Population Policy: Whose Population What Policy

1
Population Policy Whose Population? What Policy?

• Dr. SHAE Wan-chaw
• APSS, HKPolyU
• 25 April 2009

2

• What is Population Policy?
• World Trends
• Why Need a Pop Policy?
• Critique of Pop Policy
• Sense Nonsense in Pop Policy
• A People-based Pop Policy?

3
I. What is Population Policy?

• No accepted definition (UN 1973632). It can be
• Explicit (stated intention), implicit (unstated
  aim) or unintended.
• Direct (encouraging birth control) or indirect
  (compulsory education).
• Punitive/coercive or facilitative/voluntary.
• Domestic or international (giving/not giving aid
  to other countries).

4

• Narrow definition all deliberate govt actions
  (such as laws, regulations, administrative
  programs) intended to influence pop growth, size,
  distribution, composition. (Lucas 20031)
• A broad definition may include unintended
  influences governmental actions that are
  designed to alter pop events or that actually do
  alter them (Berelson 1971173). But this is
  debatable.
• May also include population-responsive policies
  (the ways that govts respond to pop changes).

5

• A pop policy normally includes
• Size a numerical goal /or growth rate.
• Composition distribution of various demographic
  variables age, sex, race, education level,
  location etc.
• Relationship of (1) (2) to economic, social,
  political other collective goals.
• Assessment deployment of various policies/means
  to the achievement of (1), (2) (3), eg natural
  increase policy, immigration policy, education
  policy, employment policy etc.

6
II. World Trends

• In 1927 world pop 2 billion. 1974 ? to 4 b
  in 2000 it ? to 6 b (2009 at 6.8 b). The UN
  projected that it will reach 9.1 b by 2050. The
  projected ?(2.3 b) will come from developing
  countries, which pop is expected to? from 5.6 b
  in 2009 to 7.9 b in 2050.
• India the 1st 3rd world country to endorse an
  active pop policy in 1952.
• By 2001, 92 of all countries supported family
  planning programs contraceptives, either
  directly (75) or indirectly (17), through NGOs.

7
Govt. Views on Level of Fertility (UN 20032)
8
Govt. Policies on Level of Fertility (UN 20034)
9

• Many developing countries have an explicit pop
  policy whereas most developed ones dont.
• World pop growth ? since 1980s. The of
  countries that viewed fertility as too high
  leveled off after 1996 at about 45.
• Countries that view fertility as too high are
  more likely to intervene than those that view
  fertility as too low.
• In general, policies that attempted to ?
  fertility tend to be even more ineffective than
  those that attempt to ? fertility.
  
  
  

10
III. Why Need a Pop Policy?

• To ? human welfare pop development are
  interrelated pop variables influence development
  are also influenced by them (World Pop
  Conference 1975157, para 14c).
• It is commonly believed that
• There is a pop problem, esp. in the 3rd world.
• Pop ? ? economic ? ? poverty, hunger,
  environmental devastation ? political unrest ?
  threatening the West.

11

• According to UN, an aging pop one with 10 of
  its pop that is 60 yrs old. In 1999, there were
  580 m people aged 60 globally. By 2009, it has
  reached 739 m (or1/9 of the worlds population).
  It is projected that it will be tripled to 2 b by
  2050. Even the aged pop is itself aging in
  2006, 13 of them (94 m) are 80, it is
  estimated that it would reach 20 (394m) by 2050.
  
• It is widely believed that pop aging ? greater
  demand for care ? health costs.

12
IV. Critique of Pop Policy

• There is a tendency to regard pop policy, as
  based on demography, is or should be
  scientific.
• Pop experts often evoke the image of an
  apocalypse brought on by adverse pop trends.
  Salvation justifies any draconian programs
  requiring sacrifice submission.
• But pop policies have often been based on myths
  ideologies than on science evidence.

13

• But the study of human pop ? a natural science.
  The rate of pop growth resources depletion
  cannot be predicted with accuracy over any
  extended periods of time. Egs
• Malthus (1789) was wrong. Food production can ?
  faster than pop. World pop is at least 6x what it
  was in 1800, yet there is still more than enough
  food to support them. From 1961-1994 global
  production of food doubled.
• J. Simon P. Ehrlichs famous 10 yr bet in 1980
  on the price of raw materials.

14

• Even the term overpopulation cannot be defined
  unambiguously
• Rate of natural increase US between 1790 1800
  3/yr, whereas that of the 49 least developed
  countries in 2009 is 2.3/yr.
• Birthrate US in the 1790s was 55 per 1000,
  higher than 127 national birthrate estimates of
  the World Bank (1993).
• Pop density France gt Indonesia, Japan gt India,
  Singapore gt Bangladesh. Monaco the most
  overpopulated state.

15

• Dependence ratio in 1980 Israel gt Sri Lanka
  in 1990 the least overpopulated societies in the
  world were HK Singapore.
• Biologists use the term carrying capacity to
  denote the maximum no. of organisms a given
  environment can support. This notion cannot
  easily be applied to humans as our capacity to
  alter our ways of life means that it is
  impossible to predict when our ability to provide
  for additional people will end, if ever.

16

• Nor is the notion of an optimum pop value-
  problem-free
• The notion ? an end in itself. It should not be
  isolated from other social priorities. Most
  discussions focus on a narrow economic criteria
  of value to the neglect of other values. But
  economic development ? the good life.
• It assumes that the attainment of individual
  social goals are unambiguously affected by the
  size characteristics of the pop. But the
  relation between pop particular social
  conditions are not easy to ascertain.

17

• The pop experts tend to blame the victims, ie,
  that those who suffer from poverty are the ones
  who have caused the problem.
• Historically, pop ? correlates with economic
  prosperity, pop ? with stagnation. The last 2
  centuries has witnessed a tremendous growth both
  in world pop economic growth.
• In 1971 Bangladesh won independence from
  Pakistan. Both had around 66 m people growing at
  3 a yr. Both were poor, rural Muslim.
  Bangladesh started emphasising family planning in
  1976. 30 yrs later, it had a pop of 120 m whereas
  Pakistan had 140 m. But Pakistans GDP was 2x
  that of Bangladesh.

18

• Greater pop may ? demand for goods services ?
  stimulate technological agricultural innovation
  ??efficiency supply.
• But in a capitalist economy, food production is
  not determined by need, but by demand.
• The true cause of world hunger ? overpop,
  insufficient food, or famine, but poverty
  inequality.
• To assume that poverty can be eliminated by
  preventing the birth of poor people is to commit
  an elementary fallacy.

19

• All attempts to control or reduce pop often mask
  racists, sexist or classist policies aimed at
  controlling the other. The fear of a pop bomb
  has more to do with which babies are being born
  than how many are being born.
• The prevention of 1 American birth birth of 50
  Indians in terms of energy use (US has only 5 of
  world pop, but emitted 30 CO2) yet the US worry
  about the growth of the Indian pop (Hofsen 1980)
  .

20

• Any pop policy inevitably touches upon the touchy
  questions of
• The rights of the living vs the unborn.
• Individual freedom vs collective good.
• Duties to society societys responsibilities.
• Drawing the line between us them.
• Tensions between the sanctity of the family,
  destiny of ones nation/race, Gods will.
• Value of life prospects of mankind.

21

• As for pop policy, the sanest response is not
  to have one. The only humane approach is to let
  each family, in every country, choose its own
  fertility rate according to its own desires
  concerns for the future. The alternative is
  tyranny torment. (Lawson 2008)

22
V. Sense Nonsense in Pop Policy

• There is no question that uncontrolled pop growth
  ? environmental crises. But does the West really
  want to ? fertility rate? Breast-feeding is the
  most effective natural birth control devise.
  However, breast-feeding is disappearing in the
  West because of concerns about body image. It has
  also markedly ? in the periphery because of
  advertising the sales of powdered infant
  formula.

23

• By 1980s, many countries budget for family
  planning gt all other health-related services
  combined. Is this sensible?
• - In 1980, govt expenditure per contraceptive
  user was US68 in Ghana 69 in Nepal whereas
  total govt expenditure on all health programs
  were 20 per family in Ghana 8 in Nepal
  (Eberstadt 1994).

24

• Theres also no evidence to suggest that family
  planning programs have a direct causal impact on
  fertility rate
• In most countries, fertility ? was well underway
  before the launching of any family planning
  program (India being the exception).
• In 1989, 63 of Turkeys married women of
  reproductive age used contraception, with a
  fertility rate of 3.4 births/women. Japans
  figures were 56 1.5 births/women.

25

• But if there is much debate surrounding the
  notion of an optimum pop size, there is less
  disputes as to the characteristics of an optimum
  pop, esp. over the long term
• A low level of mortality.
• A stable age sex distribution.
• A near 0 growth rate.
• A ? rate of consumption pollution.
• The problem lies in balancing these objectives
  with other imperatives.

26

• More more countries are facing with a set of
  contradictory imperatives
• Fiscal pressures to ? the no./ of working pop
  either by ? fertility or immigration.
• Economic need for low-skilled labor /or
  high-skilled workers.
• Social need of treating (potential) immigrants
  fairly of integrating them.
• Political risk of a rising xenophobia
  anti-immigrant populism.

27
VII. A People-based Pop Policy?

• Central to a people-based pop policy is to put
  peoples needs at the centre, to respect their
  rights, to ? their freedom security so that
  they can make choices rationally.
• It must also contain
• A public philosophy of citizenship what rights
  benefits do we wish to confer on them, why?
• An articulation of relationship between pop size,
  composition growth rate to other social
  collective goals.

28

• A comprehensive coherent system of social
  policies that correspond to the above principles
  based on a comparative analysis of the pros
  cons of different policy options.
• A justification of whom should we admit whom
  should be counted as citizens, why some are
  rejected Quality migrants capital investment
  entrants vs the principle of family reunion
  (mainlanders born of HK parents) foreign
  domestic helpers vs expatriate workers etc.

29

• HK did not have an pop policy until 2003.
• ???????????,????????????????,?????????????????
  ???????????, ?????????????, ?????????????,
  ???????????, ?????, ????????????????????, ??????,
  ????????????????? (???????????,2003vii)
• As such, it ? a document on pop policy but an
  economic policy, a narrow one at that.

30

• In the newspeak of the HK govt, the Report
  twisted the term sustainability to suit its
  ends
• Economic sustainability ways to ? our
  workforces productivity enhance economic
  vibrancy.
• Fiscal sustainability minimizing govt
  commitment responsibility.
• Social sustainability integration limit new
  arrivals eligibility to public services (the
  so-called 7-yr residence requirement).

31

• Economic development certainly has a role to
  play but it needs to be de-centred so that
  people are not treated as means for the
  economy, but vice versa.