Display:
That article is from a year ago. The 2006 numbers were even higher, with the fertility rate actually climbing above 2...

But I loved that quote:


Throughout its modern history France has been obsessed about population levels. Experts have established that around the time of the revolution, French mothers stopped breeding - no one knows why - and a population that had been the largest in Europe fell during the 19th century behind Britain and the emerging Germany.

The Révolution is the cause of France's decline...

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 14th, 2007 at 08:00:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Of course. Too busy knitting in front of the guillotine.

Try all you like, my fine French friend, but you can't fight facts.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Feb 14th, 2007 at 08:08:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't know if this was a French obsession, or an Anglo-Saxon/German/military historian obsession projected at France, but I have met with this issue in another context. It was in analyses of why France lost the Franco-Prussian war and suffered such lasting effect of the two world wars, and the argument was that low birthrates meant less available conscripts for the mass armies.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed Feb 14th, 2007 at 09:19:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Of course it is. And revanchists continue the theme under a new banner.

Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant
by redstar on Wed Feb 14th, 2007 at 10:11:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Throughout its modern history France has been obsessed about population levels

It was a pretty serious concern during the Third Republic, particularly on the right.

The Révolution is the cause of France's decline...

The explanation I've seen most often is that the land inheritance laws of the Napoleonic Code were a factor, combined with the fact that so much of France's population was made up of small landowners.

by MarekNYC on Wed Feb 14th, 2007 at 10:33:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I read a comment somewhere sometime on the usenets that the reason France fell behind Germany in the 19th century was a change in its succession laws (shift from primogeniture (first son) to partible (shared) inheritance). This is a case where the 'why' would be more egalitarianism.
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Wed Feb 14th, 2007 at 05:56:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Fatherside, I have a track of landowner / peasant ancestors, I would say mostly of the well off category for the time. By the mid 19th, they had more than one child, they resolved the dilemna by letting the (male) children all but one study, and then work for the state or in the ndustry. The youngest kept the farm.
But the story of the inheritance law is also one mainstream explanation I have always heard as why France made his demographic transition 40 years earlier (more or less 10 years, I don´t recall).

What I don´t understand is how it can be the cause of it, because in theory the diminution of infantile  mortality is the main factor and has to come first.

Anyway, France had his demographic boost - lot of active people in the population, less dependant one with less children and not many elders yet - at the end of 18th /beginning of the 19th and squandered it through the revolutionnary and napoleonic wars, and was a bit too early - already stabilized - for riding the industrial revolution.

The third republic obsession with natality was real, and can be easily understood: if for 30 years you were an outlier with less natality, were crushed by expanding neighbours and could not conceive that they will slow their natality one day too, you could have felt uneasy...

La répartie est dans l'escalier. Elle revient de suite.

by lacordaire on Wed Feb 14th, 2007 at 07:15:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series