‘I won’t say that the Netherlands is full, but it is quite busy. In my opinion even a bit too busy.’ When Pim Fortuyn uttered these – then highly controversial – words in 2001, the Netherlands had less than 16 million inhabitants. There are now 17.8 million, the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) reported this week.
The population grew by 191 thousand inhabitants in 2022; more than twice as many as in the same period last year. The migration balance (188.5 thousand more people came to the Netherlands than left) is historically high, partly due to the arrival of 97 thousand Ukrainian refugees. Contrary to popular belief, the largest category was not refugees, but newcomers from Europe (mostly labor migrants) in previous years.
aging
In some scenarios, the number of inhabitants in the Netherlands will rise to more than 20 million inhabitants in 2050. At the same time, the aging population continues. ‘When will we talk about the consequences of that?’ Hugo de Jonge wondered.
That was early 2020, in NRC Handelsblad. Then it was quiet. De Jonge already gave the statement himself: ‘We find it uncomfortable.’ Except politicians from PVV and FvD then. But, said the CDA member: ‘We should not leave that theme to the flanks.’
In his new role as Minister of Housing, De Jonge can no longer ignore the issue. Demographer Jan Latten spoke to the CDA member about the theme and warned him: ‘It will be difficult.’
When he left CBS in 2018, Latten was already surprised about this. ‘We think about everything in the Netherlands, but not about population growth. Incomprehensible.’ Four years later, he says: ‘The urgency is still not seen.’
Too careful
Due to inability and inconvenience, the demographer indicates. Forecasts are based too much on the past and always turn out to be too cautious. ‘After the Syria crisis in 2015, it sounded like this only happens once every few years. Now it’s Ukraine, later – who’s to say? The turmoil in the world will not end tomorrow.’
The inconvenience: Talking about population growth at a time of very limited (and declining) natural growth is de facto talking about more or less aliens. ‘And then the fear is soon that you will be dismissed as inhumane,’ says Latten. ‘While a rational view is crucial.’
How is it possible, he wonders, that we are concerned with CO2 emissions in 2050, but not with our population? ‘How many houses do we have to build, how do we guarantee good care with enough staff? We cannot ignore demographics for pressing issues.’
Doubly so, that migrants are indispensable now that the working population is shrinking, while there are protests against the reception of asylum seekers. Latten: ‘If it isn’t talked about, it manifests itself in unrest.’
This summer, Minister Karien van Gennip (Social Affairs) appointed a state committee on Demographic Developments 2050. This should outline scenarios and examine how population development affects eight areas, from housing to work, from energy to social cohesion.
But Hugo de Jonge recently discovered how sensitive the theme still is. After he Dutch daily newspaper had stated that the population growth ‘threatens to disrupt the country’, he was questioned by the House of Representatives: did he make his statements on behalf of the cabinet?
Blind spot
The conclusion for Latten: ‘Restricting immigration is inevitable.’ Another advocate of a fundamental debate on population growth, Paul Scheffer, does not want to prejudge this conclusion. In recent years, the professor at Tilburg University has repeatedly pointed to population growth as a political blind spot. So often, that he doesn’t want to read himself in the newspaper again.
For Scheffer, more or less migration is ‘certainly not the point of departure’, he previously wrote in NRC. Precisely because of this fixation, the debate comes to a head. Thinking through the long-term consequences of population growth for society is essential, according to Scheffer. “That way we can reach beyond polarization.” Forecasts are not enough. Scenarios and options for action must also be discussed: what kind of country do we want to be in thirty years’ time?
It may have been delayed for half a century. The previous State Committee on Population Issues dates from the time of Joop den Uyl, when the belief in social engineering was still great. After that, it was long thought that migration just happens to us.
Call for direction
The call for control is heard. But how many options there are to regulate migration remains to be seen. Free movement within the European Union provides ample scope for labor migration. And restricting family reunification, as part of the recent ‘asylum deal’, immediately resulted in a legal dispute.
The state committee – which includes Scheffer, among others – must therefore also consider ‘management of migration’. By the time the findings are expected late next year, the 18 million mark will likely have passed.