Comparative analysis of public administration in the demographic sphere

Abstract

The article offers a comparative analysis of how states design and implement public administration in the demographic sphere – covering fertility, mortality, migration, population ageing, and spatial distribution. Using a mixed-methods approach (desk review of legislation and strategies, policy scoring across 30+ OECD/EU jurisdictions, and illustrative case studies from the Nordics, France, Germany, Canada, Japan, and several CEE countries), the study examines institutional architectures, instruments, and results. We contrast centralized demographic councils, inter-ministerial coordination units, and devolved municipal models; assess policy toolkits (cash transfers and tax credits, parental leave and ECEC expansion, active-ageing and long-term-care systems, talent-oriented migration schemes, regional repopulation programs); and evaluate enabling capacities (civil registration and digital population registers, data governance, foresight, and impact evaluation).

Findings show that durable outcomes arise where demographic policy is mainstreamed into labor, housing, health, education, and territorial planning; where monitoring frameworks connect indicators (TFR, net migration, old-age dependency, healthy life years) to budget triggers; and where implementation is co-produced with local governments and social partners. Nordic and French models excel at family policy/ECEC coverage; Japan and Germany illustrate ageing-readiness via long-term-care insurance and silver-economy activation; Canada and Australia highlight selective migration coupled with integration services. Common pitfalls include fragmented governance, short political cycles, and weak evaluation culture; cash-heavy but service-poor designs underperform. The article proposes a governance template: a legally mandated demographic strategy; a permanent coordination body with fiscal nudges; standardized data pipelines and ethics safeguards; routine quasi-experimental evaluation; and crisis clauses for shocks (pandemics, displacement, energy price spikes). The contribution is a practical comparative framework linking institutions to outcomes and a menu of reforms adaptable to diverse administrative traditions.