Editing Birth rate (section)

== {{anchor|Birth rate in different countries}}National birth rates ==
According to the CIA's ''[[The World Factbook]]'',<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2127.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070613002952/https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2127.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=13 June 2007|title=The World Factbook – Central Intelligence Agency|website=www.cia.gov|access-date=2018-12-14}}</ref> who presumably get their figures from the [[World Health Organization]],<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.who.int/data/maternal-newborn-child-adolescent-ageing/indicator-explorer-new/mca/crude-birth-rate-(births-per-1000-population) |website=Crude brth rate (births per 1000 population) |access-date=18 November 2021|title=Crude birth rate (Births per 1000 population) }}</ref> the country with the highest birth rate is Niger at 6.49 children born per woman and the country with the lowest birth rate is Taiwan, at 1.13 children born per woman. However, despite not having any official records, it can be presumed for [[Clerical celibacy in the Catholic Church|obvious reasons]] (only men are allowed to be Catholic priests) that the [[Holy See]] has the lowest birth rate of any [[sovereign state]].
Compared with the 1950s (when the birth rate was 36 per thousand), as of 2011, the world birth rate has declined by 16 per thousand.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.uneca.org/eca_programmes/food_security_and_sustainability/programme_overview/population/fertility/crude_world.htm |title=Crude Birth Rates – The World and its Major Regions, 1950–2050 |publisher=uneca.org |access-date=17 October 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110816073652/http://www.uneca.org/eca_programmes/food_security_and_sustainability/programme_overview/population/fertility/crude_world.htm |archive-date=16 August 2011 |df=dmy-all }}</ref>

As of 2017, Niger has had 49.443 births per thousand people.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.CBRT.IN?end=2014&locations=NE&start=1976 |title=Birth rate, crude (per 1,000 people) &#124; Data |website=Data.worldbank.org |access-date=2017-03-11}}</ref> 
Japan has one of the lowest birth rates in the world with 8 per thousand people.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.CBRT.IN?end=2014&locations=JP&start=1976 |title=Birth rate, crude (per 1,000 people) &#124; Data |website=Data.worldbank.org |access-date=2017-03-11}}</ref>
While in Japan there are 126 million people<ref>{{cite web|url=http://populationpyramid.net/japan/2016/ |title=Population Pyramid of Japan in 2016 |website=Populationpyramid.net |access-date=2017-03-11}}</ref> and in Niger 21 million,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://populationpyramid.net/niger/2016/ |title=Population Pyramid of Niger in 2016 |website=Populationpyramid.net |access-date=2017-03-11}}</ref> both countries had around 1 million babies born in 2016.

===Sub-Saharan Africa===
The region of [[Sub-Saharan Africa]] has the highest birth rate in the world. As of 2016, [[Niger]], [[Mali]], [[Uganda]], [[Zambia]], and [[Burundi]] have the highest birth rates in the world.<ref name="cia.gov">{{cite web|url=https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2054rank.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070613004100/https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2054rank.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=13 June 2007 |title=The World Factbook – Central Intelligence Agency |website=Cia.gov |access-date=2017-03-11}}</ref> This is part of the [[Income and fertility|fertility-income paradox]], as these countries are very poor, and it may seem counter-intuitive for families there to have so many children. The inverse relationship between income and fertility has been termed a ''demographic-economic "[[paradox]]"'' by the notion that greater means would enable the production of more offspring as suggested by the influential [[Thomas Malthus]].<ref>{{citation|url=http://www.econlib.org/library/Malthus/malPlong.html|title=An Essay on the Principle of Population|first=Thomas Robert|last=Malthus|year=1826|publisher=London: John Murray|edition=6|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130828222107/http://www.econlib.org/library/Malthus/malPlong.html|archive-date=28 August 2013}}</ref>

===Afghanistan===
[[Afghanistan]] has the 11th highest birth rate in the world, and also the highest birth rate of any non-African country (as of 2016).<ref name="cia.gov" /> The rapid population growth of Afghanistan is considered a problem when it prevents population stabilization and affects maternal and infant health.<ref name="eurasianet.org">{{cite web|url=http://www.eurasianet.org/node/64019 |title=Afghanistan: Population Boom Threatens Stabilization Chances |website=EurasiaNet.org |date=2011-08-09 |access-date=2017-03-11}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.irinnews.org/news/2008/07/14/high-birth-rate-killing-mothers-infants-unfpa-expert |title=IRIN &#124; High birth rate killing mothers, infants - UNFPA expert |website=Irinnews.org |date=2008-07-14 |access-date=2017-03-11}}</ref> Reasons for large families include tradition, religion, the different roles of men and women, and the cultural desire to have several sons.<ref name="eurasianet.org" /><ref>{{cite web |url=https://womennewsnetwork.net/2012/05/29/afghanistan-large-families/ |title=AFGHANISTAN: Large families encouraged by culture as well as religion &#124; Women News Network / WNN Global |website=Womennewsnetwork.net |date=29 May 2012 |access-date=2017-03-11 |archive-date=8 March 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210308133614/https://womennewsnetwork.net/2012/05/29/afghanistan-large-families/ |url-status=dead }}</ref>

=== Australia ===
Historically, [[Australia]] has had a relatively low fertility rate, reaching a high of 3.14 births per woman in 1960.<ref name="Staff">{{cite web |url=http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/australia-population/ |title=Australian Population (Live) |date=23 October 2016 |work=Worldometers.info |access-date=23 October 2016}}</ref> This was followed by a decline which continued until the mid-2000, when a one off cash incentive was introduced to reverse the decline. In 2004, the then [[Howard government]] introduced a non-means tested 'Maternity Payment' to parents of every newborn as a substitute to maternity leave. The payment known as the 'Baby Bonus' was A$3000 per child. This rose to A$5000 which was paid in 13 installments.<ref name="McCrindle" />

At a time when Australia's unemployment was at a 28-year low of 5.2%, the then Treasurer [[Peter Costello]] stated there was opportunity to go lower. With a good economic outlook for Australia, Costello held the view that now was a good time to expand the population, with his famous quote that every family should have three children "one for mum, one for dad and one for the country".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2004/s1261874.htm |work=[[ABC TV (Australian TV channel)|ABC TV]] |first=Maxine |last=McKew |date=9 December 2004 |publisher=[[abc.net.au]] |agency=[[Australian Broadcast Commission]] |access-date=23 October 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161023200443/http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2004/s1261874.htm |archive-date=23 October 2016 |title=Economy will nurture population growth: Costello |url-status=dead }}</ref> Australia's fertility rate reached a peak of 1.95 children per woman in 2010, a 30-year high,<ref name="Staff" /> although still [[Sub-replacement fertility|below replacement rate]].

Phil Ruthven of the business information firm IBISWorld believes the spike in fertility was more about timing and less about monetary incentives. Generation X was now aged 25 to 45 years old. With numerous women putting pregnancies off for a few years for the sake of a career, many felt the years closing in and their biological clocks ticking.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2007/s1963979.htm |work=[[abc.net.au|ABC Radio]] |first=Ashley |last=Hall |date=27 June 2007 |publisher=[[Australian Broadcast Commission]] |access-date=23 October 2016 |title=Costello takes credit for baby boom}}</ref>

On 1 March 2014, the baby bonus was replaced with Family Tax Benefit A. By then the baby bonus had left its legacy on Australia.<ref name="McCrindle">{{cite web |url=http://mccrindle.com.au/the-mccrindle-blog/the-baby-bonus-generation |work=The McCrindle Blog |date=15 May 2013 |access-date=23 October 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160317163618/http://mccrindle.com.au/the-mccrindle-blog/the-baby-bonus-generation |archive-date=17 March 2016 |title=The Baby Bonus Generation |url-status=live }}</ref>

In 2016, Australia's fertility rate has only decreased slightly to 1.91 children per woman.<ref name="Staff" />

=== France ===
[[France]] has been successful in increasing fertility rates from the low levels seen in the late 1980s, after a continuous fall in the birth rate.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last=이(Yi)|first=문숙(Moun Souk)|date=Winter 2016|title=프랑스의 저출산 문제 해소 요인 (Resolved Factors to Low Fertility in France)|journal=한국콘텐츠학회논문지(Journal of the Korea Contents Association)|volume=16 |issue=1|pages=558|doi=10.5392/jkca.2016.16.01.558|doi-access=free}}</ref> In 1994, the total fertility rate was as low as 1.66, but perhaps due to the active family policy of the government in the mid-1990s, it has increased, and maintained an average of 2.0 from 2008 until 2015.<ref name=":0" />

France has embarked on a strong incentive policy based on two key measures to restore the birth rate: family benefits (''les allocations familiales'') and a family-coefficient of income tax (''le quotient familial'').<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last=이(Yi)|first=문숙(Moun Souk)|date=Winter 2016|title=프랑스의 저출산 문제 해소 요인 (Resolved Factors to Low Fertility in France)|journal=한국콘텐츠학회논문지(Journal of the Korea Contents Association)|volume=16 |issue=1|pages=561}}</ref> Since the end of World War II, early family policy in France has been based on a family tradition that requires children to support multi-child family, so that a third child enables a multi-child family to benefit from family allowances and income tax exemptions.<ref name=":1" /> This is intended to allow families with three children to enjoy the same living standards as households without children.<ref name=":1" />

In particular, the French income taxation system is structured so that families with children receive tax breaks greater than single adults without children.<ref name=":4">{{Cite journal|last=이(Yi)|first=문숙(Moun Souk)|date=Winter 2016|title=프랑스의 저출산 문제 해소 요인 (Resolved Factors to Low Fertility in France)|journal=한국콘텐츠학회논문지(Journal of the Korea Contents Association)|volume=16 |issue=1|pages=562}}</ref> This income tax imposition system is known as the family coefficient of income tax.<ref name=":4" /> A characteristic of the family factor is that households with a large number of children, even if they are at the same standard of living, can receive more tax exemption benefits.<ref name=":4" />

Since the 1970s, the focus has been on supporting families who are vulnerable such as single parent families and the children of a poor family in order to ensure equality of opportunity.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal|last=이(Yi)|first=문숙(Moun Souk)|date=Winter 2016|title=프랑스의 저출산 문제 해소 요인 (Resolved Factors to Low Fertility in France)|journal=한국콘텐츠학회논문지(Journal of the Korea Contents Association)|volume=16 |issue=1|pages=563}}</ref> In addition, as many women began to participate in the labor market, the government introduced policies of financial support for childcare leave as well as childcare facilities.<ref name=":2" /> In 1994, the government expanded the parent education allowance (''l'allocation parentale d'éducation'') for women with two children to ensure freedom of choice and reduce formal unemployment in order to promote family well-being and women's labor participation.<ref name=":2" />

There are also:
* an infant child care allowance, family allowance and family allowance for multichild family, and a multi-element family pension scheme.<ref name=":3">{{Cite journal|last=이(Yi)|first=문숙(Moun Souk)|date=Winter 2016|title=프랑스의 저출산 문제 해소 요인 (Resolved Factors to Low Fertility in France)|journal=한국콘텐츠학회논문지(Journal of the Korea Contents Association)|volume=16 |issue=1|pages=564}}</ref>
*a medical insurance system that covers all medical expenses, hospitalization costs, and medical expenses incurred after six months of pregnancy as 100% of the national health insurance in the national social security system, and the statutory leave system during pregnancy.<ref name=":3" />

===Germany===
The birth rate in [[Germany]] is only 8.3 per thousand, lower than the UK and France.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2011/0809/1224302081071.html |newspaper=[[The Irish Times]] |title=Germany faces up to its kinder surprise |date=9 August 2011 |access-date=23 March 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111124072004/http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2011/0809/1224302081071.html |archive-date=24 November 2011 |first=Ronan |last=McGreevy |url-status=live }}</ref>

===Ireland===
In Europe as of July 2011, Ireland's birth rate was 16.5 per 1000 (3.5 percent higher than the next-ranked country, the UK).<ref>{{cite journal |first=Susan |last=Daly |url=http://www.thejournal.ie/ireland-has-one-of-highest-birth-and-lowest-death-rates-in-eu-189080-Jul2011/ |title=Ireland has one of highest birth and lowest death rates in EU |journal=[[Thejournal.ie]] |access-date=17 October 2011 |date=29 July 2011}}</ref>

===Japan===
[[File:Japan Population by Age 1920-2010 with Projection to 2060.png|thumb|upright=0.9|Historic population of [[Japan]] (1920–2010) with projected population (2011–2060).]]

As of 2016, [[Japan]] has the third lowest crude birth rate (i.e. not allowing for the population's age distribution) in the world, with only [[Saint Pierre and Miquelon]] and [[Monaco]] having lower crude birth rates.<ref name="cia.gov" /> Japan has an unbalanced population with many elderly but few young people, and this is projected to be more extreme in the future, unless there are major changes. An increasing number of Japanese people are staying unmarried: between 1980 and 2010, the percentage of the population who had never married increased from 22% to almost 30%, even as the population continued to age, and by 2035 one in four people will not marry during their childbearing years.<ref>{{cite news |last=Yoshida |first=Reiji |title=Japan's population dilemma, in a single-occupancy nutshell |url=http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/12/31/national/social-issues/japans-population-dilemma-single-occupancy-nutshell/ |access-date=14 January 2016 |newspaper=[[The Japan Times]] |date=31 December 2015}}</ref> The Japanese sociologist [[Masahiro Yamada (sociologist)|Masahiro Yamada]] coined the term "[[parasite single]]s" for unmarried adults in their late 20s and 30s who continue to live with their parents.<ref>{{cite news |last=Wiseman |first=Paul |url=http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-06-02-japan-women-usat_x.htm |title=No sex please – we're Japanese |newspaper=[[usatoday.com]] |date=2 June 2004 |access-date=11 March 2017 |editor-first=Naoko |editor-last=Nishiwaki |publisher=[[Gannett Co. Inc.]]}}</ref>

=== South Korea ===
{{more sources|section|date=May 2023}}
Since joining the Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development (OECD) in 1996, South Korea's fertility rate has been on the decline. It recorded the lowest fertility rate among OECD countries in 2017, with just 1.1 children per woman being born.<ref>{{Cite book |last=OECD |url=https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/rejuvenating-korea-policies-for-a-changing-society_c5eed747-en |title=Rejuvenating Korea: Policies for a Changing Society |date=2019-10-28 |publisher=OECD |isbn=978-92-64-54179-5 |series=Gender Equality at Work |language=en |doi=10.1787/c5eed747-en|s2cid=241521471 }}</ref> Subsequent studies indicate that Korea has broken its own record and that the fertility rate has fallen to below one child per woman. The total fertility rate in South Korea sharply declined from 4.53 in 1970 to 2.06 in 1983, falling below the replacement level of 2.10. The low birth rate accelerated in the 2000s, with the fertility rate dropping to 1.48 in 2000, 1.23 in 2010, and reaching 0.72 in 2023.<ref>{{Cite web |title=National Indicator System 지표상세정보 |url=https://www.index.go.kr/unify/idx-info.do?pop=1&idxCd=5061# |access-date=2024-10-22 |website=Statistics Korea}}</ref>

One example of Korea's economic crisis is the housing market. Tenants may choose to buy, rent, or use the Jeonse system of renting. Landlords require the renters to upfront as much as 70% of the property value as a type of security deposit, then live rent free for the duration of the contract, usually two years. At the end of the contract, the deposit is refunded 100% back to the renter. Historically, landlords have invested the security deposit and banked on rising property values. But as inflation rises higher than the interest rates, property values plummeted. Recent government caps, aimed at protecting the renters from being victims of price gouging, restricted the profit the landlord can make on renewing the contract.<ref>{{Cite AV media |title=SOUTH KOREA Economy Crashing as Unique Jeonse Rental Market Implodes & Population Decline Continues |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P-7difmPrE |access-date=2023-04-24 |via=[[YouTube]]}}</ref>

The Korean government offers a wide range of financial incentives to parents;<ref>{{Cite web |last=Rashid |first=Raphael |title=South Korea has so few babies it is offering new parents $10,500 |url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/4/12/south-korea-splashes-the-cash-in-scramble-to-fix-fertility-crisis |access-date=2023-04-24 |website=www.aljazeera.com |language=en}}</ref> however, many new parents, both mother and father, refuse to take full advantage of postpartum parental leave. Some fathers fear being ridiculed for taking "mom leave" while both working parents fear the stigma of "falling behind" in their professional careers. The South Korean corporate world is very unsympathetic to family needs.  

Abortion and divorce are other contributing factors for Korea's low birth rate. In the twentieth century, due mainly to Confucian beliefs and a strong desire to sire a son, female fetuses were being aborted. This strong desire to have a son as a first child has somewhat of an oxymoron effect on today's low birth rate, as many women will not want to marry the oldest son, aware of his financial obligation to feed, clothe and shelter the aging parents. As a result, in 1988 the government banned doctors from telling expectant parents the sex of the fetus.  Effective 1 January 2021, abortion has been decriminalized.<ref>{{Cite web |title=South Korea: Abortion Decriminalized since January 1, 2021 |url=https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2021-03-18/south-korea-abortion-decriminalized-since-january-1-2021/ |access-date=2023-04-24 |website=Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 20540 USA}}</ref>  Divorce is another deterrent to childbirth. Although divorce has been on the rise over the last 50 years, it hit families especially hard after the economic crisis in 1997; fathers abandoning their families because they could not financially support them. In addition, the abortion of female fetuses lead to a relative shortage of women, resulting in overall lowerall birthrate in the country.

===Taiwan===
In August 2011, Taiwan's government announced that its birth rate declined in the previous year, despite the fact that the government implemented approaches to encourage fertility.<ref>{{cite news|last=Sui |first=Cindy |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-14525525 |title=BBC News – Taiwanese birth rate plummets despite measures |work=BBC |date=15 August 2011 |access-date=17 October 2011}}</ref>

===United Kingdom===
In July 2011, the UK's [[Office for National Statistics]] (ONS) announced a 2.4 percent increase in live births in the United Kingdom in 2010.<ref name="guardian1">{{cite news |author=Press Association |author-link=Press Association |url=https://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/jul/13/more-midwives-birth-rate-40-year-high |title=Call for more midwives as birth rate reaches 40-year high |newspaper=[[The Guardian]] |location=UK |access-date=17 October 2011 |date=13 July 2011 |publisher=[[Guardian News & Media Limited]]}}</ref> This is the highest birth rate in the UK in 40 years.<ref name="guardian1"/> However, the UK record year for births and birth rate remains 1920 (when the ONS reported over 957,000 births to a population of "around 40 million").<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16853368 |title=Go Figure: When was the real baby boom? |work=[[BBC News Magazine]] |first=Michael |last=Blastland |date=2 February 2012 |access-date=5 April 2012 |publisher=[[BBC]]}}</ref>

===United States===
{{multiple image |total_width=450
| image1= 1910- Fertility rate - United States.svg |caption1= After a relatively stable birth rate for thirty years, the number of live births per 100 women aged 15 to 44 resumed a decline beginning in 2008.<ref name=NBCnews_20230112>{{cite news |last1=Bendix |first1=Aria |last2=Murphy |first2=Joe |title=The modern family size is changing. Four charts show how. |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/health/parenting/how-modern-us-family-size-changing-charts-map-rcna65421 |publisher=NBC News |date=January 12, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230603171114/https://www.nbcnews.com/health/parenting/how-modern-us-family-size-changing-charts-map-rcna65421 |archive-date=June 3, 2023 |url-status=live }} NBC's Graphic: Joe Murphy. ● Bendix and Murphy cite {{cite journal |last1=Martinez |first1=Gladys M. |last2=Daniels |first2=Kimberly |title=Fertility of Men and Women Aged 15–49 in the United States: National Survey of Family Growth, 2015–2019 |journal=National Health Statistics Reports |url=https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr179.pdf |publisher=Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230603171114/https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr179.pdf |archive-date=June 3, 2023 |date=January 10, 2023 |issue=179 |pages=1–22 |pmid=36692386 |url-status=live}}</ref>
| image2= 1965- Fertility rate - United States.svg |caption2= The fertility rate in the U.S. has been in a downward trend, and is now below the replacement rate of 2.1 births.<ref name=Axios_20240425>{{cite web |last1=Saric |first1=Ivana |title=Births dropped in 2023, ending pandemic baby boom |url=https://www.axios.com/2024/04/25/us-births-drop-2023 |publisher=Axios |archive-url=https://archive.today/20240427034626/https://www.axios.com/2024/04/25/us-births-drop-2023 |archive-date=April 27, 2024 |date=April 25, 2024 |url-status=live}} Axios credits CDC for data.</ref>
}}
There has been a dramatic decline in birth rates in the U.S. between 2007 and 2020.<ref name=":5">{{Cite journal|last1=Kearney|first1=Melissa S.|last2=Levine|first2=Phillip B.|last3=Pardue|first3=Luke|date=2022|title=The Puzzle of Falling US Birth Rates since the Great Recession|journal=Journal of Economic Perspectives|language=en|volume=36|issue=1|pages=151–176|doi=10.1257/jep.36.1.151|issn=0895-3309|doi-access=free}}</ref> The Great Recession appears to have contributed to the decline in the early period.<ref name=":5" /><ref>{{cite news|date=11 August 2011|title=Economic turmoil taking its toll on childbearing|work=USA Today|url=http://yourlife.usatoday.com/parenting-family/story/2011/08/CDC-Childbearing-today-much-like-Depression-era/49928146/1?csp=34news|access-date=17 October 2011}}</ref> A 2022 study did not identify any other economic, policy, or social factor that contributed to the decline.<ref name=":5" /> The decline may be due to shifting life priorities of recent cohorts that go through childbearing age, as there have been "changes in preferences for having children, aspirations for life, and parenting norms."<ref name=":5" />

A Pew research center study found evidence of a correlation between economic difficulties and fertility decline by race and ethnicity. Hispanics (particularly affected by the recession) have experienced the largest fertility decline, particularly compared to Caucasians. In 2008–2009 the birth rate declined 5.9 percent for Hispanic women, 2.4 percent for African American women and 1.6 percent for white women. The relatively large birth rate declines among Hispanics mirror their relatively large economic declines, in terms of jobs and wealth. According to the statistics using the data from National Centre for Health Statistics and U.S. Census Bureau, from 2007 to 2008, the employment rate among Hispanics declined by 1.6 percentage points, compared with declines of 0.7 points for whites. The unemployment rate shows a similar pattern—unemployment among Hispanics increased 2.0 percentage points from 2007 to 2008, while for whites the increase was 0.9 percentage points. A recent report from the Pew Hispanic Center revealed that Hispanics have also been the biggest losers in terms of wealth since the beginning of the recession, with Hispanic households losing 66% of their median wealth from 2005 to 2009. In comparison, black households lost 53% of their median wealth and white households lost only 16%.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Livingston|first1=Gretchen|title=In a Down Economy, Fewer Births|url=http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/10/12/in-a-down-economy-fewer-births/|website=Pew Research Center|date=12 October 2011|access-date=29 March 2017}}</ref>

Other factors (such as women's labor-force participation, contraceptive technology and public policy) make it difficult to determine how much economic change affects fertility. Research suggests that much of the fertility decline during an economic downturn is a postponement of childbearing, not a decision to have fewer (or no) children; people plan to "catch up" to their plans of bearing children when economic conditions improve. Younger women are more likely than older women to postpone pregnancy due to economic factors, since they have more years of fertility remaining.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/10/12/in-a-down-economy-fewer-births/?src=prc-headline |title=In a Down Economy, Fewer Births &#124; Pew Research Center |website=Pewsocialtrends.org |date=12 October 2011 |access-date=2017-03-11}}</ref>

In July 2011, the [[U.S. National Institutes of Health]] announced that the adolescent birth rate continues to decline.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nih.gov/news/health/jul2011/nichd-07.htm |title=Federal report shows drop in adolescent birth rate, July 7, 2011 News Release – National Institutes of Health (NIH) |publisher=Nih.gov |date=7 July 2011 |access-date=17 October 2011}}</ref> In 2013, teenage birth rates in the U.S. were at the lowest level in U.S. history.<ref name="Cdc.gov">{{cite web|url=https://www.cdc.gov/teenpregnancy/about/index.htm |title=About Teen Pregnancy |publisher=Cdc.gov |access-date=12 May 2015}}</ref> Teen birth rates in the U.S. have decreased from 1991 through 2012 (except for an increase from 2005 to 2007).<ref name="Cdc.gov"/> The other aberration from this otherwise-steady decline in teen birth rates is the six percent decrease in birth rates for 15- to 19-year-olds between 2008 and 2009.<ref name="Cdc.gov"/><!--This does not make sense.--> Despite the decrease, U.S. teen birth rates remain higher than those in other developed nations.<ref name="Cdc.gov"/> Racial differences affect teen birth and pregnancy rates: American Indian/Alaska Native, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic black teen pregnancy rates are more than double the non-Hispanic white teenage birth rate.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.cdc.gov/features/dsTeenPregnancy/#source |title=CDC Data & Statistics &#124; Feature: Teen Birth Rates Declined Again in 2009 |publisher=Cdc.gov |date=1 July 2011 |access-date=17 October 2011}}</ref>

States strict in enforcing child support have up to 20 percent fewer unmarried births than states that are lax about getting unmarried dads to pay, the researchers found. Moreover, according to the results, if all 50 states in the United States had done at least as well in their enforcement efforts as the state ranked fifth from the top, that would have led to a 20 percent reduction in out-of-wedlock births.<ref name="archive1">{{cite web|url=http://uwnews.org/article.asp?articleid=10608 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070505175913/http://uwnews.org/article.asp?articleid=10608 |url-status=dead |archive-date=2007-05-05 |title=uwnews.org &#124; Tough child support laws may deter single men from becoming fathers, study finds &#124; University of Washington News and Information |access-date=2017-03-11}}</ref>

The United States population growth is at a historical low level, mainly because the United States birth rates in the 2010s and 2020s are the lowest ever recorded.<ref>{{cite web|title=Baby bust: U.S. births at record low|url=https://money.cnn.com/2013/09/06/news/economy/birth-rate-low/|publisher=CNN|date=6 September 2014}}</ref> The low birth rates in the United States post-2010 can possibly be ascribed to the recession that started in 2008, which led families to postpone having children and fewer immigrants coming to the US. The US birth rates in 2010-2014 were not high enough to maintain the size of the U.S. population, according to [[The Economist]].<ref>{{cite news|title= Population gains at near-historic lows|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/district-population-booms-in-2013/2013/12/30/1ac8515e-7162-11e3-9389-09ef9944065e_story.html?hpid=z4|newspaper=The Washington Post|date=19 April 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=U.S. Birth Rate Not High Enough To Keep Population Stable|url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/15/us-birth-rate_n_1779960.html|work=The Huffington Post|date=19 April 2014}}</ref> Since that period, the [[Demographics of the United States#Vital statistics|birth rate]] (births per 1,000 inhabitants) has further declined from roughly 12 to roughly 10.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Bureau |first=US Census |title=National Population Totals and Components of Change: 2020-2024 |url=https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2020s-national-total.html |access-date=2025-02-17 |website=Census.gov |language=en}}</ref>