Across Europe, Asia, and North America, thousands of cities and towns, both mid-sized and small, are already, or on the verge of, population loss. For example, while the U.S. population is still growing overall, over 1,300 counties (42%) lost population between 2020 and 2024. Meanwhile, the total population of the EU will decline over the next decades, and the percentage of the working age population might drop by nearly 10% by 2100. In Germany, with the largest population in Europe followed by France and Italy, most urban and booming regions are expected to continue to grow, while, for instance, the eastern states (except for Berlin) might lose up to 29% of their working-age population by 2060.
This widespread population shrinking and aging should put governments and businesses on high alert to plan for the demographic future. These changes are already having serious impacts on the well-being of some individuals and local communities, and populist politicians in the US and Germany (and other places too) are already capitalizing on this, promising a “quick fix” to these challenges. But these changes can’t be reversed nor the challenges be solved in one election cycle. Rather, the focus should be looking forward, and adjusting to a new, smaller normal.
Without being alarmist, we have to acknowledge that the make-up and distribution of our societies will look different in future – which, as described above, is already transpiring in small and medium-size towns and cities in the U.S. and Europe. Lacking a resilient workforce, some manufacturers are being forced to downsize or to close because they cannot find enough qualified workers. With fewer young people, educational institutions are competing for students like never before and are at risk of having to close when their enrollment declines. Healthcare infrastructure is also deteriorating in many smaller communities, as retiring doctors and nurses are not replaced and hospitals are no longer cost effective. Merchants and hotels are also being forced to close shop because they cannot find enough customers – "The Death of Main Street" already concerns many small and mid-sized towns and suburban areas.
In too many cases, a vicious cycle results, in which a declining population not only reduces the number of residents, but also the public revenues from sales, income, and other taxes for reinvestment in the infrastructure that would otherwise keep a place attractive. Not surprisingly, it is primarily younger people and young families who commute or eventually move out of these areas. Their departure creates another downward spiral, as an entire generation is thinned out and fewer children grow up in a once-prosperous place. Our societies are ageing, and this is most evident in rural areas and smaller towns.
There is no crisis yet, but the writing is on the wall
Depopulation itself isn’t a crisis. But when it breaks down communities and harms health and well-being, it’s worth our attention. Even more so, as demographic ageing in the US, Europe and elsewhere is accelerating and in this era of fiscal austerity, spending to maintain local communities is in serious competition with other priorities for public budgets. Despite these challenges, it is imperative to address these issues now, rather than regret it when even more counties, towns, and cities see their demographic fortunes turn. Politicians already know that more money needs to be spent on regional cohesion and to address the financial decline of many municipalities and other regional actors, but they need to ensure that this money actually gets to where it is most needed and can have the greatest impact.
What are some ways forward? Some people are pinning their hopes for economic and social resilience on the "silver economy", to be stimulated by the large baby boom generation. Sure, the lifetime accumulation of education and wealth by many in this generation may balance out local communities and economies for a while. However, this is more promising in wealthy areas, and where people tend to live closer to cities, with labor markets, medical and cultural infrastructures, and recreational facilities not far away.
Another hope is to find financial efficiencies through interregional services. Indeed, regional collaboration, for example when it comes to providing education and healthcare, can provide some compensation for shrinking communities, but only where there is adequate and affordable private and public transportation infrastructure. Parents of young children, and the "sandwich generation" who must care for their children as well as for older relatives, are particularly disadvantaged when schools, classmates, sports and medical facilities, and retirement homes are not close by. Can people in this position even count the hours they spend as a family taxi driver and pickup service?
Depopulating and aging communities can also benefit from the digital innovation. Many can work remotely, order goods and services, and access online counseling and telemedicine. But such services still have limits, and access to them is unequal. Plus, in-person interaction remains crucial for well-being and social cohesion. Whatever we can do with advanced technologies, such as social media, AI and robotics, to make people’s lives more comfortable, these are still just tools.
There are also individual examples of best practices that can make depopulating areas attractive for people to stay and for new people to come, building on public and private funding, as well as civil society engagement. There are certainly many smaller towns that have already benefited from local investments in child care and schools, town squares and town halls, parks and other social spaces, museums and festivals, community services, local associations and civic activities, sports clubs and sport competitions to attract newcomers and to build local identity.
However, the same “resilience strategies” don’t work for all. Knowledge-sharing and comparisons of different places as well as location-specific population projections are essential for assessing sustainable measures to deal with the challenges of local population decline. For example, is it wise to invest in infrastructure if there may not be enough people to maintain it in the future? What are the possibilities and constraints for attracting investment from entrepreneurs? How can highly educated employees, their spouses and their families build and maintain fulfilling lives in these places? Longer-term forecasting and planning can lead to cost-effective strategies that help maintain the resilience of these places.
The issues are understood – but the mission is far from complete
There are public voices that see people living in depopulating regions as an issue of individual choice, and therefore, they should not complain if there are problems. But the point is: they are complaining, and with good reason. This means that there need to be strategies that enable communities to adapt and still thrive.
Demographic change is felt first at the individual and local level, so the challenges it poses must be addressed there as well. To do so, we need a long-term perspective that takes into account population trends as we approach the peaks of demographic change, and a discursive and collaborative approach beyond silo thinking: creating a fair, just and sustainable future for all is the challenge that researchers and decision-makers in politics, business and civil society should work together to meet. In other words, there is a lot of exciting and important work to be done.