Kristen Gyles | Money can’t buy motherhood

While women across the globe were having an average of five children in 1960, they are now having an average of two. This is a global phenomenon and not simply a local one. This is important to acknowledge because isolated figures showing a decline in Jamaica’s fertility rate might cause some to think that Jamaica, in particular, has a birth-rate problem.

For context, Jamaica’s (total) fertility rate fell from about 5.3 children per woman in 1960 to 1.9 in 2023. So, the local reality almost mirrors the global one.

A failure to acknowledge this context typically gives way to the very specific misconception that the cause of the decline is local and specific to Jamaica. But it really is not.

The first response whenever this topic comes up is usually to talk about money because, locally, the biggest issue might just be … money (or the lack thereof). Housing costs money. School costs money. Quality healthcare costs money. Food, transportation, clothing and everything else associated with raising a child cost money. And, if there is one thing most Jamaicans are short of, it is money.

However, it is a mistake to conclude that money is the whole story. After all, many fairly developed and wealthy nations are currently grappling with a similar decline in birth rates.

The social meaning of motherhood has changed, not just in Jamaica, but globally. So have the economic and educational opportunities available to women, relationships and household structures and, most significantly, the expectations women have for their own lives. In many respects, this represents progress, but this progress comes at a cost.

For generations, motherhood was treated almost as an unavoidable stage of womanhood. A young woman was expected to have children and to organise much of her adult life around family and child-rearing. Today, a woman is far more likely to see herself as an individual with a range of possible futures. She may want to become a mother, and she may not. And, even if she does, becoming a mother is much less likely to be the number-one priority. Instead, pursuits such as career, higher education, travel, entrepreneurship or simply a quiet and uneventful life may be the priority during child-bearing age and, frankly, throughout the entirety of a woman’s adult life.

Furthermore, men have changed too. Men’s standards of what constitutes a ‘good woman’ look different now from what they looked like in 1960. And, if men are more choosy and women are choosier, fewer men and fewer women will get chosen. That is a profound social change.

Choices now abound, and that is good. When presented with the choice to have or not to have children, many are simply choosing not to. The question is, do we lament that reality or simply embrace it? In many respects, it seems we are fighting tooth and nail to artificially engineer interest where it simply doesn’t exist.

The modern Jamaican woman is increasingly asking a question that previous generations were not always in a position to ask. That question is, “Do I actually want children and, if so, how many?”

The question cannot be answered with a cheque. And this is why the concept of a “baby bonus” is a difficult one to even understand. If the idea is to provide support for young mothers who are struggling financially, then yes. If the idea is to incentivise more women to give birth, then no.

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT

There is a legitimate role for government support. If a woman wants a child but is postponing motherhood because she cannot afford childcare, cannot get parental leave or faces impossible housing costs, then removing those barriers makes sense. A society that wants children should make it easier and not harder for responsible adults to raise them. However, a cash payment cannot manufacture the desire to become a parent. We also shouldn’t pretend that every additional birth produced by an incentive is automatically a demographic victory.

If a woman who otherwise does not want a child decides to become pregnant primarily because the government is offering a grant, she has arguably been encouraged to make one of the most consequential decisions of her life for one of the worst possible reasons. A grant might buy a month’s supply of nappies, food, and might cover other immediate expenses, but it cannot provide the emotional commitment required at 3 o’clock in the morning when the baby will not stop crying. It cannot make an exhausted mother feel better after months without quality sleep. It cannot repair a relationship that collapses under the pressure of parenthood. And it certainly cannot sustain the commitment required to raise a child for 18 years, and possibly more. Frankly, something more than just a financial grant is needed to power a parent through these times. That something more is the actual organic desire to be a parent.

The changing dynamics of the family also matter. Jamaica has seen a striking movement toward smaller households. The 2023 Survey of Living Conditions found that single-person households rose from 29 per cent in 2017 to 35.3 per cent in 2023. This suggests that Jamaica’s fertility problem might also be a family-formation problem. So, let us stop pretending that a baby bonus can reverse a transformation that has taken place over decades. Money can remove obstacles, governments can provide support, employers can provide flexibility, and communities can provide belonging. But none of these can manufacture the desire to become a mother or father.

Children should be born because they are wanted and anticipated. Not because the government offered some cash.

Kristen Gyles is a free-thinking public affairs opinionator. Send feedback to kristengyles@gmail.com and columns@gleanerjm.com