WI: English, Scot, Irish Natalism instead of Immigration?

Let's say in the aftermath of WWII, the Attlee government adopts a strong natalist policy stance, to directly coincide with the NHS, to help cover the nation's postwar labor deficit, instead of OTL's loosening of immigration restrictions.

What are the short and long term implications for the British economy and how might it shape the political landscape going forward?
 
Last edited:
1) An increased birth rate does not provide an improved labor capacity immediately. It takes the better part of two decades before an increased birth rate nets increased numbers of workers; I imagine that in their planning the British would think that by the 1960s their labor issues would have worked themselves out regardless of policy.

2) In the short term, an improved birth rate doesn't improve economic resources, but instead diminishes the resources that can be deployed towards various aspects of labor, since it causes an increase in the dependency ratio.

3) Pro-natalist schemes are generally not cheap if they're going to be effective; the British aren't exactly swimming in cash for all of their tasks.

4) Government sponsored pro-natalist campaigns often have limited effectiveness; its easy to mandate that for each child born the mother will get a thousand dollars or some alternative reward, but people don't generally respond with enthusiasm to that, as generally the government is not going to be able to provide anything near the cost of raising the child, and barely even blunt the expenses. There is a whole lot more to having children than simple incentive systems, and often times government pro-natalist policies don't really do all that much. Giving out a medal for 8 children isn't going to cause birth rates to skyrocket either, even if its cheap.

5) In continental Europe, some pro-natalist ideology was discredited by the Nazi promotion of the subject; I do not know and don't really care about whether this was applicable to Britain, but it is a possible assault on the subject from opponents. Of course, not every country was impacted in the same way, and the French program survived intact - but its notable that the French program had started before the war. So did EastBloc projects.

If we're dealing with a temporary scarcity of labor, and a government is trying to come up with a way to deal with it, pro-natalist policies are entirely improper for such a role. In general, pro-natalist policies come out because of 1) Fear of national decline 2) Fear of a declining birth rate (related to previous one) 3) National power-politics (again related to 1), 4) Dealing with major population losses that one wants to make up in the home nation's ethnic stock, 5) Various religious and moral concerns. These are all long term and systematic issues; for a short term problem relating to insufficient labor, pro-natalism has zero effect or actively worsens it.

Its possible the British could implement it for another reason, but to a short-term labor shortage it would be about the last on the list of logical responses. As far as effect? Probably a mild increase in births, but I fall into the camp which assigns pro-natalist programs as only having a limited ability to influence TFR trends on their own, although they can nudge it upwards somewhat. Also the key word is "can", it really must be emphasized that it is not as simple as simply giving out financial rewards to every woman who has a child, and in different eras policies that would cause an increase in birth rates in that period, can actually cause a fall in birth rates in alternate times. As an example before 1970 it roughly tracked that higher female employment = lower TFR, but post 1970 higher female employment has tracked with higher TFR, so if your pro-natalist program is emphasizing keeping women away from the workplace and it doesn't get modified as time advances, it'll start to have counter-productive effects.
 
Top