IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/siu/wpaper/20-2012.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

An Economic Analysis of Optimum Population Size Achieved Through Boosting Total Fertility and Net Immigration

Author

Listed:
  • Hoon Hian Teck

    (School of Economics, Singapore Management University)

Abstract

Without net immigration, the population size is projected to decline from 2025 on- ward. Does it matter? To answer this question, the paper proceeds in two main parts. In the first part, taking a citizen's utility as a measure of welfare, we identify the channels through which a larger population size reduces welfare, on the one hand, and increases welfare on the other hand. The optimum population size is achieved when the net resul- tant effect of all these channels leaves citizens' welfare at the maximum. When current and projected total fertility rates without net immigration lead to a projected path of actual population size that glides below the path of optimum population size, the policy question is how best to boost population increase to reach the optimum. The second part of the paper analyzes the costs to Singapore society of reaching the optimum by measures to boost total fertility rate, on the one hand, and allowing net immigration flows on the other hand. A starting point of economic analysis uses neoclassical growth theory to demonstrate how an increase in population size reduces per capita consumption and hence utility via a "capital dilution" channel. With a limited land size, an increase in population size raises population density, which lowers welfare through a "congestion" channel. The paper, however, identifies four other channels through which a larger population size increases welfare. These are a "tax base" channel, a "Mozart effect" channel, a "human capital externalities" channel, and an "Okun's Law" channel. To analyze the costs to Singapore's national budget of boosting the total fertility rate, we start off with the classic Becker model of fertility decisions and quantity-quality trade- off. When parents value both the quantity as well as human capital level ("quality") of children, the Becker model predicts that when parents' incomes rise, they choose quality over quantity. (This can be called a level effect.) When education boosts a child's human capital, and higher growth rates raise the marginal productivity of parental investment in a child's human capital, the expected decline in GDP growth rates as the Singapore economy matures would boost total fertility. (This can be called a growth effect.) The impact of policy measures such as parental leave, childcare subsidy and the Baby Bonus on total fertility rate can be analyzed in terms of substitution and income effects. The costs to Singapore society of net immigration, apart from scal subsidies to attract potential immigrants, would appear to come from its impact on social capital. In particular, a recent concept of "identity economics" - that an individual's payoff or utility is affected by identification with particular social categories - can help us understand the nature of the cost of achieving a given increase in population via net immigration. The optimal mix of measures to boost total fertility rate and allowing net immigration flows to achieve a given increase in the size of population equates the marginal cost of the two approaches. Forging a national identity is an investment that can lower the cost of achieving a given increase in population size.

Suggested Citation

  • Hoon Hian Teck, 2012. "An Economic Analysis of Optimum Population Size Achieved Through Boosting Total Fertility and Net Immigration," Working Papers 20-2012, Singapore Management University, School of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:siu:wpaper:20-2012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mercury.smu.edu.sg/rsrchpubupload/20707/20-2012_AnEconomicAnalysisofOptimumPopulationSizeAchievedThroughBoostingTotalFertilityandNetImmigration.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hoon Hian Teck, 2005. "Future Job Prospects in Singapore," Labor Economics Working Papers 22485, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
    2. Gary S. Becker & H. Gregg Lewis, 1974. "Interaction between Quantity and Quality of Children," NBER Chapters, in: Economics of the Family: Marriage, Children, and Human Capital, pages 81-90, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Robert M. Solow, 1956. "A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 70(1), pages 65-94.
    4. Paul A. Samuelson, 1958. "An Exact Consumption-Loan Model of Interest with or without the Social Contrivance of Money," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 66(6), pages 467-467.
    5. Michael Kremer, 1993. "Population Growth and Technological Change: One Million B.C. to 1990," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 108(3), pages 681-716.
    6. Gary S. Becker, 1960. "An Economic Analysis of Fertility," NBER Chapters, in: Demographic and Economic Change in Developed Countries, pages 209-240, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. KARGI, Bilal, 2014. "Okun’s Law and Long Term Co-Integration Analysis for OECD Countries (1987-2012)," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 119, pages 77-85.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Robinson, James A. & Srinivasan, T.N., 1993. "Long-term consequences of population growth: Technological change, natural resources, and the environment," Handbook of Population and Family Economics, in: M. R. Rosenzweig & Stark, O. (ed.), Handbook of Population and Family Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 21, pages 1175-1298, Elsevier.
    2. Ehrlich, Isaac & Lui, Francis, 1997. "The problem of population and growth: A review of the literature from Malthus to contemporary models of endogenous population and endogenous growth," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 205-242, January.
    3. Schäfer, Andreas, 2002. "Endogenous Growth with Endogenous Fertility and Social Discrimination in Education," Thuenen-Series of Applied Economic Theory 35, University of Rostock, Institute of Economics.
    4. Libois, François & Somville, Vincent, 2018. "Fertility, household size and poverty in Nepal," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 311-322.
    5. repec:got:cegedp:140 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Lee, R., 2016. "Macroeconomics, Aging, and Growth," Handbook of the Economics of Population Aging, in: Piggott, John & Woodland, Alan (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Population Aging, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 59-118, Elsevier.
    7. Dierk Herzer & Holger Strulik & Sebastian Vollmer, 2012. "The long-run determinants of fertility: one century of demographic change 1900–1999," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 357-385, December.
    8. Éva Berde & Izabella Kuncz, 2017. "Possible Paths for GDP Per Capita – Simulation with a Demographic Growth Model," Financial and Economic Review, Magyar Nemzeti Bank (Central Bank of Hungary), vol. 16(4), pages 36-57.
    9. Marla Ripoll & Juan Carlos Cordoba, 2011. "A Contribution to the Economic Theory of Fertility," 2011 Meeting Papers 1207, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    10. repec:bla:econom:v:71:y:2004:i:281:p:261-273 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Bucci, Alberto & Eraydın, Levent & Müller, Moritz, 2019. "Dilution effects, population growth and economic growth under human capital accumulation and endogenous technological change," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    12. Angela Luci & Olivier Thevenon, 2010. "Does economic development drive the fertility rebound in OECD countries?," Working Papers hal-00520948, HAL.
    13. Huang, Kaixing, 2018. "Secular Fertility Declines Hinder Long-Run Economic Growth," MPRA Paper 106977, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 03 Apr 2021.
    14. Anne Villamil & Xiaobing Wang & Yuxiang Zou, 2020. "Growth and development with dual labor markets," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 88(6), pages 801-826, December.
    15. Kaixing Huang, 2024. "Fertility and long‐term economic growth," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 62(3), pages 1152-1171, July.
    16. Laura Cabeza-García & Esther B. Del Brio & Mery Luz Oscanoa-Victorio, 2018. "Gender Factors and Inclusive Economic Growth: The Silent Revolution," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-14, January.
    17. Martin Werding & Sonja Munz & Vera Gács, 2008. "Fertility and prosperity : links between demography and economic growth," ifo Forschungsberichte, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, number 42.
    18. Edgar Vogel, 2009. "From Malthus to modern growth: child labor, schooling and human capital," MEA discussion paper series 09180, Munich Center for the Economics of Aging (MEA) at the Max Planck Institute for Social Law and Social Policy.
    19. Holger Strulik & Klaus Prettner & Alexia Prskawetz, 2013. "The past and future of knowledge-based growth," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 411-437, December.
    20. Tscheuschner, Paul, 2021. "Endogenous life expectancy and R&D-based economic growth," Hohenheim Discussion Papers in Business, Economics and Social Sciences 01-2021, University of Hohenheim, Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences.
    21. Dennis Ridley & Aryanne de Silva, 2020. "Game Theoretic Choices Between Corrupt Dictatorship Exit Emoluments and Nation-Building CDR Benefits: Is There a Nash Equilibrium?," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 65(1), pages 51-77, March.
    22. Sefa Awaworyi & Siew Ling Yew, 2014. "Government Transfers and Growth: Is there Evidence of Genuine Effect?," Monash Economics Working Papers 40-14, Monash University, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:siu:wpaper:20-2012. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: QL THor (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sesmusg.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.