Schools of Thought: An Analysis of Interest Groups ...bixby.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/... · vations: (1) Five interest groups are influential: the population-concerned

Schools of Thought: An Analysis of interest GroupsInfluential in International Population Policy

Martha Madison CampbellThe David and Lucile Packard Foundation

This analysis, written in 1993, explores the relationships; among competing schoolsof thought in the international population policy arena. It offers the following obser-vations: (1) Five interest groups are influential: the population-concerned commu-nity, a market-oriented group, people focusing on equitable distribution of re-sources, women's advocates, and the Vatican; (2) Only one of the five groups wantsto draw attention to population growth; the other four all have other priorities andprefer to reduce attention to demography, seeing attention to population growth asinterfering with their priorities; (3) Any attempt to base policy on identified commonground in this situation would result in asymmetry, turning policy attention awayfrom population growth.

Editor's note:This paper was written in 1993, in the months following the Earth Summitin Rio de Janeiro, as the Cairo conference was being defined and its preparatory meetingswere beginning, and while the author was an independent policy analyst in Denver. Thepaper identifies five competing schools of thought which were then shaping population policyon an international level. It suggested that of the five influential groups, or schools, only oneof them wanted to draw attention to population growth, and the other four schools all exhib-ited some discomfort with this subject, seeing it as interfering with their priorities. Because somuch has happened in the population field since this was written, particularly related to theCairo conference and its influences on policies around the world, this 1993 paper is beingpublished now as an historical piece. The reader is invited to judge whether or not its obser-vations still represent accurately the configuration, or core positions, of the main schools ofthought on population today.

Please address correspondence to Dr. Campbell, The David and Lucile Packard Founda-tion, 300 Second Street, Los Altos, CA 94022.

Population and Environment: A Journal of Interdisciplinary StudiesVolume 19, Number 6, July 1998© 1998 Human Sciences Press, Inc. 487

POPULATION AND ENVIRONMENT

THE POPULATION POLICY ARENA

Contemporary policy debates reveal conflicting interests and beliefsabout population. While some people seek to increase attention to popula-tion growth, which they perceive as harmful to the environment or hinder-ing development, four other influential groups, communities, or schools ofthought, attempt to reduce attention to population growth. The debate is animportant one: it sets policy, it influences budgets, and ultimately it maydetermine the future of the planet.

Population is a contentious policy subject. There are persistent dis-agreements about both the effects of population growth and the causes offertility decline. Population is a sensitive subject because it is about lifeand death, cultural values, religion, political power, distribution of wealth,and sex. There is much confusion in population discussions (Campbell,1992). People commonly mix the questions, "Is population growth a prob-lem?" and "What reduces fertility?" Further, people confuse the concepts"necessary" and "sufficient." For example, some groups believe that thepopulation-concerned community thinks reducing fertility is sufficient tosave the environment or improve social systems, rather than necessary butnot sufficient, which is actually the case.

To add complexity, at least four basic ethical questions are central butusually unexamined. They are about (1) responsibility to present versusfuture generations, (2) individual versus community rights and benefits, (3)average versus total quality of life, and (4) the distribution of resources andopportunity. For example, the much debated concept of carrying capacitydepends on specifying what level of consumption is required for an "ade-quate" life, and that issue involves all of these ethical questions.

Many people have difficulty in seeing population as an important con-cern. This is partly because it is hard to demonstrate causality in a complexsystem. For any given change in the environment or human conditions,plausible explanations are likely to overlap, and there is plenty of evidenceto back up everyone's claims. For example, it is difficult to connect popula-tion growth and forest depletion when someone has persuasive evidencethat land use policies and practices are more to blame than the number ofpeople on the land.

A clear view of causal connections is important to policymakers, whoare responsible for allocating common resources. Lawrence Summers(1991), speaking as chief economist of the World Bank, noted the diffi-culties of planning in this area when the causal relationships concerningpopulation growth and environmental degradation, causes of migration,links between population growth and inequality in the wage structure, and

468

MARTHA MADISON CAMPBELL

the fiscal implications of population growth are all unclear. Peter Haas(1992) points out that in these situations of uncertainty, policymakers turnto experts for advice. In the case of population policy, given the differingperspectives on the subject, at least five groups claiming relevant expertiseare providing advice. Each has a different set of answers.

To help understand this situation, this paper uses negotiation analysis,which is a practical tool in conflict resolution. It can be applied to manysituations ranging from international relations to labor disputes. It seeksto provide a clearer understanding of disputes by clarifying competinggroups' positions, including their shared beliefs and policy projects. It fo-cuses on the zone of possible agreement, with sensitivity to changes in thiszone during negotiations, and it promotes awareness of attempts to changethe rules of the game in order to alter this zone (Sebenius, 1992 a;b).

This negotiation analysis starts by setting out the primary interests ofeach school, the issues for each school with regard to the subject of currentdispute, which is population, and their chosen policy actions with respectto population. It also looks closely at the beliefs of each school, which arethe facts it accepts as truth; and it looks at the set of population-relatedissues that are absent from each school's literature and speeches—relevantsubjects that each group has ignored, overlooked, or simply not addressed.

IDENTIFYING THE SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT

The five schools of thought share three characteristics:

1. Each school seeks to be influential in the shaping of international pop-ulation policy in the 1990s.

2. Each can be seen as a single unit because it holds an identifiable,consistent set of beliefs and general goals. Groups, or schools ofthought, can be subdivided, but looking at their internally commonpositions helps us to see who the main groups are, and what the im-portant contrasts are between them.

3. Each represents the single-minded positions held with supreme confi-dence by their more vocal proponents.

In the population field, the difficulties in establishing irrefutable causalrelationships means that the role of the belief systems of the differinggroups is important. Each group attempts to demonstrate its own perspec-tive is the correct one, and each produces evidence backing up its claims.Charles Lindblom (1990) points out that in a complex social system, wherepeople cannot know everything, they must operate on sets of selected be-liefs. He demonstrates the importance of converging beliefs in the forma-

489


tion of social or purposive groups. Clearly there exist many persons lesssingle-minded and with less confidence in these positions, who soften thedebate and who represent more than one school of thought, but the single-minded proponents of a single perspective or school enjoy disproportio-nate influence. Individuals who recognize problems in these single posi-tions tend not to be active in these disputes, for, as Peter Haas has pointedout, "if confronted with anomalies that undermined their causal beliefs,they would withdraw from the policy debate" (Haas, 1992). Sebenius ex-plains that people in a group think alike when they recognize that agreeingis of greater value than any alternatives (Sibenius, 1992b). Thus a commonfront, even if it conceals some real differences, is presented by the group inthe effort to influence public policy.

The Population-Concerned Community (POP)

The population community has generally stood as the group promot-ing attention to world population growth as a problem. It has been a targetof criticism by the remaining four groups in this analysis. Leading this co-alition are nonprofit organizations focused on the perceived perils of thecurrent and projected rates of population growth in developing countriesthat can least afford to absorb the growth. These include, for example,Population Action International, the Population Institute, Population Com-munications International, Zero Population Growth, and the Sierra Club'spopulation program. POP is concerned not with population size ten yearsfrom now, but fifty, one hundred, and even two hundred years out. For thisschool of thought, too many people lead to environmental decline, harmfuleffects on human welfare and economic development efforts, reduced nat-ural resources, loss of biodiversity, and future strife in competition forscarce resources and opportunities.

POP has four chosen policy actions. The first is ample and well de-signed family planning programs, generally seen as necessary, but not suffi-cient, to stabilize population growth. A second policy action is women'saccess to education, health care, and the means to economic participation(jobs, property, credit), both as an instrument leading to lower fertility andas a means of better family health and reduced incidence of poverty. Thirdis more equitable distribution of wealth and resources in order to reducepoverty, given the close connection between poverty and high fertility. Andfourth, POP feels it is important to draw attention to population growth.Making family planning universally accessible is widely seen within POPas the one change rapidly achievable on a large scale, while the first two

490


policy actions are seen as highly desirable, and benefits in their own right,but much harder to implement.

This group believes that unless birth rates are reduced quickly, tech-nology will be unable to solve the problems of feeding future levels ofpopulation and compensating for resource loss. POP points to a large un-met demand for family planning, and that the provision of these serviceswill be a relatively efficient as well as humane means to speed populationstabilization. There is a considerable literature in POP expressing the opin-ion that only voluntary systems, as opposed to coercive systems of familyplanning, are appropriate.

POP typically overlooks some important issues that are central tosome of the other schools of thought in this analysis. For example, it neveraddresses a related problem of concern to economists, how resources andwealth can be redistributed without reducing overall wealth of a society. Inits advocacy it tends to ignore the problem of how to improve badly man-aged family planning systems that do not serve women as well as theyshould.

The Market Preference Community (MKT)

Many economists join American business conservatives in a school ofthought that population growth does not hinder economic and social de-velopment. This belief served as a component of U.S. policy on populationdeveloped during the Reagan administration (Crane & Finkle, 1987). Itcontains an economic philosophy consistent with the Reagan and Bushadministrations' emphasis on the desirability of markets with minimal regu-latory constraints. It is not unusual in public policy for differing objectivesto underlie a commonly supported policy, and in the case of the MKTviewpoint, the economic rationale also helps to support some pro-life posi-tions on the subjects of family planning and abortion services.

Visible adherents to this philosophy include authors Julian Simon andBen Wattenberg, television host Louis Rukeyser of public television's WallStreet Week, Malcolm S. (Steve) Forbes, Jr. of Forbes magazine, the edi-torial writers of the Wall Street Journal, many economists, and the WhiteHouse under Reagan and Bush.' Julian Simon has presented a broad theory(1981, 1992) that more people produce more goods and more wealth.Market pricing mechanisms take care of potential scarcity of nonrenewableresources, rendering these resources effectively infinite rather than finiteunder actual market conditions, when resource substitutions are taken intoaccount. Given the increasing wealth of Europe and the United States dur-

491


ing their respective population growth periods, it is believed that the popu-lation growth contributed to that wealth.

MKT is not characterized by coordinated policy activity on popula-tion, but it strives to maintain laissez-faire market systems, including freemarkets, less dependence on subsidies, lower taxes, and government poli-cies that encourage economic growth. The chosen policy action is of anegative character: it is inappropriate to provide government-sponsoredfamily planning programs, disrupt current property ownership arrange-ments, or interfere with free market systems as a means of dealing withhigh human fertility. The MKT group believes technology will solve re-source scarcity problems in the future, including food scarcity, and marketsystems benefit society by creating wealth, thus providing the best solu-tions to social problems.

There are many subjects that this school of thought does not address,including finite limits of the biological environments, inequities betweenrich and poor, or inequities for women. There tends to be no mention ofmacro-level population figures in the long term. There is little attention topoverty in developing countries, or to how resources, products or oppor-tunities should be distributed where there is not enough money to pay forwhat is needed.

The Distribution Community (DST)

This is the school of thought that successfully blocked the populationsubject from central consideration in the environmentally focused UNCED,including the Earth Summit of 1992 in Rio de Janeiro.2 In that two-yearUnited Nations process, representatives of developing countries voiced re-sistance to focusing on population growth, preferring to focus on consump-tion patterns of industrialized countries and international distributional in-equities. The population subject was put on the agenda only when theNorth, and in particular the United States, ultimately agreed to includeconsumption issues as well. Population later became a leverage item in aneffort by the Group of 77 (C-77)3 to obtain from the industrialized countriesthe funding required to institute technologies consistent with sustainabledevelopment in place of cheaper, less sustainable means to progress. Thisconnection was clarified during a press conference by Ambassador Jam-sheed Marker, during PrepCom IV, March 11, 1992 at the United Nations.Ambassador Marker, who represents Pakistan in the United Nations andchaired the meetings of the Group of 77, was asked when that bloc wouldbe ready to "move" on population. His reply: "The G-77 will be ready tomove on population when the North is ready to move on finances."4

492


DST has no mutually exclusive position vis-a-vis the other groups inthis analysis, for its fundamental positions are central also to the fourth andfifth groups (WIN, VTC), to be described below. Elements of the DST posi-tion are supported by POP as well. Further, DST is situation-dependent:while resisting attention to population in the Earth Summit process, mostdeveloping country leaders express concern about population factors inrelation to development, environmental problems, human welfare, educa-tional systems, and urbanization. Some countries have mentioned prob-lems associated with having a high percentage young people in their popu-lations, and the governments' inability to expand services to keep pacewith the growth as these young people mature. One the whole, DST hasgreater comfort expressing population concerns on an internal basis than inthe context of international agreements with the industrialized North.

DST's more vocal representatives sometimes communicate consider-able anger about population control, which they feel is being imposed bythe North, and they point out that the consumption patterns of the North-ern countries are far more to blame for environmental problems than thebirth rates of the South. One target of this anger has been the concern ofUnited States government officials about the implications of developingcountries' population growth for U.S. security interests (Cesar, 1991), andsome DST spokespersons have stereotyped those concerned about popula-tion growth as being motivated by other than humanitarian interests (Hong,1991; Akhter, 1991, Mkangi, 1991). Beyond criticism aimed at POP (re-ferred to pejoratively as the population controllers) is a body of literatureand argument about the harmful effects of past and present colonial prac-tices on the environment, biological diversity, and the ability of people tomaintain livelihoods (Shiva, 1989; 1990). The development programs ofthe World Bank and other western institutions, including multinationalcompanies, are described as distinctly harmful. For example, it is shownthat the introduction of large-scale monoculture (cash crop production),where it has replaced diversified subsistence agriculture, has reduced envi-ronmental quality and also caused the loss of independence and personaldignity for large numbers of people.

The central concern of DST is the persistent poverty of developingcountries, and a sense that the people of the South are being blamed forcontributing to global environmental decline when others are more toblame. The chosen policy action is generally a more just allocation of re-sources, and this includes not only direct assistance but also trade arrange-ments less preferential to the North and more responsive to the needs ofthe South, including favorable commodity pricing.

Not addressed by DST in its literature are macro-level population pro-

493


jections, and the medium-to-long range future in developing countries withregard to population growth and its possible effects on resources, develop-ment, or the environment. While focusing on inequities between the Northand the South, DST does not usually draw attention to inequities withindeveloping countries, although there have been a few exceptions to this.

The Women's Initiatives Community (WIN)

During the two-week Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in June, 1992,discussions in the Women's Tent at the concurrently held Global Forumspelled out the positions of coordinated activists on women's opportunitiesand rights. Some of the scheduled speeches and discussions were focusedon population issues. The stand of WIN on population is largely consistentwith that of the DST group, with the addition of concerns about the disad-vantageous position of women in developing countries. The specific con-cern that distinguishes WIN from DST is that, at any economic level,women are always a notch below the men in terms of means, opportunitiesand rights, and accordingly bear more of the suffering than the men (Sen &Crown, 1987). The focus on poverty is central.

WIN disapproves of the focus of population control advocates(again, like the more vocal DST spokespersons, using a pejorative label)on demographic growth and high fertility, and uniformly rejects the con-cept that environmental decline is caused by population growth. AsPeggy Antrobus, general coordinator of DAWN, explained at Rio, funda-mentally inequitable economic systems that exploit resources and hu-mans are seen instead as detrimental to environmental preservation.5Structural adjustment policies instituted in response to the third worlddebt crisis of the 1980s are described as having exacerbated the povertyand inequity, with their requirements for reduced consumption and in-creased emphasis on exports (Antrobus, 1992). It is feared that focusingon population growth as a cause of environmental decline will draw at-tention away from these issues.

The central interests of WIN are the rights and opportunities long over-due to women of the developing world. These include access to high-quality health services, education, credit, property, and full participation inthe political process.

The issues at stake for WIN in the population policy arena are 1) theconcept of blaming women's fertility for environmental decline, whenNorthern consumption patterns and other aspects of destructive and ineq-uitable economic systems are at fault (World Women's Congress, 1992; theCommittee on Women, 1992); and 2) the harmful consequences of pro-

494


moling and providing family planning in developing countries for purposesof reducing fertility. WIN points to instances of abuse of, or insensitivity to,women in demographically driven family planning programs (Women'sTent tapes, 1992), which are sometimes described as abusive family plan-ning systems. These birth control service programs instituted in the pres-ence of fertility reduction targets are said to be characterized by forcedsterilizations, pills without proper supervision and follow-up, Norplant in-sertions without removal on demand, and general absence of contraceptivechoices for women. In addition, WIN deplores contraceptive trials in de-veloping countries to test birth control means not yet approved in Europeor the United States (Hartmann, 1992).

An important version of WIN thinking was presented in Rio by GitaSen (1992a). After providing her clear analysis of the models of currentdiscourse on development, Sen challenged those who focus on populationgrowth, its consequences, and family planning:

In our analysis we try to give . . . central importance to theperspective of poor women. . . . We define the population issueas the right to determine and to make reproductive decisions inthe context of fulfilling secure livelihoods, basic: needs, and po-litical participation. And those three are not negotiable. . . .Economic growth and ecological sustainability are important,but they must be such as to secure livelihoods, to promote basicneeds, to allow for political participation, and to allow forwomen's reproductive rights (Sen, 1992).

Since a definition, by definition, not only describes but also sets limits,6 Sensuggests that the population issue is seen as appropriately limited to theseconcerns.

The chosen policy action for this group in terms of population policyinclude the provision of comprehensive health systems and equal oppor-tunities, education and rights for women, including full participation in thepolitical process, and equal access to property and credit. Also among thepolicy actions is the preference that talk about population growth concernsand macro-level population data should be limited, because such talkleads, it is repeatedly said, to the insensitive or abusive family planningprograms. This limitation is consistent with Sen's definition of the popula-tion issue.

WIN almost universally wants access to safe abortion, but it is split onpositions concerning family planning. In general, the WIN leaders wantaccess to family planning services as part of comprehensive health ser-

495


vices, but some members of the group dislike high-technology means ofcontraception, including hormonal contraceptives such as pills and Nor-plant. A few of the speakers in the Women's Tent objected to all modernmeans of birth control, seen as disrespectful and injurious to women'sbodies.

A key belief expressed repeatedly through the Global Forum speecheswas that population growth is not important, although it should be notedthat there is not within WIN a consensus on that opinion (e.g., Antrobus,1992). Several proofs were offered that population growth is not a prob-lem. This was done each time with an inverted syllogism, as follows: Thepopulation control community was reported to have said that in order tohave improved health systems, education, etc. (speaking variously of Brazilor developing countries), women would need to reduce their fertility. Thefertility level did drop, but the health systems did not improve, demonstrat-ing that population growth is not significant (Women's Tent tapes, 1992).7

Another important belief within WIN is that the POP community is atbest insensitive, and at worst exploitive. POP is not generally seen by WINas driven by humanitarian motives. Some members of WIN have exhibiteda belief that POP's concern about population growth is based primarily onneo-colonial interests and a desire to maintain the high-consumption life-styles of the North. More uniformly, the group holds the position that atten-tion to population growth macro-level data is conducive to inappropriate,inhumane approaches to fertility reduction, and that it is best therefore toreduce discussion of the macro-level population concerns. The communi-cation of this chosen policy action appears to have created a sense ofpolitical incorrectness about the subject of population growth problems inhonor of disadvantaged women. This has resulted in a growing silence onpopulation growth since the Earth Summit, notably in two NGO meetingsin preparation for the 1994 International Conference on Population andDevelopment on January 8, 1993 (New York) and March 5, 1993 (Wash-ington).

Subjects not generally discussed by WIN are the following: data (or,the current absence of solid data) to support the anecdotal reports of abusein family planning systems; macro-level figures on population growth; theimplications of fertility patterns beyond year 2000; the current unmet de-mand or need for family planning in many developing countries; the possi-bility of coercion of women implicit in the arrangements of some tradi-tional cultures, including fertility decisions made for women by membersof their husband's families; the implications for currently popular commu-nity-based distribution systems for family planning if family planning is tobe provided only within full-service health care programs; and, differences

496


in time frames between benefits of family planning and benefits from ef-forts to effect fundamental change in property arrangements and rights inthe developing world.

The Vatican (VTC)

As mentioned earlier, the status of the Vatican in the United Nations isthat of Permanent Observer State, the same as the UN status of Switzer-land. Delegates of these Permanent Observer States are seated with thosefrom member countries, and they are welcome to speak and debate whentheir interests are at stake. The Vatican's representatives (from the Holy SeeMission to the U.N.) have spoken up when the family planning subject ison the table. In the UNCED process, the Holy See became active duringthe fourth PrepCom in New York, March 1992.

Even after perusal of a large volume of Vatican literature, it is difficultfor this author to discern the central interest of the Vatican, lacking thebenefit of professional training as a Church scholar. It might variously besaid to be the dignity of the human person in accordance with the teach-ings of the Church. Or, it could be maintenance of Church hegemony overits extended parish for proper interpretation of God's will. The sheerbreadth of Vatican literature makes it difficult for a scholar outside thesystem to pin down a central objective.

For the Vatican, the issue at stake in the population policy arena is theuse of methods of family planning not approved by the Church, including theposition of contraception in international policy agreements. During Prep-Com IV in March 1992, the Holy See delegates objected in plenary session tolanguage referring to family planning and contraception, and those termswere accordingly removed from the agreements in Agenda 21, the 800-pageaction document agreed upon at the Earth Summit. In an undated, two-pagedocument issued from Rome following PrepCom IV and prior to the EarthSummit (Holy See, 1992), the Vatican responded to accusations that theChurch had removed from UNCED documents reference to population.

The Holy See has not attempted to eliminate any wording relat-ing to population, but only to improve it, reaffirming respect forliberty and for the conscience of the human person, defendingthe poorest of the poor from the unjust supposition, that duealmost to the very fact of their very existence and that they arenumerous, that they are the cause rather than the victims oftheir underdevelopment and of ecological degradation (HolySee, 1992).

497


Implicit in this statement is a belief that contraception is an un-welcome addition to the lives of poor people, possibly coercive and unjustin the implications of its provision.

It is not well known that Pope John Paul II has spoken out severaltimes on population growth in the developing world. But his words aboutpopulation rarely stray far, or for long, from the always-present respect forhuman life as a consideration above resource constraints or other disad-vantages that might result from persistent population growth.

The demographic challenge, like all human challenges, is am-bivalent, and we have to redouble our concentration on thebest efforts of human solidarity and collective creativity so as toconvert population growth into a formidable potential for eco-nomic, social, cultural and spiritual development (Pope JohnPaul II, 1987).

Nevertheless, the Papal awareness of environmental problems, diffi-culties in terms of biodiversity, and rapid urbanization in the developingworld is clear (Pope John Paul II, 1987; 1988; 1989), as is the Pope'sawareness of the significance of population growth itself: "One cannotdeny the existence, especially in the Southern Hemisphere, of a demo-graphic problem which creates difficulties for development" (1988b). Atthe opening session of the Earth Summit, the statement by Archbishop Re-nato R. Martino, head of the Holy See delegation to UNCED, included thewords, "The position of the Holy See regarding procreation is frequentlymisinterpreted. The Catholic Church does not propose procreation at anycost" (Martino, 1992). These were new words for the Vatican, and raisedsome hopes and a great deal of curiosity at Rio about a possibility of policychange within the Church with regard to contraception.

The position of the Church on population has two principal compo-nents. The first is that social ills, including the skewed distribution ofwealth between North and South, produce the poverty that exacerbatesthis high fertility. This is basically the position of DST. Pope John Paul II hasspecified numerous components of the inequitable situations, includingtrade issues and commodity pricing problems (1987). Rectification of theuneven distribution of economic opportunity constitutes a chosen policyaction of the Vatican. The second chosen policy action for the Church isthat the dignity of the human person must be respected. This language isnormally used as a reference to the impropriety of using contraceptionother than the approved abstinence-based rhythm methods.

Subjects generally not addressed by the Vatican are the macro-level

498


data describing global population projections, unmet demand for familyplanning, and any possibility of reduced, rather than enhanced, dignity ofpersons seeking but unable to obtain efficient means to control their ownfertility. It appears that the Vatican is, for the time being, in a difficult posi-tion on this front. It is faced with a widely disobedient member population,but has not yet indicated that it is time to bend official policy on contra-ception. The Vatican's official policy reflects neither the advice of manyCatholic theologians nor the needs of the laity, and it has clearly limitedthe Church's range of response to global demographic problems that it haspublicly recognized.

DISCUSSION

Table 1 summarizes the positions held by each of the five schools ofthought: its primary interest, its key issues with respect to population, andits chosen policy actions. Table 2 looks beneath these positions, comparingthe five groups' consistent beliefs and the subjects that each group ignores,overlooks, or simply fails to address. With the comprehensive positions ofthe five groups viewed as a whole, it will now be possible to identify pointsof similarity and difference among the groups, and to make new observa-tions about the configuration of those relationships.

Two Missing Schools

While both environmental and development interests are incorporatedinto some of these positions, readers may wonder why they are not identi-fied as schools of thought. Environmentalists are not listed as a school ofthought in this analysis because they are split on the subject of population,some belonging in the POP category, and the rest sounding more like DST.A development model has not been listed as a separate category or schoolof thought, because it has been, in effect, subdivided into four separateschools of thought. There are variations of the development model withinMKT, DST, WIN and VTC, and even POP contains some elements of it.

Asymmetry

The asymmetrical configuration of the five influential schools may bethe most significant characteristic of the population policy arena revealedby this negotiation analysis, as demonstrated in Table 3.8 It is based on thefollowing two observations:

499


• In the population policy arena, only one school of thought has popula-tion as a central concern. The four remaining groups have other princi-pal interests, and each of them has exhibited a preference for reducingattention to population growth.

• The primary interests of WIN and DST are identical to individual cho-sen policy actions of POP.

The implications of these relationships in combination will be exploredbelow.

Focusing on the Current Dialogue

Each of the groups reviewed in this analysis has played a role in popu-lation policy formulation. The market preference coalition (MKT), impor-tant in United States international policy between 1980 and 1992, wassilent and uninfluential during UNCED, but deserves to be explored andunderstood because it represents a large and important segment of eco-nomic thinking. The Vatican (VTC) has been included in this study becauseof its active role in international population policy during UNCED. TheChurch's abiding interest in reproductive issues ensures its continued par-ticipation in this policy arena in the foreseeable future. DST, the school ofthought focused principally on worldwide conditions of poverty and ineq-uity in the distribution of wealth and opportunities, is important for threereasons: its independent role in population policy development duringUNCED, its role as a key component of the thinking of WIN and VTC, andits place among the specific policy concerns of the population community.

The most active dialogue between the June 1992 Earth Summit andthe spring of 1993 have taken place between the population community(POP) and the women's initiatives community (WIN), and it is on this rela-tionship that the remainder of this discussion will be focused. There hasclearly been an attempt to find and agree upon the common ground sharedby these groups. However, the effects of asymmetry on this effort has im-portant implications for policy. This discussion will continue with a focuson the single search for common ground between WIN and POP.

The Search for Common Ground

In a productive dispute resolution process, common ground can servea useful purpose, opening doors to further agreement, provided groupsseeking it are not limiting themselves or others to that single patch ofground. In this case, however, there have been indications that such limita-tion has been one of the objectives of WIN. Under the condition of asym-

505


metry, any agreement to redefine population policy within the shared areaof common ground would limit POP to its one chosen policy action identi-cal to the objective of WIN. Table 3 demonstrates that the common groundbetween the two groups, or schools, is the one policy action chosen byPOP that specifically benefits women, while it is the primary interest ofWIN.

There would be little disagreement in the population community thatall of the advancements desired by WIN for women are highly desirableand long overdue, and also that implementation soon would be best. But itis clear that to drop the other aspects of population policy while waiting forthese changes to take place worldwide would be a drastic policy changeand a peculiar sacrifice for POP.

One of the common situations found in negotiation analysis is theattempt to change the zone of acceptable agreement (Sibenius, 1992a;b).This effort is typically undertaken by one negotiating party without fullunderstanding of the other. To limit agreement to the common ground be-tween WIN and POP in this asymmetrical policy arena in effect wouldalter the zone of agreement on population policy, by narrowing that zoneto only a portion of the chosen policy actions of the population commu-nity.

Blocking Coalitions, or a Single Blocking Coalition

In the language of negotiation analysis, the four groups preferring toreduce attention to the policy subject central to the analysis (MKT, DST,WIN, and VTC) can been seen as blocking coalitions (Sibenius, 1991 a).They can also be seen, inasmuch as they share this preference, as a single,tacit, de facto blocking coalition, with no self-conscious coordination orstrategy. As such, it is a coalition of strange bedfellows, given the conflict-ing objectives of MKT, WIN and VTC.

The Concept of Asymmetry in General Terms

In summary, a policy situation is asymmetrical when two conditionsare present: a) only one of the competing groups has the subject of thepolicy area as its central interest, and b) that group has a chosen policyaction identical to the primary interest of another active group. Underthese circumstances, limiting solutions to the common ground betweentwo such groups (Table 3) is difficult to justify, because it addresses onlyone policy action of the only group whose primary interest is the subject ofthe policy area, while it satisfies the primary interest of the second group,

506


which is a different subject. The second group serves as a blocking coali-tion. Such limitation constitutes an imposed shift of the perceived zone ofagreement.

Two Approaches to Resolution

Sebenius (1991 a) speaks of the difference between creating value andclaiming value in negotiations. This is similar to the distinction betweenintegrative and distributive bargaining (Raiffa, 1982). If distributive reason-ing (claiming value) is employed, the zone of agreement in this asymmetri-cal policy situation would be reduced to a narrow piece of the POP objec-tives, for population policy would be viewed as a zero-sum situation inwhich each interest group may gain only at the expense of the other. Ifintegrative reasoning (creating value) is employed, wherein the groups areopen concerning their respective needs and priorities, and an analyticguide is used to view the underlying bases for joint gains, resolution can bestretched beyond the narrow common ground and groups might benefitfrom each other's insights without limiting the objectives of either. Popula-tion policy formulation would in this case be viewed as a positive-sumsituation, wherein the involved groups could all benefit.

Incomplete Information

There appear to be several areas in the population policy discussionswhere not all parties have been fully informed. For example, one of thedifficulties found in the chosen policy actions of WIN concerns the antici-pated time frame to achieve the desired aims. The implementation of someobjectives would require radical transformation of property systems in thedeveloping world. This may be just and deserved, but it will not happenquickly, particularly in traditional societies with long-established con-straints on changing legal gender relations. POP members know that todepend on these changes as a prerequisite for fertility reduction may resultin a serious a setback in terms of time, a setback of perhaps decades. Thediscrepancy between projected time frames of the two groups' sets of cho-sen policy actions must be examined.

Another area in need of examination is the extent of abuse incurred, incontrast to benefits, by attention to population growth problems. Whilesome demographically driven family planning problems, according toWIN, contain characteristics not sensitive to women's needs, this situationmust be measured quantitatively against the absence of family planningservices if resources were not mobilized to provide them, as is currently

507


the case in some countries and regions. The current dearth of solid data oninappropriate or inadequate practice in family planning systems makes dif-ficult any such comparisons.

Such data could also be used to mobilizing attention and resourcesrequired to right the wrongs in the system.

A third area inadequately documented is the relationship betweenpopulation growth and environmental decline. WIN typically asserts thatno such relationship exists. It is difficult to counter such assertions, giventhe scant supply of solid data available in this interdisciplinary subject.

Alternate Points of Intervention

The chosen policy action of WIN concerning reducing attention topopulation growth issues is reportedly for the purpose of reducing tenden-cies to set fertility reduction targets, which lead, according to WIN, to fam-ily planning services insensitive to women's needs. This preference forreducing attention to population growth appears to be based on an as-sumption that this is the only intervention available, the only way to pro-tect the women who are exposed to undesirable aspects of family planningprograms. It may be productive to see this option, the reduced attention topopulation growth, as only one of at least three options available. Thisoption does have one advantage: it has appeared achievable, in view ofrecent success this direction. The transmitted sense of political incorrect-ness of the population growth subject in support of and respect for disad-vantaged women has worked remarkably well.

The two other available intervention points would have fewer far-reaching, detrimental effects on the population community's efforts. Thefirst of these would be a cessation of target-setting in favor of responding toall unmet demand for family planning (Sinding, 1993). The second wouldbe the closer monitoring of family planning services to ensure that they donot harm women in any way, do offer a wider range of contraceptivechoices, and are more sensitive to women's needs.

Separating the Issues

Given the many elements of the discussion not addressed by the fivegroups in this analysis (see tables, bottom row), it would appear advan-tageous to disaggregate the population-related issues raised (and also thosenot addressed) by all of the involved groups into their component parts, forseparate discussion. Population growth, family planning, women's oppor-tunities and rights, health care, distributional systems, poverty, consump-

508


tion, the dignity of the human person per Church requirements—all couldbe addressed separately. This has been suggested by Sibenius (1992a), as"unbundling" of negotiating points, to seek new directions toward agree-ment. It was a technique used productively during workshops held pur-suant to the Vienna Convention of 1985, in preparing the Montreal Proto-col on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Benedick, 1991). In thepopulation policy case, additional categories might be constructed for therelationships between pairs of issue components: population and con-sumption, family planning programs and women's reproductive rights, andother relevant combinations. When discussions are complete, it could thenbe decided which of the elements belong in a population policy, andwhich would more appropriately be pursued in other arenas of policy de-velopment. The issues could then be reaggregrated for approval as a com-prehensive package.

Choosing the Policy Arena

A fundamental question that might be raised in light of the asymmetryin the population arena is whether all of the concerns raised recently byWIN in the population policy context in fact belong within populationpolicy. An arena well suited to many of the aims of WIN is that of humanrights policy. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted andproclaimed by General Assembly Resolution 217 A(lll) on December 10,1948, already contains many of the rights sought by WIN that have yet tobe applied in practice to women in many parts of the world. These includeprotection against discrimination and equal protection of the law, the rightto own property alone or with others, universal and equal suffrage, equalpay for equal work, and the right to education. The right to "a standard ofliving adequate for... health and well-being" (United Nations, 1948) doesnot quite say adequate health care, but can be seen as opening the door tothis benefit.

Plans are currently under way to put women's rights on the humanrights agenda at the World Conference on Human Rights to be held inJune, 1993 in Vienna, the first world conference on this subject in 25 years.There are some indications that the planned initiatives on behalf of womenwill focus on violence, arrest and incarceration, particularly in countrieswhere laws treat men and women differently. It may be that the many otherprotections and opportunities written into the 1948 document, mentionedabove, can be reintroduced as well in terms of women's long overduerights, forty-five years after they were promised. If this were to happen, itcould be extremely difficult at this point for male delegates to deny that the

509


female half of the world's population is finally entitled to this broad set ofbenefits and rights.

Recommendations

In summary, this research suggests that there is a structural case for:

• declining requests to limit the population subject to WIN objectives,• proposing an alternate intervention point in support of WIN's concerns

about insensitive family planning programs,• taking an inclusive or integrative approach to population policy, with

WIN and DST concerns incorporated into the process,• disaggregating the component issues for discussion, including the many

issues variously not considered by the different groups (bottom row ofthe table), treating some linked pairs of issues as discussion topics inaddition to single issues, and then reaggregating the issues found to berelevant for package approval,

• viewing most of the WIN objectives as appropriate subjects for humanrights policy, and viewing a number of WIN objectives either instru-mental to population concerns or responsive to WIN concerns aboutfamily planning programs as appropriate components of population pol-icy.

CONCLUSION

It is hoped that this exercise in negotiation analysis will increase un-derstanding of the principal groups involved in population policy develop-ment and the relationships among them, and help to move forward thecurrent dialogues in the field. In addition, the newly introduced concept ofasymmetry may be useful in the analysis of other complex policy disputesbetween policy subject proponents and certain types of blocking coali-tions. It is further hoped also that future research by others will identifymore policy arenas characterized by this asymmetry.

Comments on this paper are welcome, including observations on theselection of the five interest groups, specific corrections or opinions onthe five identified sets of interests, issues, chosen policy actions, beliefsand subjects not addressed, and views on the notion of asymmetry andits implications for seeking common ground in attempts at resolving dis-putes.

510


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research on the population issues during the two-year UNCEDprocess and at the Earth Summit was supported by grants from the Comp-ton Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation.

NOTES

1. The White House was espousing this view in October 1991 (White House press release,1991), well after the start of the two-year UNCED process, in which U.S. representativesargued for inclusion of population concerns in the discussions and agreements of thatconference. This example of policy inconsistency provides a good reason to analyzeschools of thought not in terms of formal organizations and agencies but, as suggested bySabatier (1988), as advocacy coalitions independent of formal structures.

2. UNCED was the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, the for-mal name for the 2-year conference culminating in the Earth Summit at Rio de Janeiro in1992.

3. The Group of 77 is the large bloc of developing countries, currently 129 in number, thatcoordinates on many policy approaches. During UNCED the G-77 met frequently andbehind closed doors.

4. Press conference was attended by author.5. DAWN is the acronym for the international project Development Alternatives with

Women for a New Era.6. The word "definition" comes from the Latin definite, to limit, define; in turn from de

(from) and finire (to set a limit to, bound), and/or finis (boundary).7. The necessary/sufficient confusion referred to earlier in this paper is, within the academic

study of symbolic logic, identical with the characteristics of an inverted syllogism.8. The concept of asymmetry being introduced in this paper is a new contribution to both

negotiation analysis theory and public policy.

REFERENCES

Akhter, F. (1991). The biases in population control policies. Third World Resurgence, 16, 24-26.

Antrobus, P. (1992). Address at Global Forum, June 11, 1992. New York: tape by HelenRosenbluth Duplications.

Benedick, R. E. (1991). Ozone diplomacy: New directions in safeguarding the planet. Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Campbell, M. (1992). Polarization, yet awareness mark debate. The Earth Times, IV (1,2),November 2-6: 61.

Cesar, A. (1991). U.S. role in mass sterilization revealed. Third World Resurgence. 16, 26.Committee on Women, Population and the Environment. (1992). Women, population and the

environment: Call for a new approach. Declaration prepared for Earth Summit. Obtain-able from the International Women's Health Coalition, New York.

Crane, B. & Finkle J. (1987). The conservative transformation of population policy. Govern-ance: Harvard journal of Public Policy, Winter/Spring, 9-14.

511


Haas, P. M. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordina-tion. International Organization 46(1) Winter, 1-36.

Hartmann, B. (1992). Address at Global Forum, June 6. New York: tape by Helen RosenbluthDuplications.

Holy See. (1992). Declaration of the director of the press office regarding the Holy See andthe United Nations conference on environment and development. (June 3-14).

Hong, E. (1991). Behind the population debate. Third World Resurgence 16, 17-18.John Paul II, Pope. (1987). Confronting extreme poverty. Address in Chile. Origins 16 (44),

April 3, 776.John Paul II, Pope. (1988). Soflicitudo rei socialis. (Encyclical on social concerns). Origins 19

(38), March 3, 641-660.John Paul II, Pope. (1989). Remarks of John Paul II; the Vatican-Soviet summit. Origins 19

(28), December 14, 465-468.Lindblom, C. E. (1990). Inquiry and change: The troubled attempt to understand and change

society. New Haven: Yale University Press.Martino, R. R. (1992). Archbishop, Holy See Delegate to the Earth Summit. Statement to the

United Conference on Environment and Development. Rio de Janeiro, June 4.Mkangi, K. (1991). The real threat to a sustainable state of health. Third World Resurgence 16,

27-30.Murphy, F. X. & Erhart, J. R. (1974). Catholic perspectives on population issues. Population

Bulletin, 30(6),1-46.Raiffa, Howard. (1982). The art and science of negotiation. Harvard University Press.Sebenius, J. K. (1991 a). Designing negotiations toward a new regime: The case of global

warming. International Security 15(4), 110-148.Sebenius, J. K. (1991b). Negotiation analysis, international negotiation: Analysis, approaches,

issues. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Sebenius, J. K. (1992a). Negotiation analysis: A characterization and review. Management

Science 38(1), 18-38.Sebenius, J. K. (1992b). Challenging conventional explanations of international cooperation:

Negotiation analysis and the case of epistemic communities. International Organization46(1), 323-366.

Sen, C. & Crown, C. (1987). Development crises and alternative visions: Third worldwomen's perspectives. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Sen, C. (1992). Population and development: Simple equations, complex conditions, genderdimensions. Address at Women's Tent, Global Forum, June 6. New York: tape by HelenRosenbluth Duplications.

Shiva, V. (1989). Development: the "new colonialism." Development, Journal of SID, n.s., 14:84-87.

Shiva, V. (1990). Biodiversity, biotechnology and profit: The need for a peoples' plan to pro-tect biological diversity. The Ecologist 20(2), 27-35.

Simon, J. (1981). The ultimate resource. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Simon, J. (1992). Population and development in poor countries. Princeton: Princeton Univer-

sity Press.Sinding, S. (1993). Getting to replacement: Bridging the gap between individual rights and

demographic goals. In P. Senanayake & R.L. Kleinman (Eds.). Family planning: Policychallenges: Priority choices, pp. 23-34. Lancaster: The Parthenon Publishing Group.

Summers, L. H. (1991). Knowledge for effective action. Keynote address, Proceedings of theWorld Bank Annual Conference on Development Economics, 7-14.

United Nations. (1948). General Assembly Resolution 217 A(111), Dec. 10.Women's Tent tapes. (1992). New York: tapes by Helen Rosenbluth Duplications.World Women's Congress for a Healthy Planet. 1992. Official report. 8-12 November 1992,

Miami, FL. New York: Women's Environment and Development Organization (WEDO).

512

Documents

Schools of Thought: An Analysis of Interest Groups ...bixby.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/... · vations: (1) Five interest groups are influential: the population-concerned