Argentina's sustained decline in birth rate reflects profound demographic changes
June 4 (UPI) -- Argentina's birth rate has declined by nearly 40% in the last decade, reaching its lowest level in more than 50 years in 2023.
Statistics from the Ministry of Health show that 460,902 births were recorded in Argentina in 2023, representing a 7% decrease from the previous year and a 41% drop compared to 2014, when the highest number of births was 777,012.
The crude birth rate in 2023 was 9.9 births per 1,000 inhabitants, marking a historic low comparable to that of European countries.
A report from the Austral University of Argentina revealed that the national fertility rate has dropped to 1.4 children per woman, well below the generational replacement rate. This implies a trajectory toward population aging and a possible long-term reduction in the total population if the trend is not reversed.
The analysis adds that the percentage of households without children younger than 18 years of age increased from 44% in 1991 to 57% in 2022. Furthermore, single-person households increased from 13% to 25% over the same period, and single-parent households, mostly headed by women, also showed a sustained increase.
President Javier Milei has expressed concern about the declining birth rate in Argentina, attributing it primarily to the legalization of abortion in 2020 and other progressive policies. During his presidential campaign, Milei expressed his intention to repeal the law and even mentioned the possibility of calling a referendum to do so.
So far, this issue has not been part of the government's agenda. However, under the guise of reducing public spending, Milei's administration has reduced the distribution of contraceptives and dismantled sexual health programs, delegating these responsibilities to the provinces. In contrast to the continued decline in births, "voluntary and legal interruptions of pregnancy (IVE/ILE)" have increased from 73,000 in 2021 to more than 107,000 in 2023.
Statistics for 2024 and 2025 are expected to continue to rise.
Although Milei points to abortion as a direct cause, experts attribute the decline in birth rates to a multitude of sociocultural and economic factors. Among these factors are inflation, job instability and the high cost of living, which lead many couples to postpone or forgo parenthood.
The average age for having a first child has shifted to 30-34 years, reflecting a trend toward prioritizing academic training and professional development.
Furthermore, among mothers with lower educational levels, births have decreased by 77% since 2005, while among those with higher educational levels, the decrease was 13% and 7%, respectively.
Research by the consulting firm "Sentimientos Públicos" in Buenos Aires reveals that 20% of those younger than 30 do not want to have children, prioritizing other aspects of their lives. This percentage is lower among millennials (between 30 and 44 years old), where it drops to 11%, and 10% of them cite economic reasons.
The sustained decline in birth and fertility rates in Argentina reflects profound demographic transformations, such as the population aging index, which increased from 29 in 1991 to 60.55 in 2025, and the percentage of people over 85 years of age doubled in 20 years. This change poses challenges for the health care system, education, the pension system, and the economy in general.
Copyright 2025 UPI News Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
13 minutes ago
- UPI
Trump threatens to cut Musk government contracts amid agenda bill spat
Tesla CEO Elon Musk and President Donald Trump hold a press conference in the Oval Office at the White House on Friday as Musk ends his tenure as director of the Department of Government Efficiency. Photo by Francis Chung/UPI | License Photo June 5 (UPI) -- President Donald Trump on Thursday threatened to cut Elon Musk's government contracts through Tesla amid his departure from his role cutting government spending and opposition to Trump's sweeping legislative agenda bill. Trump threatened to end all government contracts with the Musk-founded Tesla in a post on Truth Social and suggested that would be a fast way to reduce government spending. "The easiest way to save money in our budget, billions and billions of dollars, is to terminate Elon's governmental subsidies and contracts," Trump wrote. Tesla share prices declined by more than 14% on Thursday and shed $152 billion in value from the EV maker. Trump on Thursday accused Musk of going "crazy" after the president canceled the federal electric vehicle mandate imposed by the Biden administration. "I took away his EV mandate that forced everyone to buy electric cars that nobody else wanted," Trump said in a Truth Social post on Thursday. "He just went crazy!" Trump said he asked Musk to leave his advisory position with DOGE, although Musk was scheduled to exit the position at the end of May. Musk earlier said Trump would not have won the Nov. 5 election without his help. He contributed an estimated $250 million to Trump's campaign effort. "Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate," Musk said Thursday morning in a post on X. Musk has criticized the proposed "one big, beautiful" federal government budget bill as increasing the nation's debt and negating his work with DOGE. The entrepreneur opposes the spending bill that the House has passed and is before the Senate because it removed tax credits and subsidies for buying EVs, Trump claimed. "I don't mind Elon turning against me, but he should have done that months ago," Trump said in a subsequent Truth Social post on Thursday afternoon. "This is one of the greatest bills ever presented to Congress," he continued. "It's a record cut in expenses, $1.6 trillion dollars, and the biggest tax cut ever given." If the measure is not passed, Trump said it will trigger a 68% tax increase, "and things far worse than that." The president said the "easiest way to save money ... is to terminate Elon's governmental subsidies and contracts" with Tesla. Later on Thursday, Musk in an X post said it is "time to drop the really big bomb" on the president. Trump "is in the Epstein files," Musk said. "That is the real reason they have not been made public." Musk did not say in what context Trump allegedly appears in the Epstein files, but ended his post with: "Have a nice day, DJT!" He made a subsequent post that asks: "Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle?" Trump and Musk often appeared together at high-profile events in the first four months of the administration.
Atlantic
37 minutes ago
- Atlantic
As America Steps Back, Others Step In
Recently, while in Geneva, I sat down with the ambassador of a closely allied country. In the shadow of the Palais des Nations—the European home of the United Nations—we discussed the state of multilateral diplomacy. At one point, he offered a blunt assessment of America's diminished presence on the world stage. 'It used to be,' he said, 'that before we committed to a position on any significant matter, we would wait to see where the United States stood. Now? We really don't care anymore.' The remark was particularly jarring because it was intended not as an insult, but as a sincere lament. It underscored that in capitals and conference rooms across the globe, decisions are now being made without American leadership. And while many Americans might think that shift doesn't matter, it does. In places like Geneva, decisions are made every week that affect our lives at home, relating to global aviation-safety protocols; pandemic-response standards; food and drug regulation; international trade and customs frameworks; cybersecurity norms; rules governing space, telecommunications standards, environmental safeguards. These aren't distant, abstract concerns. They influence the price of the goods on our shelves, the safety of our airways, the health of our communities, and the competitiveness of our businesses. When the United States pulls back or fails to engage, these decisions don't cease to be made. They're simply made by others—and, more and more, by those whose values don't align with ours. China, in particular, is adept at filling vacuums we leave behind, not just with economic leverage, but with bureaucratic muscle and long-term strategic intent. Where we disengage, the Chinese organize. Where we hesitate, they solidify influence. That same diplomat who noted America's increasing irrelevance pointed to China's stepped-up engagement in precisely these areas—and its eagerness to shape the rules that govern everything from trade to emerging technologies. David A Graham: The voluntary surrender of U.S. power The consequences are not temporary. International standards and agreements, once set, can take years—even decades—to be renegotiated. The absence of American leadership today could mean being bound tomorrow by rules we had no hand in setting. At its best, U.S. global leadership has been about more than projecting power. It has meant convening allies, reinforcing norms, and defending a rules-based international order that, while imperfect, has broadly served our interests and reflected our values. Walking away from that leadership not only imperils our credibility; it cedes ground to nations eager to reshape the system in ways that diminish liberty, transparency, and accountability. The good news is that this trajectory can be reversed. But it requires more than rhetoric. It requires showing up. That means filling diplomatic posts quickly and with professionals who are empowered to lead. It means prioritizing our institutions of statecraft, including the State Department, with the seriousness they deserve. And it means recommitting to the alliances and international bodies that magnify our influence rather than dilute it. I saw the value of diplomacy firsthand during my tenure as U.S. ambassador to Turkey, when Sweden sought NATO membership over Turkey's objections. At the time, the impulse of the U.S. and its NATO allies was to apply pressure or issue public rebukes. What was needed wasn't force, however, but diplomacy: persistent, behind-the-scenes engagement that respected Turkey's security concerns while reinforcing the cohesion of the alliance. Over 18 months, these negotiations facilitated constitutional changes in Sweden, addressed legitimate Turkish concerns, and helped unlock a long-stalled sale of F-16s to Turkey that enhanced NATO interoperability. In the end, Sweden joined the alliance, Turkey saw its security interests addressed, and the U.S. proved itself a trusted interlocutor. That kind of success—durable, strategic, and built on trust—doesn't happen without diplomats in the room. Today, Republicans in Congress need to step forward in defense of U.S. leadership. We can't expect the Trump administration to reverse course—global disengagement seems to be part of its design. But Congress has tools at its disposal to mitigate the long-term damage: through setting funding priorities, exercising oversight, and engaging in public advocacy for diplomacy and alliance building. With margins so close in both houses, legislators who value U.S. global leadership have significant leverage. Having run several congressional campaigns, I understand that valuing diplomacy and prioritizing international institutions don't make for popular political slogans. But with an administration unmoored in its approach to foreign policy, it's more important than ever for Congress to provide crucial ballast. The recent visit to Ukraine by Senators Lindsey Graham and Richard Blumenthal is a perfect example of members of Congress providing that ballast—reassuring our allies that they are still our allies. American leadership isn't inevitable. It's a choice—one we must make again and again, not just for the sake of our standing in the world, but for the practical, everyday interests of American citizens.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
New EU-Ukraine agri trade quotas to be 'in between' current deal and wartime exemptions
By Kate Abnett BRUSSELS (Reuters) -The European Union and Ukraine are negotiating a new deal that will set import quotas on agricultural goods from Ukraine somewhere "in between" current levels and the temporary exemptions granted after Russia's 2022 invasion, the EU's agriculture commissioner told Reuters. The EU temporarily waived duties and quotas on agricultural products in June 2022 after Russia's full-scale invasion to help Ukraine compensate for the higher costs of its exports, after Russia threatened its traditional Black Sea shipping lanes. Those tariff suspensions expired on Thursday. The EU and Ukraine reverted to the pre-war regime of trade quotas on Friday, while the two sides negotiate a new longer-term deal - in which Brussels is seeking to strike a balance between supporting Ukraine in its war with Russia, and heeding European farmers' concerns about cheaper Ukrainian imports. "What will be negotiated will be something in between the quotas under the existing DCFTA and the autonomous trade measures, the volumes that have been exported there," EU agriculture commissioner Christophe Hansen said in an interview with Reuters on Thursday. The DCFTA refers to Ukraine and the EU's pre-war trade deal. The EU's "autonomous trade measures" temporarily suspended quotas on Ukrainian imports from 2022. Ukraine's farm minister Vitaliy Koval told Reuters this week that Kyiv was pushing for an agreement on higher quotas than it had before the war. EU farmers have complained that large shipments of cheaper Ukrainian sugar imports under the wartime tariff exemptions have undercut local supplies. The EU triggered "emergency brakes" to re-impose quotas on products including sugar and eggs in the past year, in response to surging imports. The EU's Ukrainian sugar imports soared to 400,000 tons in the 2022/23 season and over 500,000 tons in 2023/24, far exceeding the pre-war quota of 20,000 tons. Hansen said the new quotas on sugar would be "significantly higher" than those under the pre-war arrangements. "I think we can absorb a certain amount of those products," he said, while noting sensitivities around sugar, poultry and eggs. Negotiations on the new EU-Ukraine deal started on June 2. Hansen said it was feasible a deal could be reached by summer. "It depends now on both sides, I think technically that could be feasible," he said. Agricultural goods accounted for about 60% of Ukraine's total exports last year, with the EU buying around 60% of those goods, worth about $15 billion. A senior Ukrainian lawmaker said last month the loss of tariff-free access to the EU market could cost the country 3.5 billion euros ($3.99 billion) in annual revenue. "Our solidarity with Ukraine is as firm as ever, and therefore we are very committed to deliver this agreement as quickly as possible," Hansen said. The pre-war quota regime, which applies as of Friday, also includes lighter rules on import licenses for some goods like poultry and eggs, where instead of requiring licenses, quotas will be allocated on a first-come, first-served basis. ($1 = 0.8763 euros)
