In South Korea, having a baby in 2024 set off a cascade of entitlements. Parents got a voucher worth two million won at birth, or three million for a second or later child; a “parental benefit” of one million won a month through the baby’s first year and half that through the second; and a child allowance of 100,000 won a month until the eighth birthday. Together, by the government’s reckoning, a first baby born in 2024 brought roughly 29.6 million won, about $22,100, in cash and vouchers over the first eight years of life, before tax breaks and preferential family housing loans. Not all of it lands in the bank: the birth voucher is spent on a benefit card, and parents whose baby goes to a subsidised nursery receive part of the parental benefit as a childcare voucher, with only the difference paid in cash. In 2026 the child allowance began stretching to the ninth birthday, the first step of a planned extension to age 13 by 2030. The city of Incheon went further still, advertising 100 million won per child from pregnancy to age eighteen: 72.5 million won from existing national benefits topped up with 28.7 million won of the city’s own.
Behind it sit eligibility windows, retroactivity conditions, means-testing thresholds, application portals, and interagency coordination between the presidential population committee (renamed the Population Strategy Committee in September 2026), the Ministry of Health and Welfare, and local governments. The state has built an apparatus for translating a reproductive decision into a bureaucratic event. The bet is that if the cost of having children can be pushed low enough, the right payment schedule might reverse the calculus that is leading young Koreans to have fewer of them.
In 2023, South Korea’s total fertility rate, the number of children a woman would have over her lifetime at that year’s birth rates, was 0.72: at the time, the lowest national total fertility rate recorded in the modern statistical era. It ticked up to 0.75 in 2024 and to 0.80 in 2025, still the lowest in the OECD. The payments, which had been accumulating in sophistication and scale for nearly two decades, continued.
The Logic That Leads Here
Demographers express the arithmetic of population replacement with a single number: 2.1. That is the total fertility rate at which a population replaces itself across generations, accounting for mortality and a slight male-birth surplus. Japan’s TFR was 1.15 in 2024 and 1.14 in 2025, successive record lows; births to Japanese nationals fell below 700,000 for the first time in 2024 and to about 671,000 in 2025, the fewest since records began in 1899. South Korea’s rates of 0.72 to 0.80 between 2023 and 2025 represent something without modern precedent: a wealthy country reproducing at little more than a third of the replacement rate.
A shrinking working-age population supporting a growing retired one squeezes pension systems and public healthcare. The dependency ratio worsens in both directions simultaneously — fewer young people enter employment while more elderly people draw down entitlements accumulated over decades. In Japan, where the working-age population has been declining since the mid-1990s and the total population since 2008, this pressure already constrains fiscal planning. Korean pension system modelling projects insolvency within decades under current demographic trajectories.
The headline policy response across high-income low-fertility countries converged on a single lever: money. The instruments (bonuses, allowances, subsidised loans, tax breaks) vary by country and political tradition, but the underlying logic is shared.
Hungary’s approach has been the most comprehensive, and the most heavily promoted by the government that built it. Since 2015, the CSOK, or Family Housing Benefit, has offered grants and preferential loans to families with children, and to married couples who commit to having more, with amounts escalating with the number of children counted or promised. From 2024, the scheme expanded into CSOK Plusz, offering state-subsidised loans at no more than three percent interest. Couples who, counting the children they already have and those they promise, will have three or more can borrow up to 50 million forints (about €137,000), and every applicant must commit to at least one more child. The Orbán government put its total family support, including housing subsidies and tax breaks, at 6.2 percent of GDP in 2021–22. On the OECD’s narrower, comparable measure, Hungary spent 2.9 percent of GDP on family benefits in 2021, well above the OECD average of 2.35 percent, though behind a dozen countries including Poland, France, Germany and the Nordics. The Orbán government was voted out in April 2026, and Péter Magyar was sworn in as prime minister in May, but the old government’s flagship housing loans were still being issued that year.
Poland launched its Family 500+ programme in April 2016: a monthly payment of 500 złoty, then roughly $130, for every second and subsequent child until age eighteen, and for first children in lower-income families. In July 2019 it became universal, and in January 2024 it was raised to 800 złoty and renamed Family 800+, at a cost of about 1.75 percent of GDP. Japan has expanded subsidised childcare aggressively since 2013, adding 63 percent more childcare facilities by 2022. South Korea layered its cash transfers, loan subsidies, housing preferences and parental benefits into an interlocking system. By the presidential committee’s own tally, it spent about 280 trillion won, roughly $210 billion, on low-birth-rate programmes between 2006 and 2021 alone.
These governments are not acting irrationally. They face real fiscal pressure and reliable demographic projections, and consistent political demand for action. What is less clear is whether the diagnosis behind these policies, that the problem is essentially financial and therefore amenable to financial remedy, holds up against the evidence.
A note on history
Pronatalism as state policy predates the welfare state. Mussolini’s “Battle for Births,” proclaimed in 1927, combined cash incentives, taxes on bachelors, and propaganda, yet the birth rate kept falling until the mid-1930s, and the small rise that followed was short-lived. The Soviet Union created the “Mother Heroine” title in 1944 for women who raised ten or more children, with lesser orders and medals for five to nine, alongside allowances for large families. The demographic effects were mostly modest; the strongest exception, the package East Germany completed in 1976, a paid “baby year” on top of interest-free marriage loans, kept fertility well above West Germany’s for more than a decade. The distinction between these programmes and contemporary liberal-democratic transfers matters: modern payments are framed in terms of child welfare and family support rather than national racial stock, and they operate through consent rather than coercion. The underlying mechanism, price theory applied to reproductive decisions, is the same. That twentieth-century pronatalism rarely produced sustained fertility increases does not settle the case against twenty-first century variants, which differ substantially in scale and design, but the evidence of this century so far fits the same pattern.The Ledger
Pronatalist payments generally do produce more births in the short run. The question economists ask is whether they produce more children per woman over her lifetime. The technical distinction is between a timing effect and a quantum effect. A timing effect means births are moved forward in time: a couple that would have had two children anyway has them at 28 and 31 instead of 30 and 33, in response to a payment incentive. The total lifetime fertility is unchanged. A quantum effect means the payment causes a woman or couple to have a child they would not otherwise have had, which changes the lifetime total rather than only the schedule.
Much of the evidence points to timing. Where payments do add children, the effect is small relative to the money spent. Poland’s Family 500+ programme generated an immediate uptick in births: the TFR rose from 1.29 in 2015 to 1.36 in 2016. In household survey data, the cash transfer was associated with a 1.5-percentage-point rise in the annual probability of a birth overall, with the gains concentrated among women aged 31 to 40. One reading is that older women were bringing forward planned births rather than adding new ones; a survey of annual births cannot settle it. Women aged 21 to 30 became less likely to give birth. The TFR climbed again in 2017, to 1.45, then turned down from 2018; by 2025 it had fallen to a record low of 1.07, even after the benefit was raised to 800 złoty. The programme cut child poverty sharply, a real achievement on a different count, but whatever it did for fertility did not show up in the national rate for long.
Hungary presents a similar pattern. The CSOK scheme launched in 2015 was followed by a rise in the fertility rate, from 1.45 that year to 1.61 in 2021, though the number of births barely moved, hovering around 90,000 a year. Then the decline resumed with force: births fell by 9 percent in 2024, to a record low of about 77,500, and by another 7 percent in 2025, to about 72,000, the fewest since at least 1949, while the TFR slid to 1.39 in 2024 and 1.31 in 2025. By its own government’s count, Hungary spends a larger share of GDP on families than almost any other country, and after fifteen years of escalating transfers its birth rate is falling sharply.
South Korea’s baby bonuses are perhaps the most closely studied. The economist Wookun Kim examined the country’s local baby bonuses from 2000 to 2015 and found real effects: without the bonuses, the 2015 TFR would have been about 4.7 percent lower; the extra births were additional children rather than births brought forward; and the transfers even nudged the male-skewed sex ratio of third births back toward normal. But the extra births came with lower average birth weight and shorter gestation, and Kim calculated that restoring replacement fertility would require payments roughly ten to seventeen times larger, all else held equal. By one estimate, more than 74 percent of the money paid out by early Korean bonus schemes went to births that would have happened regardless of the payments, births the programme funded but did not cause. For all its spending on low-birth-rate programmes between 2006 and 2021, South Korea watched its TFR fall from 1.13 to 0.81 over the same years, and on to 0.72 by 2023.
Quebec is the most frequently cited counterexample. In 1988, the province introduced the Allowance for Newborn Children, which by 1992 paid C$8,000 in instalments after the birth of a third or subsequent child. The fertility gap between Quebec and the rest of Canada, 0.29 children per woman in 1987, shrank to 0.08 by 1991. The economist Kevin Milligan documented a measurable increase in Quebec fertility attributable to the programme: about 12 percent on average, and 25 percent among families eligible for the full benefit.
The Quebec case is less of a vindication than it looks, because several features of that specific context were unusually favourable. Quebec nationalists had explicit political and cultural motivations to encourage French-speaking births in demographic competition with English Canada, and the programme was embedded in a broader identity politics that cash alone does not replicate. The payments, relative to Quebec incomes in the late 1980s, were large. The money stopped: Quebec cancelled the allowance in 1997, at the same time as it launched cheap public daycare, and its fertility rate fell from about 1.61 in 1996 to 1.45 in 2000, though Milligan’s cohort data suggest the extra children born under the programme were additional, not merely born earlier. Each extra birth had cost the public purse more than C$15,000. Cash can activate a fertility response under specific structural conditions; it does not follow that large cash programmes in culturally and economically different contexts will do the same.
When IMF staff examined Japan’s fertility policy in 2024, they found no evident correlation between cash transfers and fertility across 34 OECD countries, and in their regressions cash benefits had no significant effect. The one policy that reliably raised fertility was enrolment in childcare and pre-school, particularly for children under three. The IMF paper also cites an estimate that Japan’s expansion of childcare facilities since 2005 raised its TFR by about 0.1, and earlier research suggesting that spending on childcare facilities has five times the fertility impact of cash transfers.
Poland’s 500+ demonstrably reduced child poverty, and Hungary’s CSOK helped some 233,000 families buy or build homes in its first eight years. South Korea’s payments reduced the immediate financial shock of parenthood. The argument concerns fertility specifically: the evidence that cash transfers produce sustained increases in lifetime fertility, as opposed to bringing forward planned births or reducing financial hardship without affecting reproductive decisions, is thin.
The methodological problem
Isolating the effect of a baby bonus on fertility is difficult. Policies are introduced in economic contexts that are themselves shifting: a payment launched in a period of rising housing costs and wage stagnation will look different from one launched during a recovery. Cultural attitudes toward marriage and family formation change on timescales that overlap with policy implementation. And governments announcing major pronatalist packages are often simultaneously expanding childcare and reforming parental leave, making it hard to attribute outcomes to any single instrument. The best studies use geographic variation in policy rollout, or lotteries such as Brazil’s housing-credit lotteries (discussed below), to isolate effects. These designs are rare and context-specific. The broader cross-country correlations are at best suggestive.What the Money Cannot Reach
The payment schedules and loan forgiveness structures are designed to solve a financial problem. The structural evidence suggests that declining fertility in wealthy countries is not primarily a financial problem, or at least not one that cash transfers as currently designed can address.
Three mechanisms do most of the work, and the pronatalist debate consistently underweights them.
The first is housing. In the places where fertility has fallen furthest, such as Seoul, Tokyo, London and Stockholm, young adults cluster in expensive cities where the economic opportunities are concentrated. Family-sized housing in those cities is unaffordable for most people in their twenties and early thirties. In Brazil’s housing credit lotteries, a rare randomised design that cleanly isolates the effect, randomly obtaining housing raised the probability of having a child by 32 percent and the number of children by 33 percent for those aged 20 to 25. The effect diminished sharply with age.
A $10,000 or $20,000 cash transfer does not buy a family-sized apartment in Seoul, where the median apartment now costs about 1.3 billion won, close to $1 million. The payment addresses a symptom, the financial shock of a birth, while leaving untouched the upstream condition that constrains fertility and made family formation seem unaffordable in the first place.
The second structural factor is the career penalty for women. Having a child produces a compounding divergence in labour market outcomes between mothers and fathers (lower hiring rates, slower promotion, reduced lifetime earnings) that economists call the “child penalty.” The economist Matthias Doepke and his colleagues argue that this shapes fertility decisions: in rich countries where combining a career with motherhood is hard, fertility is lowest. A baby bonus does not change labour market structure, employer hiring practices, or the distribution of unpaid domestic work that underlies the penalty. The wealthy countries that held fertility closest to replacement in the 2000s (France, Norway and Sweden, all near two children per woman around 2010) combined universal affordable childcare, parental leave that fathers actually take, and labour market norms that treat career interruptions as normal rather than disqualifying. Even they have since slipped, to between 1.4 and 1.6. The Japanese evidence points the same way: the expansion of childcare places since 2005 is estimated to have raised the country’s TFR by about 0.1, while across countries cash benefits showed no significant effect.
The third mechanism is economic precarity, which is distinct from both housing cost and poverty. Young adults across Europe and East Asia consistently name financial instability among their primary reasons for not having children or having fewer than they would ideally like. The instability they describe goes beyond a shortage of current income, which a transfer could address, to uncertainty about whether the economy will continue to provide stable employment, whether the housing market will remain navigable, and whether the costs of education and healthcare can be managed over eighteen-plus years. Across most European countries, the family size people call ideal, around 2.0 to 2.3 children, has for decades sat above the fertility rate they achieve. A transfer that addresses the present-day cost of a birth but does not reduce long-term uncertainty will have limited effect on this particular mechanism.
What the Decline Costs
The economic costs of population ageing are real. One estimate, using US state data from 1980 to 2010, found that each 10 percent increase in the share of the population aged 60 and over reduced GDP per capita by 5.5 percent, two-thirds of it through slower productivity growth. Japan’s public pensions now pay out slightly more than they take in, with investment returns keeping the reserve fund growing for now; Korea’s national pension fund, even after a 2025 reform that raises contributions from 9 to 13 percent, is projected to run dry around 2064. Declining working-age populations mean either benefit cuts, tax increases, or debt.
But the costs are not fixed, and much pronatalist advocacy wrongly assumes that producing more children is the only way to reduce them.
Female labour force participation has been rising across OECD countries, and the gender gap in employment rates has narrowed substantially since 1990; this is the readiest labour supply response to demographic change. The IMF estimated in April 2025 that improvements in health among older workers would add about 0.4 percentage points a year to global GDP growth from 2025 to 2050. Immigration is the most immediate demographic corrective available, and the most politically constrained. Countries with high immigration rates, such as Canada, Australia and at times Germany, have managed demographic pressures more effectively than their fertility rates alone would suggest.
The Japan data point
Japan’s population has been declining since 2008; its working-age population has been declining since the mid-1990s. If demographic decline were straightforwardly catastrophic in the near term, Japan should by now be showing unambiguous economic deterioration. Instead, Japan remains one of the world’s five largest economies by nominal GDP. Its per-capita GDP has grown only about 0.7 percent a year in real terms over two decades, and in dollars it is lower than in 2004, owing partly to demographics, partly to the weak yen and partly to productivity stagnation. Labour force participation rates among older workers and women have increased, partially offsetting population decline. The costs of Japan’s demographic structure are accumulating and expensive to ignore, yet they fall short of the disaster that the sharpest demographic alarms would imply, and the economy has so far adapted.Managing Rather Than Reversing
What evidence there is favours structural interventions over cash disbursements. Universal affordable childcare has the strongest cross-country evidence: provision that removes the barrier regardless of income or location, rather than subsidies that partially offset market-rate childcare. Parental leave designed to be taken by fathers, with strong replacement rates and job protection that functions in practice, reduces the career penalty for women by distributing the labour market disruption more evenly. Labour market reforms that normalise part-time working arrangements, career re-entry after breaks, and flexible working for parents address the structural source of the penalty rather than compensating for it.
These interventions share a political economy problem that explains why cash transfers tend to get funded instead. They are expensive, diffuse, and their fertility effects emerge over timescales much longer than an electoral cycle. A package of 29.6 million won per baby can be announced in one go, and the credit goes to the government that announced it. A systematic reform of childcare provision takes a decade to implement and another decade to observe demographic effects.
Cash programmes also produce real welfare improvements on dimensions other than fertility: child poverty reduction, reduced financial stress in early parenthood, some support for maternal workforce participation. The evidence weighed here bears on fertility alone, not on the total social value of these transfers.
The harder question, which the pronatalist policy apparatus rarely confronts directly, is whether reversing demographic decline is achievable at all. Apart from Israel, no OECD country is at replacement fertility today, and none that has sunk to very low fertility has climbed back. The countries with the most comprehensive structural supports came closest and could not hold it: Sweden, with its combination of subsidised childcare, gender-neutral parental leave, and labour market protections, rebounded to 2.13 in 1990 and 1.98 in 2010, but has since slid to about 1.4.
Since no policy has yet returned a country to replacement fertility for long, the question demographic arithmetic puts to wealthy countries is how to manage an ageing and eventually declining population without catastrophic fiscal or economic disruption. Immigration, female labour force participation, extending working lives, and productivity growth together offer a more tractable response to that question than any payment schedule aimed at reproductive decisions.
Korea’s 2024 uptick
In February 2025, Statistics Korea released its annual demographic report for 2024. The total fertility rate had risen to 0.75, from 0.72 the year before, the first increase in nine years. Marriages had risen by 14.8 percent, the largest single-year increase since records began in 1970. Births reached about 238,000, up 3.6 percent.
The South Korean government, which had spent some $210 billion on low-birth-rate programmes between 2006 and 2021 alone, was not slow to associate this uptick with its policies.
Statistics Korea’s own account attributes the marriage surge primarily to pent-up demand from couples who had delayed weddings during the COVID-19 pandemic, to a temporary bulge in the population of women in their early thirties, and to modest shifts in attitudes toward marriage and family. These are demographic fluctuations that precede, in their logic and timing, any plausible causal lag from the payment structures put in place in 2024. A government that claims credit for a 0.03-point TFR recovery that its own statisticians trace mainly to post-pandemic catch-up is claiming more than the evidence supports; the same evidence cannot show that the payments contributed nothing. The rebound continued in 2025, when the TFR reached 0.80 and births rose 6.7 percent, to about 254,000, faster than the government’s own optimistic projection. Yet the statistics ministry again pointed first to marriages, which had risen another 8.1 percent in 2025 and which feed through to births with a lag of one to two years.
Gen AI Disclaimer
Some contents of this page were generated and/or edited with the help of a Generative AI.
Media
Key Sources and References
AFP. “India says its economy has overtaken Japan, eyes Germany.” December 30, 2025, via Kuwait Times. kuwaittimes.com https://kuwaittimes.com/article/37838/business/india-says-its-economy-has-overtaken-japan-eyes-germany/amp
American Enterprise Institute. “Hungary’s Fertility Outcomes Highlight Pro-Natal Policy Limitations.” 2025. aei.org https://www.aei.org/commentary/hungarys-fertility-outcomes-highlight-pro-natal-policy-limitations/
BabyNews (via Daum). “[2026년 달라지는 것] 임신·출산·육아 지원, 더 넓고 두터워진다” (What changes in 2026: pregnancy, birth and childcare support gets broader and thicker). December 26, 2025. daum.net https://v.daum.net/v/20251226165451612
Bank360. “Változnak a CSOK Plusz szabályai, 2026-ban is megmarad egy fontos könnyítés” (CSOK Plusz rules change; a key concession remains in 2026). Updated March 2026. bank360.hu https://bank360.hu/blog/valtoznak-a-csok-plusz-szabalyai-2026-ban-is-megmarad-egy-fontos-konnyites
Bloomberg. “Hungary Births Drop to Record in Blow to Orban’s Family Policies.” January 31, 2025. bloomberg.com https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-01-31/hungary-births-drop-to-record-in-blow-to-orban-s-family-policies
Bokun, Anna. “Cash Transfers and Fertility: Evidence from Poland’s Family 500+ Policy.” Demographic Research, vol. 51, article 28, pp. 855–910, 2024. demographic-research.org https://www.demographic-research.org/articles/volume/51/28
Budapest Business Journal. “Hungary’s Population Decline Accelerates as Birthrate Drops in 2024.” January 2025. bbj.hu https://bbj.hu/economy/statistics/figures/hungarys-population-decline-accelerates-as-birthrate-drops-in-2024/
Budapest Times. “Novák: Government to Spend HUF 3,500 bn on Family Support Next Year.” October 31, 2021. budapesttimes.hu https://www.budapesttimes.hu/hungary/novak-government-to-spend-huf-3500-bn-on-family-support-next-year/
Büttner, Thomas; Lutz, Wolfgang. “Estimating Fertility Responses to Policy Measures in the German Democratic Republic.” Population and Development Review, vol. 16, no. 3, 1990 (IIASA Working Paper WP-89-037). pure.iiasa.ac.at https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/3307
Choo, Dahae; Jales, Hugo. “Childbearing and the Distribution of the Reservation Price of Fertility: The Case of the Korean Baby Bonus Program.” Journal of Asian Economics, vol. 77, article 101395, 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.asieco.2021.101395; IDEAS/RePEc record https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asieco.2021.101395 · https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/asieco/v77y2021ics104900782100124x.html
CNN. “South Korea spent $200 billion, but it can’t pay people enough to have a baby.” December 3, 2022. cnn.com https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/03/asia/south-korea-worlds-lowest-fertility-rate-intl-hnk-dst/index.html
Doepke, Matthias; Hannusch, Anne; Kindermann, Fabian; Tertilt, Michèle. “The New Economics of Fertility.” IMF Finance & Development, September 2022. imf.org https://www.imf.org/en/publications/fandd/issues/series/analytical-series/new-economics-of-fertility-doepke-hannusch-kindermann-tertilt
Etoday Bravo. “인구전략위원회 출범 초읽기” (Population Strategy Committee set to launch). September 8, 2026. bravo.etoday.co.kr https://bravo.etoday.co.kr/view/atc_view/20021
Euronews. “Péter Magyar sworn in as Hungary’s new prime minister after landslide April election victory.” May 9, 2026. euronews.com https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2026/05/09/peter-magyar-sworn-in-as-hungarys-new-prime-minister-after-landslide-april-election-victor
European Central Bank. Euro foreign exchange reference rates (HUF, KRW, USD), October 13, 2026. ecb.europa.eu https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/policy_and_exchange_rates/euro_reference_exchange_rates/html/index.en.html
European Commission / TNS Opinion & Social. Special Eurobarometer 253: Childbearing Preferences and Family Issues in Europe. Wave 65.1, fieldwork February–March 2006, published July 2006. data.europa.eu https://data.europa.eu/data/datasets/s406_65_1_ebs253
GW2RU (Russia Beyond). “Who in the USSR was awarded the ‘Mother-Heroine’ title?” gw2ru.com https://www.gw2ru.com/history/2425-russia-mother-heroine
Hektoen International. “Fascist Italy: The Battle for Births.” May 2022. hekint.org https://hekint.org/2022/05/09/fascist-italy-the-battle-for-births/
Herald Business. “Seoul apartment average price nears W1.6b as jeonse breaks W700m for first time” (KB Kookmin Bank data). July 27, 2026. heraldcorp.com https://mbiz.heraldcorp.com/article/10821219
Hungarian Central Statistical Office (KSH). “Élveszületések, teljes termékenységi arányszám” (Live births and total fertility rate, annual series). STADAT. ksh.gov.hu https://www.ksh.gov.hu/stadat_files/nep/hu/nep0006.html
Hungarian Conservative. “Government Raises Housing Subsidies for Young Couples with New CSOK Plus Scheme.” October 2023 (government-aligned outlet; cited for scheme parameters). hungarianconservative.com https://www.hungarianconservative.com/articles/current/government_family_support_csok_plus_higher-loans_couples_home-ownership/
Hungarian Government. “Hornung Ágnes: a gyermeket tervező házaspárok jól járhatnak a csok plusszal” (CSOK Plusz eligibility: a commitment to at least one more child). kormany.hu https://kormany.hu/hirek/hornung-agnes-a-gyermeket-tervezo-hazasparok-jol-jarhatnak-a-csok-plusszal
Incheon Metropolitan City. “1억 플러스 아이드림” (100 million won plus i-Dream birth support). 2024. incheon.go.kr https://www.incheon.go.kr/en/EN011004/2167525
INSEE. “Bilan démographique 2025.” INSEE Première no. 2087, January 2026. insee.fr https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/8719824
International Monetary Fund. Japan: Selected Issues — Japan’s Fertility: More Children Please. IMF Country Report No. 24/119, May 2024 (full text); also issued as IMF Selected Issues Paper No. 2024/025. Country Report 24/119 (PDF); imf.org https://www.sipotra.it/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/No.-24-119-JAPAN.pdf · https://www.imf.org/en/publications/selected-issues-papers/issues/2024/07/01/japans-fertility-more-children-please-551188
International Monetary Fund. World Economic Outlook, April 2025: A Critical Juncture amid Policy Shifts — Chapter 2: The Rise of the Silver Economy: Global Implications of Population Aging. April 22, 2025. imf.org https://www.imf.org/en/publications/weo/issues/2025/04/22/world-economic-outlook-april-2025
Japan Times. “Japan’s fertility rate hits record low despite government push.” The Japan Times, June 4, 2025. japantimes.co.jp https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2025/06/04/japan/fertility-rate-low/
Kim, Wookun. “Baby Bonus, Fertility, and Missing Women.” Journal of Human Resources, published online October 2024. DOI: 10.3368/jhr.0322-12208R3. Working paper versions: Southern Methodist University, August 2023; CESifo Working Paper 11215, July 2024. smu.edu (PDF), ifo.de (PDF) https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.0322-12208R3 · https://ftp1.economics.smu.edu/wpaper/2023/KIM/KIM-2023-08.pdf · https://www.ifo.de/DocDL/cesifo1_wp11215.pdf
Korea Herald. “Every baby in 2024 comes with W29.6m cash support.” January 22, 2024. koreaherald.com https://www.koreaherald.com/article/3309598
Korea Herald. “South Korea’s birth rate rises for first time in 9 years.” The Korea Herald, February 26, 2025. koreaherald.com https://www.koreaherald.com/article/10429076
Korea Times. “National pension subscribers to pay more, receive more under first reform in 18 years.” March 20, 2025. koreatimes.co.kr https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/biz/2025/03/126_394606.html
Kyunghyang Shinmun. “15년간 280조원 퍼부은 ‘저출생 대책’, 왜 헛수고가 됐나” (Why 280 trillion won of low-birth-rate measures over 15 years came to nothing). February 22, 2023. khan.co.kr https://www.khan.co.kr/article/202302221732001/amp
Maestas, Nicole; Mullen, Kathleen; Powell, David. “The Effect of Population Aging on Economic Growth, the Labor Force, and Productivity.” American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 306–332, April 2023. aeaweb.org; RAND Working Paper WR-1063-1: rand.org https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257%2Fmac.20190196 · https://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WR1063-1.html
Milligan, Kevin S. “Subsidizing the Stork: New Evidence on Tax Incentives and Fertility.” The Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 87, no. 3, pp. 539–555, August 2005. direct.mit.edu; NBER Working Paper No. 8845 (2002): nber.org. See also Milligan, “Quebec’s Baby Bonus: Can Public Policy Raise Fertility?” C.D. Howe Institute Backgrounder, 2002. cdhowe.org https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article-abstract/87/3/539/57566/ · https://www.nber.org/papers/w8845 · https://cdhowe.org/publication/quebecs-baby-bonus-can-public-policy-raise-fertility/
Ministry of Health and Welfare (Korea), via Bokjiro. Explanation of parental-benefit payments (childcare-fee voucher plus cash difference for children in nursery care). bokjiro.go.kr https://m.bokjiro.go.kr/ssis-tem/cms/mob/news/news/1306064_1122.html
Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (Japan). Annual Actuarial Report on the Public Pension Plans in Japan, FY2023 (Key Points). mhlw.go.jp (PDF) https://www.mhlw.go.jp/content/12501000/001593724.pdf
Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (Japan). Vital Statistics Summary 2024 and 2025. Referenced via Nippon.com: “Births in Japan Fall Below 700,000 for the First Time in 2024” (2025), nippon.com; “Baby Decline: Births in Japan Drop for the Tenth Successive Year” (June 9, 2026), nippon.com https://www.nippon.com/en/japan-data/h02429/ · https://www.nippon.com/en/japan-data/h02802/
Notes from Poland. “Poland’s fertility rate fell to new low in 2025” (Statistics Poland data). May 28, 2026. notesfrompoland.com https://notesfrompoland.com/2026/05/28/polands-fertility-rate-fell-to-new-low-in-2025/
OECD Family Database. “PF1.1 Public spending on family benefits” (data for 2021). Updated February 2025. oecd.org (PDF) https://webfs.oecd.org/els-com/Family_Database/PF1_1_Public_spending_on_family_benefits.pdf
OECD Family Database. “SF2.2 Ideal and actual number of children” (Eurobarometer 2011 data). Updated December 17, 2016; archived copy of the OECD PDF. web.archive.org https://web.archive.org/web/2023/https://www.oecd.org/els/family/sf_2_2-ideal-actual-number-children.pdf
OECD. Society at a Glance 2024 — Country Note: Japan. OECD, 2024. oecd.org (PDF) https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2024/06/society-at-a-glance-2024-country-notes_d98f4d80/japan_e8ace1fa/277839c8-en.pdf
Poland, Ministry of Family. “Sejm poparł zmiany w Rodzina 500+” (Sejm backs changes to Family 500+). 2019. gov.pl; Polskie Radio, “Polish president approves child benefit hike from 2024,” 2023, polskieradio.pl; Infor.pl, “Projekt ustawy budżetowej na rok 2024” (63.7 billion złoty for 800+), August 24, 2023, infor.pl https://www.gov.pl/web/rodzina/sejm-poparl-zmiany-w-rodzina-500 · https://www.polskieradio.pl/395/7789/artykul/3221675,polish-president-approves-child-benefit-hike-from-2024 · https://ksiegowosc.infor.pl/wiadomosci/6295090,projekt-ustawy-budzetowej-na-rok-2024-przyjety-przez-rzad-190-mld-zl-na-sluzbe-zdrowia-1589-mld-zl-na-wojsko-637-mld-zl-na-800.html
Reuters. “South Korea’s birthrate, the world’s lowest, rises again.” February 25, 2026, via Free Malaysia Today. freemalaysiatoday.com https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/world/2026/02/25/south-koreas-birthrate-the-worlds-lowest-rises-again
Statistics Korea (since October 2025 the Ministry of Data and Statistics). 2024 Birth and Death Statistics (preliminary), February 2025; 2025 Birth and Death Statistics (preliminary), February 2026; final 2025 statistics announced August 2026 via korea.kr. mods.go.kr https://mods.go.kr · https://www.korea.kr/news/policyNewsView.do?newsId=148970652
Statistics Norway. “Fruktbarheten fortsetter å øke” (Fertility continues to rise). March 12, 2026. ssb.no https://www.ssb.no/befolkning/fodte-og-dode/statistikk/fodte/artikler/fruktbarheten-fortsetter-a-oke
Telex. “Number of births in Hungary at lowest since 1949” (Hungarian Central Statistical Office data). January 30, 2026. telex.hu https://telex.hu/english/2026/01/30/number-of-births-in-hungary-at-lowest-since-1949
Van Doornik, Bernardus; Fazio, Dimas; Ramadorai, Tarun; Skrastiņš, Jānis. “Housing and Fertility.” CEPR Discussion Paper DP19805, 2024. cepr.org; IDEAS/RePEc record https://cepr.org/publications/dp19805 · https://ideas.repec.org/p/cpr/ceprdp/19805.html
World Bank Blogs. “Family 500+: Battling Child Poverty in Poland.” blogs.worldbank.org https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/europeandcentralasia/family-500-battling-child-poverty-poland
World Bank Data. Fertility rate, total (births per woman). data.worldbank.org; GDP per capita (constant LCU and current US$) — Japan. data.worldbank.org https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN · https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KN?locations=JP
Wprost. “GUS: W 2017 roku wzrósł współczynnik dzietności w Polsce” (Statistics Poland: fertility rate rose in 2017). May 23, 2018. wprost.pl https://www.wprost.pl/kraj/10126885/gus-w-2017-roku-wzrosl-wspolczynnik-dzietnosci-w-polsce.html
