Reckless economic imprudence

NOW that President Benigno C. Aquino is settled in Malacañang the attention of his bosses (The People) is shifting to Congress. The Senate leadership remains a tight battle as this piece is being written. But the speakership of the House of Representatives is virtually conceded to Rep. Feliciano “Sonny” Belmonte, not only because former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo has indicated she has no interest in the position but because of the rush of representatives who were former allies of the previous administration to the ranks of the Liberal Party.

The Lakas-Kampi bloc do not appear to be serious about contesting Belmonte’s bid. They have named Rep. Edsel Lagman as their candidate. Considering that Lagman is the spirited sponsor of the controversial Reproductive Health Bill, his nomination appears to be a mere token attempt.

The Catholic Church has already asked President Aquino to clarify his stand against gambling. The population is going to be next although the appointment of La Salle Brother Armin Luistro does not augur well for sex education in schools, a major mandate of the RH Bill. And this suggests a major impact on Lagman’s bid.

And why this is so is explained by University Professor Bernardo M.Villegas of the University of the Asia and the Pacific in Beat the Odds, Another Stone for the Edifice, a legacy book of President Macapagal Arroyo.

At the outset, Dr. Villegas considers the administration of Mrs. Macapagal-Arroyo as “unique in the developing world in that it has managed to resist pressures from the population control lobby of international agencies that have targeted the Philippines for decades . . . ” The RH Bill is one of those initiatives that still pushes the Neo-Malthusian Theory which gave Economics the reputation of being a “dismal science.” Rev. Thomas Robert Malthus argues that since population increases faster than food production, mankind will always be faced with the threat of famine and other disasters arising from this.
The classic solution to this problem is population control which the RH Bill more or less boils down to contraception. Less people, more progress?

In fact, researches since then have shown that, contrary to the evident bias of studies funded or sponsored by the United Nations Population Fund or our local population-control agencies, there is no significant relation between the growth of population and the gross national product of any country
“The most comprehensive of these studies is that based on a 119-country sample [which included the Philippines]. American economists Ross Levine [World Bank] and the late David Renelt [Harvard] conclude that population growth, among other variables, does not significantly explain economic growth in the countries studied. There is very little correlation, they report, between population growth and the growth of the gross domestic product [GDP]. In plain language, population growth may or may not prejudice economic progress, depending on other conditions.”

In the Philippines corruption may be the major cause rather than population.

Villegas says that today, “some Filipino economists make a grossly unscientific statement when they hypothesize that one peso spent on population control can save eight to nine pesos in expenditures on social services. This is a perfect example of the ivory-tower reasoning of economists who use statistical tools. First, they present no hard evidence that, in the Philippines, there is a correlation between amounts spent on population control and lower birth rates. In fact, the evidence is that during the Marcos years, the money spent on the promotion of contraceptives—some P1 billion—had absolutely no impact on population growth.”

Villegas cites the experience of Pakistan as explained by Dr. Mahbub ul Huq, a UN development specialist and Pakistan’s former minister of planning and finance. “Dr. Huq pushed hard for the promotion of contraceptives during his tenure in the government of Pakistan. Today, he regrets having spent all those resources on population control: ‘If we could start again, I would invest almost everything in literacy for women.’ Dr. Haq, the father of the Human Development Index, convinced that all the distribution campaigns for contraceptives in the Third World have proved incapable of curbing demographic growth.”

But Villegas has a more compelling argument for a Christian, and Catholic, nation like the Philippines: “Even if we assume that population control programs are effective in preventing births, the conclusion that one less baby is a benefit to society in the form of savings in social services, violates a cardinal principle of welfare economics: In trying to achieve economic efficiency for the whole of society, the welfare of one cannot be sacrificed to promote the welfare of another (with the exception of redistributive polices in favor of the poor). In birth control it is the very existence of a human being that is being prevented in order to save money that can be diverted to other people. These ivory-tower economists are indeed playing God. They have the audacity to ignore the possibility that the birth they may be preventing is that of a human being who may contribute to society through his genius or creativity an amount infinitely more than the eight or nine pesos saved in social services. How reckless some economists can be.” –BENJAMIN G. DEFENSOR, Manila Times