France & Germany fertility rates compared
 

Behind new construction projects, there's the growth of cities, and behind the growth of cities, there's the general growth of a country's population.

On Wikipedia I found a fascinating map of the German fertility rates in 2003 per Kreis (local districts). So I made a map of French fertility rates per département for the same year to compare with the German map. The contrast between the two most populated countries of the European Union is quite sharp.

Fertility rates 2003
Color codes:
- red: total fertility rate (TFR) under 1.3
- pink: TFR between 1.31 and 1.40
- orange: TFR between 1.41 and 1.50
- yellow: TFR between 1.51 and 1.70
- light green: TFR between 1.71 and 1.90
- dark green: TFR between 1.91 and 2.10
- very dark green: TFR above 2.10. REPLACEMENT OF GENERATIONS ASSURED.

http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/440...all2003uz8.png

Fertility rates 2004

Here is the French map for 2004, showing an increase of fertility nationwide. I don't have a map for Germany in 2004 unfortunately. In 2005 and 2006 the French fertility rate has increased even more, now reaching an average of 1.98 nationwide (in 2006), but I don't have data per département, so 2004 is the last year I can draw a map.

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/7...fce2004pr8.png

France is gonna be a bigger nation than Germany if that doesn't change fast.
I have more hope for development in France.

The german goverment has this year approved some laws to icrease fertility rates and now there´s general conscious in Germany about this issue but even if successful, germany will have to wait several years for these measures to take real effect. Anyway, total fertility rates don´t take into account migratory movements which could compensate in germany for the lower fertility. I can hardly imagine france to have more population than germany in the long furuture

I have added the Netherlands and Luxembourg to the map. It's impossible to find the fertility rates of Belgium unfortunately, but from what I understand they are in between the high fertility rates of France and the low fertility rates of Germany.

Fertility rates 2003



http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/7...eth2003ep5.png

In the German case, migratory movements don't compensate anymore. It was true in the 1990s when all the Germans from eastern Europe and Russia were relocating to Germany, but since the end of the 1990s almost all of them have already relocated and migration to Germany is now very low (economic migrants go in their majority to Spain, the British Isles, Scandinavia, even Italy, but not Germany).

This is a table comparing the net migration to France and Germany in recent years (figures come from the French and German statistical offices). Net migration is the difference between people moving into the country and people moving out of the country. Note that net migration to France is generaly considered low (compared to Spain or the UK), so that says something about the very low net migration of Germany.

According to the German statistical office, in 2050 Germany will have 68,743,000 inhabitants, assuming there's a net migration of +100,000 every year until 2050, which is more than what's happening at the moment (see migration figures above). If the net migration is only +50,000 every year, then the population of Germany in 2050 will be only about 65 million.

That´s true but migration rates are easier to increase according to the countrie´s necessities. Germany has experienced a low economical growth period from the mid 90´s and early 2000´s, mainly caused by the reunification costs, lower than France, UK and even Italy some years which lowered total fertility rates even more and gradually diminished net migration while France experienced a relatively satisfactory economic growth. Germany´s economical recovery these recent years which increased GDP growth over Italy and France could be a reason of more net migration for the coming years considering that in Germany there´s already an acute shortage of workers for some industry areas. In addition, the large postwar generation which accounts for the major working population in Germany today will retire starting from about 2020 and this will increase the demand for migration even further. On the other hand, measures taken by the german goverment to tackle low fertility will take many years to have a significant effect on total fertility rates. But I agree if population growth in Germany and France continues as it is now, France´s population will surpass germany in some decades.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flash110 (Post 3107370) Germany has experienced a low economical growth period from the mid 90´s and early 2000´s, mainly caused by the reunification costs, lower than France, UK and even Italy some years which lowered total fertility rates

I don't think that the reason for a low fertility rate is the bad economic situation. There are much deeper reasons for the low fertility of Germany. This low fertility rate has existed for a long time already. Back in the 1970s and 1980s when West Germany was booming, the fertility rate of Germany was already pretty low. Even during the baby boom in the 1960s the fertility rate of Germany was of course higher than now, but still lower than France's or the UK's fertility rate. It's like something has been broken in the German psyche since the Third Reich and the Nazi pro-natalist policies, I don't know.

Here is the German and French fertility rates since 1960 for comparisons.

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/2...rtiliteip5.png

Quote:

Originally Posted by flash110 (Post 3107370) Germany´s economical recovery these recent years which increased GDP growth over Italy and France could be a reason of more net migration for the coming years considering that in Germany there´s already an acute shortage of workers for some industry areas.

That's possible, but then it's surprising that in 2006, which was the best economic year for Germany since the reunification, net migration was at its lowest with only +25,000.

In any case Germany would need to have a crazily high net migration rate just to keep its population at the current level. Like I said, with a net migration of +100,000 per year, Germany will have 68,743,000 inhabitants in 2050. With a net migration of +200,000 per year (which is more than the UK and surpassed only by Spain), Germany would have 73,958,000 inhabitants in 2050 according to the German statistical office. With a net migration of +300,000 per year (which is almost as high as the record net migration to Spain in recent years), Germany would have 78,724,000 inhabitants in 2050.

In other words, in order just to keep its current level of population, Germany would need to have a net migration of almost +400,000 every year until 2050. I don't think German people are ready for that. Immigration at that level for more than 40 years would greatly change the composition of Germany's population. It's doubtful German citizens are ready for the millions of immigrants that this scenario would mean, supposing it's feasible to attract so many immigrants in the first place.

What's it with the stupid obsession about fertility rates. The earth is overpopulated anyway. If we are able to reduce the human population a bit in the future, everyone will benefit.

The problem is not the population loss, but our outdated social and pension systems where the current working population pays for the current retirees. If we would switch the systems to one where everyone is forced to save up a considerable amount of money for their own pension, the problem would be solved.

It's also no big surprise that France's population will be larger than Germany's in the future, considering it is almost twice the size in land area than Germany.

That´s a fact, unlike France, Germany and the german government specially, has been reluctant to introduce meassures to stimulate population growth since the nazi regime, in contrast, France has been implementing pronatalistic policies since a few decades. But given the enormous impact this demographic change causes to the social system this reluctance has been abandonced by the german goverment in recent years. On the other hand as you correctly pointed, fertility in germany has been lower than france for a long time now and if you compare there´s not a big difference between population growth in both countries the last decades.

It depends where. You need to make a distinction. There are areas of the Earth which are already quite crowded...

(dense Flemish countryside)
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/39/77...f8c807e7_b.jpg

...and there are other areas of the Earth which can still accomodate a lot of people.

(empty central France)
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1318/...88201368_b.jpg

What do you mean?

The earth being overpopulated?

I believe less than one percent of the entire above-water surface of the world is inhabited by humans. The other 99% is the uninhabited vastness of planet earth. Furthermore, if our food production methods were not as wasteful as they are we could feed our entire population with the current production and have significant reserves for significantly more people. But alas wealthy countries discard about as much as they consume and food production policies in ravaged countries do little to promote mass and affordable food production.

Today in 2007, the global food production is enough to feed 9 billion people without even changing our food habits. In 2007, we could even product enough to feed 12 billion people but that would mean renouncing to meat production and agricultural production destinated to industries.

The problem of starvation isn't due to overpopulation, it's due to a failing food distribution system. That doesn't mean that capitalism is necessarily the cause of the evil, actually communism has proven itself to suck even more when it goes about food distribution.

But anyway, what should be also understood is that most countries in the world faces a slowing down of their population growth. The world as a whole is already getting in the final stage of the demographic transition. The population should stabilize around 9 billion people in 2050.

I'm happy about this. Germany's way too crowded anyway. A nation of our size (geographically) should only be home to about 50 million people. The less, the merrier.

Gaah, I hate that kind of population forecasts ("the population of x in 2050...."). Useless.

I don´t agree, there´s no natural law which relates the geographical size/location with the population growth/quantity, this is only a stupid speech of some dictators. Germany could easily accommodate over 100 millon inhabitans, there´re areas in central and east germany which are underpopulated and it also depends on urbanization, and the ability of a society to organize their population. Japan for instance has a bunch of millon cities, Germany has too many cities but none of them has more than 10m inhabitans.

Yeah, shouldn't the world have over 7 billion people. by the year 2000?

So? Of course Germany could easily accomodate more people but maybe I don't necessarily want this. I live in Northrhine-Westfalia, the most densely populated state in Germany (aside from the small city states) and I can tell you it isn't exactly the most beautiful one. Seriously, why do we have to fill every nook and cranny of a country with people?

aka Swedish (sub)urban area
aka dense Swedish countryside

Like you say, it's all relative, e.g. the official Stockholm metro is less dense than the Netherlands as a whole. Also, population forcasts 40 years into the future is way too much guesswork to be credible. Useing these kind of projections into the future to point out a a current sitation has it's uses but nobody actually thinks this is how things will turn out...

That's very true. Especially knowing that this thread is based in part on an unexpected raise of the fertility rate in France since 2000. If demography wasn't able to plan what happened 7 years ago, we have all reasons to be cautious about what will happen in the next 50 years.

Now this being said, it's true that there's something very real today, and it is that there are more French new-born babies than German new-born babies. In 2006, about 820,000 French babies are born and about 675,000 German babies are born. As a result, the trend leads currently to a reducing gap of population between both countries. Now we don't know if that trends will continue, we don't know how immigration will go on. Well, many things can change from now to 2057.

If Cologne and Dusseldorf had 4m people that would not be necesary but anyway the fact that there are not beautiful places doesn´t have to do with dense population and doesn´t mean there must be less for it to be beautiful, the Netherlands has a bigger population density than Germany and it has higher fertility rates. There are many reasons why Germany or any west european country shouldn´t have less people, i´m not talking about increasing population but at least keeping it. Lower population means more contribution to social systems and thus less incomes for workers and less economic/social prosperity.

Sorry, just had to get in on this.

Simply put, the world isn't over-populated (as has been pointed out) as a whole. It simply depends on where one lives. My city for example is considered something of an isolated outpost because the next nearest city of equal or greater size is about a thousand kilometers away. And in all that distance is kilometer after kilometer of food waiting to be harvested and sent to some distant market in Europe or Asia.

This of course brings up the question "Why are people starving then ?" The simple answer is that it's because they can't afford to feed themselves. Of course , when said like that it sounds cavalier and insensitive but the truth is that it has to be this way. If they want the food (and we'd love to give it to them) they need to pay for it. Why ? Simple economics.

We can't simply give away all the food necessary to sustain a third world country , nevermind the whole third world. One way or another this would bring about the collapse the world's agricultural economy. Whether it means having our governments buy the food at market prices (impossible for any sanely led government ) , artificially buoying the price of the food (this is never a good idea and it's been proven time and again with command economies) or simply sending excess food at no cost (that's not true anyway since it costs money to move and distribute the food) to nations in need.

It's basically a matter of supply and demand. The supply is there, the demand is there but if there is no cold hard cash in the mix then nobody gets paid. If farmers can't make money then they stop farming. It's that simple. Since the world depends on farmers making money and we depend on them to feed us , we can't give away too much food. Sound selfish ? Only until one realizes that if it wasn't this way we'd all be starving and be worse off. It was this same economic model that brought us out of the stone age and gave rise to the world we live in today. People who think it was better before have not read their history. There was never a time when a greater percentage of the population of the world was living more comfortably even if that comfort doesn't encompass the entire world yet. Giving away too much food disrupts the economics of the whole scheme and if left unchecked would bankrupt the same people who want to help those who need the help. If that happened , nobody wins but we all lose.

Now, as for rising or falling populations :

It's not the first time that populations have risen and fallen over a period of decades. In fact, both France and Germany have experienced this many times in their histories. Chances are that within a few decades at most , the populations will begin to rise again through natural increase alone. Something always comes along to stimulate the birth rate but since these are trends , it's difficult to foresee what that might be. Governments have never been very good at convincing people to either have or not have children. China is a pretty good modern example of governmental ineffectiveness in this department. It was and is money that makes all the difference. With cash comes education and the more educated a person is the less likely they are usually to want children. The greater the education , the more money becomes available to an individual or population. So the cycle is self-perpetuating in that sense.

On the other hand, the current trend appears to indicate a psychological shift in spite of the money or education. People who are childless are lamenting their decision from years ago and when possible are either having children before it's too late or spreading the word that they wish they'd had families. Either way, it's likely that within a couple of decades, birth rates in developed nations will rise. As for how much they'll rise , it's impossible to say. And that of course depends on the trend holding in the first place. Right now , it's not particularly discernible but the anectdotal evidence suggests it's existence.

Here is the total number of births in the biggest EU countries in the 7 years from 2000 (included) to 2006 (included). FIgures are official from the national statistical offices.

Total births 2000-2006:

A right to the point answer about Belgium.
There is a wide variety in fertility but more people are born lately alltough some areas do have a huge decline in population while others rise fast.

btw : what happened with "Brisavoine" ?

He got heightened. Like Axa. Lol.

In Belgium fertility rates also vary a lot between ethnic groups, but I presume the same story holds in France, etc.
Welcome New Brisavoine!

I preferred Classic Brisavoine.

The new population figures for France and Germany have been released.

French report:
German report:
Here are a few findings from the reports.

Population on January 1, 2008:
- Germany: 82,210,000
- France: 64,473,140

In 2007 there were slightly more German births than in 2006 (but no World Cup baby boom as some had anticipated), and slightly less French births than in 2006 (but still quite a lot compared to the average of the past 30 years).

Live births in 2007:
- Germany: between 680,000 and 690,000
- France: 816,500

As a consequence the gap between German and French births was slightly smaller than in 2006, but nonetheless still quite significant.

French births minus German births:
- 2006: 157,564
- 2007: between 126,500 and 136,500

Finally, net migration in 2007 has increased a bit in Germany but is still quite low; in France it has decreased a bit (Sarkozy's tough enforcement of immigration policies must have something to do with it).

Net migration in 2007:
- Germany: between +35,000 and +45,000
- France: +71,000

Is there a difference in Germany between the Länder of the former BRD and DDR in fertility rates ?

At the first page of this thread you find an illustration. There is a difference but it is not massive.

Well, I agree that population growth is no worthwhile goal in itself. Most important is the quality of the children in terms of health, intelligence and education because that will largely determine their productivity later in life and their ability to uphold the living standard for the whole country.

In case of Germany though the people who are dying are largely from the middle class whereas more and more children are born into the lower class (currently already 40% nationwide). We therefore have a combination of two of the worst possible factors in Germany, low birthrate plus decreasing quality of children. The fertility rate of a middle class woman is 1.1 in Germany. For a lower class woman the fertility rate is 1.9. A perfect storm. Sad thing is that this development will also lead to an increase of the fertility rate in the future as the lower class will increase in proportion. If you look at the big cities, you can see that future of Germany. In Berlin 74% of all newborns come from lower class households and in Hamburg 68%. Within 1-2 generation we will therefore have French style fertility rates in Germany, simply because the middle class has died out. And by that time politicians will probably applaud themselves for having stopped the demographic decline. Sick.

The last time there was progressive population loss, they called it the Dark Ages. Think about that. In the history of the world, population decline has ALWAYS been met with terrible consequences.

I predict that Spain's population boom will come to an abrupt end, as immigrants will no longer be attracted to this low producvity/construction bust economy. Immigrants from South America are already moving back home. The fertility rate in Spain is very low, and there is no way from preventing population decline, assuming immigration slows.

And unlike Germany, Spanish workers are not very competitive, and has lost what little manufacturing base it had, due to declining productivity, and lack of reform during the boom years. It does have a strong financial industry, but this is a small part of GDP anyway.

^There is a way to prevent population decline: have more babies! I know, simplistic thing to say, but still very true. The trick is getting a society where it is a good thing for the prospective parents to have kids (and more than one). How? I have no ready solution, but free/cheap daycare for the kids is a must if both parents are to be part of the workforce. Affordable/free healthcare is also a big thing. If having a kid will make you poor, you're less likely to have kids.

Nexus6 - If you haven't already, see the movie Idiocracy. It describes that problem well, and in a really funny way.

Actually Swede, the countries w/ the highest fertility rates are some very poor countries.

Very true, but the fertility rate all over the world has dropped by plenty over the last 100 years. The traditionally "poor" countries aren't growing like they used to. Also, countries are moving out of that group, Sweden was pretty much a shitty place to live 150 years ago for most people and 50 years ago we were one of the top places to be. Many countries are doing that leap now.

Anyway, my suggestions were in the context of a rich country and to a lesser degree a middle-income country.

Why did we have a population decline though? Did the decline lead to terrible consequences or did some disastrous event lead to a decline? The answer to that question is pretty important.

I do agree though that a decline will lead to some serious problems for our welfare state. I guess we'll just have to find a solution for that.

You're right: not a case IMO that in France there is a high fertility rate. There is a strong policy to support families, with tax relieves for each son

It doesn't matter... as you said somewhere else in 2012 the world will end

Population decline was due to war, famine, and the black plague, which naturally destroyed the feudal economies. This lead to even less people, which meant less total wealth. It did recover only after feudalism was killed with the introduction of capitalism.

Yep, I wonder if there even is a solution for that issue in the future.
The answer is ofcourse: More babies, but that's easier said than done.

Laws to increase fertility rates ? What, are they going to arrest people for not boinking ?

German birth figures for 2007 have been published. In 2007 there were exactly 684,865 births in Germany (source). This is a modest increase of 1.8% compared to 2007 (684,865 births in 2007 compared to 672,724 births in 2006), but it's not reaching the level of 2005 when there were 685,795 births, let alone the 1990s when there were on average 790,000 births every year.

The fertility rate figure for 2007 hasn't been published yet.

Here are the number of births in the largest EU countries in 2007 for comparison:

For a broader perspective, here is the total number of births in the largest EU countries in the 8 years from 2000 (included) to 2007 (included):

The German statistical office has finally published the German fertility rate for 2007 (I don't know why it took them so long). In 2007 the German fertility rate was exactly 1.37. This is a moderate increase compared to 2006 when it was 1.33, but it still falls short of the German fertility rate in 2000 which was 1.38, and in 1990 when it was 1.45. Replacement level fertility is considered to be 2.1.

The biggest increase was in East Germany where the fertility rate jumped from 1.30 in 2006 to 1.37 in 2007, whereas in West Germany the increase was more modest, from 1.34 to 1.38.

In comparison, in 2007 the fertility rate in metropolitan France (the European part of France) was 1.96.

This graph shows the evolution of the German and metropolitan French fertility rates since 1975, including the latest figures published. The Elterngeld (parents' money) scheme introduced in Germany in 2006 is still a long way from turning the German fertility rate into the French one. This shows that there must more than just government money to explain the high fertility rate in metropolitan France.

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/4177/fertilitmf3.png

Predicted population development in Europe 2004 - 2030.

Dark blue = more than -18%
Dark red = more than + 18%

Source: Spiegel Online / Berlin-Institut
http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,1277840,00.jpg


Average fertility rate:

Source: Spiegel Online / Berlin-Institut
http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,1277827,00.jpg

^^Great maps. :tup:

Here is another map, from Eurostat, by country this time. Fertility rates in 2006:

http://img390.imageshack.us/img390/1269/fconditfg9.png

Nice maps guys! :tup:

The French statistical office has published provisional birth figures for the first half of 2008. These figures show a surprising increase, with births in Metropolitan France reaching a record high. The provisional birth figures can be seen here:
http://www.indices.insee.fr/bsweb/se...01000000000000

Why surprising? A bit of explanation is needed here. In 2006, the record number of 796,896 births were registed in Metropolitan France (the European part of France). This was the highest number of births in Metropolitan France since 1982. Fertility rate in 2006 was consequently also very high, it reached 1.98 in Metropolitan France, and 2.0 when including the overseas departments. Demographers explained this very high number of births by the fact that women from the end of the French baby boom (68-73) were now having the children that they had delayed so far. They predicted that the number of births would decrease after 2006, because as these last women from the baby boom era were having their delayed children, they were going to be replaced by the less numerous women from the post baby boom (1974 and beyond), thus mechanically reducing the number of births in France (something similar will happen in all the European countries, albeit with different magnitudes).

In 2007 the number of births in Metropolitan France was 785,985, i.e. 1.4% less than in 2006, and the fertility rate fell slightly to 1.96, which confirmed predictions from demographers. In 2008, I was expecting further slight decline in the number of births, given the "retirement" of the numerous women from the baby boom era, yet these provisional figures from the French statistical office show exactly the opposite.

In the first half of 2008, according to the provisional figures, there were 3.3% more births than in the first half of 2007, but what's more remarkable is there were 2.1% more births than in the first half of the record year 2006. If the trend is the same in the second half of the year, Metropolitan France is on course to register about 810,000 births in 2008, which is a number of births that has not been reached since 1973. This would most certainly mean that Metropolitan France's fertility rate would for the first time since 1974 cross the 2.0 threshhold, the holy grail in demographics.

We'll know for sure in the middle of January when the French statistical office will publish birth and fertility figures for the entire year 2008. A minority of demographers suspect that in some Western countries at least, we may have entered another age in fertility trends, with fertility rates recovering firmly to above 2.0. Maybe they are right after all. Only time will tell, one or two year data is not enough to draw any conclusion.