> From: Mark Manger
> Date: 2012/02/17
>
> By the way, Peter, I find the term "pro-natalist"
> somewhat offensive. It suggests that policies that
support women who
> want to combine career and children are driven by a
"natalist
> ideology."

I agree one hundred percent.

I was using the term 'pro-natalist' as a term to describe a policy that the Japanese government might consider if its overriding priority was to boost the number of children being born. I absolutely agree that policies designed to provide women who want to combine career and children are not necessarily 'pro-natalist'.
Indeed, I would support the notion that such policies would be a good thing for Japan as a whole, irrespective of the economics of fertility, and simply because it is the right thing to do for women AND FOR MEN.

Even if you think
> having children is purely a lifestyle choice, you
should consider that
> many couples in Japan do not have children because
they do not have
> the job stability or even income they feel they need
to have them and
> be responsible parents. Those circumstances are not
their choice at
> all.

I don't think I implied that having children is purely a lifestyle choice; though it is indeed the case that some people treat children that way (sadly for the children of such parents). I also didn't mean to imply that I was unaware that some people feel that they lack the stability and means in their lives to have children, or at least to do so in a responsible fashion according to their own values and beliefs. Please let me know if there was anywhere that I implied these things and I will correct it, as I don't want to give anyone that impression.

There are a lot of calls, explicit or implicit, in the academic literature and media that argue that depopulation (as a result of low fertility) is a problem, or that it has problematic secondary impacts such as placing pressure on fiscal stability, and that therefore the 'problem' needs a 'solution'. I am not one of those people. Although depopulation will cause some difficulties for Japan, undoubtedly, as I said at the end of my original post, overall it may be a good thing for Japan if the population does fall to 70 or so million, or even lower. In my reading of the issue, the task is not to try to artificially boost the number of people living in Japan by intervening in people's reproductive choices and encouraging more children or by attracting people in from outside. Both of these, if the government were to try, are doomed to failure, as I indicated earlier. Instead, the government should leave fertility and immigration alone and let the population size drift downwards, and manage the ill effects of this on other areas of society, as and when these appear, and take advantage of the benefits.

The reason I say this is because I believe the impacts of a declining population on the economy will, in the end, be positive, because it may help to wean the Japanese government and people away from an 'economic growth at all costs' mentality that pervades the country, and into a set of values that prioritises human relationships, quality of life, and environmental sustainability.

Cheers,

Peter

Dr Peter Matanle
Lecturer in Japanese Studies,
National Institute of Japanese Studies and School of East Asian Studies University of Sheffield