Pro-natalist policies, in some form or other, have existed since ancient times and were justified on grounds of high mortality conditions; they flowed from a populationist philosophy which equated power and prosperity with large numbers.

The expansionist motivation in population policy reached a climax in Germany, Italy and Japan during the period between the two World Wars.

The measures adopted for this purpose included intensive pro-natalist propaganda, cash payments and honouring of motherhood the repression of birth control, the regulation of emigration, the enactment of “eugenic laws” and drives for larger native and racially “pure” populations.

Thomlinson describes three approaches to an effective pro- natalist policy. The first approach is to accept existing values and attitudes and eliminate or diminish the economic liability of having children.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

The second approach is to modify the norms by glorifying values concerning reproduction. The legal measures incorporated in this approach are lowering the minimum age for marriage and reinstating the old custom of divorce on grounds of infertility.

The third approach is to relax the taboos on illegitimacy, though most cultures have strong mores which are opposed to the acceptance of such an approach. Hitler tried out all the three approaches.

In modern times, several developed countries provide examples of pro-natalist policies, though each has different motives and different approaches.

Sweden has had a highly developed population policy oriented towards sustaining the birth rate, which is one of the lowest in the world.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

In the Swedish policy, however, considerations of individual welfare and personal freedom have always taken precedence over pro-natalist aims whenever the two were in conflict.

The Population Commission of 1935 recommend a flat rate of family allowance beginning with the first child, and supplementary aids in the form of marriage loans, maternal and child health centres, housing and fuel grants, free school meals, home-help services, holiday travel for mothers and children and tax relief to couples with children.

The Sickness and Maternity Insurance Schemes cover all the residents. Maternity leave is compulsory and the cost of confinement is borne by the State.

Voluntary parenthood is encouraged, abortion laws have been relaxed and sex education in schools forms an important part of the educational programme.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Today there is little public concern over the low birth rate and there is no official population policy for manipulating birth rates. “Policy is based on social rather than demographic grounds.”

In France, The Code de la Famille of 1939 outlines the various measures adopted in pursuance of the pro-natalist policy.

Though there are no set demographic goals, the purpose of the Code is to encourage family formation and child-bearing, and several positive measures, have been outlined for this purpose.

Family allowances are granted to those with two or more children, with a higher allowance for the third child and subsequent children Families with only one wage-earner receive allowances beginning with the first child, and the allowance per child is higher.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Pre-natal and maternity allowances are paid and married couples receive Government loans, tax reductions and rebates on the costs of public services. The Government subsidises school canteens, boarding schools, vacation camps and day nurseries.

Provision is made for household help and family counseling. The social services scheme for the labour force includes medical care for the spouse and the child of the insured.

Paid maternity leave is granted to working women covered under this scheme. Leave with pay for the father at the time of the birth of a child is also granted. The Code included several repressive measures as well. Induced abortion and contraception was restricted.

Abortion was illegal, and the condom was available only as a prophylactic; other devices for birth control were completely forbidden.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

In response to public pressure, the distribution of contraceptives was legalised in 1967; but the regulation against commercial advertisement or propaganda in favour of contraceptives continued to be in force.

To counteract this relaxation of the laws, a revised family allowance scheme, providing stronger support for large families, was approved in 1969.

The very restrictive abortion law of 1920, under which abortion was allowed only when there was risk to the life of the pregnant woman, is no longer in force.

According to the law of 1975, a woman can obtain an induced abortion on request before the first trimester. In addition, induced abortion is also legally allowed under the following grounds, risk to physical and/or mental health of the woman and risk to the health of the foetus.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

The liberalisation of the abortion law was mainly due to public pressure and not with any demographic objectives.

In Israel, a Natality Committee was appointed in 1962 in response to pressures from various political quarters to implement a pro-natalist policy.

This committee was charged with the responsibility of studying the problems connected with Israel’s demographic patterns, the important among these being fertility differentials among the Jews and the Arabs in Israel, among the Jews of European and American origin and those of Afro-Asian origin, and, lastly, among the people of Israel and its surrounding Arab countries.

The Natality Committee submitted its report in 1966 and recommended a pro-natalist policy the grant of finan­cial aid to large families and restrictions on induced abortions.

Earlier attempts at encouraging large families by the payment of a cash prize to every woman bearing her tenth child (1949-1959) had to be given up, apparently because Arab women had received such prizes more frequently than Jewish women.

Ben Gurion, who had instituted those prizes, later suggested that any pro-natal measures in Israel ought to be administered by the Jewish Agency (which is a Jewish and not a State organisation), and not by the Government.

Hungary and Romania are two European countries with definite pronatalist policies. Hungary relies on economic incentives that would reduce the private costs on children.

There are numerous incentives for childbearing including monthly payment for children, generous maternity leave to mothers, a birth bonus, sick leave for child care, subsidies on purchases meant for children, partial down payment for a house depending on the number of children planned, guaranteed job security for mothers, etc.

Restrictions on legal abortion have been placed since 1974. However, at the same time, access to modern methods of contraception has been improved and their use has been encouraged.

Romania offers an example of a pronatalist policy that attempts to raise fertility by placing limits on both abortion and contraception, with modern contraceptives being available only for medical reasons. Hungary does not depend on incentives for childbearing to any great extent.

The case of Japan is rather unique, in the sense that she has now reversed her anti-natalist policy, though it was never explicitly announced to be so, but was implemented with several programmes having demographic implications, such as the Eugenics Protection Law of 1948.

Which made abortion easily available, and Government- sponsored programmes for the promotion of contraception since October 1951 designed to curb the increasing number of abortions.

The Population Problems Advisory Council 1969 recommended a slight increase in birth rates. The declining young labour force and the ageing of the population are problems which at present cause concern in Japan.

The Government-sponsored family planning programme is today limited in its scope. “Until 1960, the emphasis in family planning was on limitation of births; after 1960, and especially during the latter half of the 1960s, those working for family planning promotion stressed that the true meaning of family planning was not to limit births but to have as many children as a couple wanted.

“Since 1972, the Child Allowance Scheme has been implemented in the country, but it is presented as a welfare measure rather than a pro-natalist programme.

It is difficult to assess the impact of pro-natalist measures, such as the children’s allowances, etc., on fertility. These allowances are usually quite meager and do not really cover the costs of child- bearing. The impact of other forces is probably more pronounced and encourages people to opt for small families.