The relationship recession is going global

Open Editor’s Digest for free

FT editor Rula Khalaf picks her favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.

There’s a reason birth rates are becoming an increasingly prominent feature in discourse and policymaking today: Population aging and decline is one of the most powerful forces shaping the world economics to: politics and the environment.

But the weakness of the debate, perhaps even the term “fertility” itself, is that it assumes that the goal today is the same as in the past: finding ways to encourage couples to have more children.A closer look at the data suggests a whole new challenge.

Take the USA for example. Between 1960 and 1980, the average number children born to women were halved almost two out of four, even as proportion of married women couples were only modestly lower.There were still many couples in happy, stable relationships. They just chose to have smaller families.

However, most of the decline in recent years comes not from decisions made by couples, but from a significant decline in the number of couples. Had Marriage and Cohabitation Rates in the United States Had the past decade remained constant, America’s total birth rate would be higher today than it was then.

The central demographic story of modern times is not just declining fertility rates, but rising singleness rates; a much more fundamental change in the nature of modern societies.

Relationships are not only becoming less common, but also more fragile.Equilibrium is now more in Finland common for cohabiting couples to separate rather than having a child, a sharp reversal of the historical norm.

When depicted as an increase in happy childless Dinkers (dual-income, childless couples) with large disposable incomes, the social trends accompanying the declining birthrate appear benign.

But the rise in singleness and relationship dissolution is a less rosy story, especially given that the decline in relationship formation is the most. the poorest. Of course, many people are happily single. The freedom to choose how to spend one’s life and with whom (or without) should be celebrated loneliness and: dating disappointments suggests that all is not well.

The trend is global. From USA, Finland and South Korea to Turkey, Tunisia and Thailand, birth rate decline Declining relationships among young adults are falling further and further. Child bonuses put the cart before the horse, with a growing proportion of people without a partner.Even in parts of sub-Saharan Africa, similar trends can be seen.

Why almost global recession and why now? The fact that this is happening almost everywhere at the same time points more to broad changes operating across borders than to country-specific factors.

The spread of smartphones and social media is one such exogenous shock mobile internet use, especially among women, the calculation of which when weighing potential partners is changing. This is consistent research Social media exposure promotes the spread of liberal values ​​(especially among women only) and promotes women’s empowerment.

The decline in connection is deepest in Europe, East Asia and Latin America, followed by the Middle East, then Africa. Singledom remains rare in South Asia, where is women’s web access more limited.

This should not overstate the role of social media.Other cultural differences between countries and regions mediate both the spread of liberal ideals and people’s ability to act on them. Caste and honor systems encourage high rates of marriage regardless of media accessand women’s education, income, and employment vary significantly between regions.

But while the exact mechanisms are up for debate, the prevalence of singleness and its role in rising birth rates suggest that while financial incentives and other policy changes; can increase the birth ratethey work against much stronger socio-cultural forces.

Policies that promote relationship formation may be more effective than policies that encourage couples to have children.

A world of growing loneliness not necessarily better or worse than one full of couples and families, but it’s fundamentally different from what went before, led by. socialeconomic and political consequences. We are faced with a puzzle: is this what people really want? If not, what needs to change?

john.burn-murdoch@ft.com, @jburnmurdoch: