[The Editors' Verdict] Low Birthrate and the Betrayal of Incentives

Incentives often betray good intentions. At one kindergarten, parents frequently arrived late to pick up their children. To address this issue, the kindergarten introduced a fine as an incentive (imposing fines to induce certain outcomes is also a type of incentive). However, for some reason, parents began arriving even later. Those who used to feel embarrassed about being late gradually disappeared. This was because parents perceived the fine as a cost. Since they paid money (the fine), whether they picked up their children late or not, caring for the children was considered the kindergarten’s business. This is a case from an Israeli kindergarten mentioned in Michael Sandel’s book, "What Money Can’t Buy."

The Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission conducted a public survey last April on the proposal to provide 100 million won in cash per child. This was mentioned as an example of government support, referencing a recent case where the Booyoung Group gave 100 million won to employees as childbirth support. Sixty-three percent of respondents agreed with the childbirth encouragement effect of the Booyoung model. Local governments facing the crisis of ‘population extinction’ have already entered a cash handout competition. Geochang County in Gyeongnam offers 110 million won per newborn, and Incheon City has decided to provide a total of 100 million won to every child born in Incheon until they turn 18.

South Korea is not the only country with an urgent low birthrate problem. Finland, known for its work-family balance policies, high gender equality awareness, and thorough childcare support, has been a sought-after country by low birthrate nations worldwide. However, Finland’s fertility rate is also plummeting. Last year, the fertility rate hit a record low of 1.26. No European or North American country is free from concerns about low birthrates; only the rate of decline differs. According to the OECD country comparative analysis by the Ministry of Economy and Finance’s Mid- to Long-term Strategy Committee in April, there was almost no correlation between cash support family policies and birthrates.

The idea that population can be increased with money is dangerous. In the 1960s, under the dictatorship of Nicolae Ceau?escu, Romania implemented a policy to dramatically increase birthrates and labor force. Abortion and contraception were banned, and a bachelor tax was imposed on adults without children. Families with children received various financial benefits and housing support. The fertility rate surged from 1.9 to 3.66 in one year. However, the ‘population revolution’ did not last long. Orphanages became overcrowded. Women who did not want to be pregnant were forced into illegal abortion clinics in back alleys. The policy was abandoned, and the birthrate fell again.

On the 1st of this month, the government officially announced the establishment of the Population Strategy Planning Department (Population Department). This ministry will be dedicated to population issues and is tasked with implementing the ‘Measures to Reverse the Low Birthrate Trend’ announced by the Low Birthrate and Aging Society Committee on the 19th of last month. It is fortunate that, moving away from the ‘department store-style’ low birthrate policies pursued by previous governments, the government has identified ‘work-family balance, child-rearing, and housing’ as the three core areas to focus efforts on. Nevertheless, optimism is not easy.

Terms like N-po generation, YOLO, and DINK, though somewhat outdated, still resonate with the younger generation. Their attitudes toward life have fundamentally changed, and they question the norms and functions of family. The imagination of a ‘life with children’ is close to a hellscape. Children barely raised in no-kids zones are sent to English kindergartens and then pushed into the hell of entrance exams and commuting. The ‘residential class map’ is unfolded, and the struggle to avoid becoming a ‘bilgeo (villa poor)’ and the all-out effort to move to ‘upper-class apartments’ must be waged simultaneously. The ultra-competitive society has given birth to the twin of anti-natalism alongside rapid growth. Incentives like carrots and sticks are not enough. There must be a conviction that ‘the children to be born can live happier lives than we do.’ Otherwise, the population increased by cash incentives is nothing but human trafficking.