(Paper Presented by Rep. Edcel C. Lagman at the 2nd National Multi-Sectoral Policy Conference on Population and Human Development on 15 August 2007 at the Heritage Hotel, Pasay City)
Achieving sustainable and genuine human development is a long-cherished aspiration of the Filipino nation. This elusive dream will degenerate into a nightmarish failure if our policymakers and implementors fail to contain with alacrity the inordinately huge population growth rate which impacts adversely on all the indicators of human development like health, education, food security, shelter, employment and the environment.
Ranked as the “12th Most Populous Country”, the Philippines is projected to reach a citizen pool of 88.7 million this year. Young dependents belonging to age group 0 to 14 years comprise 34.28 percent of the total population. Old dependents (65 years and over) account for 4.20 percent, while 61.52 percent comprise the economically active population (15 to 64 years). Majority of the working class reside in rural areas, eking out a livelihood principally in agriculture and also in forestry, mining, fishing and other traditional non-farm enterprises. Others seek better opportunities in metropolitan areas, which results in more densely populated urban centers. An estimated nine million Filipinos have already gone overseas.
The story of the state of the Philippine population is a limited tale of affluence and a vast account of poverty. This is dreadfully clear in the proportion of income earned by the richest and the poorest sectors of society. The ADB (2005) reports that “in 2003 the share of income accruing to the richest 10 percent of the population was still more than twenty times the share of income of the poorest 10 percent. Since 1985 the richest quintile of the population has consistently commanded more than 50 percent of total family income in the country, with the poorest quintile at less than 5 percent.”
In 2003, 23.8 million people or 30 percent of the population lived below the poverty threshold and the numbers continue to rise. Data show that 44 per cent of the population subsisted on US$2 or less per day. More than two-thirds of the poor are in the rural areas and dependent on agriculture. Low levels of agricultural productivity and limited opportunities for off-farm employment are factors of rural poverty (Australia DFAT, 2007).
Many development schools assert that a rapidly ballooning population exacerbates pre-existing low levels of human development and make the raising of living standards a more challenging, if not daunting, task.
This framework paper does not intend to reinvent the human development wheel. What it aims to do is to underscore the critical part played by population growth in the pursuit of human development. Policymakers will be unable to address the problem of underdevelopment and its attendant features of disease, hunger, ignorance, unemployment and poverty if they fail to tackle head on and incorporate population and reproductive health issues in policies and programs relating to genuine and sustainable human development plans.
Philippine Economic Development: The Bleak Story So Far
The 2006 Human Development Report places the Philippines, the world’s third largest Roman Catholic nation, at rank 84 out of 177 countries. The 2000 edition of the report ranked the Philippines at 77 out of 174 countries and 66 out of 130 countries in the 1990 release. This is a deteriorating trend.
Floundering Economy, Burgeoning Population: The economy has performed modestly through the years from a 0.6 percent decline in 1998, GDP expanded by 2.4 percent in 1999, and 4.4 percent in 2000, accelerated to about 5 percent between 2002 and 2005 and to 5.6 percent in 2006. Analysts however point out that a higher, sustained growth path is needed to significantly alleviate poverty given the Philippines' high annual population growth rate and unequal distribution of income (CIA World Factbook 2006). The effect of the recent modest improvements in growth rates on per capita income has been all but neutralized, if not eroded, by unrelenting population increase.
The absence of an unequivocal and comprehensive legislative national policy on population and development has rendered the country’s reproductive health and human development programs tentative and inconsistent. Unfortunately, as pointed out by the Australian Agency for International Development, the “lack of a national commitment to improving the provision of family planning services further impedes income growth and poverty reduction. The current population growth rate of around 2.3 percent a year is well above the region’s average and places strains on basic health, education and infrastructure services” (AusAID, 2007).
Fiscal Constraints and Debt Threats: Admittedly, the country’s debt burden is less heavy today than it was during the crisis years 1983 and 1991. However, it remains to be heavy and crisis-vulnerable. It continues to crowd out provisions for basic social services and infrastructure development from the national budget. The disproportionately large appropriation for debt service has not only inordinately constricted budgetary allocation for basic social services, but it has derailed economic growth.
The still crippling debt burden aggravates the adverse effects of an inordinately escalating population on the pursuit of genuine and sustainable human development.
Population Momentum: Although the country’s population growth rate has started to decline, population size is still increasing. This is due to a demographic condition called “population momentum”. As Cory Raymundo explains, this phenomenon is accounted for by the fact that “our history of fast growth in the past makes it difficult for us to put a brake in the large annual increments into the population”. In other words, population momentum has “virtually assured” the Philippines “of substantial population increases, whatever happens to fertility levels” (Todaro 1994). Herrin and Castelo (1996) in their study Sources of Future Population Growth in the Philippines and Implication for Public Policy reported that of the estimated increase of 37.1 million in population from 1995 to 2020, 66.3 percent will be due to population momentum, 18.1 percent to high family size preferences, and 15.6 percent to unwanted fertility.
To mitigate the effects of “population momentum”, there is need for a more dramatic decline in population growth rate.
High Dependency Doldrums: Moreover, the gravity of the Philippine population problem is more pronounced as one examines the age structure. The country’s fast population growth rate has produced a young population structure. Median age is 21 years which means that half of the population is below 21 years old. What are the implications?
A large number of dependent children make it more difficult for those who are working to support those who are not (Todaro 1994). The country’s current dependency ratio is nearly 1:1 but if the number of students and the unemployed are considered, the real dependency burden is 1:2 or 3. This means that for every one productive person, there are two or three dependents that he or she must take care of. In developed economies, dependency burden is at 3 or 2:1 (Tomas Osias, POPCOM).
Many Filipinos, even those who are of working age, contribute to the dependency burden on their families due to difficulties in finding a job. Based on NSO data, as of April 2007 the unemployment rate is 7.4% (2,691,000 without work out of a total labor force of 36,397,000) and 18.9% underemployment rate (6,381,000). An estimated four million people of working age enter the labor force every year but not all of them find employment while others are forced to accept jobs that do not match their training and education. At the other end, high-age dependency ratio absorbs much of personal spending on basic goods and services of household income leaving hardly any amount for savings even as it hampers economic activity because government resources tend to be focused on rendering social services.
Establishing the Population-Human Development Nexus: Many scholars and analysts in the field of development economics have long recognized that “reducing population growth rates in developing countries is absolutely essential to achieve visible improvements in human development levels.” The POPCOM, in its "Population Policy Statement" issued way back in April 1987 calls for “a broadening of population concerns beyond fertility reduction to include concerns about family formation, the status of women, maternal and child health, child survival, morbidity and mortality, population distribution and urbanization, internal and international migration, and population structure.” All of these population-related factors contribute to the enhancement or derailment of human development.
The Human Development Consequences of a Burgeoning Population
Population and Poverty: There is clear evidence that enabling people to have fewer children helps to stimulate development and reduce poverty, both in individual households and at the macro-economic level. Recent research conducted by the UNFPA supports the premise that having many (and unplanned) children imposes a heavy burden on the poor, while smaller families have higher upward economic mobility.
An escalating population growth rate due to high fertility impedes development in a variety of ways. The WHO Commission on Macroeconomics and Health noted in 2001, “rapid rural population growth in particular puts enormous stress on the physical environment and on food productivity as land-labour ratios in agriculture decline. Desperately poor peasants are then likely to crowd cities, leading to very high rates of urbanization, with additional adverse consequence in congestion and in declining urban capital per person.”
High fertility increases maternal and child mortality and abortion rates; reduces available resources that could be dedicated to education and health services for the family; increases the chances that women will not be able to finish their education and diminishes their opportunities for remunerative work; and intensifies the incidence of malnutrition in children.
In their paper entitled “Population and Poverty–the Real Score”, economists from the UP School of Economics compared the population growth rates and poverty incidences of the Philippines, Thailand and Indonesia. The PGR of these three countries were similar in the 1970s but more than a quarter of a century later, the Philippines’ PGR is still a sizeable 2.34% while that of Thailand and Indonesia are at a modest 1.4% and 1.5%, respectively.
An even more important finding is how poverty incidence in these countries is linked to population policy and good governance. While Thailand’s poverty incidence is down to 9.8% and Indonesia’s is at 18.2%, the Philippines’ poverty incidence is at a whopping 34%. This suggests that Thailand, which scored best on all factors, succeeded in improving its economy through a combination of a good population policy and good governance. While Indonesia, which ranked even worse than the Philippines in terms of corruption, managed to lower considerably its poverty incidence despite bad governance because it had a strong population policy.
What is unmistakable about this data is that rapid population growth greatly intensifies poverty even while it aggravates and even abets inequality.
A Ballooning PGR Impacts Negatively on Employment: Economists are convinced that there are links between high fertility and resulting population growth to persistent poverty and wage stagnation in developing countries. In countries experiencing rapidly growing population, and thus growing dependency ratios, the influx of young people into the job market exceeded the jobs created.
Because of disproportionately high levels of fertility among the lowest income groups in developing countries, population growth is likely to depress wages at the bottom end of the pay scale (World Bank, 1993).
Rapid population growth expands labor supply that will translate into either a decline in wages or an increase in unemployment if there is no commensurate increase in employment opportunities (Orbeta and Pernia, 1999). Developing countries in which population growth eases through declines in birthrates will be more likely to increase per capita economic growth rates and will have more time to generate needed jobs (National Research Council, Population Growth and Economic Development: Policy Questions).
An Uncontrolled PGR Impacts Negatively on Investments in Physical Assets and Savings: Research by Orbeta and Pernia show the negative impact of rapid population growth on savings: “Low savings means limited ability to finance investments which are key ingredients in economic growth. While Thailand and Indonesia have been saving at around 35% of GDP in recent years, the Philippines can only muster a savings rate of around 20%. The Philippine investment rate (as a percentage to GDP) is only around 25% compared to 40% and 44%, respectively, for Indonesia and Thailand. This explains a great deal of the country’s comparatively mediocre economic growth.”
There is an obvious link between fertility and national savings rates. Studies document evidence that declining fertility stimulates savings (Kenneth H. Kang, International Economic Journal 8, No. 4 (1994): 99-111; Kelley and Schmidt).
A Growing PGR Impacts Negatively on Health, Education and Wellbeing: The doctor to patient ratio set down by the WHO is 1:10,000. In the Philippines it is 1:20,000 and is estimated to even reach 1:30,000. Our maternal mortality of 172 deaths for every 100,000 live births is one of the highest in Asia (NDHS 2003). Forty three percent of all pregnant women in the Philippines give birth without assistance from a doctor, nurse or midwife (DOH). Girls 15-19 years old are not only twice as likely to die during pregnancy and childbirth; babies born to these women are also more likely to die before they can celebrate their 5th birthdays.
A growing PGR also adversely affects the ability of government to provide quality and accessible education to an ever-increasing number of children. The student-teacher ratio in the country of 45:1 (DepEd 2006) is alarming if compared with Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand which all have a ratio of 25 to 30 students per teacher. We have a shortage of 29,321 classrooms; 16,390 teachers; 30.6 million textbooks; and 1.62 million school furniture units (DepEd 2006). However, education statistics from the Ayala Foundation as of 2005 pegs the classroom shortage at 58,000; the shortage of desks and chairs at 2 million and the teacher shortage at 21,000.
The ability to plan the number and spacing of childbirths can dramatically affect household economic wellbeing through improved maternal and child health, and more productive use of time, human energy and income (World Bank 1993).
Research conducted in developing countries demonstrates that children in large families tend to be less nourished, which can undermine school performance and future earnings potential [Lloyd, Population Council Working Paper, no. 63 1994; and Wolfe and Behrman, Journal of Development Economics 11 (1982): 163-193].
Economists conclude that parents with fewer offspring are able to invest more in each child than those with larger families. Studies show also that, on the average, children from smaller families attain higher levels of schooling (Lloyd, 1994).
A Runaway PGR Impacts Negatively on the Environment: Because population grows exponentially, it took the human race 18 centuries to hit the one billion mark, one century to reach its second billion and just over a decade to reach its third billion.
Given our current fertility trends, natural resources are under increasing pressure and this poses a serious threat to public health and development. Air and water pollution, water shortages, soil depletion, deforestation and degradation of oceans and coastlines afflict many areas. Improving living standards without compromising an already fragile ecosystem will become a virtually insurmountable challenge if population growth rates continue to grow unchecked.
As far back as the late 1980s, it was documented by DENR that close to 20 million lowlanders have encroached upon the upland regions and forests of the country for lack of viable employment opportunities and housing prospects. This places at risk of permanent despoliation thousands of hectares of woodland and non-agricultural lands because of increased and often reckless human behavior.
Uncontrolled population growth greatly strains our finite resources and fragile ecosystems. It should be emphasized that policies that focus solely on biodiversity conservation will certainly be inadequate in halting biodiversity losses and destruction of natural resources unless population and development concerns are also adequately addressed.
Reproductive Health Rights Are Human Rights
I have long asserted that reproductive health is not an issue about sex or religion. Reproductive health is foremost an issue about health and rights. Protecting, promoting and fulfilling the reproductive health rights of women are essentially social justice and human rights issues.
Although the reproductive health rights of men should not be ignored, it is the women who bear the burden of pregnancy and childbirth and thus they should be central to policies on reproductive health because their health and lives are at stake.
Various health hazards suffered by women can be considered injustices and violations of their human rights. Maternal mortality is a frightening example of this injustice because in a country like the Philippines, the miracle of life means death for 10 mothers each day.
Women are generally neglected in education, given menial social roles and are valued primarily for their capacity to bear children. This low status of women leads to the dilution, if not outright denial, of some of their most basic human rights – such as access to information, education, quality healthcare and family planning services and their right to make informed decisions that will affect their health and wellbeing.
Minimizing Population Growth to Maximize Human Development Potentials
The foregoing are compelling socio-economic reasons to moderate population growth if we want to achieve our utmost human development potentials. The consensus now among economists and demographers is that a comprehensive, well-defined, rights-based and sufficiently-funded population management program should be an integral component of any human development plan.
The irrefutable and self-evident link between population and human development must impel and compel the State to fulfill its mandate to protect and uphold the people’s inalienable right to development.
Rapid population growth exacerbates poverty and intensifies the difficulty experienced by government in providing the basic needs of citizens. Data from the NSO and NSCB consistently show that the percentage of the poor grow more rapidly than the non-poor sector because poor families have more children more often. And because children coming from poor families are more likely to be unhealthy and lack education, family size becomes a significant factor in keeping families poor across generations.
The Missing Link In Our Development Policies
Population and poverty are intertwined in a vicious cycle. Excessive population growth exacerbates poverty while poverty spawns rapid population growth. They are the negative tandem in what economists and demographers call the “low level equilibrium trap”.
There is critical urgency for government intervention to liberate the country from this vicious cycle, from this oppressive trap. A consistent, coherent and rights-based population policy as embodied in HB 17 or the “Reproductive Health, Responsible Parenthood and Population Development Act of 2007” will break this vicious cycle and propel our people towards socio-economic development.
Decades of research demonstrate the central role played by population and reproductive health in achieving sustainable human development. Verily, sound economic policies should be coupled with responsible and responsive population and reproductive health policies.
HB 17 does not claim to be a cure-all for the poverty, ignorance, disease and hunger that have long hindered socio-economic development in the Philippines. Its goals are far more realistic. What it aims to accomplish is the improvement of maternal and infant health; the reduction in the number of abortions by reducing the number of unplanned, mistimed and unwanted pregnancies; the provision of accurate information on all forms of family planning methods from the natural to the modern; and the creation of an enabling environment for women and couples to make an informed choice regarding the family planning method that is best suited to their needs and personal convictions.
Couples who have access to reproductive health information and family planning services are assured of their right to reproductive self-determination. Women who can plan and space their pregnancies and will enjoy better health, have more opportunities for education and employment and can thus enhance their social and economic status and that of their families.
It is without a doubt that a rational and comprehensive national policy on population and reproductive health is the crucial missing link in government’s human development plans. Let us not allow our development programs to exclude this vital and indispensable factor that will most certainly spell the difference between the success or failure of these programs.