Fertility is not a ‘single problem’

SINGAPORE’S baby drought deepened to a historic low in 2025, with its resident total fertility rate (TFR) falling to 0.87 children per woman. This also marked a sharp drop from 0.97 in 2024.

Singapore now ranks among the world’s lowest-fertility societies, second only to South Korea, which had a TFR of 0.8 in 2025.

As Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong highlighted, a TFR of 0.87 would translate to just 44 children and 19 grandchildren for every 100 residents today.

If this persists, Singapore’s population and generational continuity face unprecedented strain, with implications for the country’s economy, including its labour force.

In response, a new workgroup led by Second Minister for Finance and National Development Indranee Rajah has been convened to examine why Singaporeans are delaying or forgoing parenthood altogether.

This effort must start from a more honest premise. There is no single reason behind falling fertility, and there will be no single solution.

Treating this as a uniform problem risks producing uniform policies that fail to move the needle.

The temporary solution: relying on new population

Being a small country, Singapore has been relying on attracting foreign workers to ease immediate labour shortages.

But is economic growth dependent on foreigners sustainable in the long run, since they may return to their home country?

To ensure sustainability, some of these foreign workers need to be converted into permanent residents.

Singapore has been careful with their selection, ensuring that only value-added non-residents are awarded permanent residency.

The next issue would be how much immigration Singapore can accept. Locals may find that immigration erodes the sense of shared national identity and commitment.

Yet, the strategy remains important for alleviating labour pressures. Therefore, it is crucial for the government to ensure good integration of these new residents into Singapore.

The National Integration Council runs programmes to “foster and deepen emotional attachment and a sense of belonging to Singapore among new immigrants”.

It must be noted that integration is a two-way process.

While new immigrants must make the effort to understand local norms, language and social cues, Singaporeans must be generous.

They must engage rather than exclude, converse instead of complain.

A cohesive society is not built by expecting newcomers to simply “fit in” but by shaping a shared identity together.

Singaporeans must see integration not as a burden, but as a civic responsibility and an investment in a united Singapore.

A long-term solution: attracting Singaporeans to have more children

Ideally, we want Singaporeans to have more children.

Yet, Singapore’s fertility debate is too often flattened into a single question of cost. The reality is that not all who choose not to have children are responding to the same constraints.

There are at least four different groups: the unconvinced, the misinformed, the financially constrained and the scarred. These groups require different strategies.

The unconvinced: The extreme non-believers are individuals who, by preference, do not want children at all. No amount of baby bonuses or tax rebates will shift a deeply held life choice. Policy should recognise this boundary.

This group’s demand for children is highly inelastic. Hence, resources should be allocated to convince the other groups, whose demand is more elastic.

The goal here is not conversion, but coexistence.

The misinformed: This group overestimates the financial and opportunity costs of raising a child, often based on worst-case anecdotes or social comparison.

Here, the problem is perception rather than affordability.

Public agencies must communicate the real net costs after subsidies, while employers and communities normalise more grounded narratives of parenthood.

More importantly, the government needs to convince this group to see children as “consumption goods”, rather than “investment goods”.

The focus should be on how children bring joy and happiness now, rather than what they grow up to be in future.

When every child is imagined to require premium enrichment classes and private tutors, fertility becomes a luxury good. Correcting that perception is both a cultural and informational task.

The financially constrained: If there is one group where policy can genuinely move the needle, it is the financially constrained.

Singapore’s current approach is most heavily concentrated on them.

They are individuals who want children but hesitate at the cost. For instance, childbearing can mean an income reduction – or even loss – for some women.

Despite ongoing policy efforts, the results suggest that economic incentives, such as baby bonuses, alone are not enough. When having a child still threatens financial stability, no quantum of bonuses will be decisive.

What is needed then is not marginal support, but structural assurance. This would mean higher wages, family-supportive employment, genuinely affordable childcare and meaningful housing prioritisation for young families.

These are not “nice-to-haves”, but prerequisites for parenthood to feel viable rather than precarious.

The “scarred”: These may be parents whose first experience, whether due to difficult childbirth, lack of support or overwhelming stress, has deterred them from having another.

They may also be individuals who saw their friends struggle or have heard cautionary tales.

Policy must respond with care infrastructure such as accessible maternal healthcare, postnatal mental health support, flexible work arrangements and reliable caregiving networks.

The decision to have a second child is often less about money than about whether the system will catch you when things go wrong.

What research shows about the groups

The evidence is clear. There is no single barrier to fertility, only different groups making different choices for different reasons.

In the US, about 57 per cent of adults under 50 who are unlikely to have children say they simply do not want them (the unconvinced). Another 44 per cent prioritise other pursuits (the misinformed).

Between 36 and 41 per cent point to cost (the financially constrained).

And 18 to 22 per cent are held back by negative personal or family experiences (the scarred).

Notably, these are not mutually exclusive categories. Many individuals sit across two or more groups. That is precisely the point.

A one-dimensional policy response fixated largely on economic incentives, as in Singapore, misses the complexity of the issue. If the causes are diverse, the solutions must be too.

Avoiding “myopia”

While the need to raise birth rates is urgent, we should also be wary of the myopic. These are individuals who pursue parenthood without adequate consideration of their financial, emotional or caregiving capacity.

Parenthood is not merely a personal desire. When decisions are made without foresight, the burden often shifts to extended families, public systems and, most critically, to the children themselves.

A pro-natalist agenda must therefore draw a clear line between encouraging births and enabling irresponsibility.

Support should be generous but not blind. Policies must promote preparedness through parenting education, financial planning and conditional support.

The aim is not to police choice, but to ensure that every child is raised in an environment grounded in stability, intention and care.

No single lever

What emerges is a simple but often ignored truth: Fertility is a mosaic of decisions shaped by preferences, perceptions, constraints and experiences.

If policymakers are serious, they must move beyond blunt instruments. Respect those who will not be persuaded. Correct those guided by misperceptions. Support those held back by real constraints. And care – deeply and consistently – for those whose experiences have deterred them.

Policy must reflect that diversity with equal precision.

At the same time, as Singapore leans on immigration to sustain its economy, integration cannot be an afterthought. A cohesive society must be built deliberately through shared effort and mutual adaptation.

Ultimately, we must recognise that fertility is not a single problem with a single lever.

If the causes are varied, the response must be, too. Otherwise, fertility will remain stubbornly low. Not for lack of effort, but for lack of understanding.

Both writers are from the Economic Society of Singapore (ESS). Euston Quah, president of the ESS, is the Albert Winsemius chair professor of economics and director of the Economic Growth Centre at the Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Eugene Or, honorary assistant secretary of the ESS, is a lecturer at the Singapore University of Social Sciences.