Along with the Big Beautiful Bill, people are debating various forms of support for families, such as the CTC and baby bonuses and so on. And alongside that debate, there is the debate about birth rates (so heavily promoted by Elon Musk and, sadly, by the relentlessly negative figures around the world). When those discussions occur, you will often hear it said, and people say this as if stating an established, uncontroversial fact, that paying people to have kids (or variants on that theme) does nothing to boost the birth rate.

Somebody who has been pounding the table and saying "No, no, no" to that idea for as long as we can remember has been Lyman Stone, demographer and head of the Institute for Family Studies's pro-natalism initiative. And so, as we wrote yesterday, he has come out with a new report (PDF) with the very clear subtitle, "Pronatal Policy Works, and America Can’t Afford to Forego It."

It's worth breaking down his argument in detail, since it's so contrarian and, if right, so important.

Stone's most compelling argument comes from an exhaustive review of 43 academic studies examining 58 different policy interventions across multiple countries. The analysis reveals a clear pattern: when governments increase family financial support, birth rates rise proportionally.

The review found that policies increasing benefits by roughly 4% of GDP per capita are associated with a 1% increase in birth probabilities. While this might sound modest, Stone emphasizes that even small increases compound over time. A sustained increase of just 0.05 to 0.15 children per woman would translate to 10-30 million additional Americans by 2100—equivalent to adding the entire population of Florida.

Beyond academic studies, Stone examines recent policy interventions in 17 countries that implemented major pronatal policies between 2000-2025. Using difference-in-differences analysis, he found these policies increased fertility rates by an average of 0.09 to 0.18 births per woman. The countries examined include Estonia, Australia, Russia, Hungary, Poland, and others.

Stone invites us to look at the example of Mongolia. When the country expanded financial incentives for births during the 2000s, fertility rates rose substantially. But when these benefits were allowed to shrink in value over time, fertility rates declined accordingly—providing, he argues, a natural experiment in policy effectiveness.

Another country particularly worth paying attention to here is Hungary. Hungary has been the most ambitious country in terms of natalist policies, and yet, you will hear people saying that its birth rates are still too low. The glass is half-empty, yes. But it is also half-full. The country's fertility rate rose from 1.25 in 2012 to 1.52 in 2022 following a series of pronatal policies, including constitutional protection of marriage, the CSOK housing subsidy program for young families, and expanded cash benefits. Using sophisticated tempo-and-parity-adjusted fertility measures—which account for timing shifts versus genuine increases in family size—Stone shows that Hungary is one of only two countries to achieve documented increases in completed fertility in recent years.

Critics often argue that pronatal policies merely shift the timing of births rather than increasing total fertility. Stone acknowledges this "tempo effect" but argues it's actually a policy victory, not a failure.

Survey data shows that 22% of American reproductive-age women want to have a child in the next two years, but birth data suggests only 10% actually will. Among women aged 25-29, 37% want a child in the next two years while actual fertility rates are only 17-20%. This suggests many Americans are having children later than they prefer, not necessarily fewer children overall.

Moreover, Stone argues, earlier births provide genuine demographic benefits: children enter the workforce sooner, mothers face lower health risks, and healthcare costs are reduced. The tempo effect represents families achieving their stated preferences, which is inherently valuable.

Stone also emphasizes that effect sizes considered "small" by academic researchers can be demographically significant when sustained over time, due to the compounding nature of population growth.

To Stone, The key insight from international experience is that sustained, generous financial support for families can meaningfully influence fertility decisions. While no single policy can restore replacement-level fertility, the accumulated evidence suggests that well-designed pronatal policies represent a cost-effective investment in America's demographic future.

As Stone concludes: "Cash-for-kids works. It is relatively cost-effective, and its fertility effects help families achieve their own stated family goals."

A worthy contribution to the public debate, at a particularly auspicious time.

SEE ALSO: Our interview with Stone on this and every other topic natalism-related (YouTube, Spotify, Apple Podcasts)

Policy News You Need To Know

#DOGE #BBB — Guess it's over for Elon. In widely replayed comments, he criticized the Big Beautiful Bill. Musk criticized the bill for increasing the budget deficit rather than decreasing it, saying it "undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing," going against its cost-cutting efforts. In his most memorable comment, he said "I think a bill can be big or it can be beautiful, but I don't know if it can be both." Even Elon got chewed up and spat out by this town…

#Reg — Trump picks Emily Domenech to lead the Federal Permitting Council, Politico reports. Domenech is a former senior adviser to Speaker Mike Johnson and his predecessor Kevin McCarthy, and negotiated NEPA reforms as part of bipartisan 2023 Fiscal Responsibility Act. This is very good news if you believe in deregulation for energy abundance.

#FamilyPolicy — Interesting brief from Joshua McCabe at Niskanen: the preferred way to "make work pay" and tackle poverty without increasing dependency has been some combination of minimum wage increases and EITC; but, he argues, this is a strategy with "diminishing marginal returns." Instead, the best thing to focus on is state CTCs.

#TheEconomy — The Chamber of Commerce has published its Small Business Outlook survey. It's not great, but not terrible either. "Small businesses on Main Street view the second half of 2025 with cautious optimism. Pressure continues for the administration to calm uncertainty caused by tariff policies and for Congress to continue its work towards preventing a massive small business tax increase at the end of the year." Furthermore, "Tariffs are having a real and devastating impact on thousands of small businesses across the nation as uncertainty, rising costs, and cancellations are hitting home." Nevertheless, "Main Street employers’ predictions for a positive second half of 2025 are becoming more likely and will depend largely on whether uncertainty caused by tariff policies and tax legislation can be turned around."

#Trade #Tariffs #StatOfTheDay — "72% of U.S. companies said tariffs have already increased their costs, and 77% expect those costs to rise further by the end of the year." (Via)

#K12 #VibeShift — One for the column against the vibe shift theory: San Francisco (which, apparently, has had surprising success in cleaning up its homelessness problem) has just put out an insane plan for its public schools, which would, among other brilliant ideas, eliminate homework and weekly tests from counting toward the semester grade, allow students to take the final exam multiple times, and convert all B grades into As, and all Fs into Cs. "Who cares about the crazies in San Francisco?" you might ask. Fair enough, except that "grading for equity" is a real nationwide trend, as this brief from Defending Ed explains aptly. Obviously, this stuff hurts everyone, but especially the talented poor and middle class, and helps upper-class idiots.

#K12 — Speaking of K12 and wokeness, the White House has put out an EO on school discipline policies, which has been followed by new guidance on this theme from Ed. At City Journal, Neeraja Deshpande explains.

#Drugs #MentalHealth — Interesting proposal from Cicero Institute's Christopher Sharp: use opioid settlement funds to better fund the mental health system.

#Immigration #TheMedia — The Washington Post is shocked, shocked by a "new tactic" in "Trump's deportation push": arresting people right after deportation hearings. Truly shocking: deporting people after a judge said they should be deported.

#Immigration — On the other hand, WaPo has a good explainer on foreign students in the US, who they are, and how fast their numbers have risen.

#Hahvahd — At The Dispatch, Gil Guerra has a good explainer on the Trump Administration's actions against Harvard.

#ElectionIntegrity — DOJ sues North Carolina elections board over the need for accurate voter rolls.