What one country’s experiment says about attempts to boost birth rates

The Struggle of a Young Couple

What one country s experiment says – Barbara Elek, a 33-year-old social worker, and her husband Levi, a 34-year-old chef, sit on a park bench in Debrecen, nervously refreshing their emails. Their third in vitro fertilization (IVF) attempt occurred a decade ago, and the couple is awaiting news about whether Barbara is now pregnant. If the treatment fails, Barbara expresses concern about the emotional toll, fearing the possibility of financial strain. “If it doesn’t work, I’ll be deeply disappointed,” she admits. “Then the next step would be ensuring we don’t face significant financial setbacks.” The couple had accessed a 10 million-forint (£25,000) loan, which came with a promise to have two children. Should they not meet this condition by November 1st, they might be required to repay the loan with penalty interest, potentially up to 3.5 million forint (£8,600). This financial pressure adds to the stress of their reproductive journey.

Hungary’s Pronatalist Policies

Under Viktor Orbán’s leadership, Hungary introduced sweeping policies in 2010 to address its declining population. These measures included tax cuts, interest-free loans, and subsidies for families who agreed to have children. The government aimed to incentivize childbirth by offering financial support to couples who committed to raising at least two children. This included maternity pay, housing assistance, and even benefits for purchasing larger vehicles. The policies targeted married, heterosexual couples in the formal job market, creating a system where financial rewards were tied to reproductive goals.

“In the West, the answer to this is immigration. You bring in as many as you’re missing. Hungarians think differently. We don’t need numbers, we need Hungarian children.” – Viktor Orbán, former prime minister

Orbán’s Fidesz party framed these policies as a way to reverse demographic decline. At the time, Hungary’s fertility rate was among the lowest in Europe, hovering around 1.25 births per woman. The government’s goal was to stabilize the population, which had been shrinking due to low fertility and high emigration rates. By 2020, the policy’s impact was evident: the fertility rate rose to 1.59, sparking optimism. However, by 2025, it had dipped to 1.31, raising questions about the long-term effectiveness of the approach.

A European Challenge

For over four decades, fertility rates across Europe have remained below the 2.1 replacement level needed to maintain population stability without external immigration. This trend has affected more than half of all countries, home to two-thirds of the global population. Hungary’s situation mirrors this broader issue, as its native-born population has declined due to both low birth rates and migration. Despite the country’s early success in reversing this decline, the recent drop suggests that the gains may be temporary.

Orbán’s policies were part of a larger strategy to foster a “family-friendly” environment. The government introduced measures such as child-related tax benefits and subsidies for home improvements. These incentives were designed to make having children more affordable and attractive, particularly for younger couples. However, critics argue that the system relied heavily on short-term gains rather than addressing deeper societal factors affecting fertility.

Expert Perspectives

Tomas Sobotka, a demographer at the Vienna Institute of Demography, evaluates Hungary’s approach as a partial success. “Judged by the aims of the policies, this is clearly a failure,” he states. While the fertility rate increased during the 2010s, the recent decline indicates that the policies did not sustain the growth. Sobotka notes that the temporary rise may have prevented a more severe drop, but it fell short of reversing the long-term trend.

Despite these criticisms, Fruzsina Skrabski, a representative of the pro-family NGO Three Princes, Three Princesses, defends the policies. She argues that Hungary’s fertility rate has not declined as sharply as in other European nations. “Without these policies, there would be hundreds of thousands fewer children,” she claims. She acknowledges the policies led to more births but believes they were insufficient to fully counteract the demographic challenges.

Personal Testimonials

Maté, a 43-year-old freelance business developer, and his wife Agi Gorondy, 37, credit Hungary’s family-friendly measures for their decision to have five children. All under 10 years old, they plan to add more to their family. “I think there’s been a change in the past 16 years,” Maté says. “In this neighborhood, four- or five-child families are no longer rare.” Agi, as a mother of over two children, benefits from tax exemptions when she returns to work, while Maté enjoys reduced income taxes. Their experience highlights how policy can influence individual choices, even as broader trends suggest limitations.

Statistics from the 2010s show a rise in families with three or more children, peaking at 146,000 in 2020. This increase, while notable, indicates that the policies succeeded in encouraging larger families but did not necessarily alter the overall trajectory of fertility. For Maté and Agi, the financial support made it easier to expand their family, but for couples like Barbara and Levi, the same system creates anxiety about meeting expectations.

Lessons from the Experiment

Hungary’s experiment offers insights for other nations facing similar challenges. The country’s initial success demonstrated that targeted financial incentives can temporarily boost birth rates. However, the subsequent decline suggests that such policies may not address underlying issues like career aspirations, gender roles, or economic stability. Experts warn that without complementary measures—such as improved childcare or flexible work arrangements—the effect of financial incentives may be limited.

Barbara and Levi’s situation underscores the risk of tying financial support to reproductive outcomes. If they fail to conceive, the penalty interest could threaten their financial security. This highlights the potential vulnerability of such systems: they reward fertility but penalize its absence. Critics argue that this approach may create pressure rather than genuine motivation, leading to short-term compliance but long-term dissatisfaction.

As Hungary’s policies face scrutiny, the country remains a case study for the complexities of boosting birth rates. While some see a modest improvement in population growth, others question whether the system has genuinely reversed the trend or merely delayed its impact. The ongoing debate reflects the broader challenge of balancing economic incentives with social and cultural factors in addressing demographic decline.