Beyond fertility numbers: the real challenge of population policy

Pronatalist policies, once regarded as a solution to declining fertility rates, face mounting scrutiny as they intersect with complex sociocultural dynamics across societies. Recent United Nations (UN) projections (2024) highlight an irreversible demographic trend: East Asian nations, exemplified by South Korea’s record-low fertility rate of 0.72, represent a global shift towards subreplacement fertility, as shown in figure 1.1 Lee’s analysis critiques pronatalist policies’ limitations, arguing that cash incentives and other state-sponsored measures merely mask systemic inequities while reinforcing paternalistic norms.2 This commentary extends Lee’s critique by identifying a fundamental contradiction: welfare-driven pronatalist policies risk exacerbating inequities by diverting resources from broader well-being priorities. UN data show that even substantial pronatalist spending—as evidenced by South Korea’s $270 billion expenditure since 2008—fails to counter structural forces driving fertility decline,2 such as gendered labour disparities and rising single-person households. This paradox necessitates a paradigm shift from population sustainability—a relic of Malthusian anxieties—to population well-being, prioritising inclusive social services over demographic engineering. By anchoring this argument in the latest demographic evidence, we challenge policymakers to confront the ethical imperative of reallocating resources towards underserved groups, whose marginalisation is both a cause and consequence of pronatalism’s narrow calculus.