The Age Old Question

Which is the bigger problem?

Which is the bigger problem?

Will unchecked population growth destroy a country? – Take a look at these 3 cities

15,000

70,000

500,000

2,300,000

30,000

500,000

1,700,000

3,300,000

2.2 mil

6 mil

12 mil

25 mil

Will unchecked population growth destroy a country? – Did these

places survive?

1750 15,000

1801 70,000

1861 500,000

1911 2,300,000

1850 30,000

1880 500,000

1900 1,700,000

1930 3,300,000

1975 2.2 mil

1990 6 mil

2005 12 mil

2025 25 mil

Will unchecked population growth destroy a country? - or was it more

like thrive?Manchester,

England

1750 15,000

1801 70,000

1861 500,000

1911 2,300,000

Chicago

1850 30,000

1880 500,000

1900 1,700,000

1930 3,300,000

Dhaka, Bangladesh

1975 2,173,000

1990 6 mil

2005 12 mil

2025 25 mil

Malthus

• 1798 – An Essay on the Principles of Population: warned the world’s population was increasing exponentially and food supplies were growing linearly

• Therefore, the population was outgrow food.

Neo-Malthusians• Malthus was wrong – He did not account

for new farming techniques and food preservation.

• Neo-Malthusians believe – overpopulation is a problem which must be

addressed– Rapid population growth is a serous diversion

of scarce resources– Governments should sponsor programs to

reduce birth rates• So Malthus is only sort-of wrong?

Eugenics Population Policies

• Designed to favor one racial or cultural sector– Nazi Germany– United States of America – NC

• Was not about controlling the quantity of people, but the quality of people

Cornucopians

• 1980s American Economists believe– Population growth is a stimulus to

development– Technology has increased the carrying

capacity• Boserup Thesis –

– Population increases necessitate increased inputs of labor and technology to compensate for reduced yields

Anti-Natalist vs Pro-Natalist • Malthus & Neo-

Malthusians• Encourage family

planning• Overpopulation is a

problem

• Cornucopians & Boserup

• Human ingenuity & technology will increase carrying capacity

• Overpopulation is not a problem

Which is the bigger problem?

It depends on the country?

Restrictive Policies• Aka Anti-natalists – encourage family planning

(birth control)• China (starting 1971) • Bolivia• Vietnam• Ethiopia• Singapore• Malaysia• Bangladesh – TFR: 1981 – 6, 2000 – 2.9• Thailand – TFR: 1969 – 6.5, 2005 – 1.7

Expansive Policies

• Also known as pro-natalists – encourage large families– Nazi Germany – Soviet Union– Mao’s China – Ceausescu’s Romania– People’s Republic of Albania – Bulgaria – Mongolia

• Some countries awarding medals for Mothers of 4, or 5, or 10, etc.

Expansive Policies

• Russia – – Sept. 12 Conception Day in Ulyanovsk

Province• Sweden –

– 1980s – couples with small children received tax incentives, job leaves, work flexibility for 8 years

– Early 1990s – mini baby boom– However, in mid-1990s the economy slowed

and so did the baby boom

China

• Still growing at about 7 million a year

• But India is expected to pass China in 2025

• Population: both Greatest Asset and Liability

• Several of China’s demographic traits are similar to those of developed countries

China Compared to the US Source: PRB, 2009

China US• Total pop (mid-2009)1,331.4 306.8• Density (pop/mi2) 360 83• Birth rate 12 14• Death rate 7 8• TFR 1.6 2.1• Infant mortality 21 6.6• Life expectancy m. 71, f. 75 m.75, f.80• % Urban 46 79• % of pop > 65 yrs 8 13• Per capita GNI ppp $6,020 $46,970

West China

East China

Land 60% 40%

Climate Arid / semi-arid

humid

Population 80 milMany minorities sparse

94% mostly Handense

Cities Some Most

Agriculture Limited / oasis

most

Pre-Policy

• Traditional culture values large families

• In the early 1950s under the rule of Mao Zedong birth control policies were condemned. Mao said that controlling the population was “a way of slaughtering the Chinese people without drawing blood.”

• “…[the people] are the most precious of all categories of capital.”

Later, Longer, Fewer

• A campaign launched in 1971

• Delayed marriage/childbirth, spacing births at 5-year intervals, and fewer children per couple

• Contraceptives widely distributed, free of charge

• Require government permission to have children

• Family Planning Committees at all levels of governments– “Birth control nannies”– Intrusive questions

“One Couple, One Child”

• Adopted in 1979• The harshest birth control policy in the world?• Couples are asked to pledge to having only one child

Incentives

• Free prenatal care

• Many rewards (mainly to urban residents): larger homes, larger salaries and promotions.

• Better, often free education for the only children.

• Paid maternity leave, 3-6 months, or longer

• The government generally pays for the birth control costs.

Consequences of Violation

• The official sanction is a fine, but many times much more harsh actions are taken.

• Sometimes couples are demoted or fired from their jobs.

• Those having 2nd child cannot register them and therefore they do not legally exist.

Many exceptions for second child have been introduced since 1984

Examples:• Both members of the couple are only

children• First child is disabled• For rural residents, if first child is a girl• Remarried couples• Minority couples

The Changing Demographic Landscapes

• Decline in Fertility• A Rapid Demographic Transition• Aging• A Skewed Sex Ratio• Large-scale Internal Migration

esp. rural-urban migration

Decline in Birth Rates

• TFR: 1971: 5.44 2009: 1.6• Below replacement level since 1992• Well below 1.0 in large cities (Beijing, Shanghai, etc.)

• Birth rate: 1970: 33.43‰ 2009: 12.13‰Natural growth: 1970: 25.83‰ 2009: 5.05‰

• Shanghai: negative growth 17 years in a row so far

• Significantly lowered pop growth• 1971-2009: 400 million fewer people were born

because of family planning ??

Population aging

• % 65 yrs or older:– 2000: 6%– 2009: 8%

• Elderly growing at 3.2% each year• May reach 10% at 2015, and 20% at 2035• The median age is on pace to move from

the current 32 years to 44 years by 2040.

How many missing girls are there in the under 20 categories ?

Skewed Sex Ratio

• Currently at 119:100• 3 Main Reasons:

– Son preference– Use of prenatal sex-detecting technology– Declining fertility

• In 2020, 30-40 million more young men than women

• Social repercussions“Demographic time bomb”

The “Care for Girls” ProgramLaunched in 2003

Changing Son Preference?

Urbanization Level

Iran: - Anti-natalist or pro-natalist ?

http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/398959/2/istockphoto_398959_iran.jpg

1967 – first anti-natalist policy

1979 – pro-natalist

1988 – anti-natalist

2006 – pro-natalist ?

Iran

• 1967: Start of family planning– Accelerating economic growth

• 1979: start of Islamic Revolution – promotion of contraception by

health officials banned – procreation to bolster the ranks of

“soldiers for Islam” (8 year war with Iraq)

Ayatollah Khomeini

Khomeini’s pro-natalist policy resulted in a growth rate of 3.2 %

Total fertility rate rose to 7

Iran• 1988: Khomeini reconsidered his stance due to:

– faltering economy– severe unemployment– overcrowded & polluted cities

• 1988 – 2001: national family planning program was revived– encouraged women to wait 3 – 4 years between children– discouraged childbearing for those < 18 and > 35– limit family size to 3 children by restricting maternity leave– government controlled media promoted family planning– investment in literacy (between 1970 & 2001)

• males (48% – 84%) • females (25% - 70%)**

– Total fertility rate dropped < 3 (expected to be 2 by 2010)

Iran

Iran

• 2006• "It is said that two children is enough. I oppose

this,” President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told legislators.

• "Our country has a lot of capacities. It even has the capacity for 120 million people.“

• reduction in working hours for women to allow • for more child bearing & rearing

Quebec - Pro-natalist

1950’s - one of the highest Fertility Rates in the developed world (Catholic & rural)

1987 - FR of 1.4 (1.7 Canada) & Quebec’s share of Canadian population was decreasing

1st set of incentives

•$500 for each of 1st 2 children•$3000 for each subsequent child•child care facilities improved & expanded •tax free family allowance if 2 or more children•interest free housing loans (up to $7000)

1987

19922nd set of incentives

•$500 for 1st child•$1000 for 2nd child•$6000 for each subsequent child•other benefits remained the same

1997Program ended after 10 yrs. of minimal success

Couples who have a baby within 5 years of finishing university will get 1/2 their student loan paid off.

2003 election

Parti Quebecois’

platform involved population expansion

Bernard Landry

Why do you think this offer was good for only 5 years after university ?

What group of people would be favoured by this policy ?

Since the mid-1960s, Singapore's government has attempted to control the country's rate of population growth with a mixture of publicity, exhortation, and material incentives and disincentives

Singapore - anti-natalist & pro-natalist

Singapore - anti-natalist & pro-natalist

1947 – 1957

GR = 4.4 % (doubling time = ? years)

various government & private programs

slowed until 1970’s

1969 – 1972 population disincentives

• raise cost of 3rd and subsequent children• civil servants received no paid maternity leave for 3rd +• income tax deductions for 2 only• maternity hospitals charged progressively more for each additional child• enrollment to top primary schools went to children of pre – 40 sterilized parents

•voluntary sterilization rewarded by seven days of paid sick leave and by priority in the allocation of such public goods as housing and education

•publicity campaigns: "Stop at Two" and arguing that large families threatened parents' present livelihood and future security.

•penalties affected poor more than rich

The anti-natalist policies worked so well, now Singapore is promoting births again

http://static.flickr.com/56/133361262_16edfe9ada_m.jpg

India• 1950s: government began a modest family

planning campaign– Hospitals made birth control available– Gov’t hoped increased industrialization would lead to

smaller families• 1970s: more aggressive program

– Gov’t believed growth rate was greatest obstacle to economic growth

– Questionable sterilization programs• 1980s: increased the number of family planning

programs

India

• 1991: continued to have one of the fastest growing populations

• Contributing factors– Son preference– Marrying young– Centralized gov’t controls program, doesn’t

allow for regional differences– High infant mortality rate