Berliner Boersenzeitung - Latin America’s age trap

EUR -
AED 4.234162
AFN 75.520719
ALL 93.601185
AMD 421.871235
ANG 2.063555
AOA 1057.24245
ARS 1720.50819
AUD 1.631861
AWG 2.075286
AZN 1.958757
BAM 1.95465
BBD 2.321834
BDT 141.96768
BGN 1.956177
BHD 0.434715
BIF 3447.856524
BMD 1.152936
BND 1.475019
BOB 13.597116
BRL 5.991582
BSD 1.152822
BTN 109.838311
BWP 15.518732
BYN 3.442944
BYR 22597.554879
BZD 2.318556
CAD 1.607119
CDF 2622.929869
CHF 0.937372
CLF 0.026792
CLP 1054.464094
CNY 7.77523
CNH 7.775824
COP 3629.340254
CRC 523.691797
CUC 1.152936
CUP 30.552817
CVE 110.681377
CZK 24.231263
DJF 204.89978
DKK 7.475761
DOP 67.308837
DZD 153.22017
EGP 57.898976
ERN 17.294047
ETB 184.441064
FJD 2.550814
FKP 0.853229
GBP 0.854055
GEL 3.008945
GGP 0.853229
GHS 13.163237
GIP 0.853229
GMD 85.317165
GNF 10119.900208
GTQ 8.795747
GYD 241.230123
HKD 9.046579
HNL 30.985192
HRK 7.535826
HTG 150.789949
HUF 364.476076
IDR 20590.292479
ILS 3.434712
IMP 0.853229
INR 109.926555
IQD 1510.923248
IRR 1584855.300116
ISK 141.995699
JEP 0.853229
JMD 182.504176
JOD 0.817406
JPY 183.68928
KES 149.051317
KGS 100.82421
KHR 4676.310481
KMF 493.456944
KPW 1037.642491
KRW 1630.690189
KWD 0.356419
KYD 0.960726
KZT 536.769445
LAK 26001.617499
LBP 103399.458106
LKR 385.353212
LRD 209.402074
LSL 18.63091
LTL 3.404322
LVL 0.6974
LYD 7.338458
MAD 10.729807
MDL 19.984066
MGA 4966.272299
MKD 61.551238
MMK 2421.093744
MNT 4146.726689
MOP 9.317997
MRU 46.244457
MUR 54.268822
MVR 17.824178
MWK 2002.650688
MXN 19.663331
MYR 4.710444
MZN 73.665386
NAD 18.631039
NGN 1571.994494
NIO 42.4254
NOK 10.942001
NPR 175.73805
NZD 1.967693
OMR 0.443314
PAB 1.152832
PEN 3.873288
PGK 5.078668
PHP 70.611589
PKR 320.296049
PLN 4.305353
PYG 6879.011227
QAR 4.203318
RON 5.234906
RSD 117.338942
RUB 95.57845
RWF 1692.510743
SAR 4.322078
SBD 9.298365
SCR 15.89971
SDG 692.337385
SEK 11.041438
SGD 1.475407
SHP 0.854171
SLE 28.304309
SLL 24176.498606
SOS 658.917496
SRD 43.431291
STD 23863.457231
STN 24.788134
SVC 10.087151
SYP 14990.479632
SZL 18.619683
THB 38.127806
TJS 10.663617
TMT 4.035278
TND 3.386164
TOP 2.775995
TRY 55.084073
TTD 7.818466
TWD 37.145339
TZS 3055.279336
UAH 51.510838
UGX 4276.483203
USD 1.152936
UYU 46.403093
UZS 13786.814399
VES 882.455268
VND 30033.418665
VUV 136.557029
WST 3.147505
XAF 655.5655
XAG 0.017595
XAU 0.000261
XCD 3.115868
XCG 2.077677
XDR 0.815016
XOF 654.868115
XPF 119.331742
YER 273.418516
ZAR 18.602025
ZMK 10377.812955
ZMW 21.696419
ZWL 371.245074
  • CMSD

    -0.0400

    21.59

    -0.19%

  • CMSC

    0.0100

    21.45

    +0.05%

  • RBGPF

    0.0000

    72.16

    0%

  • BCC

    -1.2800

    84.25

    -1.52%

  • JRI

    -0.0200

    12.71

    -0.16%

  • NGG

    0.4100

    80.68

    +0.51%

  • BCE

    -0.2400

    23.13

    -1.04%

  • RYCEF

    0.5500

    21.1

    +2.61%

  • VOD

    0.1900

    16.09

    +1.18%

  • RIO

    0.2300

    101.22

    +0.23%

  • GSK

    -0.6000

    50.3

    -1.19%

  • BTI

    -0.9700

    55.84

    -1.74%

  • BP

    -0.2300

    42.93

    -0.54%

  • AZN

    -0.2500

    158.5

    -0.16%

  • RELX

    -0.8200

    34.55

    -2.37%


Latin America’s age trap




Latin America has spent generations thinking of demography as a problem of abundance. Governments built schools for swelling classes, cities spread to absorb millions of new residents, and economists worried about whether jobs, housing and food production could keep pace with a rapidly expanding population. That assumption now belongs to the past. The region is entering an era in which there will be fewer children, a slower-growing workforce and many more older people, and the transition is unfolding far faster than most political systems are prepared to admit.

The shift is already measurable. Fertility in Latin America has fallen to about 1.8 children per woman and has remained below the replacement level of 2.1 since 2015. The Caribbean is lower still, at roughly 1.5. In 2024, Latin America and the Caribbean had about 663 million inhabitants, nearly 26 million fewer than projections made at the beginning of the century had anticipated. The population is now expected to peak at about 730 million in 2053 before beginning a long decline.

A peak in the middle of the century does not sound like an immediate emergency. That is precisely why the risk is easy to underestimate. Demographic crises rarely arrive as a single shock. They emerge through thousands of local changes: maternity wards with fewer patients, primary schools with empty desks, small towns losing young adults, companies unable to recruit skilled staff, pension systems collecting too little and families trying to care for elderly relatives with fewer hands available.

Latin America does not yet have the lowest fertility in the world, and it is not yet the oldest region. Parts of East Asia have much lower birth rates, while Europe already has a substantially larger elderly population. The reason Latin America’s predicament could prove harsher is the sequence in which the change is occurring. The region is ageing before it has become broadly prosperous, before much of its workforce has entered formal employment and before durable welfare states have been built. Europe grew old after decades of industrialisation, capital accumulation and the expansion of tax-funded social protection. Several East Asian economies face extreme demographic contraction, but many entered it with high savings, advanced infrastructure, strong education systems and highly productive firms. Latin America is approaching the same pressure with weak productivity growth, deeply unequal access to public services, fragile fiscal positions and labour markets in which informality remains normal rather than exceptional.

The speed of the transformation leaves little room for complacency. In 1950, about 41 per cent of the region’s population was under the age of 15. By 2024, that share had fallen to 22.5 per cent. In the same year, roughly 65 million people were aged 65 or older, representing 9.9 per cent of the population. By 2050, that group is projected to reach about 138 million and almost 19 per cent of the total. The median age, just 18 in 1950, reached 31 in 2024 and is expected to approach 40 by mid-century.

This is not simply a story about people refusing to have children. Much of the fertility decline reflects social progress. Infant mortality has fallen, contraception has become more accessible, women have gained education and economic independence, and adolescent pregnancy has declined sharply. Families no longer need many births to ensure that several children survive to adulthood. Women are also more able to decide whether and when motherhood fits their lives.

The trouble is that institutions have not adapted to the freedom and expectations of modern adulthood. In many cities, secure housing is expensive, formal jobs are scarce, commuting is exhausting and childcare is limited. Parenthood can carry a severe career penalty, especially for women, while domestic and caring responsibilities remain distributed unequally. Young adults often spend years moving between temporary work, informal employment and dependence on relatives before they feel able to form a household.

Low fertility therefore reflects both choice and constraint. Some people do not want children. Others want fewer than previous generations. Many would like to become parents but postpone the decision because the economic and practical conditions never appear sufficiently stable. The postponement of first births explains part of the fall, but not all of it. Completed family size is also declining, meaning that later births are not fully compensating for those deferred in early adulthood.

Chile offers one of the clearest warnings. Its fertility rate fell to about 1.03 children per woman in 2024, below Japan’s level and dramatically lower than it had been only a decade earlier. Uruguay now records far fewer births than deaths. Cuba is losing population through the combined effects of low fertility, ageing and large-scale emigration. Brazil and Mexico still have enormous populations, but their national size conceals shrinking school cohorts and ageing communities across many states and municipalities. Central America remains younger on average, yet fertility there is falling rapidly as well.

The economic consequences will not be determined by headcounts alone. A smaller workforce can support a larger retired population if each worker becomes more productive, if more women enter well-paid employment, if healthy older people remain active and if technology raises output. Demographic decline is not an automatic sentence to recession. It becomes dangerous when productivity stagnates and institutions fail to mobilise the people who are already present.

Latin America enters this test with a serious structural weakness. Nearly 47 per cent of employed people were working informally in the first half of 2025. Among young workers, the share was about 56 per cent. Informal work often means low and unstable earnings, limited training, weak legal protection and irregular or nonexistent pension contributions. It also narrows the tax base from which governments must finance health care, pensions and long-term support. For decades, a relatively large working-age population offered the region a demographic dividend. There were more potential workers in relation to children and older dependants, creating an opportunity for faster growth and higher savings. Yet a dividend is only an opportunity, not a guarantee. Much of it was consumed during years of modest investment, unequal education and poor productivity. The favourable age structure is now beginning to close before the region has completed the economic transformation it was supposed to finance.

The labour force will continue to grow for some time at regional level, but more slowly and with an older profile. Young cohorts entering employment will become smaller. Employers will face recruitment problems in areas that require technical skills, health professionals, teachers and care workers. Rural districts and smaller cities may lose working-age residents even while major metropolitan areas remain crowded. National averages will therefore hide acute local decline.

Ageing will also expose the weaknesses of pension systems designed around continuous formal employment. The basic arithmetic is unforgiving. More people will draw benefits for longer periods, while growth in the number of contributors will slow. Yet raising contribution rates, reducing benefits or delaying retirement is politically difficult in societies where many people already receive inadequate support and where physically demanding work makes longer careers unrealistic.

Pension coverage has expanded, including through non-contributory schemes, but adequacy remains a major problem. Around 43 per cent of older people receive pension income that is insufficient to meet minimum consumption needs. Roughly a quarter of people aged 65 and over were still participating in the labour market in 2024. For some, work in later life is a welcome source of purpose and income. For many others, it is not active ageing but economic necessity.

Health systems face a related challenge. Longer lives are a major achievement, but longevity does not automatically mean more years in good health. Diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, dementia and disability will demand sustained treatment, rehabilitation and assistance with daily life. Systems that remain divided between public programmes, employment-based insurance and private provision often deliver fragmented care precisely when older patients need continuity.

The most immediate strain may appear not in hospitals or treasury accounts but inside homes. Long-term care remains limited or absent in much of the region, so families provide most assistance to elderly and disabled relatives. Women perform a disproportionate share of this work, often reducing paid hours or leaving employment altogether. That response becomes less viable as families become smaller, adult children migrate and more women participate in the labour market.

The region’s need for professional long-term care workers could nearly triple by 2050. Without planning, the result will be a severe shortage of trained staff, a larger burden on unpaid carers and widening inequality between households that can purchase private support and those that cannot. A demographic model built on the assumption that daughters and daughters-in-law will provide unlimited free care is already breaking down.

Migration complicates the picture. Latin America is simultaneously a region of emigration, immigration and large movements within its own borders. The departure of young adults can accelerate ageing in countries and communities of origin, leaving older relatives behind and draining scarce professional skills. Remittances may protect household incomes, but money sent from abroad cannot provide daily physical care.

For receiving countries, migration can slow workforce decline and bring younger taxpayers into the system. It is not, however, a demographic switch that governments can simply turn on. Migrants need legal status, housing, language support where relevant, recognition of qualifications and access to formal employment. Poor integration can reproduce the same informality that already weakens public finances. Migration can redistribute population across the region, but it cannot reverse low fertility everywhere at once.

Political incentives may make preparation harder. Older voters will form a growing share of electorates and will understandably defend pensions, health services and financial security. Younger households will demand affordable housing, education, childcare and better employment. Governments with limited revenue may present these needs as a competition between generations. That would be a costly mistake. Families span generations, and underinvestment in children today produces less productive workers and weaker pension finances tomorrow. The decline in the number of children also creates an opportunity. Smaller cohorts make it possible to spend more effectively on each child, improve early development, repair weak schools and expand technical education. A country with fewer young people cannot afford to waste their potential through poor teaching, malnutrition, violence or exclusion from employment. Human capital must replace population growth as the main engine of expansion.

Policy should begin by abandoning the illusion that a cash payment for each birth can restore the family patterns of the twentieth century. One-off bonuses may change the timing of some births, but they do not resolve insecure work, expensive housing, inadequate childcare or the unequal division of care. Coercive or moralising pronatalism is even more dangerous. It treats women’s autonomy as the problem while ignoring the economic conditions that make desired parenthood difficult.

A more credible family policy would make having children compatible with a modern life. That means reliable childcare, paid leave for both mothers and fathers, protection against workplace discrimination, predictable hours, affordable housing and reproductive health services. It also means reducing the burden of care that falls on women. Supporting families is not the same as demanding larger families. The objective should be to close the gap between the number of children people want and the number they believe they can responsibly raise.

The second priority is productivity and formalisation. Governments need tax and social insurance systems that make formal employment easier for small firms and portable for workers who change jobs. Better technical education, digital infrastructure, access to finance and competition can help productive businesses expand. Higher female employment would soften workforce decline, but only if jobs provide sufficient pay and if childcare and eldercare are available.

Pension reform must combine financial sustainability with social legitimacy. A universal floor can protect older people from poverty, while contributory benefits should reward formal work without excluding those whose careers were interrupted by unemployment, care or informality. Retirement ages may need gradual adjustment as healthy life expectancy rises, but rules should recognise differences in health, occupation and lifetime income. A construction worker and an office professional cannot be treated as though ageing affects them in the same way.

Health policy must move towards prevention, primary care and the management of chronic disease long before old age. Long-term care should be treated as essential social infrastructure rather than a private family matter. Training carers, setting quality standards, supporting home and community services and giving respite to family members would create employment while allowing more women to remain in paid work.

Older workers will also need a different labour market. Lifelong learning, flexible hours, anti-discrimination rules and adapted workplaces can help people remain productive voluntarily. The purpose is not to compel everyone to work indefinitely. It is to remove barriers that force capable people out while protecting those whose health or occupations make continued employment unreasonable.

Latin America still has time, but not much. The region remains younger than Europe, and its total labour force has not yet begun a broad decline. That creates a final window in which reforms can be introduced before fiscal pressure intensifies. Waiting until the 2040s would mean attempting to build care systems, repair pensions and raise productivity after the ratio of workers to older dependants has already deteriorated sharply. The demographic crisis could become the worst of all not because Latin America will necessarily have the fewest babies or the oldest citizens, but because it risks combining rapid ageing with unfinished development. The decisive variable is no longer fertility alone. It is institutional readiness.

A smaller and older population need not be poorer, lonelier or less dynamic. It can be healthier, more productive and better educated. Reaching that outcome requires governments to treat demography as a central economic issue rather than a distant social trend. Latin America does not need to force people to have children. It needs to make ordinary adulthood viable, parenthood compatible with aspiration and old age secure. Demography is not destiny, but prolonged political delay can make it feel like one.