Alarm over S. Korea's low birth rate

Straits Times ^ | By Caroline Gluck

[DeaconBenjamin]

Many rural communities are in danger of dying out, and the problem could threaten the nation's economic growth

SEOUL - Just one school remains open in the village of Dongmyun, deep in the heart of South Korea's countryside in central Chungcheong province.

There used to be four schools in the area. But in the past 30 years, the number of pupils has fallen dramatically from more than 1,000 to just over 100.

Village head Hong Ui Jeong fears that without drastic action, communities like his may die out totally.

With fewer than 20 babies born last year, he is doing what little he can to try to reverse the trend.

To couples who give birth this year, he will offer a cash incentive - money that comes out of his own salary.

'The population in Dongmyun is dropping by about 100 people every year,' he said. 'To stop our village dying, I decided to offer 100,000 won (S$145) to every couple if they had a baby.'

One mother who has benefited from that offer is Ms Kim Sun Deok, nursing her two-month-old son, Song Do.

'I think it's better than nothing, but it's not enough to help bring up a child,' she said. 'Anyway, many of my friends tend to marry later in life, and by then it's too late to start a family.'

Other regions with dwindling populations are also taking steps such as offering couples a silver bracelet for their newborn - to show how highly valued they are.

Meanwhile, government officials are getting worried over the declining birth rate.

Rural communities like Dongmyun are the worst hit. About half of the village population is over the age of 65, and only 10 per cent of women are of child-bearing age.

Younger couples are also moving out of the countryside to cities in search of better jobs and a better lifestyle.

The falling birth rate is evident across the country. More working couples are put off by the high costs of raising children and the lack of adequate childcare and social welfare facilities.

Mr Shim Jae Kwon of the ruling Millennium Democratic Party said that, in the past, South Korea focused on achieving rapid economic development - and welfare issues were not a top priority.

He admitted that unless rapid steps were taken, the country could begin to suffer economically and face serious manpower shortages.

A shrinking workforce will have to support a growing elderly population. And the country could lose its economic edge.

After decades of actively promoting birth control - which was implemented until 1996 - population advisers are now considering what was once unthinkable: introducing new policies to promote child birth.

Said Mr Kim Seung Kwon of the Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs: 'The most important thing is that the government needs to share the economic burden by providing more family allowances and tax breaks.'

Other ideas include longer maternity leave and more public child-care facilities.

But unless such measures are implemented soon, many dwindling rural communities such as Dongmyun may not survive.

BABIES: Stork's not coming

FIGURES about to be released suggest that South Korea may have the lowest birth rate in the world at 1.17 - below the 2.1 rate needed to keep the population at its current size.

This will be a historic low for the country and is part of a downward trend since the 1970s, when the birth rate was more than 4.

The figure was 1.3 in 2001 and 1.47 in 2000.

[pragmatic_asian]

Then caning was a light sentence for that American brat that vandalized all those cars some years ago... ;)

[Torie]

India currently clocks in at 3.1, which is a huge drop. The place has come a long way, but still has a long way to go. What is pushing it is a profound fear that it is fatally lagging behind China. Fear is a great motivator.

[Torie]

Land redistribution is really not where it is at. The effects will probably be negative, but Brazil's future has really almost nothing to do with agriculture. The areas of Brazil that are really agriculturally productive in a world market could fit within Iowa. Tropical areas suck for agricultural if the truth be known as far as efficiency goes, so only that bit of Brazil to the far South is really productive.

[MinorityRepublican]

In the next 100 years, we will probably see the total population of the world drop.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Oops, sorry if I wasn't clear, from what I understand the squatters involved are strictly in the city slums(favelas) and this would be basically just official recognition of what is existing. Many of these neighborhoods actually have a life cycle, as the residents implement improvements and often transition into somewhat stable working class districts with an actual real estate markets. Would let them establish a mailing address, legally sign up for utilities, and more easily get micro loans for business startup. From what I understand it is primarily gov't property involved, so it sounds more like a version of the US land grants of the 19th century.

[Diddle E. Squat]

From what I understand it is primarily gov't property involved, so it sounds more like a version of the US land grants of the 19th century.

Without the agricultural component.

[Torie]

Home ownership is also rounding error really. Not that clearing title in some fashion in squatter areas would not be helpful. Unclear ownership of assets is always an economic negative. But at the end of the day, you earn what you eat, and that means productivity, and that relates to more what you do, then what you own in your neighborhood.

[rmlew]

Bureacratic societies that have lost their religious underinnings are facing demographic decline.

[FITZ]

there is a relation between declining birth rates and the economy.

Then how do you explain China now becoming one of the top 3 world economies ---it's moved up in spite of it's one child policy and yet Mexico with it's extremely high birth rate is poverty-stricken and it's economy is not doing well? Why would Mexicans be leaving their own economy in droves if high birth rate makes a wonderful economy?

The economy is based on other factors ---having a lot of children is good only if you're middle class and can afford your children. If you have a lot of children you can't feed, educate, or care for, they are not good for the economy. Especially if you have to use food stamps and Medicaid ----then your many children promote Socialism. I believe middle class should have lots of children.

[June Cleaver]

ok, I'll take another shot at it. Is it Spain?

[liberalnot]

there are many countries around the world with a high birth rate, but a poor economy.

the issue is--a deficit birth rate will destroy a good economy. it's related to the fact that you have to make about 2-3% more money each year to stay in the same place. if you make $100,000 last year, you'll need $102,000 or 103,000 to stay even.

our economic system has to expand each year to stay healthy. one means of doing this with no birth rate would be increased productivity. but not all businesses can achieve an increased productivity each year. another issue, is entry level labor. entry level jobs don't require the same expenses as higher level jobs.

china is not mexico.

first of all, the big issue is culture. chinese society is still confucian in origin, meaning that children owe a large responsibility to their parents. the culture before maoism had a strong work ethic, similar to northern europeans and their american descendents.

in contrast, mexico was settled by mediterranean cultures. i spoke to this issue on this thread before. i asked you before, name one country settled by portugal, spain, italy, france, or greece that has a booming economy. there are none that i can think of. the philippines, for example, is philippino and spanish as a culture. and its economy barely gets by. in fact, some 6 million philippinos work abroad and send money home. argentina at the turn of the 19th and 20th c's was to be a star economy, like the united states, canada, and australia. but what happened? it's the culture. mediterrean cultures impede capitalism. counter to this point, venice had a strong mercantile economy during the renaissance. but capitalism per se, was born in the north of europe, in scotland, and england, holland, and later germany. there is no doubt a different work ethic in northern europe. it was this work ethic that immigrants brought to our country.

successful colonial cultures were settled by the dutch and english.

china offers an educated workforce that mexico cannot offer. mexican education at the autonomous university focuses on marxism. there are relatively few world-class scientists and engineers. nor is there the corporate culture to employ these people. as one mexican remarked recently, 20 years of making american autos in mexico and we still don't know HOW to manufacture a car. yet, the chinese are learning.

low end manufacturing in china costs 1/4 the wages of mexico. that's why the tv manufacturing, which once made tijuana the world's center, is leaving for china.

china has entry-level workers for decades and decades and decades to come. one economist estimated that the supply of entry-level workers would end about 2050.

today southern italy is lackluster, while any production occurs in nothern italy. italy has a deficit birthrate, and this does affect their economy.

thanks.

[FITZ]

I agree ---it's all cultural/political. I think a growing middle class especially where kids are raised with middle class values is great for an economy. A growing poverty class is bad for an economy. One reason Mexico is poor besides their corrupt government is they tend to have children very young and many don't wait for marriage or education or job first. It's not unusual at all to see 12 year old mothers over there (or here on the border) and poverty is almost a guarantee. In cultures where people wait until they can afford children before having them, there is less poverty ---if you can't provide for one or two children ---then it's too many children for you ---if you can provide for 11 or 12 ---then you should have that many.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Here's how the UN ranks 'em:

http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2002/en/pdf/HDR%20PR_HDI.pdf

High human development

1 Norway
2 Sweden
3 Canada
4 Belgium
5 Australia
6 United States
7 Iceland
8 Netherlands
9 Japan
10 Finland
11 Switzerland
12 France
13 United Kingdom
14 Denmark
15 Austria
16 Luxembourg
17 Germany
18 Ireland
19 New Zealand
20 Italy
21 Spain
22 Israel
23 Hong Kong,China (SAR)
24 Greece
25 Singapore
26 Cyprus
27 Korea, Rep. of
28 Portugal
29 Slovenia
30 Malta
31 Barbados
32 Brunei Darussalam
33 Czech Republic
34 Argentina
35 Hungary
36 Slovakia
37 Poland
38 Chile
39 Bahrain
40 Uruguay
41 Bahamas
42 Estonia
43 Costa Rica
44 Saint Kitts and Nevis
45 Kuwait
46 United Arab Emirates
47 Seychelles
48 Croatia
49 Lithuania
50 Trinidad and Tobago
51 Qatar
52 Antigua and Barbuda
53 Latvia

So I guess that I'd draw the line somewhere between 28 and 31, Brunei wouldn't qualify and I have my doubts about Barbados.


But a look at who is near the top of their 2nd tier may reveal some holes in their criteria:

Medium human development

54 Mexico
55 Cuba

[Torie]

I should get around to naming the real countries with the lowest fertility rates: it is a 3 way tie between Bulgaria, Latvia and Slovenia, all at 1.10. As the the group of nations with the lowest fertility rates on earth, the above list gives a clue. They are the Slav countries, each and every one of which has catastrophically low fertility rates, be they Catholic, or Orthodox, and irrespective of their relative standards of living. Why? I don't know.

[Torie]

I agree completely with your cut off point. Greece and Cyprus are a bit fragile however, and hold onto developed status by their fingertips, in part because of relatively poor governance, and indulgence in sectarian feuds.

[Tax-chick]

if you can provide for 11 or 12 ---then you should have that many.

Thanks, I plan on it!

On the other hand, if I lived in Slovenia, Latvia, or that other miserable place, I'd probably just have cats!

[liberalnot]

but, you hafta admit that we are partly to blame for our this problem--we didn't have enough children.

in the 1950s, i remember u.s. officials loading up illegals on trains and sending them back home. reason--we had enough people here willing to work. not any more.

today, in the long beach press-telegram, antonovich, a los angeles county superisor, is saying that health care cost los angeles county $350,000,000 per year.

http://www.presstelegram.com/Stories/0,1413,204~21474~1383616,00.html

[liberalnot]

for illegals, i should add!

i'm tired.

[TEXOKIE]

so please.....what was "the answer?"

[Ebony and Ivory]

taiwan (republic of china) or how about singapore?