Aging
We are living in an interesting time as it has become clear many Hong Kong couples would rather have a pet than a child. A 2022 survey by the Family Planning Association showed small family sizes are now the norm for over 95 per cent of households here (zero 43.2, one 27.4 and two 25.2 children respectively). Anyone still in doubt would have done well to attend the recent exhibition on pets at the Convention and Exhibition Centre which attracted some 370,000 visitors over the four days.
We can all smile at stories of luxury pet holidays or matching outfits for dogs and their owners, but there is also a serious side to the phenomenon of small family size.
It should be noted straight away that this situation is not unique to Hong Kong. Far from it. Many advanced economies now have a birth rate below the 2.1 per woman level which is needed to maintain a stable population. Mainland China and Taiwan like Hong Kong are well below this figure. Even India has now levelled off at a bare 2.
So what are the causes, what are the implications, what problems if any are likely to arise, and what should or could governments do about it.
Some of the factors suggested as explaining the low rates are high housing costs in the urban environment where many people now live. Would-be parents might also be discouraged by the fear that any children would face intense competitive pressure in education. Women might be deterred from childbearing by the challenges of striking a reasonable work/life balance in an era when large numbers of them are in a formal employment situation. They now have a variety of choices. A more positive reason might be that with improved health care and diet, infant and child mortality rates have now dropped around the world and it is no longer necessary for a rural family to have a lot of children to ensure there are enough survivors to manage the farm.
Most concerns about the lower birth rate centre on the effect on the population aging profile. Instead of the pyramid shape, narrow at the top and broad at the bottom, as in the past when populations were growing steadily, or a tree trunk shape where the generations were almost equal all the way up, those communities most affected risk moving towards an inverted pyramid shape where a large and growing percentage of the population are elderly, with only a small layer of youngsters at the bottom.
According to a recent forecast by Our Hong Kong Foundation, the proportion of those aged 65 and above which stood at 23 per cent in 2024 will exceed 33 per cent by 2064. The elderly support rate – the number of seniors per 1000 persons in the workforce – will reach 567. Every working person will be carrying two elderlies.
These numbers suggest there may not be enough carers to look after those who need it, and not enough taxpayers to provide resources for the public services that will be required. The pressures on pension systems will be immense.
Another consequence of lower birth rates will be that the total population of individual countries will level off and then start to decline. By some estimates the mainland may already have fallen below the much quoted 1.4 billion figure. India, which already exceeds that number, will also likely start to fall soon. China and India are the two countries which previously made stringent efforts to reduce population growth (the former with the “one-child” policy, the latter under Sanjay Gandhi, the younger son of then prime minister Indira and author of a controversial sterilisation policy). Other countries by contrast are still in growth mode and the world population of some 8.2 billion at present is forecast to level off at about 10 billion.
Personally I see no reason for alarm at the national level. China will still be a world power able to defend itself against outside aggression even if the population drifts down to a range of 1 – 1.2 billion. India by then will be similar. But I am aghast at the prospect of a world with over 10 billion residents, putting intolerable strain on the environment.
At the policy level, different governments have tried different approaches by such measures as cash incentives for new births or, in my opinion more usefully, removing disincentives by improving access to child care and subsidising it. We all need to bear in mind that decisions on whether or not to have children, and how many, are deeply personal. And the world has arrived at the present situation from the sum of these personal choices. In nature the different species mate normally and naturally produce the next generation. The human race is unique in that because of the invention of birth control it can decide for itself whether or not the mating, which seems by all accounts to remain as popular as ever, will produce any offspring.
Governments would do better, in my view, to focus on practical measures such as recognising longer life expectancy and deferring the normal retirement age to 70 (or even scrapping it altogether), by emphasising preventive health measures, facilitating and encouraging exercise to prolong active life, switching all pensions to defined contribution instead of defined benefits, and so on. Most important they should keep public finances broadly in balance over the economic cycle so as not to carry forward a massive debt burden to be paid off by a generation that may well by then be smaller.
Speaking personally I have always viewed children as an essential part of marriage, and two better than one. So I have four children (readers can do the math) but I accept that every individual has the right to make these choices for him- or herself.