The South Korean government spent 279.9 trillion won from 2006 to 2021 to address the low birth rate, but it had no effect. In March this year, the number of births was 19,669, a 7.3% decrease from the same period last year. Both past and present governments have introduced various financial support measures and attempted to change the economic and social structures that deter childbirth, urging people to have children. But is this the best approach? We consulted an author who has written about the low birth rate issue to understand its causes, solutions, and the direction South Korea should take. [Editor’s note]
Exactly one month after President Yoon Suk-yeol declared a “national emergency” on population, the Presidential Committee on Aging Society and Population Policy announced comprehensive measures to address low birth rates on June 19. These measures include increasing parental leave pay to a maximum of 2.5 million won per month and providing an additional 200,000 won per month to employees who take on extra work due to a colleague’s parental leave. They also introduced short-term parental leave, allowing up to two weeks per year, and extended paternity leave to 20 days. The government plans to implement a special marriage tax deduction, supply 120,000 housing units annually for families with children, and lower income requirements for housing loans for those who have children.
But one crucial aspect is missing: changing the perception that women are the primary caregivers. The government has addressed the three main causes of low birth rates—work-life balance, childcare, and housing—with various support measures, but it has not considered the time women spend on childcare following pregnancy and childbirth. The gaps resulting from pregnancy and childbirth, due to biological reasons, fall entirely on women. The recent measures still position Korean men as mere assistants in the childcare process. This highlights why the government’s “emergency measures” seem inadequate to resolve the “emergency” situation.
Peggy O’Donnell Heffington, a history professor at the University of Chicago and author of “Without Children: The Long History of Not Being a Mother,” she highlights that historically, there have been women who did not bear children, attributing this not only to personal financial reasons but also to societal lack of support. She notes that the rise of the nuclear family in the 18th century increased childcare burdens, leading to more women opting not to have children. She also points out that women have consistently held jobs, and the recent increase in working women does not solely explain the decline in birth rates. Instead, in Nordic countries, where there is substantial support from the state and society, more women choose to have children.
In an interview with ChosunBiz via Zoom from Chicago on July 5, Heffington discussed envisioning a future where the difference between having and not having children is not so stark. She poses the question of imagining a future where more than one adult is involved in raising a child, motherhood is not a crushing burden on one’s career and life, and not being a mother does not preclude contributing to the next generation. She emphasizes the need to move beyond the idea that only biological children count as one’s own and stated that it is time to start a conversation about job and family cultures that make women feel they cannot have children even if they want to.
What prompted you to write this book? Was it your experiences at United States Military Academy at West Point?
“I graduated with a Ph.D. in history from the University of California, Berkeley in 2016, and then spent a year as a postdoctoral fellow at the United States Military Academy at West Point in New York. In California, I was surrounded by graduate students and Silicon Valley tech workers, and nobody I knew was planning on having children or was even thinking about it. When I moved to West Point, where I was surrounded by military families, all the women my age had three children. This made me think about why people decide to have or not have children because I wasn’t satisfied with the idea that it’s purely cultural that they have a lot of kids. Observing the women at West Point who had children, I started thinking about the factors that influenced their decisions. The U.S. military provides free healthcare, subsidized housing, and daycare, and it’s a community with networks of mothers supporting each other materially. While looking at stories of people historically without children, I realized that today, as in the past, reasons for not having children include a lack of finanical and community support. I wanted to show that this is not a brand new phenomenon.”
The world is facing low birth rate issues, including South Korea. Do you think it is due to the collapse of communities and the rise of nuclear families?
“250 years ago in the U.S., women who had never given birth and mothers played similar roles in their communities. Even those without biological children participated in raising their siblings’ children within the local community. However, in the 18th century, the ‘European marriage pattern’ defined by demographers emerged and spread to America in the 19th century, establishing the nuclear family as the predominant family form. Ironically, birth rates in the United States declined during the 19th century. The nuclear family isolated itself from the community, placing the burden of childrearing solely on biological mothers, increasing the challenges of parenting.”
Do you mean that the increasing burden of childcare being concentrated on biological mothers has made parenting more difficult, leading to a decision not to have children?
“It’s definitely true that it is hard to parent. In the United States certainly, but also around the world, we’ve made decisions about how we’re going to support parents that make it much harder. in the United States, we don’t have any guarantee of paid maternity leave. Most American workers don’t get any maternity leave at all. Around the world, studies show that women do more of the childcare than men. They do more housework than men. They carry more of the mental load of parenting than men even when they both work. Ironically, women and mothers everywhere in the world for most of history, they would have worked, they would have contributed to their family economically. So it’s not a new thing that mothers are working or trying to contribute to their families financially and economically. It’s that the way we work has changed profoundly the demands of being a worker. It feels like a choice that you have to pick one, that you can’t pull off both.”
Your grandmother majored in anatomy and physiology in graduate school, married a husband who pursued a sociology PhD, and had a career as a professor while raising four children excellently. However, your mother had to choose between a career and having two children after graduating from college. Why did such a change occur in just one generation?
“It was quite common worldwide for women, excluding the wealthiest, to have children while also working. However, the Industrial Revolution led to the idea in 19th century America and Europe that work and home should be separate places. The problem arose when the notion that women ‘belong at home’ and men ‘go out to work emerged. So women ended up juggling two roles, expected to take responsibility for the home. Ultimately, the burden on mothers increased significantly.”
Contrary to general belief, countries like France and Scandinavia, where women participate in the workforce, have higher birth rates (1.8) compared to European countries (Spain, Portugal, Italy) where the expectation is for women to stay home and care for children, resulting in lower birth rates (1.3 to 1.4). What is the reason behind this unexpected trend?
“Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and France have higher rates of women working and also higher birth rates. What people smarter than me have observed is that these countries also have significant support systems for women who work and want to have children. They have extended paid maternity leave, comprehensive healthcare for mothers, and lots of paid time off for parents to spend time with their kids. Such supports don’t exist in countries where fewer women work outside the home. I think the very idea that you’re going to be supported whatever reproductive decisions you make makes women feel freer to make reproductive decisions and feel more inclined to have children.”
Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion, was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022. Does this decision aim to encourage childbirth by making abortion illegal?
“The overturning of Roe v. Wade removed the right to abortion. It doesn’t make it illegal everywhere but it means that states can now pass laws to make it illegal. So in about half the country states have passed those laws. Very few of those supporting overturning Roe v. Wade will sat that out loud that this attempt is aimed at boosting birth rates. However, I think it is not a coincidence at all that this move to make abortion illegal and also to restrict access to contraception in the United States is coming at the same time as births are as low as they’ve ever been. That is not a coincidence. Historically speaking, we’ve seen that before. In the 19th century, American birth rates declined really dramatically. During that same period, abortion went from completely legal to illegal in every state and a federal crime by 1873.”
Do you personally advocate for the right to abortion?
“My personal position is that reproductive choices should be left up to the individual. If we look at history, efforts to control people’s reproductive decisions have never ended well. Instead, we need societal support for people to feel free to have children if they want them. There’s a startling statistic in the U.S., where American women say they want three children, but their birth rate is only 1.7. So American women are actually having fewer children than they want. I believe this indicates a lack of adequate policies and support. The only thing I would advocate is that individuals are able to make those reproductive decisions for themselves.”
If increasing the birth rate is necessary, what are the ways to overcome low birth rates?
“Basically, there are two factors that influence the birth rate of women: education and access to contraception. The more education a woman has, the lower the birth rate will go, and if women have the ability to control their reproduction, birth rates generally fall to about two or under. However, it is not a compelling argument to restrict women’s education or access to contraception to increase the birth rate. Instead, we should enable women within larger families to make choices regarding their professional and educational options. I believe this approach offers a sustainable future. To me, this seems more thoughtful consideration than simply how to get women to have more babies.”
