopulated areas may be a beneficial aspect, as after the thirty-years war. Therefore, I doubt that shrinking as such makes the economy prosper. It's rather the catching up to pre-war levels and the room for change that characterize post-war booms.
I want to add another aspect: The first demographic transition, i.e. the shrinking of TFR as a reaction to the reduced child mortality, was economically favorable as it contributed to much better education and in turn increased productivity and wealth. But this works out only if the reduction in new borns is outweighted by the corresponding productivity gains - in modern societies it will be much more difficult to realize such productivity gains.
@László Vértesy
Actually, the demographic decline has a negative impact on countries, both economically and socially.
Population decline, whatever its causes, whether natural or human, has many negative aspects such as the high rate of aging and lack of young labor, which results in large burdens on countries such as health and pensions and therefore find themselves forced to receive migrants who can be a factor of Socio-culurel aspect.
And we must differentiat between the fast decline of population consequences and the slow decline consequences resulting from the demographic transition.
It's according to the population composition.
you should also be looking at the discussioin on demography and low interst rates going on next to this one
Very interesting question. It is interesting to relate the effects of changes in the population (decline) and the economy. I think the key is also to introduce aspects of quality of life in the economy to be able to speak more clearly.
Dear Hampton Gaddy
, I agree with most of your interesting contribution. However, I have some doubts about Malthus' expectation of exponential population growth. The development in many European countries exhibits a first drop in the TFR once social security was installed together with a shrinking child mortality. A further drop of the TFR came along with contraception. Among the European countries, some are shrinking or were shrinking without immigration gains. But none exhibits a substantially growing population. So there might be societal conditions where populations are in some sort of steady state.
There was some work on Europe that might be relevant toi this discussion
Lutz, W. and Skirbekk, V. (2005) Policies Addressing the Tempo Effect in Low-Fertility Countries in Population and Development Review, Vol. 31., Nr. 4(4), pp 699-720.
Dear Hampton Gaddy
, thank you for your reply. Indeed, it may be difficult to proof individual societal changes to be responsible for the decline in TFR. My comment wasn't meant to make that claim. I also do not imagine a strict steady state as a realistic scenario. But I can imagine that the TFR (eventually together with migration?) may lead to a population size that is not exposed to quick changes in its age profile and absolute size. However, based on the Lotka equation, such a steady state would expose a relatively old population, given live expectancy and TFR substantially below 2, as is the case in many developed countries.
There are some advantages, which are associated primarily with environmental issues. However, there are more disadvantages: aging of the population, incrasing bourden on medical and pension systems, insufficient workforce.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science