Population and poverty
Population and poverty
Updated 00:54am (Mla time) Nov 20, 2004
By Rina Jimenez-David
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A15 of the November 20, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
TO CAP a forum on population and poverty held at the Senate Thursday, Sen. Rodolfo Biazon, who co-chairs the Philippine Legislators Committee on Population and Development (PLCPD), told the story of a widow with five children, the eldest of whom was just seven at the time of her husband's death.
Barely able to provide for herself and her children after her husband, a baker, passed away, the widow was forced to choose who among her children could get a college education, and ended up choosing only two, "whom maybe she recognized as having more gray matter between their ears." But even poverty could not deter the other children from achieving their own dreams. One of the "excluded" three decided to work to earn money for tuition. He left home and lived with relatives in the city, studying and working as a laundry boy, accepting washing chores from students in nearby colleges. The hardworking young man was then able to enter the Philippine Military Academy and carved out a career for himself in the Marines. After serving a stint as AFP chief of staff, he went on to forge a new career in politics.
He is, of course, Senator Biazon himself.
The senator was moved to tell the story mainly in response to contentions made at the forum that a large family does not necessarily doom a family to poverty. While his story might prove the contention right, Biazon asked everyone to "think of the pain such a situation creates." When parents have more children than they have the resources or ability to raise properly, he said, the whole family suffers.
* * *
IT was Dr. Roberto de Vera, of the School of Economics of the University of Asia and the Pacific, who challenged the links that population management adherents have made between population size and poverty. The title of his presentation said it all: "Too Many People Doesn't Cause Poverty, Bad Governance and Policies Do."
De Vera mentioned eight "assertions" made by population management proponents and then set out to debunk each of them. One was that "higher population densities lead to lower incomes per person." He compared the population density of the Philippines with those of Hong Kong, Singapore and South Korea, all of which are denser with less natural resources but which report higher average per capita income.
The economics professor asserted that "there is no causation between population growth and economic decline." While "there may be a link," he said, population growth cannot be said to be "guilty" of causing poverty. When people argue that the Philippine population is growing too fast for the government to cope with the demand for basic services, De Vera said they are missing the point because what is needed is not fewer births but rather "good governance and well-implemented economic policies." He said the "classroom gap," for instance, could be closed in an instant if only the estimated P132 billion a year lost to corruption were recovered.
* * *
MY main beef with De Vera's presentation was that he was setting up a "straw man," simplifying an argument so he could take potshots at it.
To be fair, economists calling for a more rational and indeed aggressive population management policy have never said that population size or growth alone lies at the root of our economy's underperformance and the country's entrenched poverty. I remember one study by a team from the UP School of Economics that put the "impact" of population growth on development at 20 percent.
De Vera takes an argument raised by those taking the opposite position then looks for evidence that would contradict it. For instance, on the assertion that "larger families are poorer," De Vera admits that national figures do support this contention but looks for other possible causes for the poverty of families. He finds this in a table that shows that families where the "head of family" has not finished high school are poorer than families headed by a parent/s who at least had a secondary education.
Well, duh. Of course, families whose income-earners have only rudimentary education will be poorer because they will be able to find only work that pays poorly. But if, say, a father who didn't finish high school had only two children, it could be safe to say that those two children would at least be better fed, better clothed and better educated than if they had to share their father's meager income with, say, four other siblings.
If we accept De Vera's method of reasoning, then we could also offer other factors for a family's poverty, including a parent's vices, such as gambling or drugs.
* * *
PRESENTING the other side of the picture was Dr. Nimfa Ogena, director of the UP Population Institute, who cited longitudinal data (that is, gathered across a number of years) that showed that indeed "vulnerability to poverty increases with increasing family size."
She also cited a study made by UP economists, Dr. Ernesto Pernia among them, that compares the patterns of economic development and population growth of the Philippines and Thailand, which in the 1970s stood at fairly equal levels in terms of population size and economic performance. Today, Thailand enjoys double the Philippines' economic growth rate while the Philippines reports double the population growth rate of Thailand.
The UP study also projected economic scenarios of "what could have been" had the Philippines followed the Thai model of population management. If we had followed the Thai model, said Ogena, the Philippines could be saving as much as P52 billion on health care costs, and as much as P128 billion on education.
As Biazon reminded the audience: "Think of the pain."
Updated 00:54am (Mla time) Nov 20, 2004
By Rina Jimenez-David
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A15 of the November 20, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
TO CAP a forum on population and poverty held at the Senate Thursday, Sen. Rodolfo Biazon, who co-chairs the Philippine Legislators Committee on Population and Development (PLCPD), told the story of a widow with five children, the eldest of whom was just seven at the time of her husband's death.
Barely able to provide for herself and her children after her husband, a baker, passed away, the widow was forced to choose who among her children could get a college education, and ended up choosing only two, "whom maybe she recognized as having more gray matter between their ears." But even poverty could not deter the other children from achieving their own dreams. One of the "excluded" three decided to work to earn money for tuition. He left home and lived with relatives in the city, studying and working as a laundry boy, accepting washing chores from students in nearby colleges. The hardworking young man was then able to enter the Philippine Military Academy and carved out a career for himself in the Marines. After serving a stint as AFP chief of staff, he went on to forge a new career in politics.
He is, of course, Senator Biazon himself.
The senator was moved to tell the story mainly in response to contentions made at the forum that a large family does not necessarily doom a family to poverty. While his story might prove the contention right, Biazon asked everyone to "think of the pain such a situation creates." When parents have more children than they have the resources or ability to raise properly, he said, the whole family suffers.
* * *
IT was Dr. Roberto de Vera, of the School of Economics of the University of Asia and the Pacific, who challenged the links that population management adherents have made between population size and poverty. The title of his presentation said it all: "Too Many People Doesn't Cause Poverty, Bad Governance and Policies Do."
De Vera mentioned eight "assertions" made by population management proponents and then set out to debunk each of them. One was that "higher population densities lead to lower incomes per person." He compared the population density of the Philippines with those of Hong Kong, Singapore and South Korea, all of which are denser with less natural resources but which report higher average per capita income.
The economics professor asserted that "there is no causation between population growth and economic decline." While "there may be a link," he said, population growth cannot be said to be "guilty" of causing poverty. When people argue that the Philippine population is growing too fast for the government to cope with the demand for basic services, De Vera said they are missing the point because what is needed is not fewer births but rather "good governance and well-implemented economic policies." He said the "classroom gap," for instance, could be closed in an instant if only the estimated P132 billion a year lost to corruption were recovered.
* * *
MY main beef with De Vera's presentation was that he was setting up a "straw man," simplifying an argument so he could take potshots at it.
To be fair, economists calling for a more rational and indeed aggressive population management policy have never said that population size or growth alone lies at the root of our economy's underperformance and the country's entrenched poverty. I remember one study by a team from the UP School of Economics that put the "impact" of population growth on development at 20 percent.
De Vera takes an argument raised by those taking the opposite position then looks for evidence that would contradict it. For instance, on the assertion that "larger families are poorer," De Vera admits that national figures do support this contention but looks for other possible causes for the poverty of families. He finds this in a table that shows that families where the "head of family" has not finished high school are poorer than families headed by a parent/s who at least had a secondary education.
Well, duh. Of course, families whose income-earners have only rudimentary education will be poorer because they will be able to find only work that pays poorly. But if, say, a father who didn't finish high school had only two children, it could be safe to say that those two children would at least be better fed, better clothed and better educated than if they had to share their father's meager income with, say, four other siblings.
If we accept De Vera's method of reasoning, then we could also offer other factors for a family's poverty, including a parent's vices, such as gambling or drugs.
* * *
PRESENTING the other side of the picture was Dr. Nimfa Ogena, director of the UP Population Institute, who cited longitudinal data (that is, gathered across a number of years) that showed that indeed "vulnerability to poverty increases with increasing family size."
She also cited a study made by UP economists, Dr. Ernesto Pernia among them, that compares the patterns of economic development and population growth of the Philippines and Thailand, which in the 1970s stood at fairly equal levels in terms of population size and economic performance. Today, Thailand enjoys double the Philippines' economic growth rate while the Philippines reports double the population growth rate of Thailand.
The UP study also projected economic scenarios of "what could have been" had the Philippines followed the Thai model of population management. If we had followed the Thai model, said Ogena, the Philippines could be saving as much as P52 billion on health care costs, and as much as P128 billion on education.
As Biazon reminded the audience: "Think of the pain."
posted by Dante at 12:54 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home