Belarus Has Already Answered the Question That Azerbaijan Is Still Debating

Why Spending on Children Is Not a Burden on the Budget but an Investment in the Country’s Future

While debates continue in Azerbaijan about the need to restore child benefits, Belarus made its choice long ago.

In Minsk, support for families with children is viewed not as an additional social burden on the budget, but as part of a national survival strategy. That is why, even under conditions of economic difficulties, sanctions pressure, and limited financial resources, the Belarusian state continues to expand support programs for large families.

Against the backdrop of worsening demographic indicators, this experience is becoming particularly relevant for Azerbaijan.

Azerbaijan Is Entering a Period of Demographic Change

Just ten years ago, Azerbaijan was considered one of the youngest countries in the post-Soviet region.

However, statistics from recent years show a steady decline in birth rates.

According to the State Statistics Committee, 95,875 children were born in the country in 2025. The birth rate fell to 9.4 births per 1,000 inhabitants, compared with 10.0 a year earlier.

For comparison, annual births exceeded 160,000 children in the middle of the 2010s.

The trend continued in January 2026. The birth rate declined to 8.9 births per 1,000 people.

Although Azerbaijan’s population continues to grow and already exceeds 10.2 million people, the pace of growth has slowed noticeably. In 2025, population growth amounted to only about 37,000 people.

For demographers, such changes are a warning signal.

“We are not yet in a demographic crisis, but we are observing a sustained decline in birth rates. If this trend continues for another ten to fifteen years, the country will face accelerated population ageing and a shortage of labor resources,” says an Azerbaijani demographer who requested anonymity.

Why Families Are Postponing Childbirth

Behind the dry statistics lie very concrete reasons.

Housing prices in Baku have increased significantly faster than the incomes of most young families in recent years.

The average monthly salary in the country during the first quarter of 2026 was approximately 1,151 manats. However, a substantial share of workers earn less than 800 manats per month.

At the same time, apartment rents in the capital can range from 500 to 800 manats per month, while mortgage payments often exceed 1,000 manats monthly.

“We have two children. We have been thinking about having a third child for a long time, but first we need to solve our housing problem. Today almost all of our income goes toward housing and our children’s education,” says 34-year-old Baku resident Ayten Mammadova.

A similar view is expressed by Rashad Aliyev, a father of two from Ganja.

“Most young families do not expect the state to fully support their children. But a monthly allowance would be an important signal that the government is ready to share part of the responsibility for the future generation.”

Such sentiments form the basis of the public campaign calling for the restoration of child benefits.

Why Society Is Demanding the Return of Child Benefits

Until 2006, Azerbaijan operated a system of universal child benefits. Later, the government abolished it and replaced it with targeted social assistance and benefits for specific categories of the population.

Today, supporters of restoring child benefits put forward several arguments.

The first is demographic. The decline in birth rates has ceased to be a temporary phenomenon and has become a sustained trend.

The second argument is economic. Children born today will become taxpayers, professionals, and the foundation of the labor market twenty years from now.

The third argument concerns social justice. Families believe that the state should participate in the costs of raising future citizens.

Economist Natig Jafarli has repeatedly noted that demographic policy requires a long-term approach and should not be viewed solely through the prism of current budget expenditures.

Why the Government Is Not Rushing to Change Its Approach

The authorities, however, maintain a different position.

Official institutions emphasize that the state already provides substantial social support to the population.

Pensions, targeted social assistance, benefits for low-income families, childbirth payments, employment programs, and housing support measures remain in place.

In addition, the one-time childbirth allowance amounts to 500 manats.

The government argues that restoring universal child benefits would require significant budget expenditures.

According to economists’ estimates, even a relatively modest allowance of 50–100 manats per month for every child could require several hundred million to more than one billion manats annually.

This is a substantial amount for the budget, especially considering large-scale expenditures on the reconstruction of liberated territories, infrastructure projects, and other social obligations.

As a result, the authorities continue to favor targeted assistance over universal payments.

Belarus Chose the Opposite Strategy

Interestingly, Belarus faced similar problems much earlier.

Over the past thirty years, the country’s population has declined from approximately 10.2 million to about 9.1 million people.

Belarusian authorities concluded that demographic decline represented a threat on a national scale.

Comparable Economies, Different Approaches

Supporters of maintaining Azerbaijan’s current social support model often point to limited budget resources. However, comparison with Belarus suggests that the issue is less about economic capacity and more about governmental priorities.

According to forecasts by international financial institutions, Azerbaijan’s nominal gross domestic product in 2026 is expected to reach approximately 78.4 billion United States dollars, while Belarus’s nominal gross domestic product is estimated at between 90.5 billion and 102 billion United States dollars.

Although there is a difference between the two economies, it is not fundamental. Both countries belong to the group of upper-middle-income economies with broadly comparable fiscal capacities.

The comparison becomes even more interesting when population size is considered.

Azerbaijan is home to more than 10.4 million people, while Belarus has a population of approximately 9 million.

In fact, Azerbaijan’s population is larger than Belarus’s.

Nevertheless, the demographic policies of the two states differ significantly.

In Azerbaijan, by contrast, the main argument against restoring universal child benefits remains the potential burden on the state budget.

Belarusian authorities view declining birth rates as a long-term risk to the economy, labor market, and pension system. Consequently, spending on family support is incorporated into strategic state programs regardless of current economic conditions.

That is why Belarus has preserved and expanded its family support system.

Today, it includes:

• Monthly child allowances;
• Paid parental leave until a child reaches three years of age;
• The Family Capital program;
• Preferential housing loans;
• Tax incentives;
• Additional payments for large families.

The Family Capital program occupies a particularly important place.

When a third child is born, a family receives substantial state support that can be used for housing purchases, education, or medical services.

Notably, these programs were not dismantled even during periods of economic crisis.

Belarusian authorities regard spending on children as an investment in the country’s future.

In Belarusian public discourse, the birth of a third child is sometimes described as the “President’s personal joy,” highlighting the political importance attached to demographic policy.

What Costs More: Child Benefits or Demographic Decline?

The central question is that demographic decline also carries a price.

When fewer children are born:

• The future workforce shrinks;
• The number of taxpayers decreases;
• Pressure on the pension system increases;
• Healthcare expenditures for an ageing population rise;
• Labor shortages emerge.

Economists refer to these consequences as the “deferred costs of depopulation.”

Today, the state may save hundreds of millions of manats by avoiding child benefit expenditures.

However, twenty to thirty years from now, losses caused by labor shortages and a shrinking tax base may prove far greater.

This argument lies at the heart of Belarusian demographic policy.

Child Benefits Alone Will Not Solve the Problem

At the same time, the Belarusian experience demonstrates another important reality.

Even the most generous benefits do not automatically guarantee higher birth rates.

Modern families make decisions about having children under the influence of many factors.

The most important among them are:

• Housing affordability;
• Income levels;
• Employment stability;
• Quality of education;
• Development of healthcare services;
• Confidence in the future.

For this reason, successful demographic policy requires a comprehensive approach.

Child benefits are only one of many available instruments.

The Choice Facing Azerbaijan

Today, Azerbaijan is debating the cost of child benefits.

Belarus is debating the cost of demographic decline.

These are two different ways of looking at the same problem.

The first focuses on expenditures over the next few years.

The second focuses on consequences over the coming decades.

The Belarusian experience does not prove that restoring child benefits will automatically increase birth rates.

However, it demonstrates something else: a state that regards demography as a matter of national security ceases to view family support solely as a budgetary burden.

Ultimately, the issue of child benefits in Azerbaijan is about far more than social spending.

It concerns what the country’s population will look like in twenty, thirty, and forty years; who will work in its enterprises; who will pay taxes; who will generate economic growth; and who will sustain the pension system.

That is why the debate over child benefits is gradually becoming a debate about the future of the state itself.

And in that sense, Belarus has already provided its answer.