The Population Question and Development:brief discussion around seven questions

Michel Garenne

(1) IRD (French Institute for Research and Development)Department of Health and Societies

(2) Institut Pasteur, Paris, FranceEmerging Diseases Unit

Seminar at the Institute of Social Studies,

Den Haag, 23 April 2009

Context of demographic transitions

• Demographic transitions (1750-now)– Health Transition (s) / Diseases control, Nutrition– Fertility Transition (s) / Birth control, Reproductive health – Economic growth / Industrialization, – Urbanization– Nuptiality transition (s) / second demographic transition (?)

• Policy implications– Health policies / population policies– Environmental policies– New consciousness / New options

Framework for this presentation7 questions

1. Reproductive success: what is so different with humans?

2. Was Malthus right or wrong?3. Is the Dutch case replicable?4. What happens beyond food limits?5. Are North / South relationships changing? 6. Fertility control or Reproductive health?7. Is negative population growth desirable?

Q1: Maximising reproduction: what is so different with humans?

• Living organisms (microbes, plants, animals) tend to maximize their offspring in order to ensure reproduction (reproductive fitness)• Their population growth is always limited by natural situations: food, environmental opportunities, predators, diseases.

Deevey’s scheme (1960)

1

10

100

1000

10000

1000

000

2000

00

5000

0

1000

080

0060

0040

0020

00 500 50 1

Years before present

Mill

ion

s in

hab

itan

ts

Paleolithic

Neolothic

Industrial

Humans did the same until recently, and went through various phases / various ecological equilibriums:- Paleolithic: hunter / gatherers- Neolithic: farmers / herders- Industrial revolution: + Scale of production + Trade / Globalization

Scientific American, 1960; 203(3):195-204

New paradigms for humans

Main limitations for humans

- Food / Production systems

- Diseases / Man made diseases

- Poverty / Distribution of wealth

- Wars / Political instability

- Behaviour (traditional / modern)

- Marriage

- Abstinence

- Induced abortion

- Infanticide

- Contraception

Q2: Was Malthus right or wrong?a) how right?

• Malthus was writing just at the end of the previous period, at the beginning of the new era• He studied the fate of human societies over the past 2000 years, and understood very well what happened:

–The positive checks on most societies –The new solutions proposed by Western Europe

• Delaying marriage

• He was concerned with poverty and moral virtue– Insisted on limiting offspring in order to reduce poverty– Refused anything but “moral constraints” (abstinence)

Q2: Was Malthus right or wrong?b) how wrong?• Malthus did not anticipate what would happen in the next two centuries:

– Major changes in production system, leading to major increase in land productivity (> than arithmetic, and even > geometric): food per capita and income per capita could increase with changing technology, changing economic systems, proper state management– Major changes in attitudes and behaviours:

• Contraception became acceptable; new techniques developed• Marriage (second transition)

–The whole equilibrium between population and resources was changed … for a while

Q3: Is the Dutch case replicable? a) how outstanding?

• Holland is always presented as the best example against neo-malthusian attitudes:

–High population density

–Increasing arable land through technology

–High income

–Leader in economic development

–Leader in democracy and permissiveness

–Leader in the second demographic transition

Q3: Is the Dutch case replicable?b) How replicable?• Favourable ecological endowment:

–Extremely fertile soils

–Endless supply of water

–No major geographic obstacles (mountains or deserts)

• Major innovations:–Primarily because of outstanding management skills: political / economic / technical

–Not found anywhere else…

Fatty Arbuckle, pioneer in the art of throwing tarte a la

creme

Q4: What happens beyond food limits?a) other limitations

• The nature of the relationship between population and environment is changing very quickly: new limits

– Food (plants, animals, fish)– Water (agriculture, industry, people)– Energy (transportation, temperature regulation)– Land occupation (migration / access)

• Desired quantities per capita are increasing dramatically: “North American model”

Q4: What is beyond food?b) ecologic equilibrium•Main issues:

– Greenhouse effect / Global warming– Land degradation / Pollution– Negative health impact (pesticides, fertilizers, toxic waste) – Price of land (agriculture, dwelling)

•Major tradeoffs: – Arable land / Rain forest– Land for food / Land for energy production– Food crops / Animal farming– Increasing production / Safe environment– Space for wildlife / Space for humans

Q5: Politics of population control: Changing North/South relationships?

• Context of population control (1950- onwards) was heavily politicized:

– Decolonization – Cold War – Neo-imperialism– Internal politics (progress versus tradition)– Religion (Islam, Hinduism, Catholicism, etc.)

• Changing relation: towards common interests:– Constraints are becoming global– Consequences are becoming global– Attitudes and behaviours tend to converge

Q6: Fertility control or Reproductive health?

• Need for contraception basically universal:–Delaying first birth / spacing births / limiting after desired family size is achieved

• When social and religious barriers are overcome, couple tend to adopt quickly new and rationale behaviours leading to low fertility, near or below replacement fertility. • The solution to the population problem seems at easy reach:

–New norms:• Individualism / Rational choice• Imitation of forerunners (Western Europe)

– New technology:• Modern contraception (efficient, cheap, available)

Q7: Is negative population growth desirable?

•UNPD population projections assume a stabilization of the world population following of a stabilization of fertility at replacement

•Many countries now have below replacement fertility

• If this becomes an universal pattern, this will lead ultimately to negative population growth

Q7: Arguments for and against negative population growth

<0 mostly global • Environment preserved• More resources

available per capita• Higher salaries (short

labour supply)• Cheaper price of land • More space for wildlife

> 0 mostly national• Military power• Economic power• Large supply of labour

= low salaries• Stimulates innovation• Younger population

Overview

• The paradigms have changed dramatically since Malthus:– Changing attitudes towards family limitation were enough to modify the dynamics between population and resources –Global environment is the key issue, and not only local food production–Sharing resources has to be seen globally, not locally–Hope for avoiding major conflicts (?)

• The population problems need to be approached in a global perspective:

–Similar global norms (even if local variations)–Sharing costs and benefits–No major conflict of interest between “North” and “South” but a global concern

Space for all…