World at 7 Billion: Perspective on the Philippines

Following Professor Winnie Monsod’s excellent presentation of the relatively balanced implications of the World at 7 Billion for the developed and developing parts of planet earth, I’m sorry to be the bearer of sad tidings about our own country. But mind you, my purpose is not to talk about sad news for its own sake (which to most of you are no longer news anyway) but rather to pose them once again as a challenge, perhaps ad nauseam.

Owing to the absence of a clear population policy (reproductive health/family planning program) in addition to just modest economic growth since the 1970s, the Philippines has sadly fallen way behind its original ASEAN neighbors (Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia) in terms of both demographic and economic indicators (Tables 1 and 2).

Sadder still, without an unequivocal and resolute population policy (or RH/FP program) effectively and operationally in place, our country is likely to be overtaken even by its newer and poorer ASEAN neighbors (Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos) in a few years time due to their faster-falling fertility and higher investment rates that bode well for faster per capita GDP growth and poverty reduction [investment rates (GDIs) are also shown in Table 2].

Serious research tells us that bad governance, weak economic growth, high wealth and income inequality are the main factors that explain poverty and hunger. But rapid population growth — i.e., high fertility, especially among the poor due to their lack of access to effective RH/FP services — does exacerbate poverty and inequality, making it harder for government and society to deal with it. (Comparative inequality indicators by country are shown in the last column of Table 2.)

Thus, P-Noy’s oft-repeated slogan “Kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap” seems a great oversimplification. True, corruption is a grave social malaise in our country, but it cannot be the sole focus of development policy. Many of our Asian neighbors have also had serious corruption problems but they’ve managed to rapidly progress nonetheless, having adequately addressed their population problem, among other concerns.

Poverty incidence in the Philippines has been increasing, not decreasing, from 24.4 percent in 2003 to 26.4 percent in 2006 and to 26.5 percent in 2009 despite average GDP growth of 4.0-4.5 percent over that period. The 2.1 percent points rise in incidence (equivalent to 3.6 million more poor people) from 2003 to 2009 was largely (numerically) accounted for by high fertility among the poorest quintile who are (involuntarily) increasing at roughly double the national average growth rate. [SWS surveys show self-rated poverty has oscillated around 50 percent (it was 49 percent in March 2011)]. Persistent high fertility among the poor owing to lack of access to effective RH/FP services exacerbates poverty and hunger.

NSO (National Statistics Office) official data show that the larger the family size, the higher the poverty incidence, and this pattern has not changed over the past 24 years (1985-2009). In fact, poverty incidence among families with fewer children has fallen while that among households with many children has risen. Further, NSO data show that the poorer the household, the higher the “unwanted” number of children resulting from unplanned or mistimed pregnancies. This is because the poor lack access to (or cannot afford) modern and effective FP services, i.e., large unmet need for such services — which is tantamount to social injustice.

There are important interactions (feedback effects) between and among governance, economic growth, income inequality, and population growth. For instance, as shown earlier by Thailand and Indonesia and more recently by Bangladesh, faster economic growth or lower poverty initially triggered by an effective RH/FP program leads to further decreases in fertility as women take advantage of employment opportunities and demand more RH/FP services. A classic case of “supply creates its own demand,” according to Say’s law in economics.

Such interaction effects suggest the importance of addressing population, poverty, economic growth, and governance together for best results, i.e., rapid and sustained employment creation, poverty reduction, and hunger elimination.

Critics of population policy (or the RH bill) do not seem to appreciate the fact, among others, that hunger is not simply a supply-side (production) concern but also a demand-side (population growth —> consumption) problem. Slowing population growth or reducing fertility rates assisted by an RH/FP program in addition to good governance, faster economic growth, and reduced inequality will result in higher living standards and dignity for the poor which — undoubtedly — will also be good for Philippine society as a whole. –Ernesto M. Pernia (The Philippine Star)