This list is going to look a lot different in 10 years, when countries like Japan and South Korea will be posting huge losses. China is also projected to start going negative around 2030.
Edit 2024: China has been negative for a couple years now. Fertility came in much lower than expected.
For some countries no one will ever have real data. For example Croatia. We know situation there because we live next to each other. Some of its parts are almost empty because people live in other parts of EU. They are still Croatian citizens, but who knows will they ever return. You can not find source for it enywhere. Sad fact for them.
If they have been away for three decades, it's very unlikely that they will ever return. And even if a few did, their children would stay wherever they've been born and raised, so in terms of population growth it'd have little effect.
China is expected to lose a little less than half their population by like 2050 according to some estimates. Down to around 800-850 million from their peak.
Well, the 1990s were very different in the West and in the East. For the Western Europe and US it was the age of an unseen prosperity and huge technological advancement, while in the Eastern Europe, the fall of Berlin Wall brought insecurity, economic collapse and wars. The gap, which wasn't as obvious in the 1980s, became huge in just a few years. People in the Eastern Europe started: 1) having less children, out of fear for their future, and 2) migrating to Western Europe, since the borders became open and the difference in wages and social (in)security in the East and the West became blatantly obvious. That trend is still very prevalent, so the eastern countries (especially the dictatorships such as Russia, Serbia, Hungary etc.) still see a drastic decline in their population, which is something that is not likely to change in a while.
Also include the declining material conditions in most of the former Eastern Bloc in the 1990s, partially due to austerity- and privatization-driven policies (sometimes called "shock therapy") that involved rising unemployment and declining social services, including healthcare. These sometimes involved rising death rates and stagnant or declining birth rates.
Come and spend some time here, and then you can teach me about my country. If you have authoritarian regime, rigged elections, criminal groups connected to the government, suppressed freedoms, you can call it whatever you like, it is a dictatorship.
After fall of Soviet block live in Communist countries was very bad. People in Russia said, they barely making ends meet. Russia was poor, hungry country.
That is true, mostly, for the non-modernized, semi-tribal societies, with high infant mortality and strong patriarchal and conservative values. By the 1990s, the eastern European countries were fairly industrialized and urban, with low infant mortality, where women were relatively emancipated, and you couldn't impose the idea of having many children for the sake of the prosperity of the country, since that idea was mostly abandoned several decades prior to that. The demographic trends were already negative in these countries, and when the Berlin wall fell, the insecurity provoked the positive feedback and even less children were born.
Many developed countries are not replacing their population through new births, it is largely due to immigration that they sustain overall population growth. Japan and many Eastern European countries would appear to be on this list because they have both low birth rates and low immigration rates.
Actually, Portugal's economy fares a lot better nowadays than it did when the population drain started back in the 20th century first half. Though it suffered some backlashes during last decade, Portugal's economy has become very stable under the EU. That's one of the reasons why the ruling party (Partido Socialista) managed to stay in power for so long now when compared to other western european countries.
Portugal also has a trick under its sleeve in the form of an ex-colony with a huge population - something eastern european countries, Italy and others don't have - and it might reverse or at least hold some of this population shrink trend. Due to recent changes in its laws, it has become easier for brazilians to apply for portuguese citizenship. And they are attracting a LOT of them, for Brazil's political and economical context is a mess since at least 2016.
Low fertility and young people move to France and United Kingdom for better work opportunities. Portugal's population is held up by Brazilian and Angolan immigration. Without that, it would plummet even faster.
It probably doesn't count countries that have lost population due to territorial changes. But then I'm not sure how the ex-Soviet countries are calculated.
Population of island of Ireland now stands at 6.7 million (4.9 in the Republic of Ireland and 1.8 in Northern Ireland). In 1841 the total population was around 8 million. Getting there!
Estonia also has a population less than its peak, although I guess this quiz doesn't want every country that that circumstance applies to, only the top 20.
Most modern wars don't involve total mobilisation of the population and therefore result in relatively few deaths compared to the world wars. From Syria's pre-war population of around 20 million around 600,000 have been killed - roughly 3%. Syria's year-on-year population growth from natural increase sits around the 2-2.5% mark. Even with significant refugee outflows, that all suggests Syria is unlikely to experience significant declines and may see overall growth. Of course, sources seem to disagree on the specifics and all stats from Syria should be taken with more than a grain of salt. Worldometers suggests Syria's population is still below its 2010 peak. So we don't know, but my point is it wouldn't be wildly surprising if there had been some growth. Afghanistan and Iraq managed massive growth throughout decades of war.
Jetpunk (kinda) contradicts itself now. The Population of Syria graph (https://www.jetpunk.com/users/quizmaster/charts/population-of-syria) shows that population is below its peak, but Jetpunk population data shows that it's never been higher before. I recognise that the graph is made with Worldometers data, but I'm not sure whether to keep it or not.
I'm not sure how a country in a civil war can gain 5 million people in 2 years. Worldometers seems to agree with me, with its live population for Syria showing 18.6 million which is an increase of 1 million from 2020 when the graph's data ends.
The name of the quiz is a little misleading, though I can appreciate that "Countries with a Population Below Their Peak" is not as catchy. Ireland, for example, has a fairly rapidly growing population (for a developed country). "Shrinking" in the present tense hardly applies in that instance. Most of these are actively losing population year on year, but that's at least one pretty stark exception.
I've read that average adult male height in the United States has been trending shorter for many years, after over a century of steadily becoming taller, thanks mostly to immigration from Latin America. Does that mean the population is shrinking? Or if this offset by our ever-expanding waistlines?
Wow, that's terrible. The #1 service a government should provide is creating an environment which promotes the ability of their citizens to have a happy & healthy family.
you really think it's the government's business to encourage people to reproduce? What on Earth for? And do you not realize that having kids and being happy and healthy have a strong negative correlation despite what most societies and cultures tend to want to get you to believe?
It is often in a government's best interests to have their population reproduce, so yes, it kinda is their business. I'm not sure about the relationship between having children and happiness is correct either. I assume the data is gotten from countries' fertility rate and some measure of their happiness, which does make sense since countries with higher fertility rates tend to be less developed and therefore the population is less happy. However, the data could be from measuring families in similar living conditions and you would probably be right.
well the short list of leaders I can think of who actively made it their business to try and get their people to reproduce more were certainly some of the most memorable in history and had
Because their other achievements brought their natal policies into the spotlight. I'm sure there are plenty of other countries with lesser known policies, just look at Europe's.
Off the top of my head, there are only 3 times when countries aggressively controlled birth, the one-child policy and the Lebensborn programme, as well as some eugenics/sterilisation progammes in Sweden and some other countries.
You're the one advocating for the government to get involved in people's sex lives and family decisions, not I... in either direction...
though that said eugenics gets a bad rap. Decent idea. Horribly and ignorantly implemented. But also another case of government getting involved in reproductive choice with bad results...
I think it's fine if a government encourages people with propaganda and incentives to reproduce or not, but I don't think the more aggressive measures should be used.
Also, I don't see how eugenics can be implemented without marginalising some group. Could you please elaborate on that?
Absolutely no way South Korea isn't here. Perhaps no data? They've had a very low birth rate for quite some time now and now it's the lowest in the world at 0.8... yikes.
The huge population increase only happened 70ish years ago. The vast majority of the South Korean baby boom generation is still alive. I imagine in a couple of years it will go negative and in 10 years it will plummet. Japan is roughly 10 years ahead of South Korean curve and as you can see it's going into full effect.
Is there a reason why the year for the second country on the right column has an exclamation mark next to it? Is it just because their peak was much longer ago than all other countries listed?
i'm lebanese and didn't even know Lebanon's population decreased! i knew many lebanese people immigrated out of Lebanon to go to Brazil, Argentina, France, Canada and the US, but i would've never guessed we would be in this quiz!
Edit 2024: China has been negative for a couple years now. Fertility came in much lower than expected.
Say what you will about the government and, well, that's the point - you can say what you will about the government, meaning it's not a dictatorship.
It never was for any country, the poorest countries have the highest birth rates while the richest have negative population growth.
The only European nations that still have positive natural growth are the Irish, Albanians and Icelanders
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/04/south-korea-population-falls-for-first-time-in-history
Portugal also has a trick under its sleeve in the form of an ex-colony with a huge population - something eastern european countries, Italy and others don't have - and it might reverse or at least hold some of this population shrink trend. Due to recent changes in its laws, it has become easier for brazilians to apply for portuguese citizenship. And they are attracting a LOT of them, for Brazil's political and economical context is a mess since at least 2016.
Put (your) resources to work creating a (future) state which encourages people to have children.
a lasting impact on the world...
Off the top of my head, there are only 3 times when countries aggressively controlled birth, the one-child policy and the Lebensborn programme, as well as some eugenics/sterilisation progammes in Sweden and some other countries.
though that said eugenics gets a bad rap. Decent idea. Horribly and ignorantly implemented. But also another case of government getting involved in reproductive choice with bad results...
Also, I don't see how eugenics can be implemented without marginalising some group. Could you please elaborate on that?