
Nordic Parents Have It Great—But Birth Rates Are Still Falling
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Much of the world is facing a birth rate crisis, and Norway is no exception despite implementing many of the policies governments, activists, and experts have touted. Newsweek has broken down why.
Many trying to tackle this global issue have called for public health policies and financial plans to help make it easier for couples to have children in society.
The financial crisis and its impact on housing, inflation and pay is generally cited a major contributor to people's decisions to delay having children, to have fewer children or not to have them at all.
Parental leave and childcare come up just as often, with multiple experts telling Newsweek that improved policies in these areas would be a game-changer.
Norway is considered a global leader in parental leave and childcare policies, with the United Nations International Children's Fund (UNICEF) ranking it among the top countries for family-friendly policies.
"The Nordic model is characterized by strong institutional support for families with children," Rannveig Kaldager Hart, a senior researcher at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health's Centre for Fertility and Health, told Newsweek.
Norway offers parents 12 months of shared paid leave for birth and an additional year each afterward.
It also made kindergarten (similar to a U.S. day care) a statutory right for all children 1 year of age or older in 2008, which the government has subsidized to make it possible for "women and men to combine work and family life," as Norway's former Minister of Children, Equality, and Social Inclusion Solveig Horne said at a parental leave event in 2016.
And yet, Norway's fertility rate has dropped dramatically from 1.98 children per woman in 2009 to 1.44 children per woman in 2024, according to official figures. The rate for 2023 (1.40) was the lowest-ever recorded fertility rate in the country.
Why Is Norway's Birth Rate Declining?
Oslo created a Birth Rate Committee to investigate the causes, consequences and possible solutions of Norway's birth rate problem last year.
It found that "an important cause is that fewer people are having their first child before age 30" and fewer people have more than two children, Hart, who is also the Committee's chair, said.
Professor Katrine Vellesen Løken, from the Norwegian School of Economics, told Newsweek that "one leading hypothesis points to lower rates of couple formation for those in their 20s, which in turn contribute to reduced fertility."
"While Norway has eased some financial barriers, that's only part of the picture; other psychological, cultural, and structural factors matter too," said Theodore Cosco, a research fellow at the Oxford Institute of Population Ageing.
"Parenting is shaped by many factors, and Norway is beginning to reckon with those beyond just financial support, especially the deeper challenges of parenting itself," he told Newsweek.
Indeed, Hart also said that "young adults are more likely to live alone" and "young couples split up more frequently than before."
He went on to speak about "intensive parenting," which refers to the modern parenting style in which parents invest time, money and energy into creating successful adults.
The expectations of this parenting style "may cause some to postpone or have fewer children than they otherwise would," Hart said.
Øystein Kravdal, who was a demography professor at the University of Oslo for almost three decades, said the same.
"One may also wonder whether young adults to an increasing extent are being exposed to overwhelming expectations about how 'intensely' one should care for a child to be a responsible parent," he told Newsweek.
Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty/Canva
What Is The Solution?
So does this mean that Norway's progressive parental leave and childcare policies should not be part of other countries' solutions?
Cosco does not think Norway's approach should be dismissed globally. "Norway shouldn't be seen as a failure," he said. "Fertility is a complex issue that requires a multi-pronged approach."
Kravdal argued that Norway would be worse off without its family-friendly policies.
"In the last 15 years, Norway's generous support system has not been weakened. If that had happened, the total fertility rate would likely have been even lower than the current 1.44," he said."
Løken agreed, saying: "This uncertainty does not rule out the potential role of family policies in addressing the issue."
"Measures that provide families with more financial support or time could, in theory, influence the opportunity costs associated with couple formation and having children," she continued.
But she added: "Most studies examining the impact of family policies on fertility find only modest and short-term effects—typically influencing the timing of childbirth rather than the total number of children people have."
Løken went on to call for a "more ambitious policy direction" involving "efforts to reduce screen time, enhance community and social engagement opportunities, and shift cultural norms around relationships and fertility, particularly among people in their 20s."
In its interim report, the Birth Rate Committee looked at offering additional child allowance for parents younger than 30 years old and better education about the ability to have children and pre-pregnancy help.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Newsweek
21 minutes ago
- Newsweek
The Scholar Who Predicted America's Breakdown Says It's Just Beginning
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Fifteen years ago, smack in the middle of Barack Obama's first term, amid the rapid rise of social media and a slow recovery from the Great Recession, a professor at the University of Connecticut issued a stark warning: the United States was heading into a decade of growing political instability. It sounded somewhat contrarian at the time. The global economy was clawing back from the depths of the financial crisis, and the American political order still seemed anchored in post-Cold War optimism — though cracks were beginning to emerge, as evidenced by the Tea Party uprising. But Peter Turchin, an ecologist-turned-historian, had the data. "Quantitative historical analysis reveals that complex human societies are affected by recurrent—and predictable—waves of political instability," Turchin wrote in the journal Nature in 2010, forecasting a spike in unrest around 2020, driven by economic inequality, "elite overproduction" and rising public debt. A protestor holds up a Mexican flag as burning cars line the street on June 08, 2025 in Los Angeles, California. Tensions in the city remain high after the Trump administration called in the National... A protestor holds up a Mexican flag as burning cars line the street on June 08, 2025 in Los Angeles, California. Tensions in the city remain high after the Trump administration called in the National Guard against the wishes of city leaders following two days of clashes with police during a series of immigration raids. More Photo byNow, with the nation consumed by polarization in the early months of a second Donald Trump presidency, institutional mistrust at all-time highs, and deepening political conflict, Turchin's prediction appears to have landed with uncanny accuracy. In the wake of escalating protests and the deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles under President Trump's immigration crackdown, Turchin spoke with Newsweek about the latest escalation of political turbulence in the United States—and the deeper structural forces he believes have been driving the country toward systemic crisis for more than a decade. Predicting Chaos In his 2010 analysis published by Nature, Turchin identified several warning signs in the domestic electorate: stagnating wages, a growing wealth gap, a surplus of educated elites without corresponding elite jobs, and an accelerating fiscal deficit. All of these phenomena, he argued, had reached a turning point in the 1970s. "These seemingly disparate social indicators are actually related to each other dynamically," he wrote at the time. "Nearly every one of those indicators has intensified," Turchin said in an interview with Newsweek, citing real wage stagnation, the effects of artificial intelligence on the professional class and increasingly unmanageable public finances. Turchin's prediction was based on a framework known as Structural-Demographic Theory (SDT), which models how historical forces—economic inequality, elite competition and state capacity—interact to drive cycles of political instability. These cycles have recurred across empires and republics, from ancient Rome to the Ottoman Empire. Turchin's forecast is based on a framework known as Structural-Demographic Theory (SDT), which models how historical forces—economic inequality, elite competition, and state capacity—interact to drive cycles of political instability. Turchin's forecast is based on a framework known as Structural-Demographic Theory (SDT), which models how historical forces—economic inequality, elite competition, and state capacity—interact to drive cycles of political instability. Courtesy Peter Turchin "Structural-Demographic Theory enables us to analyze historical dynamics and apply that understanding to current trajectories," Turchin said. "It's not prophecy. It's modeling feedback loops that repeat with alarming regularity." He argues that violence in the U.S. tends to repeat about every 50 years— pointing to spasms of unrest around 1870, 1920, 1970 and 2020. He links these periods to how generations tend to forget what came before. "After two generations, memories of upheaval fade, elites begin to reorganize systems in their favor, and the stress returns," he said. One of the clearest historical parallels to now, he notes, is the 1970s. That decade saw radical movements emerge from university campuses and middle-class enclaves not just in the U.S., but across the West. The far-left Weather Underground movement, which started as a campus organization at the University of Michigan, bombed government buildings and banks; the Red Army Faction in West Germany and Italy's Red Brigades carried out kidnappings and assassinations. These weren't movements of the dispossessed, but of the downwardly mobile—overeducated and politically alienated. "There's a real risk of that dynamic resurfacing," Turchin said. A 'Knowledge Class' Critics have sometimes questioned the deterministic tone of Turchin's models. But he emphasizes that he does not predict exact events—only the risk factors and phases of systemic stress. While many political analysts and historians point to Donald Trump's 2016 election as the inflection point for the modern era of American political turmoil, Turchin had charted the warning signs years earlier — when Trump was known, above all, as the host of a popular NBC reality show. President Donald Trump takes part in a signing ceremony after his inauguration on January 20, 2025 in the President's Room at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC. President Donald Trump takes part in a signing ceremony after his inauguration on January 20, 2025 in the President's Room at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC. Melina Mara-Pool/Getty Images "As you know, in 2010, based on historical patterns and quantitative indicators, I predicted a period of political instability in the United States beginning in the 2020s," Turchin said to Newsweek. "The structural drivers behind this prediction were threefold: popular immiseration, elite overproduction, and a weakening state capacity." According to his model, Trump's rise was not the cause of America's political crisis but a symptom—emerging from a society already strained by widening inequality and elite saturation. In Turchin's view, such figures often arise when a growing class of counter-elites—ambitious, credentialed individuals locked out of power—begin to challenge the status quo. "Intraelite competition has increased even more, driven now mostly by the shrinking supply of positions for them," he said. In 2025, he pointed to the impact of AI in the legal profession and recent government downsizing, such as the DOGE eliminating thousands of positions at USAID, as accelerants in this trend. This theory was echoed by Wayne State University sociologist Jukka Savolainen, who argued in a recent op-ed in The Wall Street Journal that the U.S. is risking the creation of a radicalized "knowledge class"—overeducated, underemployed, and institutionally excluded. "When societies generate more elite aspirants than there are roles to fill, competition for status intensifies," Savolainen wrote. "Ambitious but frustrated people grow disillusioned and radicalized. Rather than integrate into institutions, they seek to undermine them." Peter Turchin forecasted a spike in unrest around 2020, driven by economic inequality, elite overproduction, and rising public debt. Peter Turchin forecasted a spike in unrest around 2020, driven by economic inequality, elite overproduction, and rising public debt. Courtesy of Peter Turchin Savolainen warned that Trump-era policies—such as the dismantling of D.E.I. and academic research programs and cuts to public institutions—have the potential to accelerate the pattern, echoing the unrest of the 1970s. "President Trump's policies could intensify this dynamic," he noted. "Many are trained in critique, moral reasoning, and systems thinking—the very profile of earlier generations of radicals." Structural Drivers Turchin, who is now an emeritus professor at UConn, believes the American system entered what he calls a "revolutionary situation"—a historical phase in which the destabilizing conditions can no longer be absorbed by institutional buffers. Reflecting on the last few years in a recent post on his Cliodynamica newsletter, he wrote that "history accelerated" after 2020. He and colleague Andrey Korotayev had tracked rising incidents of anti-government demonstrations and violent riots across Western democracies in the lead-up to that year. Their findings predicted a reversal of prior declines in unrest. "And then history accelerated," he wrote. "America was slammed by the pandemic, George Floyd, and a long summer of discontent." A police officer points a hand cannon at protesters who have been detained pending arrest on South Washington Street in Minneapolis, May 31, 2020, as protests continued following the death of George Floyd. A police officer points a hand cannon at protesters who have been detained pending arrest on South Washington Street in Minneapolis, May 31, 2020, as protests continued following the death of George Floyd. AP Photo/John Minchillo, File While many saw Trump's 2020 election loss and the January 6 Capitol riot that followed as its own turning point in that hectic period, Turchin warned that these events did not mark an end to the turbulence. "Many commentators hastily concluded that things would now go back to normal. I disagreed," he wrote. "The structural drivers for instability—the wealth pump, popular immiseration, and elite overproduction/conflict—were still running hot," Turchin continued. "America was in a 'revolutionary situation,' which could be resolved by either developing into a full-blown revolution, or by being defused by skillful actions of the governing elites. Well, now we know which way it went." These stressors, he argues, are not isolated. They are systemwide pressures building for years, playing out in feedback loops. "Unfortunately," he told Newsweek, "all these trends are only gaining power."


Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
How Elon Musk Is Responding to LA Riots During Feud With Trump
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Elon Musk shared comments made by President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance related to the Los Angeles riots during his ongoing public feud with Trump over the "One Big Beautiful Bill" proposal. On Sunday, Musk shared a Truth Social post by Trump on X criticizing California Governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass. "Governor Gavin Newscum and 'Mayor' Bass should apologize to the people of Los Angeles for the absolutely horrible job that they have done, and this now includes the ongoing L.A. riots," Trump wrote on Truth Social. "These are not protesters, they are troublemakers and insurrectionists." Why It Matters Protests broke out in Los Angeles over the weekend following reports that detainees were being held in the basement of a federal building. ICE denied these allegations, with a spokesperson previously telling Newsweek the agency "categorically refutes the assertions made by immigration activists in Los Angeles." The Trump administration has conducted numerous ICE raids, some of which have swept up individuals with proper documentation. Trump deployed National Guard troops to Los Angeles following violence toward law enforcement officials. What To Know Musk also showed support after Vance shared another Truth Social post made by Trump on X. "A once great American city, Los Angeles, has been invaded and occupied by Illegal Aliens and Criminals," Trump wrote. "Now violent, insurrectionist mobs are swarming and attacking our Federal Agents to try and stop our deportation operations—But these lawless riots only strengthen our resolve." In Vance's repost of the comments, he added, "This moment calls for decisive leadership. The president will not tolerate rioting and violence." Musk shared both Vance and Trump's comments with two American flag emojis. Elon Musk attends a news conference with President Donald Trump in the Oval Office of the White House, Friday, May 30, 2025, in Washington. Elon Musk attends a news conference with President Donald Trump in the Oval Office of the White House, Friday, May 30, 2025, in Washington. AP Photo/Evan Vucci Newsweek reached out to the White House and representatives for Musk for comment. The rift between Musk and Trump had intensified after Musk, once the head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in Trump's administration, launched scathing public criticism of Trump's signature "One Big Beautiful Bill" proposal. Musk repeatedly denounced the legislation as "outrageous," "pork-filled," and a "disgusting abomination," a stance that undercut the two men's previously close working and political relationship. Trump initially avoided direct confrontation, but as Musk's messaging intensified across social media, Trump publicly responded, calling his former ally "crazy" and suggesting Musk suffered from "Trump derangement syndrome." The situation escalated further after Musk went beyond fiscal disagreements and claimed, without substantiation, that Trump's name appeared in the Jeffrey Epstein files. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt has called Musk's claim "an unfortunate episode." Trump countered by threatening "very serious consequences" if Musk decided to financially back Democratic candidates, a move some observers speculated Musk might consider as the feud deepened. Trump has dismissed the idea of reconciliation, asserting the relationship was over and accusing Musk of disrespecting the office of the presidency. Trump pushed the confrontation into the economic realm by announcing that cutting government contracts and subsidies to Musk's various enterprises, such as SpaceX and Tesla, would be the "easiest way" for the government to save money. Trump referenced Musk's critical response to the removal of the so-called EV Mandate as a turning point, accusing Musk of having gone "crazy" after this policy change. The White House characterized Musk's criticisms as stemming from disappointment over the legislative process, and Trump used his social media platform to emphasize the bill's fiscal benefits and to further depict Musk as acting erratically in the aftermath of regulatory shifts affecting electric vehicles. What People Are Saying Trump, on Truth Social: "Order will be restored, the Illegals will be expelled, and Los Angeles will be set free." Musk, reacting to a photo of the riots on X: "This is not O.K …." What Happens Next The riots in Los Angeles are ongoing. California officials are calling for the withdrawal of the National Guard. Do you have a story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have any questions about this story? Contact LiveNews@


Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
Legal Analysts Weigh in on Trump's National Guard Deployment to California
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Legal experts weighed in about whether President Donald Trump has the legal authority to deploy the National Guard to Los Angeles as California Governor Gavin Newsom announced a lawsuit challenging the administration's latest move. Why It Matters Newsom, a Democrat, said on Monday the state will be suing the Trump administration after he ordered the National Guard to Los Angeles, where protests have erupted over U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids in the city. While the raids are following legal directive from federal authorities, protests have erupted amid reports that detainees were being held in the basement of a federal building. ICE denied these allegations, with a spokesperson previously telling Newsweek the agency "categorically refutes the assertions made by immigration activists in Los Angeles." The clashes highlight deepening conflicts between sanctuary jurisdictions and federal immigration policy, as Trump has implemented sweeping changes through executive orders and utilized the wartime Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to expand deportation authority. Critics have accused Trump of abusing his power by sending in National Guard troops, with Newsom casting the move as "unlawful" and a "serious breach of state sovereignty." What to Know Trump, over the weekend, federalized the California National Guard using Title 10 authority, which allows him to presume the top of the chain of command under certain circumstances. He sent 2,000 National Guard troops into downtown Los Angeles, where protests escalated over the weekend as groups shut down parts of the 101 Freeway and clashed with law enforcement officers who responded with tear gas and flash bangs. The White House wrote that Trump decided to do so because the protests "directly inhibit the execution of the laws" and "constitute a form of rebellion." Title 10 authority allows a president to federalize a state's national guard whenever there is a foreign invasion, a rebellion against the authority of the U.S., or when a president is unable to execute the laws of the U.S., former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told Newsweek. California Highway Patrol officers attempt to control crowds in Los Angeles, California on June 7, 2025. California Highway Patrol officers attempt to control crowds in Los Angeles, California on June 7, 2025. BENJAMIN HANSON/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images The administration's case that there is a rebellion preventing ICE from executing law enforcement operations would likely hold up in court, Rahmani said. "I think it's clearly been met if he's unable to enforce the nation's immigration laws with the agents that he has, he can federalize the National Guard," he said. He said he "can't see a court wading into this political question" to say that Trump cannot enforce the immigration law and that "even the most liberal judge" would be unlikely to block legitimate law enforcement. He predicted the case could be quickly dismissed by a judge. There is historical precedence for a president to federalize the National Guard against a governor's wishes, though it is rare. It was used during the Civil Rights Era. The last time this occurred was in 1965 when President Lydon Johnson sent in the National Guard to protect civil rights protesters. Former federal prosecutor Gene Rossi told Newsweek he agreed that the lawsuit may face an uphill battle, as the president has "broad discretion" to invoke the National Guard. But he said his decision to defy Newsom indicates the move is an "indicator to me that this is more political than anything else." Still, he felt it was "ironic" because Trump did not call in the National Guard during the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol building, when protests from his supporters over the 2020 presidential election results grew violent. Michael McAuliffe, a former federal prosecutor and former elected state attorney, told Newsweek it's "too early to speculate" about the outcome of Newsom's lawsuit. "The president's general statutory authority to command the national guard will not be in dispute, but the circumstances supporting, or not supporting, such an order will almost certainly be challenged. The legal challenge also will likely contain both an immediate component––timely injunctive relief––and the underlying legal issue of whether the record facts support the mobilization. A different, and higher, legal standard applies for immediate injunctive relief," he said. He said Trump's decision should "give every American chills." "The mobilization of troops for domestic crowd control should remain the rarest of events and only in the most utterly extreme circumstances. The current protest in California against the ICE/federal immigration arrest spree is not one of those instances. The President's action likely will be counter-productive and actually raise tensions, instead of gaining better control of the situation," he said. What People Are Saying California Governor Newsom wrote on X on Sunday: "I have formally requested the Trump Administration rescind their unlawful deployment of troops in Los Angeles county and return them to my command. We didn't have a problem until Trump got involved. This is a serious breach of state sovereignty — inflaming tensions while pulling resources from where they're actually needed. Rescind the order. Return control to California." President Donald Trump on Truth Social: "If Governor Gavin Newscum, of California, and Mayor Karen Bass, of Los Angeles, can't do their jobs, which everyone knows they can't, then the Federal Government will step in and solve the problem, RIOTS & LOOTERS, the way it should be solved!!!" Representative Kevin Kiley, a California Republican, told Newsweek on Monday: "The acts of violence, lawlessness, and obstruction we are seeing in Los Angeles pose an ongoing risk to public safety. The President has chosen to protect federal officers and LA citizens because Governor Newsom has refused to do so. I am praying for everyone's safety during this time." Former federal prosecutor Joyce White Vance wrote in a Substack post: "The role of California Governor Gavin Newsom isn't entirely clear. There is an inside baseball legal dispute over whether the law requires his consent to nationalize the Guard or not. There is little legal guidance on this point, and for now, it's sufficient to say we can expect this to be one of the issues included when California goes to court. The Trump administration is acting under Title 10 USC 12406, which provides that 'orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States.' That language is as clear as mud." What Happens Next Although Newsom has called for the National Guard troops to be returned to California control, the Trump administration has not said they plan to do so. It's unclear how long the National Guard will stay in Los Angeles.