[ad_1]
What are our demographic processes in Hungary?
We’re not doing well demographically, there are many reasons for that, in addition to long-term reasons, because demographic processes always have a long-term impact. The past determines the present and the present predicts the future. We need to look at two factors from the past: the number of births, fertility on the one hand, and mortality and the number of deaths on the other. The special situation in Hungary is that since 1958 real fertility has always been below the so-called level of reproduction, except four years, the 1973 to 1977 . The daughters of the Ratkó era of the 1950s then entered their fertile age. Back then, women generally gave birth to their first child in their twenties.
Born in 1955, I myself am a Ratkó boy and my mother was twenty years old when I was born. That is, I personally authenticate what was said.
See! All this was reinforced by an important incentive, the introduction of gyes and later gyed. So there was a jump in the mid-1970s; a large number of women of childbearing age, plus an increase in fertility equivalent to an increase in the birth rate. Yes, but after another twenty years, in the mid-nineties, when a grown woman born in the mid-seventies reached childbearing age, there was no more baby boom. There is no increase in the number of births on the graph. Also, the number of births dropped quite significantly in the 1990s.
Older parents, fewer children
And how do demographers explain it?
This is mainly due to changes in demographic and fertility behavior in the post-regime change period. Why what happened? The average age of childbearing has started to increase. You also mentioned that your mother gave birth to you in 1955 at the age of twenty. Well, fertility is also biologically higher in women in their twenties. However, in the 1990s, the most common age of childbearing passed to women from 25 to 29 years old, and today mothers are more likely to have children between the ages of 30 and 34.
It’s creepy the way our family’s example perfectly portrays what we’ve heard. My mother gave birth to me at the age of twenty, while my wife gave birth to our three children at the ages of 34, 36 and 39.
Here is the live example. The euphoria of regime change was not accompanied by an increase in the number of children as insecurity increased. Thus, in the 1990s, the increase in the birth rate recorded twenty years earlier did not, in fact, occur. The desire for subsistence preceded the need for children, preferences changed, and marriage and family were no longer paramount, but financial security and learning. There may have been talk of starting a family only after graduating from college. In addition, marriage was becoming less and less a condition for forming a family, and the proportion of children born together began to increase. Living together is definitely a more volatile relationship than in marriage, although we do not have official data on this. We know, on the other hand, that a conjugal relationship is accompanied by an average number of children that is higher than one who lives together.
So do we have to be optimistic now because the number of marriages has increased recently?
That’s right, that’s exactly what it’s about. From this point of view, we really have reason to be optimistic. Unfortunately, however, the number of marriages has been declining for so long: it was a record low in 2010, when only 34.5 thousand marriages were concluded; Just for comparison: there was a year in the seventies when 100,000 weddings were celebrated. Last year, the number of marriages rose significantly to 65,000, but we have to make up for the huge backlog and losses, as the proportion of married women, that is, women between the ages of 15 and 49, has also dropped dramatically. Of course, it will be welcome if this trend, the increase in the number of marriages, is permanent. However, we demographers do not deal with divination.
Do you have evidence that marriage is really a more appropriate “space” to have a child than a cohabitation relationship?
Of course. For women of childbearing age, that is, over 49 years of age, where they are married, the average number of children is more than two, so this would only guarantee a reproductive level slightly below 2.1. In unmarried children, the number of children is much lower than this, with an average of between 1.6 and 1.7.
A successful loan of the waiting baby
The emergence of baby-waiting credit can be traced to demographic trends, if I guess correctly.
Indeed, although we do not have data on the reasons for the development of the desire to have children. Of course, if we notice any drastic change in the increase in the number of births, we must see what other change preceded it. In recent years, we have seen a slight but constant decrease: 93 thousand were born in 2016, 91 thousand in 2017, 89.8 thousand in 2018 and 89.2 thousand last year, despite the fact that the desire to have children remained without changes. This is explained by the strictly monotonous reduction in the number of women of childbearing age. Even last year fewer and fewer children were born for a long time, then the decline stopped mid-year, and in December we saw a sudden 8 percent increase compared to the same period in 2018! And the one-year weight loss of 1,200 people was cut in half to 600 in that single month!
Let me guess: the waiting baby loan was filed nine months earlier.
Let me be clear: Babies born in December 2019 were conceived in March of the same year, and they announced in February that the baby-waiting loan will take effect from July. That is, in March 2019 the appearance of the loan was already known. I would add that the welcome increase in birth rates was not only felt in December of last year, but during January-July of this year: the number of children born in the first seven months of 2020 was always higher than in the same period. in 2019. So the connection is pretty clear. We can safely say that this government measure was a success. The question is whether this trend will continue in the long term. The first seven months of 2020 resulted in 2,500 additional children compared to the previous year. That’s a pretty significant number, just don’t back down. The waiting baby loan will run for the first time until 2022. We won’t see what happens next.
I have a fixed idea. When people are more at home, more children are born. Can a home office introduced during the first wave of a coronavirus epidemic have a positive impact on demographic trends?
I can’t say that yet, but if he comes back at the end of the year or early 2021, we’ll be smarter by now. On the other hand, we already have data on the number of marriages. The number of marriages increased to 65,000 last year and doubled in January and February 2020 compared to the same months in 2019! The increase was also 80 percent in March. It had already regressed to 2019 levels in April, and in May and June it fell 30 percent and 25 percent, respectively, from the previous year. So Covid is very confused, but I don’t think it’s about staying without marriage, it’s just postponing weddings. At the time of the restrictions, events, including weddings, were not possible. These weddings are expected to take place after the epidemic is over. We do not yet have data on the number of “covid” births, an increase is conceivable, but we can also hear that living together and long-term closure can increase the number of divorces … In addition, the epidemic increases insecurity, which in turn, it can reduce rising birth rates.
Immigration helped
I also wonder what fertility indicators would be necessary to maintain the current birth rate.
We project the number of women of childbearing age using the so-called age change method, but without taking into account the evolution of mortality and immigration and emigration balances. Unfortunately, life expectancy at birth is only increasing slightly, we are far behind in the international comparison, and this also influences the persistent decline in the population. Mortality must be reduced. Here is the Czech Republic where there is no natural weight loss! We are talking about a population of ten million or six hundred thousand inhabitants, fertility is slightly higher than that of Hungary – it is slightly higher than 1.7 – but life expectancy at birth is 3.5 years higher for women and 3 years higher for men than in Hungary. Consequently, the number of deaths is much lower than in Hungary, with a population almost a million higher! The current death rate is 114 thousand for Czechs and 129 to 130 thousand for us. Therefore, both sides need growth and decline. An increase in the number of births and a decrease in the number of deaths. But back to the original question: by 2033, the number of women of childbearing age will drop by almost 400,000, from 2.2 million to 1.8 million. This is a twenty percent weight loss. The TFR would have to rise dramatically, from the current 1.49 to 1.84 just to maintain the annual birth rate of 89,000. That would be a more than twenty percent increase in fertility. And then you could just keep up.
What about the balance between emigration and immigration?
The balance remains positive. Hungary’s population is currently 9,769,000, just 3,300 less than the previous year. There were between forty thousand and four hundred natural losses, but this was almost completely offset by a 37,100 surplus in immigration. Without immigration, today it would be 40,000 fewer in Hungary than a year earlier.
According to them, is it inconceivable to stop depopulation without immigration?
Difficult question. Theoretically conceivable, as here is the Czech example. But it should be emphasized that an increase in the fertility rate is not enough, and it is necessary to achieve the level of reproduction and maintain it for a longer period of time. To do so, however, you would have to increase this number from the current 1.49 to 2.07. A little more than two children would guarantee the reproduction of the number of women of childbearing age. That they are being replaced by a girl. Because about one out of every two boys born is a girl, but statistics show that a little more boys are always born. Well, we can’t reach that 2.07 for sixty years. In addition, mortality should be reduced and life expectancy significantly increased. Increasing the fertility rate by forty percent and stopping natural weight loss is a heroic task if we ignore immigration.
[ad_2]
