The natalism-neoliberalism paradox

Abstract Declining American fertility has become a mainstream political issue, particularly for conservatives. Some lawmakers (including some Republicans) have proposed economic policies that might be viewed as a bipartisan win-win, relieving financial strain for working parents (especially women) and potentially encouraging childbearing. I theorize and demonstrate how such interventions are hindered by what I call the “natalism-neoliberalism paradox”: stronger pronatalist sentiment and optimism regarding pro-family economic policies move in opposite directions for different ideological and interest groups, revealing fundamentally divergent understandings of political economy and family. Using data from Pew’s 2024 American Trends Panel Survey, Wave 148 (N = 7944), initial regression analyses reveal both concern about growing national childlessness and views toward economic policies to encourage childbearing correspond to different political characteristics and genders. Moreover, interactions show the link between concern about national childlessness and optimism about economic interventions is contingent on political characteristics and structural location. The association is positive only among liberals, Democrats, Black Americans, and women (most of whom tend to be the least concerned about national fertility), but for conservatives, greater concern about growing childlessness predicts greater pessimism about pro-family economic interventions. Thus, pronatalism is not only an ideological wedge, but also an economic policy wedge.