Demographics
Charted: The Global Decline of Fertility Rates
Charted: The Global Decline of Fertility Rates
Over the last 50 years, fertility rates have dropped drastically around the world. In 1952, the average global family had five children—now, they have less than three.
This graphic by Pablo Alvarez uses tracked fertility rates from Our World in Data to show how rates have evolved (and largely fallen) over the past decades.
What’s The Difference Between Fertility Rates and Birth Rates?
Though both measures relate to population growth, a country’s birth rate and fertility rate are noticeably different:
- Birth Rate: The total number of births in a year per 1,000 individuals.
- Fertility Rate: The total number of births in a year per 1,000 women of reproductive age in a population.
As such, the fertility rate is a more specific measure, which as Britannica highlights, “allows for more efficient and beneficial planning and resource allocation.” Not including immigration, a given area needs an overall total fertility rate of 2.1 to keep a stable population.
Global Fertility Rates since 1952
For the last half-century, fertility rates have steadily decreased worldwide. Here’s a look at the average number of children per woman since 1952:
Year | Average # of children per family | % change (y-o-y) |
---|---|---|
1951 | 5.0 | -0.5% |
1952 | 5.0 | -1.4% |
1953 | 4.9 | -0.7% |
1954 | 4.9 | -0.5% |
1955 | 4.9 | -0.3% |
1956 | 4.9 | -0.1% |
1957 | 4.9 | 0.1% |
1958 | 4.9 | 0.3% |
1959 | 4.9 | 0.4% |
1960 | 5.0 | 0.5% |
1961 | 5.0 | 0.5% |
1962 | 5.0 | 0.4% |
1963 | 5.0 | 0.3% |
1964 | 5.0 | 0.1% |
1965 | 5.0 | -0.2% |
1966 | 5.0 | -0.5% |
1967 | 5.0 | -0.8% |
1968 | 4.9 | -1.1% |
1969 | 4.8 | -1.4% |
1970 | 4.7 | -1.8% |
1971 | 4.6 | -2.1% |
1972 | 4.5 | -2.5% |
1973 | 4.4 | -2.7% |
1974 | 4.3 | -2.9% |
1975 | 4.2 | -2.9% |
1976 | 4.0 | -2.8% |
1977 | 3.9 | -2.7% |
1978 | 3.8 | -2.4% |
1979 | 3.8 | -2.1% |
1980 | 3.7 | -1.7% |
1981 | 3.6 | -1.3% |
1982 | 3.6 | -1.0% |
1983 | 3.6 | -0.8% |
1984 | 3.6 | -0.7% |
1985 | 3.5 | -0.8% |
1986 | 3.5 | -1.0% |
1987 | 3.4 | -1.4% |
1988 | 3.4 | -1.7% |
1989 | 3.3 | -2.1% |
1990 | 3.2 | -2.4% |
1991 | 3.1 | -2.6% |
1992 | 3.1 | -2.6% |
1993 | 3.0 | -2.4% |
1994 | 2.9 | -2.2% |
1995 | 2.9 | -1.8% |
1996 | 2.8 | -1.5% |
1997 | 2.8 | -1.3% |
1998 | 2.8 | -1.1% |
1999 | 2.7 | -1.1% |
2000 | 2.7 | -0.9% |
2001 | 2.7 | -0.9% |
2002 | 2.7 | -0.7% |
2003 | 2.6 | -0.6% |
2004 | 2.6 | -0.6% |
2005 | 2.6 | -0.5% |
2006 | 2.6 | -0.5% |
2007 | 2.6 | -0.5% |
2008 | 2.6 | -0.5% |
2009 | 2.6 | -0.5% |
2010 | 2.5 | -0.5% |
2011 | 2.5 | -0.5% |
2012 | 2.5 | -0.5% |
2013 | 2.5 | -0.5% |
2014 | 2.5 | -0.4% |
2015 | 2.5 | -0.4% |
2016 | 2.5 | -0.4% |
2017 | 2.5 | -0.4% |
2018 | 2.5 | -0.4% |
2019 | 2.5 | -0.4% |
2020 | 2.4 | -0.4% |
Why are women having fewer children? There are a number of theories and empirical research studies to help explain this decrease, but according to Dr. Max Roser, the founder of Our World in Data, most of the literature boils down to three main factors:
- Women’s empowerment, particularly in education and the workforce
- Lower child mortality
- Increased cost to raising children
Research has found that higher education in women is correlated with lower fertility. For instance, in Iran in the 1950s, women had an average of three years of schooling and raised seven children on average.
But by 2010, when Iranian women had nine years of schooling on average, the average fertility rate in the country had dropped to 1.8.
This theory is further supported when you look at countries where women’s education is still relatively lagging. For instance, in 2010, women in Niger had 1.3 years of education on average, and an average of more than seven children—more than double the global average at that time.
The Societal Impact
Lower fertility rates, coupled with increased life expectancies around the world, are creating an aging population. Since 1950, the global median age has grown from 25 years to 33 years.
An older population comes with a number of economic risks, including rising healthcare costs and a smaller global workforce.
According to a report by the World Bank, the world’s working-age population peaked back in 2012. Since then, it’s been on the decline.
A smaller working population puts more pressure on those who are working to support those who are collecting pensions. This could ultimately lead to an economic slowdown if countries don’t prepare and alter their pension systems accordingly, to account for our aging population.
This article was published as a part of Visual Capitalist's Creator Program, which features data-driven visuals from some of our favorite Creators around the world.
Money
How America’s Poverty Rates Differ by Race
This chart shows how poverty rates in America swing between 10–20% when accounting for race.
Charted: How America’s Poverty Rates Differ by Race
This was originally posted on our Voronoi app. Download the app for free on iOS or Android and discover incredible data-driven charts from a variety of trusted sources.
The U.S. poverty rate stands at 12%, affecting about 41 million people across the country. At the state level, this rate ranges from 7% to 18%, depending on local economic conditions. But how does poverty differ when examined through the lens of racial demographics?
This chart visualizes the percentage and number of Americans living below the poverty threshold, categorized by race, based on data from the American Community Survey 2022 conducted by the Census Bureau. It focuses on respondents who selected a single race.
Racial Disparities in Poverty
The data reveals distinct differences in poverty rates among racial groups, reflecting the complex social and economic dynamics that have evolved over generations.
Race | % Below Poverty Level | # Below Poverty Level |
---|---|---|
American Indian/Alaska Native | 21.7% | 675,913 |
African American | 21.3% | 8,317,088 |
Other* | 17.9% | 4,303,587 |
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander | 17.6% | 113,693 |
Asian | 10.1% | 1,937,553 |
White | 9.9% | 19,544,155 |
*Hispanic/Latino populations usually select “other race” in census surveys. Figures rounded.
While poverty exists across all racial groups, there are some significant variations in both the rates and total numbers. These disparities reflect a combination of historical factors, structural inequalities, and ongoing challenges unique to different communities.
Native and Black Americans Face Higher Poverty Rates
Both Native Americans and Black Americans have the highest poverty rates, with about one in five individuals from these groups living below the poverty line. These groups are considered “overrepresented” in poverty statistics, meaning their share in poverty exceeds their proportion of the total U.S. population.
Long-standing issues have created cycles of poverty that, despite some progress, remain challenging to overcome in the face of ongoing systemic inequalities.
Other racial groups also grapple with poverty as well. There are 19.5 million white Americans below the poverty line. Although the rate is lower, about one-in-ten, the absolute number of people below the poverty threshold is the largest of all groups.
Learn More on the Voronoi App
The U.S. also falls behind its peers when it comes to government support to help socio-economic mobility. Check out Hours of Work Needed to Escape Poverty to see how it measures up against other high income economies.
-
Maps2 weeks ago
Mapped: Average IQ Score by State
-
United States2 weeks ago
Mapped: U.S. States That Work the Hardest
-
Green4 weeks ago
The Number of Earths Needed for Different Countries’ Lifestyles
-
Misc3 weeks ago
The Most Reliable Car Brands, According to Consumer Reports
-
United States1 week ago
Mapped: The 10 Dirtiest Cities in America
-
Markets3 weeks ago
Ranked: World’s Biggest Superpowers in 2024
-
Innovation1 week ago
Ranked: The World’s Most Innovative Countries in 2024
-
Markets2 weeks ago
U.S. vs. China: Which Country is the World’s #1 Superpower?