An economist and mother of eight delivers a countercultural message in the face of declining American birth rates.

An economist with a large family contends that the government should not interfere in the individual decision to have children, even though the birthrate is declining.

Catherine Ruth Pakaluk, an economist at the Catholic University of America, has eight children of her own, which led her to investigate why only 5% of American women choose to have five or more children during a historic "birth dearth." In her book, "Hannah’s Children," Pakaluk interviewed 55 women with college degrees and five or more children in ten different American regions, asking about their lives, their children, their careers, and the reasons behind their decision to have a larger than average family in a country with a declining birth rate.

Pakaluk, who doesn't identify as a natalist, holds views on childbearing that differ from many conservative and pronatalist perspectives. She doesn't support government policies that incentivize childbearing, such as subsidies or child tax credits, as she shared with Planet Chronicle Digital.

Pakaluk contends that women will not be persuaded to have children due to financial rewards and asserts that the American public's choice not to have children is influenced by cultural factors rather than economic conditions. Pakaluk's research focused on religious groups, including Catholics, Evangelicals, Mormons, and Jews.

The women she spoke with made a deliberate choice to prioritize their kids around work rather than waiting to have kids until their career was established.

She writes that her subjects viewed their decision to have many children as a deliberate rejection of an independent, personalized, self-centered lifestyle in favor of a way of life defined by the responsibilities of motherhood.

The "Birth Dearth"

The phenomenon of countries having too few children to replace their own populations is affecting every part of the world. Currently, the United States' total fertility rate is at about 1.6, which is below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman.

"The global population is shrinking, and this trend is affecting national identity, economic growth, and familial community, particularly among native populations in various countries around the world," she stated.

In response to the 1968 book "The Population Bomb," which caused global concerns about overpopulation, Ben Wattenberg coined the term "Birth Dearth." Pakaluk maintains that the "Birth Dearth" is due to economic reasons, but economic solutions won't solve the issue. Instead, she believes that the solution lies in culture.

Pursuing careers in flexible industries is best for people who have both family and career goals, according to Pakaluk.

Knowing early on that they wanted family was helpful for those who truly desired it, as they then prioritized family and set career milestones around their children.

Those who don't want children are fine, but for those who do, they often miss the ideal time to build a family because they believe they have more time than they actually do.

"College, medical school, law school, and other professional programs do not necessarily lower fertility, but they do consume childbearing years. If you marry early and have children immediately, you can still have an average-sized family, even a large one. However, the biological odds are against you, and the costs of education increase as the years of schooling pass."

"Women can't be bought"

Pakulak believes that the solution to "Birth Dearth" is cultural, and she believes that subsidies do not address the issue for a multitude of reasons.

"I retreat from this policy discussion and ponder, are we truly in a place where we believe that women can be bought?" she inquired. "Having a child is not like joining a gym; it's a lifelong commitment. We hope that individuals make this decision for deeply meaningful reasons that become compelling enough to overcome their fears of parenthood."

Pakaluk examined countries such as South Korea and Australia, which employed subsidies to motivate individuals to have children, but ultimately proved unsuccessful. She posits that people are apprehensive about the potential impact of having kids on their lives, which may be too significant to be compensated for by a financial incentive.

According to her, the reason why they don't work is because they're not large enough to counterbalance the obstacles that prevent people from having children, such as concerns about how having a child will change their lifestyle, job, lifestyle or location.

Social Security programs assume that people will have children, but face insolvency if they don't, according to Pakaluk. She attributes the decline in the necessity of children to industrialization.

"Social programs that rely on transfers from today's workers to retired workers are built on the assumption that people would have children and there would be moderate population growth. However, this assumption is not true."

Countercultural Conservative

Pakaluk consistently maintained that the decision to have children should be left to individual families and that the government should refrain from implementing policies that compel women to have kids. She acknowledges that some of her views on managing the declining birth rate may clash with the beliefs of liberal progressives and pronatalist conservatives.

"I'm not a good conservative if being politically conservative means supporting big state programs to encourage childbearing. While I believe in traditional values and the importance of family and marriage to society, I think we need to examine whether our decision to retreat from marriage and children has had a positive or negative impact on society."

""Nevertheless, I believe that the solution to the birth dearth and the decline in marriage lies in cultural changes, rather than simply increasing spending on families," she stated."

Pakaluk maintains her conviction that government-led efforts to increase the birthrate have been unsuccessful. She also advised caution against excessive government intervention.

"She suggested that instead of targeting birth rates, the state should promote an economic and political climate that supports family growth and success."

"If we accept that the government has the authority to control birth rates, then it logically follows that the government also has the authority to control birth rates in the opposite direction if it chooses," she stated.