But I have one important caveat. Your data on Korea doesn't appear correct:
"South Korea invests roughly 1% of its annual GDP in fertility incentives, totaling over $270 billion since 2006. These funds support cash subsidies, housing assistance for newlyweds, infertility treatment support, and childrearing services aimed at boosting the nation's record-low fertility rate."
Other sources put it a little higher but still below average for the OECD.
I know some of the flaws in determining what is a "family benefit" (Israel for instance is higher in reality then that chart), but I'm pretty confident Korea isn't spending 6% of GDP and certainly not on cash transfers.
People like bandying about big numbers like $X at birth, but that's all headline little substance. Kids take 18 (or more) years to raise and a one year bonus divided by that much isn't worth much.
I think the message "money doesn't work" is a terrible one.
First, money does work. We see it work wherever it's tried. The main problem is that it isn't tried hard enough (10% of GDP, which would solve the problem).
Second, money works better than most alternatives. Subsidies and make work schemes all have a ton of deadweight loss and bad incentives compared to cash. Hungary spent a lot of money on micro-managed subsidy schemes and badly incentivized payments and got a lot less then it should get for its money (Israel by contrast spends its family support money very well).
Third, it's pretty clear that the message behind "money doesn't work" is "we don't want to give you the money." It's cheap and selfish. "Culture" or government scam programs are offered as an alternative so that people don't have to open their wallets to provide for those raising their future social security funding.
The message should be:
1) Money works
2) We need more of it, lots more, now
Everything else is a distraction at best and harmful at worst. You can still pursue housing abundance or whatever while still giving money, but please give money and not housing vouchers.
Fair catch on the GDP figure. I cribbed that from a Korean pronatalism paper rather than sourcing it directly, and you're right to push back. I'll correct it.
On the broader point: I don't actually disagree that money works (and I've written articles calling for more cash). The article's argument isn't "cash is useless." It's a call to action for pronatalists to stop waiting for national governments to get this right and go after the low-hanging fruit at the local and regional level, because that's where pronatalists can get quick results, build force multipliers in preparation for national influence, and establish credibility. Pronatalists are bad at selling babies, and babies are actually easy to sell. We gotta change that.
One of the core failures the article documents is that national governments like Korea's actively fail to fund or even recognize their own successful local cases. Yeonggwang has produced six consecutive years of top-ranking fertility and net in-migration (which includes cash, by the way), and the central government has no mechanism to reward or replicate it.
More money is necessary. We also have to deal with the political economy as it is.
My personal issue is School Choice, which I consider to be a way to increase value to parents without having to spend extra money. A lot has been accomplished at the state level since COVID. I moved to Florida in part of the vouchers and I'm pursuing my own local charity on the issue.
I would note that a lot of the countries with good fertility have school choice (Nordics, Israel).
The East Asians have an awful relationship with education, which I think it part of their problem.
Fascinating! Really enjoyed the breakdown of the two metrics and why it matters to count them separately.
Great Article!
But I have one important caveat. Your data on Korea doesn't appear correct:
"South Korea invests roughly 1% of its annual GDP in fertility incentives, totaling over $270 billion since 2006. These funds support cash subsidies, housing assistance for newlyweds, infertility treatment support, and childrearing services aimed at boosting the nation's record-low fertility rate."
Other sources put it a little higher but still below average for the OECD.
https://webfs.oecd.org/els-com/Family_Database/PF1_1_Public_spending_on_family_benefits.pdf
I know some of the flaws in determining what is a "family benefit" (Israel for instance is higher in reality then that chart), but I'm pretty confident Korea isn't spending 6% of GDP and certainly not on cash transfers.
People like bandying about big numbers like $X at birth, but that's all headline little substance. Kids take 18 (or more) years to raise and a one year bonus divided by that much isn't worth much.
I think the message "money doesn't work" is a terrible one.
First, money does work. We see it work wherever it's tried. The main problem is that it isn't tried hard enough (10% of GDP, which would solve the problem).
Second, money works better than most alternatives. Subsidies and make work schemes all have a ton of deadweight loss and bad incentives compared to cash. Hungary spent a lot of money on micro-managed subsidy schemes and badly incentivized payments and got a lot less then it should get for its money (Israel by contrast spends its family support money very well).
Third, it's pretty clear that the message behind "money doesn't work" is "we don't want to give you the money." It's cheap and selfish. "Culture" or government scam programs are offered as an alternative so that people don't have to open their wallets to provide for those raising their future social security funding.
The message should be:
1) Money works
2) We need more of it, lots more, now
Everything else is a distraction at best and harmful at worst. You can still pursue housing abundance or whatever while still giving money, but please give money and not housing vouchers.
Fair catch on the GDP figure. I cribbed that from a Korean pronatalism paper rather than sourcing it directly, and you're right to push back. I'll correct it.
On the broader point: I don't actually disagree that money works (and I've written articles calling for more cash). The article's argument isn't "cash is useless." It's a call to action for pronatalists to stop waiting for national governments to get this right and go after the low-hanging fruit at the local and regional level, because that's where pronatalists can get quick results, build force multipliers in preparation for national influence, and establish credibility. Pronatalists are bad at selling babies, and babies are actually easy to sell. We gotta change that.
One of the core failures the article documents is that national governments like Korea's actively fail to fund or even recognize their own successful local cases. Yeonggwang has produced six consecutive years of top-ranking fertility and net in-migration (which includes cash, by the way), and the central government has no mechanism to reward or replicate it.
More money is necessary. We also have to deal with the political economy as it is.
+1
There is a lot that can be done locally.
My personal issue is School Choice, which I consider to be a way to increase value to parents without having to spend extra money. A lot has been accomplished at the state level since COVID. I moved to Florida in part of the vouchers and I'm pursuing my own local charity on the issue.
I would note that a lot of the countries with good fertility have school choice (Nordics, Israel).
The East Asians have an awful relationship with education, which I think it part of their problem.