布魯金斯學會(Brookings Institution)的研究人員近日表示,一些人曾經預計稱,受新冠疫情影響,情侶居家隔離會帶來一波“嬰兒潮”。而現實表明,這一預測并未實現。
事實甚至與之相反。馬里蘭大學(University of Maryland)和韋爾斯利學院(Wellesley College)的經濟學教授梅麗莎·卡尼和菲利普·萊文分別表示,他們預計2021年的新生兒數量將減少30萬人——他們稱之為新冠“嬰兒退潮”。
全國失業率每上升1%,出生率就會下降1%——他們的發現部分基于這一證據。為了解釋“公共衛生危機在經濟危機之上”這一事實,卡尼和萊文調查了1918年西班牙流感對出生率的影響,發現流感死亡人數的激增導致了9個月后出生人數的減少。
影響可以從宏觀和微觀的角度分別分析。“關于一國的出生率變化,事實已經很清楚:當勞動力市場疲軟時,總出生率將下降;當勞動力市場提振時,出生率也會跟著上升。”他們在《紐約時報》(New York Times)評論版寫道,“在個人層面,個人收入和出生率的聯系也相當清晰:收入增加,人們愿意擴大家庭成員;而收入減少或遭遇裁員時,他們的生育意愿會降低。”
在疫情爆發幾個月后的2020年6月,卡尼和萊文就曾經作出分析。在布魯金斯學會的報告中他們寫道:“風暴和封鎖”之后的“嬰兒潮神話”,僅僅是一個神話而已。當月,古特馬赫研究所(Guttmacher Institute)發布的報告也佐證了這一觀點。該報告詳細說明了在疫情期間,婦女對計劃生育的看法發生了巨大變化。
報告發現,超過40%的受訪女性表示將會調整生育計劃,比如何時生、要幾個小孩等。此外,超過三分之一的女性表示疫情使其推遲或減少生育。僅有17%的女性表示疫情使其愿意更早生育或要更多的孩子。
常識告訴我們,情況的確如此。近幾個月來,女性的失業率達到了最高水平,尤其是母親們——由于學校停課和育兒工作的小差錯,她們實際上已經被擠出了勞動力大軍。
疫情對出生率的影響,只是美國生育系統痼疾中的一個痛點。多年來,美國的新生兒出生率一直在下降,社會、文化、經濟等諸多因素匯集,共同導致了人們生育意愿的滑坡。在這些因素中,政府支持的缺位占了大頭:在工業化國家中,美國仍然是唯一一個沒有實行普適性的帶薪家庭假政策的國家。而在有助于提高生育意愿的兒童保育和學前教育政策方面,美國政府也未能提出好政策。
卡尼和萊文表示,出生率可能會反彈到疫情前的數字,因為一些人只是推遲生育計劃,而不是決定不生。但是隨著疫情持續時間越來越長,產生的社會和經濟影響也越來越深遠,這一可能性將會越來越小,甚至產生嚴重的長期后果,例如造成未來勞動力市場的萎縮。
報告稱:“現在我們堅持之前的預測,即新冠疫情將導致嬰兒出生減少約30萬。但疫情持續的時間越長,經濟和社會焦慮越深,我們或將看到更嚴重的出生率下降情況,永久性放棄生育計劃的人也將越來越多。”(財富中文網)
編譯:楊二一
布魯金斯學會(Brookings Institution)的研究人員近日表示,一些人曾經預計稱,受新冠疫情影響,情侶居家隔離會帶來一波“嬰兒潮”。而現實表明,這一預測并未實現。
事實甚至與之相反。馬里蘭大學(University of Maryland)和韋爾斯利學院(Wellesley College)的經濟學教授梅麗莎·卡尼和菲利普·萊文分別表示,他們預計2021年的新生兒數量將減少30萬人——他們稱之為新冠“嬰兒退潮”。
全國失業率每上升1%,出生率就會下降1%——他們的發現部分基于這一證據。為了解釋“公共衛生危機在經濟危機之上”這一事實,卡尼和萊文調查了1918年西班牙流感對出生率的影響,發現流感死亡人數的激增導致了9個月后出生人數的減少。
影響可以從宏觀和微觀的角度分別分析。“關于一國的出生率變化,事實已經很清楚:當勞動力市場疲軟時,總出生率將下降;當勞動力市場提振時,出生率也會跟著上升。”他們在《紐約時報》(New York Times)評論版寫道,“在個人層面,個人收入和出生率的聯系也相當清晰:收入增加,人們愿意擴大家庭成員;而收入減少或遭遇裁員時,他們的生育意愿會降低。”
在疫情爆發幾個月后的2020年6月,卡尼和萊文就曾經作出分析。在布魯金斯學會的報告中他們寫道:“風暴和封鎖”之后的“嬰兒潮神話”,僅僅是一個神話而已。當月,古特馬赫研究所(Guttmacher Institute)發布的報告也佐證了這一觀點。該報告詳細說明了在疫情期間,婦女對計劃生育的看法發生了巨大變化。
報告發現,超過40%的受訪女性表示將會調整生育計劃,比如何時生、要幾個小孩等。此外,超過三分之一的女性表示疫情使其推遲或減少生育。僅有17%的女性表示疫情使其愿意更早生育或要更多的孩子。
常識告訴我們,情況的確如此。近幾個月來,女性的失業率達到了最高水平,尤其是母親們——由于學校停課和育兒工作的小差錯,她們實際上已經被擠出了勞動力大軍。
疫情對出生率的影響,只是美國生育系統痼疾中的一個痛點。多年來,美國的新生兒出生率一直在下降,社會、文化、經濟等諸多因素匯集,共同導致了人們生育意愿的滑坡。在這些因素中,政府支持的缺位占了大頭:在工業化國家中,美國仍然是唯一一個沒有實行普適性的帶薪家庭假政策的國家。而在有助于提高生育意愿的兒童保育和學前教育政策方面,美國政府也未能提出好政策。
卡尼和萊文表示,出生率可能會反彈到疫情前的數字,因為一些人只是推遲生育計劃,而不是決定不生。但是隨著疫情持續時間越來越長,產生的社會和經濟影響也越來越深遠,這一可能性將會越來越小,甚至產生嚴重的長期后果,例如造成未來勞動力市場的萎縮。
報告稱:“現在我們堅持之前的預測,即新冠疫情將導致嬰兒出生減少約30萬。但疫情持續的時間越長,經濟和社會焦慮越深,我們或將看到更嚴重的出生率下降情況,永久性放棄生育計劃的人也將越來越多。”(財富中文網)
編譯:楊二一
The baby boom some expected to occur after months of romantic partners quarantining at home together has failed to materialize, according to researchers at the Brookings Institution.
Rather, it’s quite the opposite: Melissa Kearney and Phillip Levine, economics professors at the University of Maryland and Wellesley College, respectively, say they expect 300,000 fewer births in 2021, in what they’re calling a COVID “baby bust.”
Their finding is based in part on evidence that shows a 1% increase in the national unemployment rate corresponds with an equivalent 1% drop in birth rates. In order to account for the fact that there is a public health crisis layered on top of an economic one, Kearney and Levine examined the impact of the 1918 Spanish flu on births, finding that spikes in flu deaths resulted in a decrease in the number of births nine months later.
These effects can be observed on both the macro and micro level: “There is a well-documented cycle to the nation’s birthrate: When the labor market is weak, aggregate birth rates decline; when the labor market improves, birth rates improve,” Kearney and Levine wrote in a New York Times op-ed on their research. “At the individual level, there is also a well-documented link between changes in income and births: When income increases, people often expand their families; when people experience job or income loss, they have fewer children.”
Kearney and Levine made a similar estimate in June, just a few months into the pandemic, writing in a Brookings report that myths about baby booms following snowstorms and blackouts were largely that—myths. This early prediction was also buoyed by findings from the Guttmacher Institute the same month, which detailed dramatic shifts in the way women were thinking about family planning during the pandemic.
The study found that more than 40% of women said they were altering their plans for when to have children or how many children they would have, and more than one-third of women said the pandemic had made them decide to delay pregnancy or have fewer children. Just 17% of respondents reported wanting to have children sooner or to have more of them because of the pandemic.
A certain amount of common sense dictates that this must be the case. Women have suffered some of the highest rates of unemployment in recent months, and mothers especially have been effectively pushed out of the workforce because of school closures and lapses in childcare.
This is only an acute symptom of a much larger problem. Birth rates have been falling in the United States for years now, the result of a confluence of social, cultural, and economic factors that have made childbearing less desirable for many people. The most obvious among these factors is the lack of government support for parents: The U.S. continues to be the only industrialized country that doesn’t have a universal paid family leave policy in place. It also lacks both universal childcare and preschool policies, which can make it more feasible for people to have children.
Kearney and Levine say it’s possible birth rates will begin to rebound to pre-pandemic numbers, since some people are delaying pregnancy, not abandoning the desire to have children altogether. But the longer the pandemic—and the social and economic conditions created by it—go on, the less that may be true, which could lead to long-term consequences, like a shrinking workforce.
“As of now, we stand by our prediction of a COVID baby bust of around 300,000 fewer births,” they report. “But the longer the pandemic lasts, and the deeper the economic and social anxiety runs, it is feasible that we will see an even larger reduction in births with an increasing share of them averted permanently.”