Population aging is one of the most pressing problems for large economies around the world. The birth rate is a pillar in a country’s economy, since the economy, the labor market, education and health, among many other policies, depend on it.
When governments talk about a “birth crisis”, they almost always resort to the same repertoire of solutions: baby checks, tax deductions or childcare aid. The problem is that, after years of applying them, fertility in most rich countries is still at rock bottom. However, a new study raises a new perspective: what if the solution to the birth rate problem was in the way we work? In this scenario, teleworking appears as a surprisingly powerful lever.
Telework to have more children. A study carried out by researchers at Stanford University has found that offering work flexibility and teleworking improves the fertility rate in couples in which one of the members teleworks.
The researchers did not measure the number of births (natality), but rather the fertility indicator. That is, the number of children that participants say they plan to have. The result is difficult to ignore because someone who does not have free time or who considers that they could not take on raising a child does not even consider having one. That is, there is no such predisposition, which does not help the birth rate to grow.
According to the study, going from having no teleworking option to teleworking five days a week is associated with an approximate increase of 0.13 children per woman in terms of expected fertility. This is equivalent to an increase of between 7% and 8% over the average of the group analyzed.
Birth and fertility are not the same. It should be noted that talking about birth and fertility represents different scenarios, and this confusion can distort the debate.
The birth rate is the number of births that occur in a country during a specific period. It is the most common data when talking about birth rate since it determines, in real terms, the number of annual births, and allows it to be compared with the number of deaths to establish the demographic balance.
Fertility, on the other hand, is a background indicator. It represents the number of children a woman has (or is expected to have) throughout her life. It is usually expressed as the Global Fertility Rate (TFR).
The difference between both concepts is important. While the birth rate can vary from year to year (for example, advancing decisions or in response to certain policies) without changing the structural trend, the fertility rate is a long-term metric: it indicates whether a woman plans to have only one child (no matter the year) or more.
Motivated to have children. Examples such as South Korea or Japan show how complicated, and how expensive, it is to change a downward birth rate trend. That is why the increase in the intention to have children, without making any investment or applying additional fiscal policies, is very striking.
The results of the study suggest that, perhaps, the way forward is not to subsidize the birth of more children, but rather to make the organization of parents’ work compatible with their upbringing.
It’s not for money: it’s for time. For years, the political response has been fairly predictable. Having children is expensive, so you have to put money on the table to lighten that burden. The problem is that, although most households need two salaries to survive, the really scarce resource is the time to take care of the children.
Teleworking and flexible hours have reduced this daily friction since it implies less time traveling, greater control over schedules and, above all, greater ability to react to unforeseen events when caring for children. The ‘Women in the Workplace’ report prepared by McKinsey showed that the lack of flexible hours forces many women to reduce their hours or stagnate their professional career.
On this point, the conclusions of the Stanford researchers fit with the data that Pew Research obtained in a previous survey: even with the difficulties of reconciling family and work, the majority of respondents considered it necessary to continue working and did not want to sacrifice their professional career. What they needed was a job that does not make work life and childcare incompatible.
It needs investment, but it is cheap. The study concludes that to match the fertility rate achieved by teleworking, it would be necessary to apply fiscal policies and incentives at a much higher cost. A subsidized daycare can improve the situation, but none of these measures facilitate day-to-day childcare, nor do they encourage families to have more children that complicate logistics even more. The time availability and flexibility of teleworking does.
This does not mean that the implementation of teleworking is free. It has organizational costs for companies, teleworking cannot be done in all sectors and it can generate inequalities between employees whose positions do allow teleworking and those who do not.
In WorldOfSoftware | We have been teleworking for four years and a study has reached a conclusion: working from home makes us happier
Image | Pexels (Anastasia Shuraeva)
