Finland, once a model for reconciling the demands of work and family life, is grappling with a rapidly declining birth rate amid a growing desire by adults to remain child-free. Despite generous parental-leave policies, high-quality child care, free education and universal health care, Finland’s fertility rate has fallen below the replacement level of 2.1, reflecting a broader trend across Europe.
Wealthy countries beyond Europe are not immune to this phenomenon either, with the birth rate in the United States, for example, hitting a historic low of 1.6 children per woman. Japan’s rate is 1.2. In Africa, which has a large youth population, the fertility rate in 2025 is projected to be 4.050 births per woman, a 1.3 percent decline from 2024. And despite efforts to boost fertility rates, including declaring having babies an act of patriotism, China reported on Jan. 17 that its population fell for the third year in a row.
US Vice President J.D. Vance said at a rally recently: “Our society has failed to recognize the obligation that one generation has to another as a core part of living in a society. So let me say very simply, I want more babies in the United States of America.”
In Finland, the fertility rate dropped to 1.32 children per woman in 2022, according to Statistics Finland. With a population of 5.5 million, the average age rose to 43 in 2023. Around 15 percent of Finns are under age 15, while 23 percent are over age 65.
Finland’s so-called “fertility paradox” counters the assumption that robust social welfare systems produce higher fertility rates.
Dr. Oskari Heikinheimo, an ob-gyn in Helsinki, the capital, points to changing societal priorities as a major factor. “The traditional model of the nuclear family is no longer the sole aspiration for many young people,” he said.
Finnish women increasingly delay motherhood in pursuit of higher education and career ambitions. Many people put off parenthood because they are single: nearly a quarter of Finns and about half of Helsinki residents live alone. Finding a like-minded partner has become more difficult as a growing gender gap in political leanings is also a factor in the dropping birth rate.
Between 2010 and 2019, Finland’s fertility rate declined from 1.87 to 1.35, placing it below Britain’s rate of 1.6 and only slightly above Italy’s 1.3. The Finnish downward trend contrasts with the early 2000s, when the birth rate increased from 1.73 in 2000 to 1.87 in 2010, suggesting that earlier social policies promoting gender equality and family support had a positive impact during that period. But the current low birth rate indicates these social measures were unable to sustain long-term growth.
Globally, declining birth rates raise national concerns about slowing economic growth and the ability to sustain social welfare programs for aging populations, with some experts viewing the trend as a crisis for humanity.
The debate around declining birth rates has become politicized in Finland, echoing other European countries. The rise of right-wing populism across the continent has resulted in a resurgence of pro-natalist policies, reflecting a conservative socially undercurrent.
Anna Rotkirch, a researcher with Finland’s Population Research Institute, said of the evolving social landscape: “Among Finnish adults aged 22-40 who say they would like to have at least one child, the main reason for not having a child is the lack of a suitable partner.”
In Finland, immigration has been promoted as a remedy to declining birth rates, and in 2023, the country recorded a net gain of 58,000 immigrants, according to Statistics Finland. However, immigrants face obstacles such as language barriers and cultural biases when entering the workforce. Even with a more welcoming approach, Finland must compete with other developed countries to attract skilled immigrants, as a cold Nordic climate is often not the top choice for outsiders.
Finnish lawmakers are pushing to increase the birth rate, but some have been criticized for aggressively pressuring citizens to participate in “synnytystalkoot,” which has no direct translation to English. It refers to a communal effort to increase the birth rate, sort of a “birthing bee.”
To make parenthood more appealing, Finland extended its paid parental leave in 2022, which now totals 13 months — 6.5 months for each parent. The country also has some of the lowest maternal mortality rates globally and heavily subsidized day care. Yet, the declining number of births threatens the financial health of the social welfare system.
The rising age of first-time mothers in Finland is another challenge for the government. In 2018, nearly 24 percent of mothers giving birth for the first time were 35 or older, compared with 20 to 24 percent in other Nordic countries, according to research by Mika Gissler from the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, a federal agency.
While delaying childbirth allows women to pursue personal and professional goals, these pregnancies can be riskier than younger pregnancies and decrease the likelihood of having more than one child.
For some Finns, delaying parenthood is an obvious choice. Eira Talka, 41, became a mother at 36 after spending years traveling and working abroad. “I never even wished for a child when I was under 30,” she said. “I just wanted to live life for myself.”
Talka feels that she and her husband have fared well as slightly older parents. “Maybe the nighttime wake-ups with a baby would have been easier if we had been younger, but it’s hard to know,” she said.
“I believe that as a younger mother I would have been more helpless and less mature in some demanding situations,” she added.
Finnish media reports confirm that conflicting ideologies between genders — men leaning toward right-wing policies and women becoming more left-wing — have made it harder to form families. Talka notes that finding the right person to share life with can be difficult.
“This ideological divide is likely linked to differences in lifestyles, places of residence and the inability of some young men to adapt to life in Finland,” she said. “Political attitudes harden when life doesn’t go as expected.”
Greater acceptance of diverse family structures, such as single parenthood and same-sex couples, has also offered Finns more freedom while introducing more complexities to childrearing. Rotkirch said that the cultural expectation that everything must be perfect before starting a family could influence decisions, too, as it “contributes to procrastination.”
Stability in finances, career and relationships has become a prerequisite for parenthood, she noted, creating hindrances for many young people.
Barriers such as lower education levels and higher unemployment rates seem to heavily impact men in Finland. Statistics show that young men contending with such problems are less likely to become parents. According to 2015 and 2017 figures from Statistics Finland and the Family Federation of Finland, a whopping 36 percent of men with low education levels had no children by age 40 to 45. For women with low education, the figure was 23 percent.
Another factor impacting the decreasing birth rate is the rise of the child-free movement. According to the Family Federation of Finland’s 2023 Family Barometer, 15 percent of all Finns identify as “voluntarily childfree,” and 25 percent of those under 25 say they don’t want any children.
Soile Rajamaki, president of the Finnish Childfree Association, emphasized the importance of respecting individuals’ decisions. “Many believe that being child-free is an innate quality or identity issue,” she said, noting that personal freedom and environmental concerns often influence this choice. Founded in 2012, the association has expanded steadily, offering a space for people to discuss their experiences and find support. It also advocates for the inclusion of sterilizations under public health care coverage, an option that is at risk.
Indeed, the minimum age for sterilization in Finland is 30, but the association wants to lobby for a lower age.
Some Finnish parents feel a lack of psychological support from society as well. “It’s a fact that Finnish society is hostile towards children, or maybe it’s hostility towards the parents,” said Helsinki-based Julia Thuren, a 37-year-old mother of three and social media influencer who highlights the fun aspects of parenthood.
Thuren, who travels a lot around southern Finland with her children, ages two to eight, said she often receives disapproving looks from other passengers on public transportation. “It’s rare for people to actually say something; it’s more just giving me the evil eye,” she said.
Addressing Finland’s shift toward individualism and career-oriented lifestyles has influenced a range of family planning approaches. Many municipalities with aging populations have resorted to offering financial bonuses to encourage childbirth among younger folks. Over 100 towns and cities, according to a study by the Association of Finnish Municipalities, provided a baby bonus two years ago, typically around 500 euros (about $520). Some places, like Tervola in Finnish Lapland, offer up to 6,000 euros (about $6,250) paid over five years.
But financial incentives alone are unlikely to be effective; the municipality of Lestijarvi, for example, discontinued its 10,000-euro (approximately, $10,400) baby bonus program due to its lack of success.
“This concern about the reduced birth rate is more accurately a concern about a cultural change, where motherhood is no longer raised on the pedestal to be a woman’s only true goal in life,” Rajamaki of the Finnish Childfree Association said.
Arshi Qureshi is a freelance journalist based in New York City, focusing on politics and social issues. She holds a master’s degree in political journalism from the Columbia University School of Journalism.
Let the birth rates collapse to 0.
How do we export the reasonable birth rates of developed countries to the rest of the world? The threat to the world comes from the developing countries with birth rates too high. With AI and robotics there simply will not be a need for as many people. The earth can heal then hopefully if not too late.
I am a 63 year old mother of 3 and grandmother of 2. I am also a Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. I have the best of both worlds. Motherhood is a privilege and a joy that I am so glad I have. My career is also something I love passionately. I am really blessed to have had both and wouldn’t change my life for any other.
1) Narcissists are terrible to be in a relationship with let alone partner with when having children. Risk of creating more narcissists will ruin this planet eventually.
2) Too many babies are being born with autism these days.
In Australia in the early 2000s, there was a little population boomlet. Suddenly the schools were full again and real estate was back in business. I’d say that once those kids have reached their early 30s, there will be another boomlet. It’s just a question of waiting for the generations to turn over. But, I personally feel that the Earth deserves a break. Fewer people would be a relief not just for the environment, but for all those who have to compete to live well in it. If the global market economy was willing to spread the wealth more generously, people might be more inclined to give in to their parental urges. More willing to take a risk. But, ultimately, it’s women who take the biggest risk – with their bodies, their job security, their emotional sanity, and the very children they create (who no longer belong to them). You have to give a woman a really good reason to risk so much. You have to reduce that risk in every conceivable way. You have to provide her with lifelong guarantees of housing, income, healthcare, transport, respite, study / work opportunities and assistance, and full rights over the children she is willing to bear. Otherwise, why should she so sacrifice so much for so little? The era of the nuclear family is over because social decency can no longer be counted on. Why should a woman be made to bear the brunt of all things horrible, insecure and frightening? Men used to try to protect women, but they don’t bother anymore.
Facts!!
Fewer people might not be much better for the environment. Industrial and environmental/land use policy have a very significant impact and these policies will be greatly influenced by population decline, as a shrinking population will see severe economic troubles without an additional supply of labor. Said economic crisis is not good news for the existing population, either. Perhaps advances in automation can make the difference (provided the fruits are shared and not hoarded, an admittedly unlikely scenario).
That might be true, and I don’t really believe that all women, or even most women, will feel good about missing out on the joy and wonder of maternity. But if society admits that the next generation is necessary, then society should be prepared to pay women generously to supply it, so that they can enjoy making this very important social contribution. Governments should take tax and redistribute it to women for that purpose. Maternity deserves to be respected as a very important occupation, with all the associated benefits of any other important occupation.
To age 18
According to the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG), the cost of raising a child to age 18 in 2024 was £260,000 for a couple and £290,000 for a lone parent in uk. So, you can buy a house. Also, currently government offer benefit cap for 2 children, every day can read stories about homeless families struggling to get a permanent house. Another problem a woman having first child after 30ies more likely will have 1 or max 2 children.
The issue is societal. You can ponder around as much as you like but it was never economical or otherwise. Men who are struggling professionally or who have already achieved success consider fatherhood. Not in the middle. The real issue of course lies with the counterparts. We have created a society that consider in better position the single, independent, untarnished by births female body of fairly old age. Getting married and having family was not only socially desired before but also being single to a late age was condemned. Woman can now achieve better for herself without the hassle of offspring raising.
Of course with these terms no sane person should reproduce. There are high levels of wellbeing, financial independence, global stability and security. Perfect for indulging in leisure activities permanently. 🤭
As the arguments above apply to advanced societies, prepare to be slowly overrun by advancing societies which still haven’t got the same mindset.
The country was complaining that childcare cost too much and then it’s cutting social services all across the board and then wants people have more babies?
Exactly, children do not photosynthesis they need to be cared well and get extra support!
The joy of sex should be promoted to young adults. Then maybe they would get going. When I was young, sex was a very large part of life.
There’s a new trend amongst young French women: PADAM (no sex before love: ‘Pas Avant D’etre Amoureux’). I advise my daughter to go further: no sex before children, and no children before guarantees. That would be a true test of a man’s love. And the best protection for both herself and any children that follow from sex.
To those who claim that increasing child care benefits is the the main solution should remember that the article already mentioned that Finland offers some of the most generous benefits. Immigration is not a solution to the problem but a way to soften the blow of lower birth rates. Take in too many at once and you risk the same gang violence surge that Sweden is currently facing, therefore you need balance. Both ideas are valid as ways to lower the burden of a lower birth rate and of child rearing, but at the core of it people don’t value families or raising children as much anymore. I also caution those who think this is good for the environment as environmentalism is often a luxury belief when society is wealthy and will be cast aside the moment society falls into strife which a reduction in birth rates with cause. This seems to be more of a misplaced values issue as most people consume social media and entertainment on mass and constantly rather than socializing in person. The younger generation of which I’m apart has less opportunities to meet and mingle while apps for dating and gathering make the process more robotic and capitalistic. People definitely prioritize their careers over starting families these days and while a career is admirable, it’s not the only thing in life and it’s not even close to the most important. Also, the goal is a stable population with the new generation being the same size as the older one, not larger or smaller.
I just don’t want to have kids cause it sounds like a lot of effort for very little reward. I don’t particularly like children and get nothing but irritation from interacting with them. People say it’ll be different with your own kids, but I highly doubt that as I know parents who say that stuff on the surface and then turn to me and tell me how they wish they hadn’t of had kids when they have a drink or two and that would likely be me.
Why are no news outlets talking about the benefits of a global shrinking population? The impact on resources, environmental impact, waste, animal and marine welfare are huge! Humans have been overpopulating the earth for too long. Let’s get down to numbers that are not going to destroy our planet or turn us into a dystopia in order to survive.
The population is not going to decline, just the advanced ones. Remember mentioning a rate of 4 for Africa? Well prepare for steady mass immigration until all earth population becomes semi African, probably Muslim too. Regarding environmental benefits, a dystopia nowadays can be created by a single person pushing a single button.
This is not true! All statistics show that all countries on planet earth has seen a significant reduction in birth rates, even in africa. The reason why the birth rates are still high there is because it used to be around 7-8 and now around 4 and still going down.
Because Governments, businesses, and the economy runs on customers and taxes. The babies of today are the profits of tomorrow. A smaller population means less taxes acquired by leaders, less customers for businesses, and most importantly less defense from ideological ideas of another nation. On a macro scale, there are more benefits for a nation having a larger population than a smaller one.
Then perhaps a nation ought to be prepared to pay for it – a decent salary, with retirement, health and housing guarantees. After all, no one would ever expect a man to invest between 1 and 20 years of his life in work (entailing considerable physical and psychological risk) for no compensation. That would rightly be regarded as slavery, even if he happened to enjoy that work.
Very true
Planet can sustain upwards of 25+ billion, with an abundance of resources. Get off it.
Everyone forgets that robots and computers are doing basically all productive work. Where are future generations supposed to work?
The left is so scared of global warming, rightfully so! But at the same time they forget that it’s us humans causing it. A shrinking world population, especially in our highly developed countries, where we consume the most, is the best thing that can happen.
Our societies cannot support more and more elderly AND young people that are jobless and sitting at home with their parents forever!
The issue is in part the lack of integrating immigrants into society. While economic opportunities may be ok for Finns, for someone who comes from US and have lived in both, it is extremely difficult
Relative to US, especially for “skilled” immigrants (despite Trump). I’ve tried living in Finland and not sure I could ever do it again and think an article focusing on the obstacles of even highly skilled foreign immigrants would shed more light on why population is decreasing, both because of their ability to be good partners and their economic contributions (if even given the opportunity on the later…). Happy to discuss if DM
If US is so concerned about their declining birthrate, they should address the cost of care and unaffordability for couples who would otherwise be willing to have children. They also need to improve the immigration process for US citizens to be united with their spouses sooner and not wasting years unable to have kids because the wait is too long. Smh.
Anon – The US is not as concerned about declining birth rates. It replenishes its population with immigration and is more welcoming to immigrants (despite the media portrayal of Trump). Within my own close social circle of 5 close friends, each one comes from a different country and not only has integrated into US, but has thrived. Outside of the UK and maybe Switzerland, not sure any diverse population exists. The systems are also oranges to apples and this Article is about Finland (not US) but let’s discuss ….
(1) Many Americans, pay less for healthcare than Finland. ON AN AFTER TAX BASIS. Finland as you know has high taxes relative to US. You need to figure out the taxes attributable to healthcare in socialist healthcare countries and then compare to what an American with private healthcare pays. I’ve done the math and for me, it’s cheaper (by far) to be covered by Us healthcare. My maximum “highest yearly cost” is 2K. Finland taxes covering healthcare are by far are more for that for most. Also note approx 95 of Americans have private healthcare. Effectively that means that everyone is insured. An article comparing the tax effected costs of healthcare would be the only way to compare the systems. Also, keep in mind that also despite the media, there is mecare and many Americans received free medical services.
(2) Americans do not rely on the social services or the government to fund retirement as much as Europeans . They generally save for their own retirement via private 401ks, HSAS, Roth IRA, etc. With the aging pyramid reversing, countries like Finland will have major issues funding their social services unless they have more children or become more immigrant friendly. With the rise of True Finns and other nationalistic parties, that would be hard.
(3) American taxes are very low relative to Finland. What this means is that taxes could raise to pay the deficient if needed. Americans wealth is also significant compared to EU on a per capita basis, meaning that the Us could slightly raise estate taxes. Because of this; there are many sources of revenue for US to cover services if needed. It will also be interesting to see what happens if US pulls back on funding for foreign organizations like NATO, which will results in EU countries needing to pay more for their own defense, creating a large expense that EU citizens generally relied on US for.
(4) it’s clear you have not lived outside of your own country (presumably EU) otherwise the above would be apparent. As a dual citizen/resident, who has lived in US and Nordics, I’ve gained perspective of both. I come to Finland often for family reasons so also happy to get a coffee and chat about if you are in Helsinki.
Many countries with population decline, but I’m afraid 😨 the Covid-19 Vax may kill women’s eggs, which don’t reproduce. Too many antipopulation advocates in the world 🌎 such cults they are? Good Luck!
You have to work on your conspiracy theory, Eric. If the vax killed the eggs, women would be struggling to get help to get pregnant, but as the article states, despite all measures to make it worth the trouble, it’s not working. So adjust your theory to suggest that the vax, or 5g or chemtrails actually causes women to not want babies. But my theory is that you would have to accept that creating s new human is a very demanding job, dangerous and needing special skills, so in a capitalist society, if the demand is there, they just need to pay more. A lot more!
“creating s new human is a very demanding job”
Indeed it is. Further its very expensive requiring a lot of expensive facilities including a house, a car, and all the things that go in them. Realistically the most expensive assets that require long term finance and so trading time for that. Obviously employment is a whole complex economic and social topic by itself. Fundamentally government is all over these matters so able to influence for more childbirth or not in the belief that viable economics no longer requires so many people in a post industrial age. However the value generated elsewhere is much less available to tax so support the national population. The market is free to continue in that direction…