Education shoves down fertility in another way, too. The more aspirational parents get, the more they need to invest in each child. This dynamic is accelerated when public schools are dire. Remarkably, 39% of Indian children went to fee-paying schools last year, up from 32% in 2015. Parents are caught in an educational arms race. If your neighbours have few kids and spend more on their education, your own will be out-competed unless you do the same. Aspiration also spreads more easily than it once did. One study showed how the arrival of cable television in Indian villages in the 2000s led to a moderate fall in fertility. Soap operas depicting urban, middle-class women with small families may have changed norms (though some wonder whether people were just watching TV rather than having sex). The smartphone is an even more powerful—and distracting—device for bringing the lifestyles of richer peers into poorer places. Whatever its precise cause, the baby bust has big implications. The UN, which tries to predict such things, has failed to account for the speed of fertility decline in its central forecast for the global population. Its lower forecast is likely to be more accurate. That suggests India’s population will peak at about 1.6bn in 20 years or so, and then fall back dramatically to just under a billion before the century ends. Asia as a whole may also reach its apex in the 2040s. As for the peak of the overall human population, that is probably coming sooner than most expect, perhaps even in the 2050s, because Africa won’t be as populous as previously thought. In the worst-run, most conflict-ridden places, fertility will stay high. But the lesson of India is that predictions of a future in which there are 500m Nigerians or 3.8bn Africans should be treated with appropriate scepticism. If most countries are set for low fertility, it will be harder for anyone to bank on imports of migrant labour to tackle their own worker shortages. In India, fertility fell below the replacement rate at a much lower level of development than most countries: its GDP per person at purchasing power parity was less than half that of Malaysia, Mexico and Turkey at the same point. That need not cramp growth—China and Vietnam crossed the threshold at an even lower level of income—but it will complicate policymaking. In particular India, and countries like it, will be forced to divert scarce public resources into things like pensions and old-age care
sooner than expected. That makes it more important than ever to increase the tax take: far more people, especially women, should be brought into India’s formal labour force, for example. The sources of falling fertility—girls’ education, lower child mortality and the choices of individuals—are unambiguously good. But as India and others hurtle through their demographic transition, the consequences will not be pain-free. ■ Subscribers to The Economist can sign up to our Opinion newsletter, which brings together the best of our leaders, columns, guest essays and reader correspondence. This article was downloaded by zlibrary from https://www.economist.com//leaders/2026/06/04/indias-surprise-baby-bust-is-a- warning-to-the-world
Ukraine is not a charity case Europe needs its help just as badly as the other way round June 4th 2026 GIVE EUROPE credit for stepping up when many doubted it could. Since Donald Trump cut American military aid to Ukraine, Europe has managed to fill the breach. It is accelerating the flow of money and arms eastward, while stiffening sanctions on the Russian aggressor. Partly as a result of European help, Russia’s grim losses on the battlefield are putting pressure on Vladimir Putin. With American diplomatic efforts to end the war fizzling, some in Europe are asking whether it is time for them to take the lead and talk to the Russian leader. That time may come, but not yet. The more urgent question for Europe concerns its relationship with a country that has transformed itself from a ward of the West into a crucial security partner. Ukraine’s battle-hardened
army is making progress and its innovative defence industry is growing. If Europe is to defend its borders and wean itself off a reliance on transatlantic help, it needs Ukraine as badly as the other way round. Europe’s priority should be to fully embrace Ukraine, and fast. For Ukraine itself, the goal has long been clear: full EU membership, to cement links with the West and make up for territory lost to Russia. Four years after accepting Ukraine as a candidate for membership, this month the EU is expected to open the first negotiating “cluster”, covering topics such as democracy and the rule of law. Some in Kyiv hope full membership could follow as soon as next year. In the EU, however, even enthusiasts doubt it can come within a decade. The gulf in expectations between the two sides is dangerous. Some responsibility for that lies with Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s president. He should do more to strengthen domestic, independent institutions, and especially to fight corruption. He should be more open to creative ways for Ukraine to take early steps into the union. Friedrich Merz, Germany’s chancellor, recently proposed an “associate membership”, with limited voting rights, as a waystation to full-fat accession. Mr Zelensky was rash to dismiss that out of hand. But the bigger task falls to the Europeans. Too many still look at Ukraine as a kind of charity case. In reality Europe has much to learn from Ukraine’s achievements, especially in drone technology, production and deployment. Europe’s armies can bolster their own security by investing in their neighbour. Sweden’s defence minister says that testing arms systems in Ukraine brings innovations in weeks or months, whereas doing so at home takes years or decades. Some Europeans worry about going too fast. They talk of the risks from rushing to bring a big, poor, institutionally weak country into their union. These concerns are not baseless, but they miss the bigger picture: Europe must act fast to acquire more of the hard power needed to defend itself in an increasingly hostile world. Folding Ukraine into Europe’s embrace is a means of confronting the obvious regional threat, Russia. Enlargement is not merely a bureaucratic process. It is a geopolitical tool for a continent that looks vulnerable among more predatory great powers.
Other ideas, such as a European Security Council that might include Britain, could help formalise a security partnership with Ukraine more quickly. But the priority must be to speed up the EU entry process for Ukraine. The EU should begin drafting an accession treaty now, as a sign of intent to Ukraine’s war-weary people as well as to investors who will fund its post- war reconstruction. In return, Ukraine should be open to delays in subsidies or freedom-of-movement rights to make it easier for Europe to find unanimity. The alternative is bleak. Polls show some young Ukrainians souring on EU membership. That should ring alarm bells. Which is worse: letting a poor but enthusiastic Ukraine into the club, or leaving an embittered but powerful one outside? ■ Subscribers to The Economist can sign up to our Opinion newsletter, which brings together the best of our leaders, columns, guest essays and reader correspondence. This article was downloaded by zlibrary from https://www.economist.com//leaders/2026/06/04/ukraine-is-not-a-charity-case
Britain is wrong to ban speakers like Hasan Piker Even though his views are awful June 4th 2026 “I’ve been banned for criticising Israel. Are we free any more?” Cenk Uygur’s question, posed to his followers on X this week, has some merit. Mr Uygur and Hasan Piker, two controversial American left-wing influencers, were both blocked by the British government from entering the country to speak at the SXSW festival in London and at Oxford University. The decision is shabby behaviour for a country that sees itself as the birthplace of free speech, one of the fundamental pillars of liberal democracy. That people should be able to say and think what they want is not just a right for citizens; it is a cultural norm that is eroded if speakers from abroad are regularly turned away at the border.
Messrs Piker and Uygur were blocked because Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, judged that their presence in the country “may not be conducive to the public good”. This extraordinarily vague standard is increasingly being used, it appears, to ban high-profile foreigners whose views the government does not welcome. In April this rationale was deployed to stop Kanye West—a rapper with a history of unhinged Nazi ramblings, for which he has since apologised—from performing at a music festival. In May it was cited as justification for blocking several far-righters from attending and speaking at a rally organised by Tommy Robinson, a white-nationalist rabble-rouser, in London. All this is a worryingly aggressive application of the discretionary power afforded to the home secretary. Such power should be used very sparingly. Direct and deliberate incitement to violence is unlawful; it may well be right to exclude someone with a history of such behaviour. Hurtful, disturbing or disgusting views—some of which have been on display this week in the furore over the police’s response to a fatal attack on Henry Nowak, a student —do not meet that threshold. Mr Piker has many opinions that reasonable people find offensive or simply bonkers. He thinks bank robberies are “cool”; says he understands why someone might want to murder a health-insurance boss; and once opined: “I would vote for Hamas over Israel every single time.” But he does not pose a threat to Britain, any more than the protesters arrested just for holding signs saying “I support Palestine Action” do. The country that once gave sanctuary to Karl Marx should not be frightened of his modern social-media disciples. Nor will visa bans on the likes of Mr West and Mr Piker stop Britons from hearing their views. Anyone can tune into their social-media accounts. Indeed, the attempt to suppress their speech makes it more likely that Britons will seek them out. Google searches in Britain for Mr Piker and Mr Uygur are higher this week than they have ever been. As provocateurs who make their living from clicks, they are no doubt delighted. Britain is not the only country that uses visa bans to keep out speakers whom its government dislikes: America, Australia, Germany and many others do