Population peak may change everything
There have been plenty of dire warnings of the negative consequences of continuing world population growth.
A recent book by Darrel Bricker, CEO of Ipsos Public Affairs, and John Ibbitson, columnist with the Globe & Mail, entitled Empty Planet provides a fascinating perspective counter to the belief most commonly held that the world's population will continue to grow, leading to catastrophic consequences to our planet.
A growing world population presents many challenges, not the least of which is the demand for food and energy, as well as the likely negative impacts on the environment and climate.
The book also provides a fascinating historical look over time about how populations started to grow.
The authors make a strong case that the world's population is likely to peak in the next 30 years before beginning to decline. The world's population is currently around eight billion and is expected to peak at about nine billion before starting to decline. Most projections previously had the world's population growing to nearly 11 billion by the end of this century.
Bricker and Ibbiston argue that with rising levels of education and urbanization, as well as increased access to contraception and abortion, women are choosing to have fewer children for a variety of reasons, including a desire to pursue their own work careers. This is what has happened in developed nations and is beginning to happen in underdeveloped nations.
THE STAGES OF POPULATION GROWTH
The authors reference five stages of population growth based on the demographic transition model. Countries progress through these as they develop economically.
High fertility rates and high mortality rates, leading to low population growth.
High fertility rates with declining mortality rates, leading to rapid population growth.
Fertility rates decline, as do mortality rates, leading to continued population growth.
Low fertility rates and low mortality rates, leading to low population growth.
Fertility rates below replacement levels and high life expectancy, leading to population decline.
Most developing countries are in Stage 3, while most of the developed world, including Canada, the U.S., Australia, China and most of Europe are in Stage 4. Most of Africa is in Stage 2, while Japan is arguably in Stage 5 already.
Without immigration, many countries in Europe, as well as Canada and the U.S., would be in Stage 5, as well. Until recently, Atlantic Canada was clearly headed for Stage 5.
FERTILITY RATES
In much of the developed world, fertility rates are already below those needed to replace the population over time. It is commonly understood that a fertility rate of 2.1 for each female is required to maintain a population at its current level. In Canada, the current fertility rate is only 1.5.
The only reason developed countries are growing their populations is because of immigration. Indeed, more than 80 per cent of Canada's population growth today can be attributed to immigration.
The reason there is immigration is that many countries in the world have surplus populations relative to the strength of their economies, leading millions of people to seek a better, more prosperous life elsewhere. But if the authors are correct, and I believe they are, with declining world population there will be fewer immigrants available to maintain population growth in the developed world by mid-century, less than 30 years from now.
ATLANTIC CANADA
To some extent, Atlantic Canada has been, until recently, a microcosm of what happens without population growth. Slower economic growth across most of the region can be tied to stagnant population growth and a rapidly aging population (still the oldest in Canada).
Prince Edward Island has been the model for economic growth in the region due to its success in growing its population at the national level for the last decade or so. It is the only Atlantic province to do so.
The birth rates in Atlantic Canada have largely tracked below the national rate (1.61), except in P.E.I., which has benefitted from robust population growth in the last decade. (Nova Scotia: 1.47, New Brunswick: 1.54, P.E.I.: 1.62, Newfoundland and Labrador: 1.45).
Without the recent efforts to attract immigrants, our region risked significant population decline. Unfortunately, Newfoundland and Labrador still does.
In a recent conversation, Bricker (who is originally from Nova Scotia) had this warning:
“We also expect the pandemic will further accelerate our declining birth rate. Places that need a boost from immigration and more kids like Atlantic Canada could be especially hard hit.”
Because of the pandemic and fewer immigrants this past year, Canada's population growth (normally about one per cent) will be at the slowest rate in more than 60 years.
The federal government recently announced higher targets for immigration in Canada, to 1.2 million over the next three years, recognizing the economic recovery due to the pandemic is dependent on a growing population. However, only about a third of the expected 400,000 immigrants will actually arrive next year. This will directly affect Atlantic Canada, especially since the region has not had its fair share of newcomers to the country until only recently and is grappling with the oldest populations in the country.
DECLINES
There are countries already in the throes of population decline, especially Asian nations like South Korea, Japan and China that have largely homogeneous populations and are closed societies that do not support immigration.
In China, which has long had a one child policy, the current fertility rate is 1.2 per female. Its population is expected to peak at 1.4 billion in 2030 before declining to less than one billion by 2100. China has been an important source of immigrants to Canada for some time.
In Japan, the fertility rate is currently 1.4 per female, and their population is expected to decline from 127 million currently to 95 million in the next 35 years.
IMPLICATIONS
The trend to lower fertility rates is unlikely to change. While many jurisdictions have attempted to increase fertility rates through financial incentives, this approach has mostly failed.
Declining birth rates and declining worldwide populations will have a direct impact on the ability of developed countries like Canada to attract high-quality immigrants, which in turn will have a negative impact on long-term economic growth.
A declining world population will have many positive and negative consequences. On the positive side, the need for food to feed a growing number of people will abate. Fewer people over time will reduce energy consumption and likely help climate change. Certainly, a smaller population will have ecological and environmental benefits for the planet.
On the negative side, consumption of consumer products and services will level off and decline. The demand for new housing will be lower. Countries with population out-migration will have the most serious impacts in terms of talent and workforce.
This declining world population scenario will begin to affect Canada and this region in the near future. It is not too early to begin planning. In the meantime, it should start to inform and influence government policy now, particularly in terms of the coming competition for talent worldwide.
The only reason developed countries are growing their populations is because of immigration.