Fertility in Singapore
This page gives information of type fertility about the country Singapore.
See all pages giving information on fertility for particular countries|See all pages giving information about Singapore
Data sources
Human Fertility Database data is not available for Singapore. We therefore rely on the United Nations data as compiled by Gapminder.
Qualitative history of fertility-relevant events and trends
Key events
The event history here is based on the discussion of Singapore in Jonathan Last's book What to Expect When No One's Expecting.
| Year | Event | Postulated effects seen in fertility statistics | Total fertility rate values in that year and nearby years (relevant year in bold) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1966 | The government of Singapore established a "Family Planning and Population Board" which used a combination of persuasive and coercive tactics. The government launched a propaganda campaign with emphasis on the importance of the two-child ideal. | The government's activities might have helped along the decline in Singapore's fertility, but the data don't suggest any change in the trend line at the time the government introduced these policies. | 4.658, 4.356, 4.074, 3.815, 3.582 |
| 1983 | The government switched to a selective (eugenic) pro-natalist policy, providing tax breaks to highly educated women who had three or more children, while giving cash incentives to women with low levels of education who refrained from having more than two children. | This might have led to a temporary slowdown in the general decline trend. | 1.78, 1.74, 1.61, 1.62, 1.61 |
| 1987 | The government initiated a "New Population Policy" encouraging everybody to have more children. The "Two is Enough" messages were replaced by messages of the "Have Three or More Children If You Can" form. | This might have led to the uptick in fertility 1986-1988, before the resumption of the general downward trend. | 1.61, 1.43, 1.62, 1.96, 1.75 |
| 1988 | Year of the Dragon (auspicious for births) | Anomalously high fertility in that year | 1.43, 1.62, 1.96, 1.75, 1.83 |
| 2000 | The government announced "Baby Bonus" programs as well as "Child Development Accounts" that provided government-matched long-term savings for kids. | Although the value in 2000 was anomalously high relative to earlier and later years, this is generally attributed to it being the Year of the Dragon. | 1.48, 1.47, 1.6, 1.41, 1.37 |
| 2000 | Year of the Dragon (auspicious year for births) | Anomalously high value in that year relative to earlier and later years. | 1.48, 1.47, 1.6, 1.41, 1.37 |
Trends in period fertility
Due to the incomplete and unreliable nature of data prior to 1950, we discuss the trends starting 1950.
| Time period | Trend in fertility | Some numbers | Details |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1950-1957 | relatively stable | TFR decreased from 6.487 to 6.415 | |
| 1957-1976 | rapid decrease | TFR decreased from 6.415 to 2.096 | The decline was relatively steady at about 0.2/year. |
| 1976-1979 | modest decrease | TFR decreased from 2.096 to 1.732 | The decline was about 0.1/year. |
| 1979-1986 | modest decrease | TFR decreased from 1.732 to 1.43 | The decline was slow, but now entering ultra-low fertility. |
| 1986-1988 | rapid increase | TFR increased from 1.43 to 1.96 | The elimination of incentives for low-education women to have fewer kids, plus advertising that encouraged having kids, may have led to a sharp increase. 1988 was also the Dragon Year. |
| 1988-1999 | modest decrease | TFR decreased from 1.96 to 1.47 | The general decline process continued. |
| 2000 | unexpectedly high value | TFR was 1.6 (relative to < 1.5 before and after) | This was likely a response to schemes introduced by the Singapore government to have more children. |
| 2000-2003 | rapid decrease | TFR decreased from 1.6 to 1.27 | |
| 2003-2012 | relatively stable | TFR increased from 1.27 to 1.275 | TFR remained in the 1.24-1.3 range according to the UN data. |
Data on period fertility
The data below is UN data as used by Gapminder.
| Year | Total fertility rate (TFR) estimate |
|---|---|
| 1883 | 5.16595125 |
| 1888 | 5.73120345 |
| 1903 | 5.4557564 |
| 1908 | 5.37651885 |
| 1913 | 5.39830256 |
| 1918 | 5.62247585 |
| 1923 | 5.8856217 |
| 1928 | 6.46294663 |
| 1933 | 7.1934885 |
| 1938 | 7.6759488 |
| 1943 | 5.7249155 |
| 1948 | 6.60352 |
| 1950 | 6.487 |
| 1951 | 6.538 |
| 1952 | 6.62 |
| 1953 | 6.661 |
| 1954 | 6.661 |
| 1955 | 6.62 |
| 1956 | 6.538 |
| 1957 | 6.415 |
| 1958 | 6.254 |
| 1959 | 6.055 |
| 1960 | 5.821 |
| 1961 | 5.557 |
| 1962 | 5.27 |
| 1963 | 4.967 |
| 1964 | 4.658 |
| 1965 | 4.356 |
| 1966 | 4.074 |
| 1967 | 3.815 |
| 1968 | 3.582 |
| 1969 | 3.375 |
| 1970 | 3.19 |
| 1971 | 3.014 |
| 1972 | 2.836 |
| 1973 | 2.652 |
| 1974 | 2.461 |
| 1975 | 2.272 |
| 1976 | 2.096 |
| 1977 | 1.945 |
| 1978 | 1.827 |
| 1979 | 1.743 |
| 1980 | 1.82 |
| 1981 | 1.78 |
| 1982 | 1.74 |
| 1983 | 1.61 |
| 1984 | 1.62 |
| 1985 | 1.61 |
| 1986 | 1.43 |
| 1987 | 1.62 |
| 1988 | 1.96 |
| 1989 | 1.75 |
| 1990 | 1.83 |
| 1991 | 1.73 |
| 1992 | 1.72 |
| 1993 | 1.74 |
| 1994 | 1.71 |
| 1995 | 1.67 |
| 1996 | 1.66 |
| 1997 | 1.61 |
| 1998 | 1.48 |
| 1999 | 1.47 |
| 2000 | 1.6 |
| 2001 | 1.41 |
| 2002 | 1.37 |
| 2003 | 1.27 |
| 2004 | 1.26 |
| 2005 | 1.26 |
| 2006 | 1.28 |
| 2007 | 1.29 |
| 2008 | 1.28 |
| 2009 | 1.257 |
| 2010 | 1.261 |
| 2011 | 1.267 |
| 2012 | 1.275 |
References
- A Cross-National Comparison of Family Policy by Public Policy Research Institute, Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, (February 2008): Ungated PDFMore info
- Late marriage and low fertility in Singapore: the limits of policy by Gavin Jones, The Japanese Journal of Population, Volume 10,Number 1, (March 2012): Ungated PDFMore info