The Dutch Fertility Paradox: How the Netherlands Has Managed to Sustain Near-Replacement Fertility

Abstract

Fertility in the Netherlands has never dipped to the extremely low levels observed in some other European countries. The Netherlands has always maintained a total fertility rate (TFR, average number of children per woman) above 1.7. In 2009, the TFR was 1.88. The absence of direct family policies and the fact that the Netherlands is a highly secular society both make the country's relatively high fertility, in a European context, appear as a paradox. The Dutch government provides substantial welfare benefits, but, given concerns about high population density, no specific policies have been implemented to raise fertility. Dutch society is characterized by a strong value preference for fathers to be the primary breadwinners and mothers to care for children at home. As a result, the Netherlands stands out as having the world's highest fraction of women in the labor force who are part-time workers. Women tend to work in occupations that allow part-time work and higher work-family reconciliation, resulting in what has been termed unequal work for unequal pay. The state has had a paternalistic role-supporting mothers to work part time and providing child allowances and, until recently, free higherlevel education and generous benefits. The Netherlands shows that religion is not necessarily a prerequisite for fertility and that worklife reconciliation and individual control of fertility can sustain moderate fertility levels. The recent financial crisis, however, has called the sustainability of this system into question and has signaled the end of many generous state policies, combined with increased calls for women to become less reliant on their husbands and more economically independent.

Cohort fertility decline in low fertility countries: Decomposition using parity progression ratios

“…There, the family-friendly policies have nurtured and maintained positive attitudes towards larger families (Toulemon, Pailhé, and Rossier 2008). In the Netherlands the male breadwinner model is still widely accepted but the labour market offers abundant and rewarding part-time job opportunities (Mills 2015). Thus, it is not surprising that in these countries no major change in the structure of the families was observed, but rather a smooth and moderate change in cohort fertility across all parities.…”

Exploring perceptions of policymakers about main strategies to enhance fertility rate: A qualitative study in Iran

“…In this country, one of the reasons for delaying marriage is difficulty in getting married owing to the labor market and lack of family support policies ( 27 ). The Netherlands is a successful example in this regard, where the strengthening of the welfare system and empowerment of the youth for starting a family and childbearing has enabled them to hold the total fertility rate over 1.7 ( 10 ). Paying attention to the economic wellbeing, because of its key role in marriage and childbearing, can be considerably useful.…”

“…These policies include a wide variety of direct and indirect policies, like improving welfare systems to empower the youth to bring up a family and accept childbearing, improving mothers’ working conditions and child care services, and also financial incentives, as well as paternal leave ( 6 , 9 ). Sometimes, improving the welfare systems, empowering the youth, and valuing maternal roles are targeted instead of increasing fertility directly ( 10 ). Luci-Greulichet al emphasizes that policies like paternal leave, child care services, and financial incentives may have a positive effect on the couples’ childbearing decision-making ( 11 ).…”

The influence of housing on family size in South Korea: Unstable housing and parity specific risk

“…Housing prices in China have skyrocketed after urbanization, which forces young Chinese to postpone family formation both in urban and rural areas (Feng, 2015). Housing policies in the Netherlands, have expanded to provide a sizeable rental provision for students and young adults, which has produced an inadvertent fertility increase (Mills, 2015). U.S. Census data shows that the price of living space calculated by rent per room has a negative correlation with the level of fertility among younger families during the period between 1940 and 2000 (Simon & Tamura, 2009).…”