.png)
Singapore’s Pro-Natalist Policies Struggle Amid a Society Caught Between Efficiency and Meaning
- Helene Ng
- 3 days ago
- 7 min read
Updated: 23 hours ago
Can Singapore escape its 'iron cage' of rationality? To reverse its low birth rate, policy must look beyond financial and practical incentives and foster an environment that allows natalism to naturally thrive.
Disclaimer: Views expressed in this article are the writer’s own and are not representative of MAJU’s views. While we make every effort to ensure that the information shared is accurate, we welcome any comments, suggestions, or corrections of errors.
Singapore’s fast-paced, competitive society is often seen as unwelcoming to family formation —a phenomenon sociologist Max Weber would attribute to “disenchantment”. As modern life becomes governed by the desire to get ahead, society’s focus makes a shift from tradition to logic. For one, superstitions surrounding childbearing have faded as we see that the dragon year effect no longer brings about a surge in birth rates. If you feel that life in Singapore is stifling, it might be the "iron cage" we currently live in. Coined by Weber, the concept describes how individuals in modern societies like Singapore feel trapped by rigid systems of meritocracy and bureaucratic efficiency, sacrificing personal fulfillment for progress and order. In short: Singapore’s relentless focus on efficiency and achievement can make daily life feel confining and emotionally stifling. Singapore’s pro-natalist policies reflect this: they rely heavily on formal, theoretical, and practical rationality while neglecting substantive rationality, or decisions grounded in values and meaning. Though efficient, these policies fail to inspire increased total fertility rate (TFR) as social norms shift and emotional motivations weaken. From the government's focus on two-child limits in the 1970s to its focus on incentivising families of three and more today, Singapore’s journey shows how technical fixes cannot revive family life without restoring a deeper sense of purpose.
Competing Values: How Meritocracy, Materialism, and Practical Rationality Sideline Family Formation in Singapore
Singapore’s system can feel a bit contradictory. On one hand, meritocracy pushes intense competition and individual success, typical of a neoliberal society. Yet, on the other, the state still plays a strong role, promoting messages of collectivism, social responsibility, and the nuclear family as a unit of society. Neoliberalism fosters relentless competition by holding individuals solely responsible for success amid reduced social support and privatised public goods, intensifying insecurity and rivalry over scarce resources. Studies have shown that the desire for social status hinders individual desire for romance and family. Singapore’s achievement-oriented culture leads young people to deprioritise family development, instead emphasising practical rationality by focusing on upskilling and career advancement as the most effective means to attain success and their ideal lifestyle. This phenomenon is only exacerbated by today’s rising costs of living. Studies show that Singaporeans have always sought a comfortable lifestyle—this is ingrained in our culture by the previous generation’s infamous list of 5 Cs (Cash, car, credit card, condominium, and country club) to our generation’s FIRE (Financial Independence, Retire Early). These abbreviations betray a societal obsession with material wealth and status as measures of success, as many of us succumb to the rat race of accumulating resources—in the spirit of kiasuism—to feel a sense of security.
Pitfalls of Overreliance on Theoretical and Formal Rationality in Policy Design
Singapore’s policy approach to boosting its TFR is dominated by theoretical and formal rationality, although it is practical rationality that shapes individual choices in response to such policies. Theoretical rationality is decision-making based on abstract principles and ideal models, focusing on logical consistency rather than practical feasibility. In this vein, our policymakers rely heavily on demographic models and data to target specific subgroups. Singapore’s demographic modelling — anchored in the rational‐choice framework —correctly identifies that fertility is most sensitive to (a) marriage rates among 25–29-year-olds; and (b) first‐birth rates among married 30–34-year-olds. Theoretical rationality informs policymakers’ focus on younger couples in their “Marriage and Parenthood Package,” under the assumption that lowering the cost of childbearing for these prime‐age subgroups will yield the greatest TFR gains. However, there has been an error translating these theoretical insights into policy. Uniform, rule-based eligibility criteria and incentives overlook varying price responsiveness: financial rewards effective for dual-income, high-net-worth couples in their late 30s may not influence younger under-35 couples facing high housing and career-entry costs. The failure of theoretical rationality in this domain arises from overly narrow cost-benefit assumptions that neglect structural barriers. This approach is insufficient as I will explain two-fold:
First, childbearing is a deeply personal decision that cannot be engineered by statistical probability. This is a pitfall of theoretical rationality. Childbearing choices involve subjective values, emotions, cultural meanings, social norms, and personal identity, which go beyond rational calculation of costs and benefits. Policies that only seem to work well on paper thus risk overlooking encouraging substantive values like the meaning of family and the validity of alternative family structures. Weber’s formal rationality is seen in Singapore’s family policies, which rely on impersonal rules and systematic incentives—for instance standardised benefits, like priority for public housing exclusively for married couples. While this approach simplifies planning and addresses practical constraints, it replaces emotional motivations with bureaucracy and excludes alternative family structures.
A solution would be to expand support for single parents who are currently excluded from some benefits like the Baby Bonus, as doing so would reflect a commitment to inclusivity through acknowledging diverse family forms. Such a measure would prioritise meaning and values over metrics, supporting families in ways that resonate with their lived realities. Single parenthood is a growing minority, especially after divorce (five to ten years married). With societal norms shifting, policies must reflect this evolution of family structures and ensure children and parents are well-supported post-breakdown.
Secondly, while Singapore’s pro-family policies influence individuals to act on their practical rationality by offering incentives like Baby Bonus cash, tax reliefs, and housing grants to offset child-rearing costs, studies show these financial incentives cover only a small portion of the true burden — particularly the opportunity costs of lost income and stalled careers especially for lower-income mothers. The limitation with practical rationality here is that it may overlook principles of equality: it does not account for broader structural and value-based considerations, such as deep-seated socioeconomic inequalities or ideals of fairness that fall under substantive rationality.
Childcare subsidies (up to S$767 per month for low-income families) and tax reliefs help, but still leave parents with significant out-of-pocket expenses and for some, the opportunity cost of career progression. This also reveals a deeper issue tied to a lack of substantive rationality: if wealthier families with established careers are the only strata of society who can afford both the direct and hidden costs of having children, then the ability to start a family becomes less a matter of personal choice and more a reflection of socioeconomic privilege, undermining values of fairness and inclusivity that public policy ought to uphold. Moreover, experts suggest that financial incentives are most effective for families who already want children or are on the fence, but do little to convince those who are not interested.
Furthermore, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) could consider expanding the Large Families Scheme to include all families with more than one child, as per Dr Vignesha’s suggestion in her Op-Ed for the Straits Times. The scheme, launched for children born on or after 18 February 2025, currently provides up to $16,000 of additional support for each third or subsequent Singaporean citizen child to support larger families. Such a policy does not create desire to bear children but does reduce some structural and financial barriers, better enabling families to act on existing aspirations. By expanding the scheme, the policy will be better aligned with substantive rationality, enabling Singaporeans to better respond when it is framed as support for those who already value having more children. It is unlikely to influence those firmly set on having only one child, but it empowers those with genuine intent. Embracing substantive rationality means crafting policies that recognise and nurture the diverse meanings of family, ensuring all who wish to raise children, particularly those who wish to have more than one child, regardless of background, feel valued and supported.
The Importance of Substantive Rationality in Policy
An effective family policy framework must be grounded in substantive rationality, prioritising not merely practical support and incentives but also the deeper social values and systemic changes needed for a truly birth-friendly society. It must go beyond immediate practical calculations to foreground the social values and lived realities that shape family life.
Despite efforts by MSF, such as family activities, counselling, and enhanced parental leave, Singapore’s TFR remains low. This might be amplified by demanding work-life norms: long hours and constant availability leave little energy and space for starting and maintaining a family. While over 4,000 employers have adopted the Tripartite Standard on Unpaid Leave for Care Needs which entitles employees to take leaves to care for family members, it remains voluntary and at the employer’s discretion. Without mandatory frameworks which go beyond current voluntary standards, like mandatory caregiving leave, employees struggle to reliably care for family members without fear of job insecurity. Many countries have already implemented statutory caregiving leave and mandatory maximum weekly work hour limits and Singapore could be more progressive by implementing similar policies. For example, in Germany, employees are entitled to short-term care leave (up to twice their weekly working hours) to care for sick family members, paid at a minimum of 70% of salary. A real shift requires policies shaped by substantive rationality: those that prioritise the deeper values of family life and well-being over pure productivity. Without this reorientation, work-life imbalance remains a hindrance to family life.
“Why bother having children?”
As Arendt (1958) notes, children represent “initium”—new beginnings and the potential for change in future generations. Birth rates cannot simply be engineered; the desire for family is personal. Policymakers employ theoretical rationality: demographic models and data to target specific subgroups, but these efforts, as seen above, have shown limited effectiveness in practice. Policies should thus empower those already inclined toward parenthood. A meaningful shift requires moving beyond efficiency-driven thinking toward supportive, inclusive policies that render parenthood an easy, fulfilling choice. While this will not guarantee a birth rate surge, it can help sustain fertility rates by making family life viable.
About the Author: Helene Ng is a penultimate-year student at Singapore Management University, majoring in Political Science with a second major in Public Policy and Public Management. She has a keen appreciation for anthropology and philosophy, and her interests lie at the intersection of policymaking, ethics, and social norms.