Lithuania is grappling with a declining birth rate, and a new survey suggests most of its residents believe the answer lies in financial incentives. But researchers and psychologists warn that simply writing bigger cheques will not be enough.
The poll, conducted in March by market research firm Baltijos tyrimai on behalf of public broadcaster LRT, found that one in five Lithuanians (20%) believe lower taxes for parents would do most to encourage larger families. A further 17% pointed to higher maternity and paternity benefits and more generous child allowances.
Smaller numbers favoured greater flexibility in combining work and childcare, longer parental leave, better nursery provision, or subsidised childminders. 6% said no measure would make any difference. The results were consistent across age groups, genders and other demographic categories.
Lithuania, a Baltic nation of fewer than three million people, has one of the lowest birth rates in the European Union. Like many of its neighbours, it faces a shrinking and ageing population – a challenge compounded by the pandemic and uncertainty caused by the war in Ukraine.
The political backdrop
The survey results come amid proposals from Lithuanian politicians about how to reverse the trend. The Justice Minister suggested broadcasting "beautiful family examples" on public television. The Social Affairs Minister floated the idea of government-organised social evenings to help single people find partners. There have also been more conventional calls to raise maternity benefits.
Daumantas Stumbrys, a researcher at the Lithuanian Social Sciences Centre, says the survey findings reveal a telling gap between what politicians are proposing and what the public actually wants.
He notes that hopes during the pandemic – that people spending more time at home might lead to a baby boom – proved entirely unfounded. On the contrary, pandemic anxiety, rising interest rates and the war in Ukraine have all contributed to further declines in birth rates, a pattern seen across Europe.
"The post-pandemic decline is continuing. Researchers link this to uncertainty and a sense of multiple simultaneous crises: if you are not sure about your family's future, your finances or your job, you are less likely to have children," Stumbrys said.
'The state cannot simply buy children'
Family psychologist Miglė Motiejūnė cautions that the motivations of people who have no children differ fundamentally from those of parents weighing up whether to have a second or third. Most survey respondents gravitate towards financial solutions, she says, because they are the most tangible – but the reality is far more nuanced.
"Financial incentives are very rarely the deciding factor when it comes to having children at all, because that decision is an extremely complex one," she told LRT.lt.
Those who are hesitant, she says, cite a wide range of practical difficulties – and single mothers, in particular, express considerable anxiety. She draws attention not only to separated women, but also to a phenomenon she describes as the "married single mother": a woman who manages the home and children largely alone, despite being in a marriage or partnership.
"These women face challenges both at home and in the workplace," she said, adding "a separated woman is often particularly unwelcome in the job market, on the assumption that there will be no one to look after her children. Mothers in this situation simply do not plan to have more children, because life is already hard enough."
Stumbrys acknowledges that financial incentives do have some effect – he cites Belarus' policy of providing housing to large families as an example – but is clear about the limits.
"The effect is positive, but it is bounded. The state cannot simply buy children. It is not that straightforward," he said.
Such material measures, he adds, tend to encourage childbearing most among lower-income families. The survey suggests the public wants more money rather than more services, but the research evidence points in a different direction.
The most effective approach, Stumbrys argues, combines financial support with accessible services. If the state enables parents to remain in the workforce whilst raising children, it reduces the need for costly benefits – and vice versa. Countries with greater gender equality also tend to perform better on birth rates, with Sweden and France frequently cited as models.
"If you ask people directly, they will not say it is important for the state to encourage men and women to share responsibilities at home. But when choosing a life partner, it matters enormously that they are not someone who simply earns a wage and tells you to raise the children. It matters that they contribute to family life," Stumbrys observed.
He also notes that incentives need to be tailored: what persuades a childless couple to have their first child is quite different from what might encourage parents of one to have a second.
"Those who already have a child know from experience what it means to get a nursery place, to navigate the healthcare system. They understand that services matter just as much as money," he said.
Motiejūnė echoes the point about gender equality. "The more responsibility is shared equally between partners, the easier it is for a family to decide to have one child – or more," she said.
What does not work
Both experts are sceptical of measures that attempt to instil pro-family attitudes in young people or pressure women into having children earlier.
"I find it very hard to imagine what would encourage people under 25 to have children. People are in education at that stage. We should ask whether the goal is really for 20-year-olds to start families. I do not think that is what the state wants – they would drop out of education and end up with lower incomes for the rest of their lives," Stumbrys said.
Motiejūnė criticizes the tendency of trying to make people want children before they are ready – an approach she regards as misguided.
"At best, it might change attitudes, but attitudes are not the same as behaviour. You might raise a generation that speaks warmly about family and marriage, but has no intention of actually marrying or having children," she said.
Stumbrys also takes issue with political rhetoric that appears to romanticise a traditional family model that no longer reflects Lithuanian society.
"There is a push to return to the traditional family – measures that, for example, support only married couples. But reality has moved on: a quarter of children in Lithuania are now born outside marriage. Do we really want to return to a 19th-century or post-war model? That is an idealised image," he said.
He is equally critical of what he sees as excessive moralising – blaming women for having children later in life, or suggesting they should in effect be nudged into motherhood.
"Support should be directed at everyone who wants children, not at a select group deemed to be living in the correct way – whether married couples or any other category," he said.
A group often overlooked
Although only 1% of survey respondents cited better access to assisted reproduction as a meaningful incentive, Motiejūnė argues the issue deserves far greater attention. She has spoken publicly about her own experience of fertility treatment, and points out that such services are poorly subsidised in Lithuania, with families often facing criticism for having "decided too late" to have children.
She proposes that policymakers focus on three distinct groups: those who already have children and might consider having more; those weighing up whether to have at least one child; and those who are unable to have children for medical reasons.
"If the state were to focus on these three groups seriously, birth rates could genuinely be changed," she said.
Newsletter
Every Friday morning.
