Abstract

In ‘Towards an ethics of pronatalism in South Korea (and beyond)’1 JY Lee thoughtfully critiques the South Korean government’s efforts to boost its record-low fertility rate from an ethical (rather than effectiveness2) perspective. I broadly align with Lee’s ethical concerns regarding possible state-sponsored coercion and the instrumentalisation of citizens for the national interests whether with South Korean government-backed pronatalism or incentivised sterilisations in Indian states. What I want to challenge here is the plausibility of the ‘and beyond’ part of her title, which seems to extend their reach beyond the Korean context. To this end, I explore the acceptability of Lee’s positions given significant cross-national variation in economic, social, structural conditions and value. Below, I sequentially address her proposals: moving beyond treating symptoms to uncovering and remedying an aetiology that is often grounded in oppressive social norms, addressing systematic social injustices especially those impacting women and avoiding human instrumentalization by the state. Marked variation in economic, political and social forces and conditions evident across nations (and even across the very diverse states in the Indian case) can significantly impact the urgency assigned to marked fertility declines (and the associated prospect of declining future economic growth, support for the elderly and social stability) need …