The countries that pay citizens to have more children — and whether it works

In South Korea, having a baby in 2024 triggered an eligibility cascade. A lump-sum payment of two million won at birth. Monthly transfers of 100,000 won continuing for eight years — 9.6 million won in total. Subsidised places at childcare centres. Tax deductions phased across the child’s early life. Add the parental benefit top-ups and the housing loan preferentials available to families with two or more children, and the per-child support for a baby born last year amounted to roughly 29.6 million won — approximately $22,100 — disbursed across the first eight years of the child’s life. The city of Incheon went further still, announcing a supplementary scheme that would add up to 100 million won per child — about $74,000 — paid over eighteen years.

The administrative machinery is substantial. There are eligibility windows, retroactivity conditions, means-testing thresholds, application portals, and interagency coordination between the Presidential Committee on Aging Society and Population Policy, the Ministry of Health and Welfare, and Statistics Korea. The state has built an apparatus for translating a reproductive decision into a bureaucratic event. The underlying ambition is clear: if the cost of having children can be designed low enough — and the financial case for parenthood made compelling enough — perhaps the correct payment schedule can reverse that calculus.

In 2023, South Korea’s total fertility rate — the average number of children a woman is expected to have over her lifetime — was 0.72. The lowest national total fertility rate recorded in the modern statistical era. In 2024, it ticked up to 0.75. 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, itself a record low — births fell below 700,000 for the first time in recorded statistics. South Korea’s 0.72 in 2023 and 0.75 in 2024 represent something without modern precedent: a wealthy country reproducing at barely one-third of replacement rate.

A shrinking working-age population supporting a growing retired one applies compressing pressure to 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 is not a theoretical future pressure but an ongoing constraint on fiscal planning. Korean pension system modelling projects insolvency within decades under current demographic trajectories.

The policy response across high-income low-fertility countries converged on a single instrument: cash. The instruments vary by country and political tradition, but the underlying logic is shared.

Hungary’s approach has been the most comprehensive and most heavily promoted by its government. Since 2015, the Családi Otthonteremtési Kedvezmény — the CSOK, or Family Housing Benefit — has offered preferential loans and grants to married couples who commit to having children, with amounts escalating with the number of children promised. From 2024, the scheme expanded into CSOK Plusz, offering state loans at three percent interest up to 50 million forints (approximately €128,000) for families with three or more children. Hungary’s overall family support spending has reached as much as 6.2 percent of GDP in some years, among the highest proportions of any country in the world.

Poland launched its Family 500+ program in April 2016 — a monthly payment of 500 złoty, roughly $130, for every child after the first until age eighteen, later extended to all children. At its peak, the program accounted for approximately two percent of GDP. Japan has expanded subsidised childcare aggressively since the early 2020s. South Korea layered its cash transfers, loan subsidies, housing preferences, and parental benefits into an interlocking system that, by the time the presidential committee completed its 2024 accounting, had accumulated to roughly 280 trillion won — approximately $210 billion — disbursed since 2006.

These governments are not acting irrationally. The fiscal pressure is real, the demographic projections are reliable, and the political demand for action is consistent. What is less clear is whether the diagnosis that produced these policies — that the problem is essentially financial, and therefore amenable to financial remedy — survives contact with the evidence.

A note on history
Pronatalism as state policy predates the welfare state. Mussolini's "Battle for Births," launched in 1927, combined cash incentives, taxes on bachelorhood, and propaganda — the TFR rose briefly, then continued its secular decline. Soviet-era bloc governments used "Hero Mother" medals and monthly allowances for women with six or more children. The demographic effects were minimal. 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 produced no sustained fertility increase is not a conclusive argument against twenty-first century variants; policies differ substantially in scale and design. It is, however, a pattern the evidence of this century has not broken.

The Ledger

The central question economists ask of pronatalist payments is not whether they produce more births — they generally do, in the short run — but 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 rather than 30 and 33, in response to a payment incentive. The total lifetime fertility is unchanged. A quantum effect means the payment actually causes a woman or couple to have a child they would not otherwise have had — changing the lifetime total, not just the schedule.

Most of the evidence on pronatalist payments supports timing, not quantum.

Poland’s Family 500+ program generated an immediate uptick in births. Between 2015 and 2016 the TFR rose from 1.29 to 1.36. A rigorous evaluation published in Demographic Research found that the cash transfer increased the annual probability of birth by 1.5 percentage points overall — and that the effects were concentrated among women aged 31 to 40, consistent with the interpretation that older women were moving forward planned births rather than adding new ones. Women in their twenties showed no increase, or slightly negative effects. By 2017 the TFR began declining again. The program proved transformative for child poverty — a genuine and important achievement on a different welfare dimension — but the fertility effect appears to have been largely temporary.

Hungary presents a similar pattern. The CSOK scheme launched in 2015 was followed by a rise in births through the late 2010s, peaking around 2021. Then the decline resumed with force. In 2024, total births in Hungary fell by 9.1 percent relative to the previous year, to 77,500 — the lowest figure recorded since 1949. The TFR, which had reached a reported high of around 1.6, fell to approximately 1.39. Hungary spends more per capita on family support, as a proportion of GDP, than almost any country on earth. The demographic result, after fifteen years of escalating transfers, is a sharply declining birth rate.

The baby bonus evidence from South Korea is perhaps the most precisely studied. Research by Wookun Kim of Southern Methodist University, accepted for publication in the Journal of Human Resources, examined the effects of South Korea’s local government baby bonuses using registry data from 2000 to 2015. Kim found that while the transfers had measurable effects on total fertility, they also produced negative selection effects — reducing average birth weight and gestational length — and that the effects on aggregate TFR were modest relative to disbursement. Research by Dahae Choo and Hugo Jales, published in the Journal of Asian Economics in 2021, found that more than 74 percent of disbursements from early Korean bonus schemes corresponded to births that would have occurred regardless of the payments — infra-marginal births that the program funded but did not cause. South Korea spent roughly $210 billion on pronatalist policy over sixteen years and watched its TFR fall from 1.08 in 2006 to 0.72 in 2023.

Quebec stands as the most frequently cited counterexample. In 1988, the province introduced the Allowance for Newborn Children, paying up to C$8,000 after the birth of a third or subsequent child. The fertility gap between Quebec and the rest of Canada, which had been nearly 0.3 children per woman, shrank dramatically after 1989. Research by economist Kevin Milligan documented a measurable increase in Quebec fertility attributable to the program. The case is real, and worth taking seriously.

But the Quebec case should not be read as straightforward vindication of cash-for-children. Several features of that specific context made it unusually favourable. Quebec nationalists had explicit political and cultural motivations to encourage French-speaking births in demographic competition with English Canada — 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. And even in Quebec, the effect diminished over time: fertility rose, then fell again as the payments became normalised and the economic context shifted. The lesson is that 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.

The IMF’s 2024 analysis of Japan’s fertility policy is instructive on the mechanics. Reviewing cross-country data from 34 OECD countries, the IMF found that cash transfers have a fertility elasticity of 0.1 to 0.2 in Japan — meaning a ten percent increase in cash transfer spending produces a one to two percent increase in TFR. Childcare facility expansion produced a roughly 0.1 increase in TFR — a larger absolute effect than the cash measure delivered. Expenditures on childcare facilities had, the IMF concluded, approximately five times the impact on fertility of equivalent spending on cash transfers.

Poland’s 500+ demonstrably reduced child poverty. Hungary’s CSOK improved homeownership rates among young families. 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 genuinely 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 lottery mechanisms — such as the randomised housing allocation in the CEPR Brazil study — 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 increasingly 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 are well-documented and consistently underweighted in the pronatalist policy debate.

The first is housing. In high-fertility decline contexts — Seoul, Tokyo, London, Stockholm — young adults cluster in expensive cities where the economic opportunities are concentrated. Family-sized housing in those cities is, for most people in their twenties and early thirties, simply unaffordable. Research by Fazio, Ramadorai, Skrastins, and van Doornik, published through CEPR, used evidence from Brazil’s housing credit lotteries — a rare randomised design that cleanly isolates the effect — and found that 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 apartment prices are measured in hundreds of thousands of dollars. The payment addresses a symptom — the financial shock of a birth — while leaving untouched the upstream condition that made family formation seem unaffordable in the first place. This is not an implementation failure of pronatalist cash transfers. It is a diagnostic failure: the intervention does not act on the mechanism that is actually constraining fertility.

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 IMF’s analysis in Finance and Development, drawing on research by Doepke, Hannusch, Kindermann, and Tertilt, documents how this penalty shapes fertility decisions: in countries where the career cost of motherhood is high, fertility falls. A baby bonus does not change labour market structure, employer hiring practices, or the distribution of unpaid domestic work that underlies the penalty. Countries with relatively high fertility among wealthy nations — France, Norway, Sweden — combine universal affordable childcare, parental leave that fathers actually take, and labour market norms that treat career interruptions as normal rather than disqualifying. The Japan childcare data, where the comparison is within-country and the policy variation is cleaner, provides the more reliable signal: childcare expansion raised TFR by roughly 0.1, more than equivalent cash spending.

The third mechanism is economic precarity — distinct from housing cost, and distinct from poverty. Surveys across Europe and East Asia consistently find that financial instability is among young adults’ primary reasons for not having children or having fewer than they would ideally like. But the instability they describe is not a shortage of current income, which a transfer could address. It is uncertainty about the future: whether the economy will continue to provide stable employment, whether the housing market will remain navigable, whether the costs of education and healthcare can be managed over eighteen-plus years. Eurobarometer surveys have consistently found a gap between stated ideal family size — around 2.0 to 2.3 children across most European countries — and realised TFR, implying that the barrier is not preference. People want more children than they are having. The barrier is conditions. A transfer that addresses the present-day cost of a birth but does not reduce long-term trajectory uncertainty will have limited effect on this particular mechanism.

What the Decline Actually Costs

The economic costs of population ageing are real. Research by Maestas, Mullen, and Powell found that a ten percent increase in the share of the population aged 60 and over reduces the growth rate of GDP per capita by 5.5 percent. Consistent numbers that compound. Japan’s public pension reserves require ongoing drawdown; Korea’s National Pension Service projects fund depletion within decades under current assumptions. Declining working-age populations mean either benefit cuts, tax increases, or debt.

But the costs are not fixed, and the implicit assumption in much pronatalist advocacy — that the only way to reduce them is to produce more children — does not survive scrutiny.

Female labour force participation has been rising across OECD countries, and the gender gap in employment rates has narrowed substantially since 1990 — the most immediately available labour supply response to demographic change. The IMF’s April 2025 World Economic Outlook estimated that improvements in health among older workers would contribute approximately 0.4 percentage points annually to global GDP growth over 2025 to 2050. Immigration is the most immediate demographic corrective available, and the most politically constrained. Countries with high immigration rates — Canada, Australia, Germany in some periods — 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. The actual picture is more complicated. Japan remains among the world's four largest economies by nominal GDP. Its per-capita GDP has been roughly flat for two decades — partly demographics, partly exchange rate, partly productivity stagnation. Labour force participation rates among older workers and women have increased, partially offsetting population decline. Japan is not a comfort story: the costs of its demographic structure are real and accumulating. It is also not the disaster that the sharpest demographic alarm-raising would imply. It occupies the more useful and less rhetorically convenient category: a problem genuinely expensive to ignore, and genuinely amenable to structural adaptation.

Managing Rather Than Reversing

If the evidence points anywhere, it points toward structural interventions rather than cash disbursements. Universal affordable childcare — not subsidies that partially offset market-rate childcare, but provision that removes the barrier regardless of income or location — has the strongest cross-country evidence. 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 payment of 29.6 million won disbursed at birth is visible, attributable, and announceable. A systematic reform of childcare provision takes a decade to implement and another decade to observe demographic effects. Cash generates announcements more quickly than structural reform generates results.

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 evidential argument concerns fertility specifically, not 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. No wealthy country has returned to replacement fertility. The countries with the most comprehensive structural supports — Sweden with its combination of subsidised childcare, gender-neutral parental leave, and labour market protections — have achieved TFRs in the range of 1.5 to 1.7 in their best years, not 2.1. The gap between structurally-supported and cash-transfer-dependent countries is real; the gap between any current policy regime and replacement fertility is larger still.

The question demographic arithmetic actually requires wealthy countries to answer is not “how do we return to replacement fertility?” — which no policy has yet achieved — but “how do we manage an ageing and eventually declining population without catastrophic fiscal or economic disruption?” Immigration, female labour force participation, extending working lives, and productivity growth collectively constitute a more tractable response to that question than any payment schedule aimed at reproductive decisions.

Closing

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 14.9 percent year-on-year, the largest single-year increase since records began in 1970. New births reached 238,343, up 3.6 percent.

The South Korean government, which had by that point disbursed roughly $210 billion on pronatalist measures since 2006, was not slow to associate this uptick with its policies. The temptation is understandable. Governments that spend at that scale need results, or at least plausible proximity to results.

The more honest account, offered by Statistics Korea itself, 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 spends $210 billion and then moves to claim credit for a 0.03-point TFR recovery driven by post-pandemic catch-up is making an attribution that the evidence does not support.

What the payment apparatus was never designed to answer, and has not answered, is the underlying question: why, in conditions of relative safety and material prosperity, people in wealthy countries are choosing — or finding themselves unable — to have children at the rate demographers consider necessary. The answer, when people are asked directly, involves housing they cannot afford, careers they cannot interrupt without permanent cost, and futures they are uncertain enough about that bringing children into them feels like a risk rather than a default. These are structural facts. They do not have a payment schedule.

Gen AI Disclaimer

Some contents of this page were generated and/or edited with the help of a Generative AI.

Media

ahmet öktem – Pexels

Key Sources and References

Statistics Korea. 2024 Birth and Death Statistics. February 2025. https://kostat.go.kr

Korea Herald. “South Korea’s birth rate rises for first time in 9 years.” The Korea Herald, February 26, 2025. https://www.koreaherald.com/article/10429076

Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (Japan). Vital Statistics Summary 2024. Published 2025. Referenced via Nippon.com: https://www.nippon.com/en/japan-data/h02429/

Japan Times. “Japan’s fertility rate hits record low despite government push.” The Japan Times, June 4, 2025. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2025/06/04/japan/fertility-rate-low/

International Monetary Fund. Japan: Selected Issues Paper — Japan’s Fertility: More Children Please. IMF Selected Issues Paper No. 2024/025, July 2024. https://www.imf.org/en/publications/selected-issues-papers/issues/2024/07/01/japans-fertility-more-children-please-551188

Kim, Wookun. “Baby Bonus, Fertility, and Missing Women.” Southern Methodist University Working Paper, August 2023; accepted Journal of Human Resources, October 2024. https://ftp1.economics.smu.edu/wpaper/2023/KIM/KIM-2023-08.pdf

Fazio, Dimas; Ramadorai, Tarun; Skrastins, Janis; van Doornik, Bernardus Ferdinandus Nazar. “Housing and Fertility.” CEPR Discussion Paper DP19805, 2024. https://cepr.org/publications/dp19805

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; RAND Working Paper WR-1063-1. https://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WR1063-1.html; https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257%2Fmac.20190196

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. https://www.imf.org/en/publications/weo/issues/2025/04/22/world-economic-outlook-april-2025

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. https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article-abstract/87/3/539/57566/; NBER Working Paper No. 8845 (2002). [Note: An earlier version appeared as “Quebec’s Baby Bonus: Can Public Policy Raise Fertility?” C.D. Howe Institute Backgrounder, 2002. https://cdhowe.org/publication/quebecs-baby-bonus-can-public-policy-raise-fertility/]

Doepke, Matthias; Hannusch, Anne; Kindermann, Fabian; Tertilt, Michèle. “The New Economics of Fertility.” IMF Finance & Development, September 2022. https://www.imf.org/en/publications/fandd/issues/series/analytical-series/new-economics-of-fertility-doepke-hannusch-kindermann-tertilt

Bokun, Anna. “Cash Transfers and Fertility: Evidence from Poland’s Family 500+ Policy.” Demographic Research, vol. 51, article 28, pp. 855–910, 2024. https://www.demographic-research.org/articles/volume/51/28

Budapest Business Journal. “Hungary’s Population Decline Accelerates as Birthrate Drops in 2024.” January 2025. https://bbj.hu/economy/statistics/figures/hungarys-population-decline-accelerates-as-birthrate-drops-in-2024/

Bloomberg. “Hungary Births Drop to Record in Blow to Orban’s Family Policies.” January 31, 2025. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-01-31/hungary-births-drop-to-record-in-blow-to-orban-s-family-policies

Hungarian Conservative. “Government Raises Housing Subsidies for Young Couples with New CSOK Plus Scheme.” 2023/2024. https://www.hungarianconservative.com/articles/current/government_family_support_csok_plus_higher-loans_couples_home-ownership/

CNN. “South Korea spent $200 billion, but it can’t pay people enough to have a baby.” December 3, 2022. https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/03/asia/south-korea-worlds-lowest-fertility-rate-intl-hnk-dst/index.html

Korea Herald. “Every baby in 2024 comes with W29.6m cash support.” January 22, 2024. https://www.koreaherald.com/article/3309598

American Enterprise Institute. “Hungary’s Fertility Outcomes Highlight Pro-Natal Policy Limitations.” 2025. https://www.aei.org/op-eds/hungarys-fertility-outcomes-highlight-pro-natal-policy-limitations/

OECD. Society at a Glance 2024 — Country Note: Japan. OECD, 2024. 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

World Bank Data. Fertility rate, total — Hungary. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?locations=HU

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 101375, 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.asieco.2021.101375. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S104900782100124X

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. https://data.europa.eu/data/datasets/s406_65_1_ebs253