Is it time to tackle the decline of the nuclear family, that is two parents with children in the same household? Or is this another subject where silence reigns for fear of the truth creating upset?
For hundreds of years throughout the world, the family has been the foundation of societies, with marriage in some shape or form at the heart of the institution, and children treated as the greatest of blessings. But for the last few decades in certain nations marriage, with children at the centre, has been declining, as have overall birth rates, so much so that low birth rates threaten the very structure of some nations.
The single parent family is a new freedom and lifestyle many are happy with and certainly not to be decried. But as a model it comes with huge social consequences. Is resuscitation of the nuclear family not just desirable but perhaps even a necessity? In fact, could the old-fashioned family be a big contributor to the solutions required for numerous problems, at least in the UK, such as housing shortages, poverty, special needs children, youth crime, improvement in skills and national unification? Should perhaps there be major incentives for active two parent parenting and having, say, at least two children?
DO BIRTH RATES MATTER?
Various countries, typically well-developed countries, have a potentially explosive problem long-term due to declining birth rates. Japan has long been an extreme example. Its current population is 124 million, but projections accounting for current birth trends estimate that, by the year 2100, the population will be about 63 million. South Korea is focussing heavily on its problem, with a current population of 52 million reducing to 37 million by 2060 and to 19 million by 2100. In addition, Germany has a declining birth rate as does the USA. The UK Total Fertility Rate is 1.44 per woman, when a rate of 2.1 is what is needed. China has a potentially massive problem with empty generations and an ageing population, much due to its previous policy limiting families to one child only.
In all these cases, and in other countries, there are ageing populations as the old live longer, requiring more health care but not contributing by working. And there are projected to be fewer and fewer younger people, and so fewer able working contributors to support them. Of course, the more the working populace have to give up their earnings through taxes to pay for the old, the greater social pressures will become, and the current method of States paying for their elderly with State pensions and other funds needed to look after them could well become impractical and unsustainable.
Also, as the birth rate goes down, longer term there will be fewer and fewer locally born people to do the jobs required to be done: the problem is bad enough now as the indigenous population has too few workers with the right skills in the UK to do the jobs required. Hence, more and more immigration, the need for which will grow if the UK birth rate does not pick up. Artificial Intelligence and robots may pick up some slack but that is far off prophecy. It is notable that the Middle East and North Africa on the other hand have swathes of young people, but too few jobs and too low incomes. Africa generally has a healthy birth rate, and India is growing but will soon slow down. So, will not these populaces be called on more and more to supplement other countries?
It is notable too that China, Japan and South Korea are all contemplating or implementing programmes to encourage the young to have more children, including for example in South Korea encouraging marriage. Their levels of success are not measurable yet, but the fact is they have to succeed for sustainable economic survival. Yet there is a significant backlash among the young as to the affordability of rearing children. There are other trends such as young people questioning the desirability of bringing children into a world where the environment and climate change may make their existence miserable! Although, it is hard to say that it is reasonable to deprive the unborn of life because it may be challenging!
But the overriding conclusion must be that some countries seriously need to address the need for more children to be born: and it is the younger population who need incentivisation and persuasion of the benefits of rearing a family, ideally of at least 2 children.
IS THE TWO PARENT FAMILY TO BE ENCOURAGED?
Research in the UK and the USA shows that children in 2 parent households have fewer behavioural problems than those in single parent families, get into less trouble at school and with the law, and have better academic outcomes. Married parents are more likely to live together with their children than unmarried parents. For example, 70% of young offenders come from single parent families. In the USA children with absent fathers are 3 times more likely to go to prison. There are in the UK twice the rate of special needs children in single parent households. Depressive illnesses among young adults from single parent households occur at a higher rate generally.
44% of children in single parent households in the UK live in poverty, compared with 26% in two parent households, and 36% of single parent families have no savings compared to 17% in two parent families. In the UK 3.3 million children live in a single parent family, and in about 90% of cases the single parent is the mother. A lot of absent fathers don’t pay their way or care for their children.
It is self-evident that where people live as couples they need half the housing compared to living singly. Some benefits, such as housing efficiencies, can be achieved by single households sharing accommodation and therefore the load of child rearing with other single households, with possibly considerable financial benefits through synergies of sharing, and social benefits: perhaps this “commune” concept needs greater focus and encouragement too.
But it seems that most , if not all, statistical evidence supports the idea that married households, or other two parent households, are better off and contribute more socially and economically than single households in general, and require less support, and children fare considerably better. This is not to demonise single parents, who by and large one might assume do as best they can to rear their children, but doing so alone is much harder and the results statistically less good. There will of course be many cases of very successful single households, and statistics are not everything. However, there seems a good case on the face of it for there at least being a proper discussion which recognises historic and general human realities, as well as the real benefits and disadvantages, of married/two parent and single parent living. If the conclusion is, which seems almost inevitable, that the married couple brings greater benefits, then surely social and economic policy should point in that direction. As of now, the idea of encouraging marriage seems almost taboo.
WHAT ECONOMIC PROBLEMS MIGHT BE LIGHTENED?
Taking just the current population as if it was static, what could be the benefits say if over 1 million more children lived in a married parents or other 2 parent household? Presumably hundreds of thousands of homes, however small, now occupied by absent fathers, would come available. Youth crime would come down. A lot fewer Special Educational Needs children would need to be dealt with. There would be considerably less child poverty, less usage of food banks, and better child and young adult mental health. Educational performance would improve, and so more skilled and better balanced young people will result.
Given birth rates, it is obvious that policy needs to develop to encourage women to have more children in the UK and elsewhere. Given the better results for children in a two parent married environment, it would be better to encourage those births within marriage, or at least a two parent environment where both are actively involved.
Social care for the elderly is a massive growing problem and solutions are urgently required, and that cannot be just pouring money in. But is it not easier for secure families comprised of couples to support their elderly parents, even combining resources and providing care at home than for single people? In the past this was a necessity.
Perhaps Government should incentivise marriage and childbirth within marriage or at least two parents cohabiting. Perhaps too it should incentivise both child and elderly care at home, for example by providing tax incentives such as deductibility of the cost of employing carers. And more imaginative encouragements should be developed. It is glaringly obvious that this whole topic of resuscitating marriage and the nuclear family needs to be firmly on the table in any economic growth agenda, but at the moment it seems to be ignored.
See also: –
