Contrary to the speculation that the pandemic will result in a ‘baby boom’, historical evidence of short-term fertility consequences of natural disasters and epidemics are mostly a ‘baby bust’. In seminal studies on the impact of the 1889 influenza outbreak on the population of France, the statistician and demographer, Jacques Bertillon, observed a nine-month lagged depression in births owing to influenza deaths. The Spanish flu (1918-19) resulted in a 13 per cent drop in birth rates from 1918 to 1919 in the United States of America. In countries such as Sweden, Norway, Taiwan, Japan and India, birth rates fell just after the Spanish flu, only to rebound in the subsequent 1-5 years. The recession of 2008 also led to a 9 per cent decline in birth rates in the US from 2007 to 2012. In the Journal of Public Economics, Lisa J. Dettling and Melissa S. Kearney have shown that with all else equal, a 1 per cent increase in the unemployment rate is associated with a 1.4 per cent decrease in birth rates.
There are opposite effects in the context of disasters. The tsunami in 2004 resulted in a sharp rise in fertility among women in communities that experienced deaths. The Cuban missile crisis of 1962 and the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 had similar impacts. Interestingly, even 9/11 resulted in an increase in births, particularly in New York state. In the US, even mild storm advisories have been shown to cause an increase in birth rates while serious storms tend to reduce birth rates — economic damages play an important role in this case.
Silver lining
To study the impact of Covid-19 on birth rates, we must understand its dissimilarities with the earlier pandemics. Unlike the Spanish flu, Covid-19 affects older people more than other age groups. It doesn’t have a large impact on the mortality of people of childbearing age. However, people are choosing to delay, defer or not have a child at this time. A group of Italian scientists have shown that fertility plans among the young population (18-34) have been negatively revised in Italy, Germany, France, Spain and the United Kingdom during the Covid-19 crisis. The Brookings Institution, a Washington DC-based think tank, forecast that there could be 5,00,000 fewer babies born in the US as a result of the pandemic. An article in Science, while discussing the Covid-19 pandemic and human fertility, observed that “given the irreversible nature of childbearing and the substantial costs associated with child-rearing, unemployment and lost income will necessarily reduce fertility.” A study by the London School of Economics also indicates that a baby bust is far more likely.
Reduction in birth rate might have some interesting consequences. For example, on account of the Spanish flu, the reduced population led to greater agricultural land for each family in India. The Great Depression lasted for 10 years. The decade of the 1930s is called a “demographic trough”: economic hardship resulted in a severe baby bust. There were 29.5 births per 1,000 Americans in 1915. The figures were 27.7 and 25.1 in 1920 and 1925, respectively. However, the birth rate reduced to 18.7 per 1,000 in 1935.
Interestingly, the Canadian economist, H. Scott Gordon, termed someone “who is born in [a] sheltered [low birth rate] trough”, preceded and followed by longer periods of high birth rates, “truly demographically lucky”. He explained that such a generation would enjoy greater social benefits as well as leverage in the job market. Assuming Covid-19-related recession would not last for more than a few years, the fewer children born in early 2020s might turn out to be ‘demographically lucky’ too.
