Connect with us

Economics

Falling fertility rates pose major challenges for the global economy

Published

on

Terry Vine | Getty Images

Falling fertility rates are set to spark a transformational demographic shift over the next 25 years, with major implications for the global economy, according to a new study.

By 2050, three-quarters of countries are forecast to fall below the population replacement birth rate of 2.1 babies per female, research published Wednesday in The Lancet medical journal found.

That would leave 49 countries — primarily in low-income regions of sub-Saharan Africa and Asia — responsible for the majority of new births.

“Future trends in fertility rates and livebirths will propagate shifts in global population dynamics, driving changes to international relations and a geopolitical environment, and highlighting new challenges in migration and global aid networks,” the report’s authors wrote in their conclusion.

By 2100, just six countries are expected to have population-replacing birth rates: The African nations of Chad, Niger and Tonga, the Pacific islands of Samoa and Tonga, and central Asia’s Tajikistan.

That shifting demographic landscape will have “profound” social, economic, environmental and geopolitical impacts, the report’s authors said.

In particular, shrinking workforces in advanced economies will require significant political and fiscal intervention, even as advances in technology provide some support.

“As the workforce declines, the total size of the economy will tend to decline even if output per worker stays the same. In the absence of liberal migration policies, these nations will face many challenges,” Dr. Christopher Murray, a lead author of the report and director at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, told CNBC.

“AI (artificial intelligence) and robotics may diminish the economic impact of declining workforces but some sectors such as housing would continue to be strongly affected,” he added.

Baby boom vs. bust

The report, which was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, did not put a figure on the specific economic impact of the demographic shifts. However, it did highlight a divergence between high-income countries, where birth rates are steadily falling, and low-income countries, where they continue to rise.

From 1950 to 2021, the global total fertility rate (TFR) — or average number of babies born to a woman — more than halved, falling from 4.84 to 2.23, as many countries grew wealthier and women had fewer babies. That trend was exacerbated by societal shifts, such as an increase in female workforce participation, and political measures including China’s one-child policy.

From 2050 to 2100, the total global fertility rate is set to fall further from 1.83 to 1.59. The replacement rate — or number of children a couple would need to have to replace themselves — is 2.1 in most developed countries.

That comes even as the global population is forecast to grow from 8 billion currently to 9.7 billion by 2050, before peaking at around 10.4 billion in the mid-2080s, according to the UN.

Already, many advanced economies have fertility rates well below the replacement rate. By the middle of the century, that category is set to include major economies China and India, with South Korea’s birth rate ranking as the lowest globally at 0.82

Meantime, lower-income countries are expected to see their share of new births almost double from 18% in 2021 to 35% by 2100. By the turn of the century, sub-Saharan Africa will account for half of all new births, according to the report.

Murray said that this could put poorer countries in a “stronger position” to negotiate more ethical and fair migration policies — leverage that could become important as countries grow increasingly exposed to the effects of climate change.

Economics

Why stricter voting laws no longer help Republicans

Published

on

“The Republicans should pray for rain”—the title of a paper published by a trio of political scientists in 2007—has been an axiom of American elections for years. The logic was straightforward: each inch of election-day showers, the study found, dampened turnout by 1%. Lower turnout gave Republicans an edge because the party’s affluent electorate had the resources to vote even when it was inconvenient. Their opponents, less so.

Continue Reading

Economics

Why the president must not be lexicographer-in-chief

Published

on

Who decides what legal terms mean? If it is Donald Trump, God help America

Continue Reading

Economics

Inflation rate slipped to 2.1% in April, lower than expected, Fed’s preferred gauge shows

Published

on

Inflation rate slipped to 2.1% in April, lower than expected, Fed’s preferred gauge shows

Inflation barely budged in April as tariffs President Donald Trump implemented in the early part of the month had yet to show up in consumer prices, the Commerce Department reported Friday.

The personal consumption expenditures price index, the Federal Reserve’s key inflation measure, increased just 0.1% for the month, putting the annual inflation rate at 2.1%. The monthly reading was in line with the Dow Jones consensus forecast while the annual level was 0.1 percentage point lower.

Excluding food and energy, the core reading that tends to get even greater focus from Fed policymakers showed readings of 0.1% and 2.5%, against respective estimates of 0.1% and 2.6%.

Consumer spending, though, slowed sharply for the month, posting just a 0.2% increase, in line with the consensus but slower than the 0.7% rate in March. A more cautious consumer mood also was reflected in the personal savings rate, which jumped to 4.9%, up from 0.6 percentage point in March to the highest level in nearly a year.

Personal income surged 0.8%, a slight increase from the prior month but well ahead of the forecast for 0.3%.

Markets showed little reaction to the news, with stock futures continuing to point lower and Treasury yields mixed.

People shop at a grocery store in Brooklyn on May 13, 2025 in New York City.

Spencer Platt | Getty Images

Trump has been pushing the Fed to lower its key interest rate as inflation has continued to gravitate back to the central bank’s 2% target. However, policymakers have been hesitant to move as they await the longer-term impacts of the president’s trade policy.

On Thursday, Trump and Fed Chair Jerome Powell held their first face-to-face meeting since the president started his second term. However, a Fed statement indicated the future path of monetary policy was not discussed and stressed that decisions would be made free of political considerations.

Trump slapped across-the-board 10% duties on all U.S. imports, part of an effort to even out a trading landscape in which the U.S. ran a record $140.5 billion deficit in March. In addition to the general tariffs, Trump launched selective reciprocal tariffs much higher than the 10% general charge.

Since then, though, Trump has backed off the more severe tariffs in favor of a 90-day negotiating period with the affected countries. Earlier this week, an international court struck down the tariffs, saying Trump exceeded his authority and didn’t prove that national security was threatened by the trade issues.

Then in the latest installment of the drama, an appeals court allowed a White House effort for a temporary stay of the order from the U.S. Court of International Trade.

Economists worry that tariffs could spark another round of inflation, though the historical record shows that their impact is often minimal.

At their policy meeting earlier this month, Fed officials also expressed worry about potential tariff inflation, particularly at a time when concerns are rising about the labor market. Higher prices and slower economic growth can yield stagflation, a phenomenon the U.S. hasn’t seen since the early 1980s.

Continue Reading

Trending