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) .

Contents• Key messages

• 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 incomeinequality 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

Policies

Economic Growth

Distribution

Pro-Poor Growth

Poverty Reduction

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 CountriesPopulation Poverty

Annual growth rate

(%) 2004-2006

Fertility2005

% below poverty line2004

% share of the poorest

quintile in national

income or consumption

2002

National2004

PPP $/day2003

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 2005Source: 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.

Chart 2. GDP per capita growth and poverty reduction, 1990s

RP with lowest GDP per capita growth, and no consistent population policy, also with slowest poverty reduction rate

-123456789

10

Bangladesh

China IndiaIndonesia MalaysiaPhilippines

ThailandViet Nam

Percent Per Annum

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.

Wealth quintileLowest 5.9 3.8 2.1Second 4.6 3.1 1.5Middle 3.5 2.6 0.9Fourth 2.8 2.2 0.6Highest 2.0 1.7 0.3

WomenÕs education No education 5.3 4.1 1.2Elementary 5.0 3.3 1.7High school 3.5 2.5 1.0College or higher 2.7 2.2 0.5

Urban/Rural locationUrban 3.0 2.2 0.8Rural 4.3 3.0 1.3

Total 3.5 2.5 1.0Source: National Demographic and Health Survey 2003

Total Wanted Fertility Rate

Table 4: Actual and Wanted Fertility (Number of Children) by Wealth Quintile, Education, and Urban/Rural Location

Total Actual Fertility Rate Difference

Unmet Need Lowest Second Middle Fourth Highest Total Poor-rich ratioTotal 26.7 19.6 15.0 13.4 12.4 17.3 2.2For Spacing 10.9 8.6 7.7 6.5 6.1 7.9 1.8For Limiting 15.8 11.0 7.3 6.9 6.2 9.4 2.5Source: NSO, National Demographic and Health Survey 2003.

Wealth Index Quintile

Table 5: Unmet Need for Family Planning by Quintiles

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.

Family Size1985 1888 1991 1994 1997 2000

1 19.0 12.8 12.7 14.9 9.8 9.82 20.0 18.4 21.8 19.0 14.3 15.73 26.6 23.2 22.9 20.7 17.8 18.64 36.6 31.6 30.1 25.3 23.7 23.85 42.9 38.9 38.3 31.8 30.4 31.16 48.8 45.9 46.3 40.8 38.2 40.57 55.3 54.0 52.3 47.1 45.3 48.78 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 57.3National 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.

Poverty Incidence

Table 1: Poverty Incidence by Family Size

Family SizeMean per Capita

IncomeMean per Capita

ExpendituresMean per Capita

Savings1 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 2: Mean per Capita Income, Expenditure and Savings by Family Size 2002

Family Size

Mean Education Expenditure per

Student

Mean Health Expenditure per Sick Member

Mean Health Expenditure per

Capita1 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

Table 3: Mean Education and Health Expenditure by Family Size 2002

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 greatlyexaggerated 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!