<p>Population changes slowly over time but has large effects in the long-run.
Here are some well-studied <strong>facts about fertility</strong>: </p>

<ul>
<li>Before the industrial revolution, the rich had more surviving children than the poor.</li>
<li>The transition from stagnation to economic growth is accompanied by a demographic transition from high to low fertility.</li>
<li>Today, both within and across countries, rich and educated mothers have less children than poor and unskilled ones.</li>
<li>Most of the literature finds that the income of the father positively affects fertility, while the income of the mother negatively affects fertility.</li>
</ul>

<p>Economists would stress that <strong>one explanation</strong> among others is Parents' income: Opportunity cost of child-rearing time is high for high income/education mothers. They are other reasons.</p>

<p>David de la Croix works on this topic and offers interesting lectures on Fertility, Education, Growth and Sustainability <a href="http://perso.uclouvain.be/david.delacroix/cicse.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. You will find references for the above facts and other reasons for the decline in fertility.</p>

<p>An academic reference is: De la Croix D. and M. Doepke, Inequality and growth: why differential fertility matters, American Economic Review, 93, 1091-1113, 2003. </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-12-01T00:34:58.903Z
2015-12-01T00:34:58.903Z
emeryville
<p>I am discussing about evolution theory with a philosophy student and she observes that wealthier families tend to have fewer children, which kind of goes against natural selection, i.e. the genes of smarter/healthier people do not necessarily pass along the generations. </p>

<p>Now I am thinking:</p>

<ul>
<li>Is there really such a pattern? If yes, </li>
<li>Does it vary across different environments (e.g. developed vs developing countries)?</li>
<li>What is the economics explanation?</li>
</ul>

<p>References to papers are very welcome. </p>

<p>I am not sure how to tag this question, feel free to edit. </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-11-30T20:37:02.587Z
Smarter has very little to do with wealthier. And I strongly recommend refraining from socio-biological speculation.
410 gone
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-11-30T20:37:08.790Z
In a short time one of you will argue that idiocracy is real (see https://xkcd.com/603/). But it is not. Intelligence is a welcome trait in all social environments. The phenomenon you describe may only result in fewer children bringing a good educational background from home.
Giskard
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-11-30T20:48:52.970Z
Again, we are just pointing out that you claim that wealth means smart/healthy. Let us cast aside this assumption. There are papers that deal with income and fertility. http://www.econ.yale.edu/~pschultz/cdp925.pdf
Giskard
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-11-30T22:04:11.727Z
This may help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate#/media/File:Trends_in_TFR_1950-2050.png
paj28
<reference-request><population-economics>
Any research done on relationship between fertility rate and wealth?
qed
# Any research done on relationship between fertility rate and wealth?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-11-30)

I am discussing about evolution theory with a philosophy student and she observes that wealthier families tend to have fewer children, which kind of goes against natural selection, i.e. the genes of smarter/healthier people do not necessarily pass along the generations.

Now I am thinking:

* Is there really such a pattern? If yes,
* Does it vary across different environments (e.g. developed vs developing countries)?
* What is the economics explanation?

References to papers are very welcome.

I am not sure how to tag this question, feel free to edit.

**Tags:** reference-request, population-economics
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Smarter has very little to do with wealthier. And I strongly recommend refraining from socio-biological speculation.  
> **username_2**: In a short time one of you will argue that idiocracy is real (see https://xkcd.com/603/). But it is not. Intelligence is a welcome trait in all social environments. The phenomenon you describe may only result in fewer children bringing a good educational background from home.  
> **username_2**: Again, we are just pointing out that you claim that wealth means smart/healthy. Let us cast aside this assumption. There are papers that deal with income and fertility. http://www.econ.yale.edu/~pschultz/cdp925.pdf  
> **username_3**: This may help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate#/media/File:Trends_in_TFR_1950-2050.png  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2015-12-01. Score: 2 | Accepted answer

Population changes slowly over time but has large effects in the long-run.
Here are some well-studied **facts about fertility**:

* Before the industrial revolution, the rich had more surviving children than the poor.
* The transition from stagnation to economic growth is accompanied by a demographic transition from high to low fertility.
* Today, both within and across countries, rich and educated mothers have less children than poor and unskilled ones.
* Most of the literature finds that the income of the father positively affects fertility, while the income of the mother negatively affects fertility.

Economists would stress that **one explanation** among others is Parents' income: Opportunity cost of child-rearing time is high for high income/education mothers. They are other reasons.

David de la Croix works on this topic and offers interesting lectures on Fertility, Education, Growth and Sustainability [here](http://perso.uclouvain.be/david.delacroix/cicse.html). You will find references for the above facts and other reasons for the decline in fertility.

An academic reference is: De la Croix D. and M. Doepke, Inequality and growth: why differential fertility matters, American Economic Review, 93, 1091-1113, 2003.


---

