by Tony Rucinski, TCW
CREDIT where it’s due: the Institute of Economic Affairs is finally treating the birth dearth as something a pro-market outfit must confront. Clara Piano’s discussion paper Mind the Fertility Gap argues that liberalising labour, childcare and housing rules can help Britons achieve the families they say they want, but too often do not have. That diagnosis matters. The latest ONS release puts the total fertility rate for England and Wales at 1.41 for 2024, the lowest level in modern times. Piano’s thesis is that cash‑heavy baby bonuses are costly and short lived, whereas supply‑side reforms improve work‑family compatibility, especially for younger adults.
That’s the useful part. The problem is the gap between the report’s diagnosis and its cure. Marriage appears in the analysis, then disappears when it counts. For a conservative audience that actually wants more babies, that omission is not cosmetic. It is fatal.
Starting with what the IEA gets right, there is plainly a persistent wedge between intended and achieved family size; its Figure 1 shows intentions hovering around replacement rate (2.1 children), while realised fertility falls. The paper is candid that the intentions series ends in 2011 and is interpolated for missing years. That’s a limitation which should have been front and centre before policy conclusions were drawn. The case against big‑ticket transfer schemes is also well made. Countries have paid billions for short‑run bumps that fade with time. And on housing, the IEA is right to emphasise that land‑use rules depress childbearing among the very cohort that needs lower barriers most. Shoag and Russell find a significant negative link between zoning restrictions and fertility, strongest for women in their twenties.
Where the paper flinches is on marriage.