Re: population control
I actually had a copy on my desk. I've edited my remarks into the form of a letter to the editor. Please consider it one. Thanks, eban In Message Wed, 7 Sep 1994 09:09:12 -0700, Marc Breslow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Eban Goodstein: >I don't know whether you saw our recent article on population control, but >your comments would in fact make a good response to it, and if possible, >I would like to publish some version of them in the next issue of the magazine. >Please let me know if you might be interested. >Thanks. >Betsy Reed, editor >Dollars and Sense ** Eban GoodsteinDepartment of Economics 518-584-5000 (2739) 811 N. Broadway fax: 518-584-3023 Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betsy Hartmann's article "Population Fictions" maintains that a focus on population growth distracts from the "real" issues underlying poverty and underdevelopment-- ie neocolonialism, debt, unequal distribution of wealth, overconsumption in rich countries. My own view is that population growth is better seen as one of the "real" issues in its own right. I think it is hard to argue that rapid population growth in this day and age does not severely aggravate attempts to reduce poverty in poor countries. In Zambia for example, 3% growth rates mean that just to stay even, the (bankrupt) state has to increase investment in education by 3% per year in real terms. Obviously Zambia's current situation has been largely determined by its colonial and neocolonial history, but from a practical perspective, population control has got to be part of the solution. By the year 2050 world population is certain to double to around 11 billion people; an optimistic view sees population stabilizing at that level, as a result of genuine and (sustainable?) economic development in the LDC's, the much discussed increase in education and formal labor market participation for women, and greatly increased funding for birth control. But it is disturbingly easy to envision much higher population levels by that time, and genuinely horrifying to consider what will happen without a very serious commitment to comprehensive family planning. There is a silver lining to this cloud: along with global environmental threats, the population problem has the potential to harness Northern self-interest to address problems of poverty in the South. Family planning, absent a commitment to alleviating poverty and improving the status of women, will not in itself be sufficient to control population growth. Poor people have large families for good economic reasons. Thus focussing the attention of the developed world on population issues must ultimately force, and to a surprising extent already has forced, a serious discussion of poverty and patriarchy. While suspicion of the World Bank's motives are in order, as well as exposure of the coercive policies followed in India and elsewhere, it seems that we should welcome the recent initiatives by the environmental and development organizations, and put our energies into seeing that population control is not about control, but instead, about choice.
Re: population control
Eban Goodstein: I don't know whether you saw our recent article on population control, but your comments would in fact make a good response to it, and if possible, I would like to publish some version of them in the next issue of the magazine. Please let me know if you might be interested. Thanks. Betsy Reed, editor Dollars and Sense
Re: population control
To my earlier statement: "population is not a problem-- poverty is", Eban Goodstein observes: "My own view is that population growth is better seen as one of the 'real' issues in its own right." I think we getting at the basic question in the debate. Though I do not have a firm opinion on this issue, I think it would be fruitful to pose a few questions to the 'population is a problem' thesis. (1) Would population be a "problem" if you were part of the population that is supposed to be the "problem". This is not a sentimental question, but a theoretical question. (2) What does control mean, and who does the controling. (3) What would "family planning" mean if there is nothing to plan for; i.e. no sense of a future-- life is nothing but hopeless stagnation generation after generation after generation ... Cindy Cotter asks me, why poverty cause high rate of growth of population? I sincerely don't know why. My guess is, there must be a lot of factors. Religon, which is independent of poverty, can be one important reason. For example, in predominantly catholic or muslim cultures one may find high rate of growth of population independent of economic considerations. But I think economic reasoning generally prevails (by economic reasoning I don't mean economism of indevidual decision makers, but an economic culture in general such as urban- rural, advanced-backward, etc.). One good way to test some of the population theses would be to look at average family size of the first two generations of emigrants from high population areas to first world countries. Most of these people are from working class families. If they are behaving "rationally" here, then they probably were behaving "rationally" there too. Poverty for me is not simply an economic category, it is a sociological category rather. We won't call many tribes living in Rain Forest "poor" simply because they don't even have clothes. In Indian context one can argue that poor people in rural areas have large families because children soon become "earners", infant and child mortality rate is high-- so a conservative insurance policy would result in large families, children are the only social security in the old age, average life expectancy is extremely low (I guess 35-40), ect., and, of course, no future for your children. "Family planning" has been a great success in the urban middle class population. I have seen drastic changes before my eyes. I never said that US unser-class has high rate of growth of population. If it is true, then of course we should think about the reasons why it is so? Cheers, Ajit Sinha
Re: population control
I concur with Eban that we should "put our energies into seeing that population control is not about control, but instead, about choice." Unfortunately, "choice" often becomes code for "control" in lower income country settings. The population problem is indisputably real, but analysis of the problem often confounds rational behavior in the aggregate (i.e., at the national or regional level) with the intrinsically micro level of fertility decisions. In places where poverty is predominantly an urban phenomenon and employment comes mainly through firms and governments, broad and ambitious population control projects are generally a sound objective. But where the poor are mainly semi- subsistence farmers (as with the populations I work amongst in Africa), many children are both cause and consequence of poverty. Focusing on the latter point exclusively, the needs (1) to overcome seasonal labor shortages, (2) to insure against the risk of parental injury or illness that might impede cultivation or harvest, (3) to ensure surviving caregivers in societies with no dependable social safety net, and (4) to broaden the familial unit's range of possible income sources are major economic incentives to childbearing often raised by (usually male) peasants. The non-economic factors (e.g., prestige, tradition, religion) are perhaps even greater in some places. Once one gets off the tarmac, it is by no means clear that population control is either desired or desirable (neither is it clear that it is not desired or desirable ... the point is that the etiology of fertility is different in this context and may thus warrant a different approach). My concern about attempts to redirect energies (and increasingly scarce financial, human and technical resources) toward population control programs -- with the objective of improving the lot of current and future populations -- is that such efforts will quickly move beyond contexts in which they are well-conceived and appropriate, squandering scarce opportunities or even doing real damage to a great number. That has been the experience with "democratization", "structural adjustment", and "integrated conservation and development." Can we guard against the willy-nilly invocation of population control programs if these become an international priority? Chris Barrett === Christopher B. Barrett Phone: (608) 262-9491 Depts. of Agricultural EconomicsFax: (608) 262-4376 and Economics Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] University of Wisconsin-Madison 427 Lorch Street Madison, WI 53706
