Population as Public Interest Ernesto M. Pernia U. P. School of Economics September 2007 This presentation draws on: Population and Poverty: The Real Score (December 2004), authored by 22 UP School of Economics faculty members; and E. M. Pernia, Population as Public Interest, UPSE, draft (September 2007).
Key messages Contents Macro data: long-term population growth Population growth and poverty Micro (household) data: long-term fertility trends Actual vis-a-vis desired fertility Fertility and poverty More key messages
Key Messages Rapid population growth alone cannot explain poverty. Bad governance, high wealth and income inequality and weak economic growth are the main causes. But rapid population growth does exacerbate poverty. RP government s target of reducing poverty incidence to 17% by 2010 (from 30% in 2003) not feasible, if it maintains benign neglect of the population issue. As well, rapid population growth would remain a hindrance to faster economic growth, which is key to sustained poverty reduction.
A great puzzle why population, which is evidently a public interest issue, remains unresolved! Majority of adult Filipinos regard rapid population growth as hindrance to economic development, requiring policy intervention. But government appears immobilized owing to opposition from Catholic Church hierarchy and other conservative religious groups. Yet based on surveys, the influence of the Church on fate of political leaders seems highly overrated. Surveys say dominant majority of people favor politicians who support FP programs. Is ideology winning over science?
Conceptual framework Figure A: Links among institutions, policies, economic growth, distribution, and poverty reduction Institutions Economic Growth Distribution Pro-Poor Growth Poverty Reduction Policies
Long-term population growth RP s population growth declined slowly from 3.0% per annum in early 1970s to 2.5% in mid-1980s, then leveling to 2.36% in 1990s through 2000 (no Census in 2005). Thailand s and Indonesia s population growth similar to RP s in early 1970s now down to 0.9% and 1.3%.
Population growth and poverty Likewise, Thailand s poverty incidence has fallen to 9.8% (2002), and Indonesia s to 16.7% (2004). But RP s poverty incidence remains high at 30% (2003). These comparisons are instructive as to the links between governance, population policy, and poverty.
Table 1. Selected Asian Countries Population Poverty Annual growth rate (%) 2004-2006 Fertility 2005 % below poverty line 2004 National 2004 PPP $/day 2003 % share of the poorest quintile in national income or consumption 2002 Bangladesh 1.3 3.1 40.0 5 30.3 9.0 Indonesia 1.3 2.3 16.7 6.5 8.4 Malaysia 2.1 2.8 5.1 2 0.2 4.4 Nepal 2.3 3.5 30.9 24.1 4 6.0 4 Pakistan 1.9 4.0 23.9 19.7 9.3 Philippines 2.1 3.5 3 30.0 3 14.1 5.4 Thailand 0.9 1.9 9.8 2 0.7 6.3 Vietnam 1.3 2.2 24.1 9.7 7.5 2 2002 3 2003 4 2004 5 2005 Source: ADB, Basic Statistics 2007 (May 2007
Population growth and poverty Thailand s case suggests that population policy coupled with good governance rapid economic growth and poverty reduction. Indonesia whose governance and corruption ratings have been, until recently, worse than RP s implies that population policy by itself can contribute to significant poverty reduction. In short, sound population policy does matter.
RP with lowest GDP per capita growth, and no consistent population policy, also with slowest poverty reduction rate 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 - Chart 2. GDP per capita growth and poverty reduction, 1990s Annual GDP per Capita Growth Rate (%) Annual Poverty Reduction (%)
Fertility trends RP s total fertility rate (TFR) declined from 6.0 children per woman in 1973 to 4.1 in 1993, then to 3.5 in 2003. Thailand s and Indonesia s TFRs about the same level as RP s in early 1970s currently 1.9 and 2.3, respectively. Indonesia with lower per capita income and literacy reduced fertility faster than RP. Similarly, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and India s Kerala state.
Actual vs. desired fertility Actual and desired fertility decline consistently from poorest to richest quintile and from no education to higher education. Actual-desired fertility gaps are 2.1 for poorest quintile, 0.9 for middle, and 0.3 for richest quintile. Large gap among the poor due to high unmet need for family planning services; hence, low contraceptive prevalence rate (CPR). Poor mostly depend on government sources for modern (effective) family planning methods.
Table 4: Actual and Wanted Fertility (Number of Children) by Wealth Quintile, Education, and Urban/Rural Location Total Actual Fertility Rate Total Wanted Fertility Rate Difference Wealth quintile Lowest 5.9 3.8 2.1 Second 4.6 3.1 1.5 Middle 3.5 2.6 0.9 Fourth 2.8 2.2 0.6 Highest 2.0 1.7 0.3 WomenÕs education No education 5.3 4.1 1.2 Elementary 5.0 3.3 1.7 High school 3.5 2.5 1.0 College or higher 2.7 2.2 0.5 Urban/Rural location Urban 3.0 2.2 0.8 Rural 4.3 3.0 1.3 Total 3.5 2.5 1.0 Source: National Demographic and Health Survey 2003
Table 5: Unmet Need for Family Planning by Quintiles Wealth Index Quintile Unmet Need Lowest Second Middle Fourth Highest Total Poor-rich ratio Total 26.7 19.6 15.0 13.4 12.4 17.3 2.2 For Spacing 10.9 8.6 7.7 6.5 6.1 7.9 1.8 For Limiting 15.8 11.0 7.3 6.9 6.2 9.4 2.5 Source: NSO, National Demographic and Health Survey 2003.
Fertility and poverty Consistent and close link between poverty incidence and number of children. Family size also directly related to likelihood of falling into poverty owing to exogenous shocks (e.g., typhoons, droughts, inflation). Mean per capita income, expenditure and savings fall monotonically as family size rises. Mean education spending per student drops from P5,558 for family size 1 to P682 for family size 9+; as well, mean health spending per capita falls from P1,700 to P150.
Table 1: Poverty Incidence by Family Size Family Size Poverty Incidence 1985 1888 1991 1994 1997 2000 1 19.0 12.8 12.7 14.9 9.8 9.8 2 20.0 18.4 21.8 19.0 14.3 15.7 3 26.6 23.2 22.9 20.7 17.8 18.6 4 36.6 31.6 30.1 25.3 23.7 23.8 5 42.9 38.9 38.3 31.8 30.4 31.1 6 48.8 45.9 46.3 40.8 38.2 40.5 7 55.3 54.0 52.3 47.1 45.3 48.7 8 59.8 57.2 59.2 55.3 50.0 54.9 9 or more 59.9 59.0 60.0 56.6 52.6 57.3 National 44.2 40.2 39.9 35.5 31.8 33.7 Source: Orbeta (2004) based on NSO, Family Income and Expenditure Surveys, 1985-2000.
Table 2: Mean per Capita Income, Expenditure and Savings by Family Size 2002 Family Size Mean per Capita Income Mean per Capita Expenditures Mean per Capita Savings 1 39,658 33,885 5,773 2 25,712 20,858 4,854 3 21,342 18,307 3,035 4 18,429 15,480 2,950 5 15,227 13,159 2,068 6 12,787 11,412 1,371 7 11,147 9,341 1,806 8 9,259 8,168 1,091 9 or more 8,935 7,699 1,236 Total 14,280 12,252 2,028 Source: Orbeta (2004) based on Family Income and Expenditure Surveys, 1985-2000
Table 3: Mean Education and Health Expenditure by Family Size 2002 Mean Education Expenditure per Student Mean Health Expenditure per Sick Member Mean Health Expenditure per Capita Family Size 1 5,558 2,437 1,700 2 3,135 1,969 922 3 2,243 2,124 802 4 1,787 1,464 438 5 1,558 1,454 336 6 1,090 1,311 299 7 858 940 206 8 1,081 744 166 9 or more 682 756 150 Total 1,369 1,400 466 Source: Orbeta (2004) based on Family Income and Expenditure Surveys, 1985-2000
Econometric analysis of HH data Clear negative impact of additional child on HH welfare, esp. in low-income HHs. Adverse impact is regressive, i.e., the poorer the HH, the larger the impact. Association between large family size, poverty incidence, and vulnerability to shocks is strong and persistent. Demand for additional children is lower among poorer women than richer ones. Lack of access to FP result in unwanted pregnancies > induced and illegal abortions, estimated at close to half a million annually.
More key messages Filipino women across all socioeconomic classes have expressed their desire for fewer children. An unequivocal and coherent national population policy backed by an adequately funded FP program is pro-poor, pro-women, pro-children, pro-people, and pro-quality life. It is time the State arrived at an entente with the Church on the critical need for a sound population policy, as has long happened in other (Catholic) countries.
Key messages Good population policy and programs are not costly and, based on surveys, are likely to be widely welcomed. But political will and commitment are needed to make them effective. The threat of so-called demographic winter (ageing problem) for RP is greatly exaggerated and plain and simple scare tactic.
Vox populi vox dei [ In a situation where the voice from above clashes against the voice of the people, even God has to learn how to compromise. Patricia Evangelista (PDI, August 26, 2007)] Salus populi suprema lex.
Thank you!