Rethinking Population Shrinkage in the Nordic Countries

Population degrowth is a necessity to achieve a sustainable world. A new policy brief for the Nordic countries urges policymakers to rethink their commitment to continued growth and instead embrace the reality of demographic degrowth.

By Pernilla Hansson

Many countries around the globe are set to experience population decrease, with several dozen already doing so. Despite lamentations from some economists and misdirected attempts to reverse this trend, it is a reality that more and more countries will have to face.

Even in countries that are still growing in population on a national scale, the growth is often uneven and limited to bigger cities, leaving many predominantly rural districts to face population decline. Without plans for how to restructure societies in these areas, their populations risk experiencing only the negative effects of such degrowth, rather than the positives.

This is exactly what the new policy brief “Rethinking population shrinkage: Smart adaptation for Nordic municipalities and regions” aims to address. The brief is produced by the regional development research organisation Nordregio. It undertook workshops with municipal, regional and national planners and policymakers in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, and Iceland, countries that are all experiencing population decline in some municipalities while others still grow. The resulting report focuses on the positives of degrowth while identifying practical approaches to mitigate the stresses that shrinking and ageing populations might generate.

Since 1990, the majority of municipalities have decreased in population. The pattern is a rather distinct divide between rural and urban municipalities, where larger cities have increased in population while mainly rural ones have decreased.
Map of total population change by municipality in the Nordic countries, 1990-2022. While the overall populations have grown in all Nordic countries, many municipalities are decreasing in population. The smaller map shows total regional population change. Source: Nordregio

Common fears regarding population decline are related to providing services while being economically supported by a smaller and older population. When the population shrinks, the region’s allocation of national funds might decrease, which can impact public services and infrastructure. Managing vacant housing while providing suitable housing for more specific needs may also become a struggle, while an aging population puts further demands on elderly and health care.

All of this is mentioned in the report, but the policy brief is also very clear that population decline will become the new normal for many places throughout Europe. Simply put, it is not something that can meaningfully be fought against and development strategies need to acknowledge and adapt to this new reality.

The policy brief proposes seven action points to address population degrowth. These are summarised below.

  1. Reframing the narrative on shrinkage – success should be measured by well-being and quality of life rather than population growth.
  2. Developing knowledge on shrinkage, demographic changes, and their effects – many regions are limited by the quality of data, so better demographic data can help develop more finely tailored strategies.
  3. Communicative planning and the benefits of being small – benefits of smaller communities should be highlighted and residents encouraged to engage in adaptive plans to promote community cohesion.
  4. Social infrastructure and land use planning – societies should repurpose spaces and create multifunctional service hubs to optimise resource allocation while ensuring service accessibility.
  5. Multi-level governance and collaborative approaches – inter-municipal and regional cooperation can improve service efficiency, enhance policy coordination, and create economies of scale.
  6. Funding for long-term adaptation and future-oriented planning – funding should be more flexible and not tied to growth metrics.
  7. Policy responses to shrinkage coupled with the green and digital transitions – by integrating degrowth adaptation with other significant transitions, synergies can be created that strengthen both initiatives.

Linked to all these points are proposed actions for local as well as national policymakers. The brief further specifies that regional and national policies should support inter-municipal cooperation and provide funding that focuses on adaptation and improvement in quality of life rather than sustaining population growth.

This policy brief is a great step forward toward accepting shrinking populations. It clearly states that this is a reality for many Nordic regions and that this reality must be met with a new way of structuring society, reframing the “population decline problem”. Unfortunately, the report doesn’t elaborate on the more positive aspects of depopulation, particularly those related to sustainability and the environment.

As Nordregio’s areas of focus are regional development and planning and since most workshop participants were municipal and national planners and administrators, it is no surprise that the brief is rather anthropocentric. They mention how population degrowth can result in closer-knit communities, give greater flexibility to governance, and make citizen engagement easier. While the brief suggests linking degrowth to the green transition, mentions of positive environmental aspects are lacking. It would have been nice to see even a small acknowledgement of the environmental and sustainability benefits that potentially come with population decline, such as leaving more land for nature, reducing national CO2 emissions, and being part of a crucial step in remaining within planetary boundaries.

While this is not the first report of its kind (see for example the in-depth analysis that the OECD produced in 2022 for how Estonia can shrink smartly), it is refreshing to read a report that states so clearly the need to restructure society around degrowth. Population shrinkage is often framed negatively in public discourse, which might prevent policymakers from adapting strategies for it. With more reports like this, policymakers might finally let go of the archaic belief that prosperity is linked to continuous growth and realise that the well-being of people and our planet is a more reasonable measure.

How does your society discuss potential population decrease? If you were writing up a brief for “positive degrowth” for your community or region, what points would you emphasize? We want to hear from you!

Published

25 responses to “Rethinking Population Shrinkage in the Nordic Countries”

    1. tom my Avatar

      worth reading thanks

  1. Kathleene Parker Avatar

    No one focuses on the positive benefits of population shrinkage, thanks to CORPORATE-CONTROLLED MEDIA, and now we have J.D. Vance and Elon Musk advocating “incentives” for women to punch out more babies in the U.S. because, as we all know (as if it were handed down on stone tablets from above), “You have to have growth!”

    But the good news, and a paper I hope everyone will access online, is one NPG just published, a paper by Dr. Nathaniel Gronewald (He teaches journalism at the University of Hawaii.) It’s entitled, “Embracing the Birth Dearth: Part 1, The Futility of Pronatalism,” with it being both a delightful informative read (He is, after all, a professional writer who, in this case, uses a lot of humor.) and encouraging as he explains how pronatalist policies NEVER work! Repeat–NEVER!

    Even huge “incentives” of thousands of dollars will not produce increases in the birthrate–although they are a handy financial help for young couples starting out, who then decided, “Gosh, kids are hard work and expensive. Let’s stop at one or two!”

    Meanwhile, almost all of the developed world is WELL BELOW a replacement level birthrate (including the U.S. (1.6) and the REALLY GOOD NEWS is that the global birth rate is now 2.2, or just slightly above replacement, but that down from 6.0 or so in the 1960s!

    Although, despite media depictions that a below-replacement-level birthrate means our nations will become instant ghost towns, that’s malarky, due to “momentum,” or that because population growth is like a speeding train, it will take decades to bring it to a halt. That’s the bad news, but the good news is that a number of countries have already been below replacement-level birthrates for four or five decades, meaning (except for immigration) they might soon achieve zero growth and, hopefully, population loss.

    But as long as we have a DEREGULATED MEDIA no longer required to, in any form, adhere to ethics in reporting, to report fully, without bias and while serving the information needs of the public, of course, we are going to get ONLY pro-growth propaganda and no one is going to understand that there are as many benefits to population decline as there are to growth–at this point, more, with it essential for species survival and to fight climate change.

    1. Philip Cafaro Avatar

      “Embracing the Birth Dearth: The Futility of Pronatalism.” You can view the new paper here: https://npg.org/library/forum-series/embracing-the-birth-dearth-the-futility-of-pro-natalism/

      1. gaiabaracetti Avatar

        It’s very interesting, and apparently there’s also a part 2…

  2. David Polewka Avatar

    Inside the Chinese City That Said Cash Rewards Brought a Baby Boom
    April 9, 2025, Wall St. Journal
    A visit made it clear that Tianmen is a city in revival mode—but also that it is far from turning a demographic corner after six years of decline in births. At the entrance to Tianmen Maternal and Child Health Hospital, a sign said, “More children, more joy,” and electronic billboards explained how to apply for the subsidies. Buses advertised a new clinic for IVF treatment. A red propaganda banner warned against waiting too long to have children, proclaiming, “Giving birth early is beneficial. Giving birth late is regrettable.” The total of 7,000-plus babies last year paled compared with the 18,000 births reported in 2017. With young people moving away for work elsewhere, Tianmen’s population has become increasingly gray. The portion of people 60 and older jumped to more than 25% in 2020, from 10% in 2010, census data showed. On a recent weekday, more old people than children were noticeable in the city center. In Duoxiang Township on the city’s outskirts, seniors were playing mahjong across the street from a preschool. One resident said another preschool in the area had to close as the number of children dwindled. Colorful fake flowers and gravestones were on sale ahead of the Qingming tomb-sweeping holiday. Now Tianmen hopes its birth incentives will hit several economic goals at once: get young workers to move back and start families, lift housing purchases and increase overall spending.

    Like Tianmen, other cities are also offering housing subsidies tied to births, which could help address a glut of unsold apartments in the wake of China’s real-estate bust. Economists say it is also a way for policymakers to encourage spending while avoiding no-strings-attached handouts. “You can see that the local officials are trying to get bang for their buck,” said Erica Tay, economist at Maybank. According to state media, the city has spent around $8 million to encourage births. Since March, Tianmen will also reward newlyweds with a housing subsidy of $8,300 for a new apartment. With many local governments strapped for cash, some analysts expect the central government to play a primary role in funding fertility-related programs. China as a whole also saw a welcome rise in births in 2024, much of which fell in the zodiac Year of the Dragon, considered auspicious for births in China. But the population still fell as deaths outnumbered births and demographers saw the baby rebound as temporary. To keep its mini baby boom going, Tianmen is pushing to bring back more young workers from coastal cities. The approach is in line with Beijing’s goals of transferring more factory jobs to inland cities. According to the official Xinhua News Agency, some 80,000 people returned to Tianmen in 2024. Many come for a cheaper cost of living at a time of economic slowdown. In several neighborhoods of the city, returnees have taken over empty storefronts to open small garment factories. At one of them, a 41-year-old man surnamed Wang said he moved back to Tianmen in 2023 after some 20 years in Guangzhou. Wang, who has a 16-year-old son, said he had heard about the baby subsidies, but said he doesn’t plan on having another child.

    1. gaiabaracetti Avatar

      The fact that some genuinely think that China, of all places, should worry about not having enough people doesn’t cease to amaze me.

      1. Philip Cafaro Avatar

        Status quo bias!

  3. Fons Jena Avatar

    This is great news and I’m looking forward to reading the policy brief!
    I’ve been thinking of writing such a report for Belgium, where it’s all about growing. In fact it would be nice to have some kind of ‘Research Institute on Shrinking Populations’ (RISP haha) or something like that where we can find all known information and research on policies and effects of shrinking populations. The core of our message is simple in fact: convincing people of the benefits of ‘small is beautiful’.
    Thanks for the post!

    1. Philip Cafaro Avatar

      You’re welcome. And we agree: research and discussions looking at shrinking populations from environmental, rather than mainstream economic, perspectives would be very valuable.

  4. Jan van Weeren Avatar

    See both links at the end of this newsletter from our organisation: https://us9.campaign-archive.com/?u=78da24e7c773f3ab721ca2e53&id=276d381384

  5. gaiabaracetti Avatar

    A few thoughts:

    – I’m surprised at no mention of house prices. House affordability in abandoned areas is a good in and of itself (unless you own those houses) as it makes it possible for people to have a house that otherwise wouldn’t, and attracts a more diverse crowd – young people, artists, foreigners – whether that’s good or not is debatable, but for example it played a role in making Berlin such an attractive city a while ago. Of course the risk is that those houses will become holiday homes instead

    – the elephant in the room here is pensions. The system is unsustainable and a lot of the negative reputation of shrinking populations comes from “who will pay our pensions”. It’s selfish and there are alternative options, from encouraging people to work for longer, by reducing hours or offering a change in career to a less demanding job, to cutting down the most lavish pensions and disincentives to work such as large inheritances, divorce settlements and income inequalities by which people can just life off of their rich parents or spouses for life

    – health – modern healthcare is very expensive and I personally believe we are treating people who shouldn’t be treated, because they don’t want it and it’s just prolonging their misery. We need to talk about this, without overdoing it and making people who do want to live feel like they are a burden

    – defense or “ethnic replacement” – people fear they will be unable to defend themselves if there’s too few of them. It’s a demographic security dilemma. Very sustainable, extremely sparse populations such as the uncontacted tribes of the Amazon or Andaman only survive because the powerful and populous state in which they live has decided to protect them. They cannot really defend themselves

    1. Philip Cafaro Avatar

      These are all great points. The fact that so many countries with high housing costs and talk about “housing crises” ignore the role depopulation can play in bringing housing prices down, is a striking example of our failure to talk about the benefits of fewer people.

    2. stevemckevittda604d1b36 Avatar

      These are issues that are worthy of frank review. But some of your points are presented as “being seen” through the system that we are presently using, and with the present control that we are using. This can be harmful or at least poorly understood.
      For instance, look at pensions: Money is one big factor. A functioning society generates excess income. It would be better for our society to use this excess money for the general betterment of its people and the care of its people, rather than have the money be sucked up by the billionaires.

      Our health care system in the U.S. is a sad mess. But what we clearly need today is a better plan. A changed system would offer better care, … and real jobs, ones that offer good employment that helps our older citizens in a positive manner. (Rather than what we do today: paying so many people to sit and do worthless busy-work.)

      1. gaiabaracetti Avatar

        For sure there would be solutions to potential problems caused by having less people – but they would require someone to give something up (a billionaire to be taxed, like you say, an unnecessary office worker or manager being retrained to be a nurse or farmer…) and there is resistance to that. But of course, I agree with you.

  6. Stable Genius Avatar

    Thanks, Pernilla. “Smart shrinkage”, I like that. How does my society discuss population decrease? By Treasury Decree, it can’t, doesn’t, never will. Stupid Australia is guaranteed six (or 25?) more years of insane immigration, fake net-zero “integrated system” energy, and punishing levels of housing decline and distress. In pervasively Orwellian groupthink terms, the dominant “left” in their gilded inner-city enclaves dubs this Careful Reform for Social Cohesion to reduce Culture Wars.

    1. Philip Cafaro Avatar

      Fortunately, Aussies have the group Sustainable Population Australia to spread the word about alternatives: https://population.org.au/

  7. winthrop staples Avatar

    A list of advantages to a lower more sustainable human population could include the following.
    1. Lower population densities should reduce demand and competition for resources and so lower the cost of living and create higher living standards for common citizens. For example as others have suggested the very high current cost of housing should go down when there are fewer people wanting to buy into what is essentially an finite supply of housing in many ‘built out’ areas.
    2. Lower total populations and densities of resource consumers and polluters should reduce air, water and ground pollution and so create a healthier environment for future citizens.
    3. Lower population would increase common persons access to nature due to the simple possibility of larger house lots and access to state and national parks that is now restricted because of too many potential visitors.
    4. Lower crime and violence rates would be possible because high human densities which cause high rates of competition for resources and status are know to cause high levels of human and other species conflict.
    5. More individual freedom would be possible for more people because lower population densities greatly reduce the probability that an individual’s actions will annoy or conflict with the sensibilities or activities of others.
    6. The emergence of catastrophic pandemics is greatly reduced at lower population totals and densities because last disease containing habitats are likely to be invaded to produce more goods and lower population densities act as natural ‘fire breaks’ that stop emergent diseases from spreading so they naturally burn themselves out as Covid outbreaks in remote Chinese villages are thought to have done.
    7, There will be a lower risk of catastrophic wars and the killing and suffering they cause when there is less competition for resources due to lower population levels in most countries.
    8. There will be a much lower risk of, or a halt to species extinctions that are are largely due now to the need to destroy evermore natural habitats to provide resources for ever more human ‘bodies’.
    9. There will also be a much lower risk of human extinction due to lowered risks listed above.
    And finally, paradoxically, the alleged risk of human extinction due to small family sizes, now dramatically warned of by our billionaire class, would most likely be eliminated by a move to a sustainable population level. Because surveys indicate that many potential parents have no or few children due to the many problems that our present overpopulation creates.

    1. gaiabaracetti Avatar

      In order to get the good things you mention, in most cases management is required as well. Wars, extinctions, conflicts and overcrowding have plagued humanity and the planet at lower human densities and population levels than now, not to mention pandemics. The difference is that now we don’t have any buffer or anywhere to run if one of those things happens; wildlife has a harder time coming back if it’s been exterminated everywhere, and not only in specific places.

    2. Philip Cafaro Avatar

      Win, great list, reminding us of the many benefits of fewer people!

  8. Dag Lindgren Avatar

    The NordicRegio focus on “the problem” of shrinking population size is most communities, while the main problem is the population increase in some communities where the population size is already high. For me the simplest solution is taxes, these communes should pay a larger share of the commune taxes to the state for the good of all instead of just the commune inhabitants. This can be decided by the parlaments without long delay.

  9. gaiabaracetti Avatar

    This is an interesting example of how blinded the media, and people, are: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/09/leaving-new-zealand-record-departure-numbers
    So: living in New Zealand is expensive and jobs are scarce, therefore people are leaving. The “jaws of death” for the country, it says in the article. But, fun fact, the population of New Zealand is GROWING, not declining, and growing almost as fast as that of Nigeria!! Nearly 2% a year. So instead of making the connection – rapid population growth leading to inflation or rising house prices or competition for work, the problem is framed as the opposite of what it is: too few people, too many leaving. Not enough growth.

    (As an aside, it’s sad to see how money-motivated people are. How can a higher salary be worth more than your extended family and friends, community, country??)

    1. Philip Cafaro Avatar

      I think immigration tends to select for more “money-motivated” people. Every immigrant or potential immigrant makes their own calculations, in deciding whether to move. But the more you are attached to money and material things, and the less to people and places, the more willing you will be to pack up and move.

      That calculation can change, of course, as a person’s friends and relatives move to a new country.

      1. gaiabaracetti Avatar

        So true.
        Loyalty to community, country and land (including nature) is unfashionable these days, but some people don’t want to leave because they feel they need to make their home a better place, even at great personal cost and even when everyone else is leaving.
        A counterargument would be the people who migrate to help, leaving wealthy and safe countries and going to troubled places to be of service, or leave their homeland for a career in, say, research, which they think might benefit humanity as a whole. But both cases are a minority.

  10. Edith Crowther Avatar

    That BikeX website is pretty damn good. It reminds me of a UN Convention whixh has been buried – the 1992 Convention on Bio-Diversity [CBD].  Most Nations ratified it – but most Nations then promptly ignored it.  This is because it would appear to aim for the third scenario on BikeX – Life Without Modern Conveniences.  And although Scenario 3 is labelled as “Worse”, it has clearly accepted Reality and decided to focus on “Worse” becoming the preferred option, paradoxically.  
    But it does not do this in a polemical way – just through calm matter-of-fact diagrams and short summaries.  It shows some downsides honestly – and a fair number of upsides which clearly are not occurring to most people.  
    I think the website should form the main part of that part of the school curriculum which deals with environmental matters – though another paradox is that anyone who likes the website probably is not sending their children to a “normal” school or any school at all.
    This is because most “normal” schools favour Economic Growth over the Environment.  It is one or the other – you cannot have both.  You cannot have your cake and eat it.  If you eat it, it is gone.  Gone with the wind.    
    Anyway, the website has prompted me to resurrect the CBD 1992 (in my own mind) and do a comment about it  I too had forgotten all about it – yet I was blown away by it the first time I saw it (in about 2009, long after it emerged, and then only because I was rummaging around on the internet trying to stop my local countryside being concreted over by “Development”).
    It is not so difficult to “sell” BikeX’s third scenario as it used to be, now that the clapped-out “Same” and the utopian “Much Better” have been exposed as gangrenous beneath the surface.  But Same and Better have conferred an APPARENT (short-term?) evolutionary advantage on humans for millennia, so if they are in our DNA it might be hard for a beneficial mutation to arise in time to change our general mindset.  Although, at least one genetic mutation in human DNA has recently been shown to improve brain function accidentally, having evolved to confer immunity against a lethal infection (probably plague).  [CCR5 Delta 32, which disables the CCR5 portal in the human immune system used by some pathogens.]  
    If there is a gene which makes humans acquisitive – i.e. Squirrels rather than Nuts, to quote Humphrey Bogart – then I reckon it needs disabling by another gene.  The disabling gene could arise as a natural response to the devastation around us faster than through advanced Genetic Manipulation which is still in its infancy and is in any case unlikely to CHOOSE to disable a gene for Control-Freakery, as CRISPR gene editing is a highly controlling enterprise in and of itself.
    Of course our acquisitiveness might not be embedded in our DNA – but I have a feeling it is, after spending years watching babies and toddlers “playing”.  Toddler attempts to control the things and people around them are comic and tragic – but also sobering.  There are no contemplative mystical “zen” toddlers, so far as I can see.  Some might be more patient than others, but that is about it.  Yet they are beyond cute, in their naked ambition.  This is humanity in its most pure and beautiful state – innocent yes, but an innocent Control Freak with no holds barred.  Only later does Society manage to insert some barriers to Control Freakery – but a minority of adults have clearly rejected such barriers, and the rest are only pretending to reject them, IMO.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

NOTE: Comments with more than one link will be held in wait and will only become visible on the site after an admin has approved it.

Explore the content and topics covered by TOP, search here

Blog categories

Gallery of infographics – Learn more about overpopulation and environment

Discover more from The Overpopulation Project

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading