Global Health Policy
« The Wisest Investment We Can Make: Using Schools to Fight Neglected Tropical Diseases | Main | Name That AIDS Program: And the Winner Is... »
February 25, 2008
Population (Still) Matters
Posted by Rachel Nugent at 11:25 AM
In an op-ed for the New York Times, Professor Jared Diamond points to consumption differentials between rich and poor countries as the factor responsible for our global sustainability crisis. Diamond says we are running out of resources, and will do so all the faster as developing countries try to "catch up" with rich country consumption levels. While this is true, it is bewildering that Diamond dismisses population as a factor in the path toward global unsustainability, as well as potentially a policy lever for slowing our progression down that path.
Diamond says, "The population especially of the developing world is growing, and some people remain fixated on this. They note that populations of countries like Kenya are growing rapidly, and they say that's a big problem. Yes, it is a problem for Kenya's more than 30 million people, but it's not a burden on the whole world, because Kenyans consume so little."
He further says we should be concerned about what happens when Kenyans (and other developing world people) achieve developed country consumption levels, and all of us - rich and poor countries alike - should seek ways to improve quality of life with sustainable consumption levels. Population does not get another mention.
Pointing to high consumption as the cause of unsustainability without also addressing population is like saying that only SUVs cause road congestion! In that case, there should be no reason for concern in India about traffic jams (and emissions) from the new 1 lakh Tata Motors car.
Of course, as with traffic congestion, numbers of people do matter, as does size. And we won't come close to solving global warming, or broader issues of resource sustainability, if we don't address both numbers of people and consumption levels.
The number of people in the world (and their distribution and ages) affect overall consumption directly; and through a variety of indirect channels, affect other economic outcomes that have a bearing on sustainability. This includes GDP (with links to population through labor supply, savings, and human capital investment) and its distribution. It is population's effect on these variables, and how to achieve desired levels of population growth at the micro level (reducing unwanted births) and the macro level (realizing demographic dividends) that we must understand better and communicate to professors and policymakers alike.
In their 2001 volume, Birdsall, Sinding, and Kelley offer convincing but not well-known evidence that slower population growth does improve economic outcomes. More recently, new research is being supported by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation aimed at deepening our understanding of how population affects economic outcomes by using new analytical methods that help overcome data deficiencies and new and expanded datasets that invite the application of new methods. The research is focused on Africa.
In partnership with the Institute of International Education, the Hewlett Foundation is inviting applications from Ph.D. students based in the U.S., Canada, and Africa for fellowships to support their work on population and economic linkages. The deadline for applications is April 1, 2008 (for U.S. applicants). The two-year-old fellowship program has already engaged some of the best and brightest Ph.D. students in economics and other social sciences to help us understand how population policies can be part of the solution to the sustainability problem.
Trackback Ping
TrackBack URL for this entry:
/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1104
Comments
The point which the author of the post seemed to make great efforts to miss is that while population can be a factor in development and sustainability outcomes, the more decisive factor is the manner in which our societies are organized to utlize nature and relate to one another.
So, a planet with 6billion plus people can either be socially organized in a manner much more sustainable and in accord with ecosystem limits, or it can be organized to mimic the lifestyles of the rich and infamous nations. Similarly, a planet with far fewer people, could still cause massive environmental harm if we are not conscious about how we organize our societies and our relationships to the natural world. Since these relationships are most evident in our patterns of production and consumption it requires a greater amout of scrutiny to these matters, rather than taking the path of least resistance and focusing on the reproduction choices [or lack there of] of millions of poor women of color around the world simply because they are the more amendable component to the process. Remember, American lifestyles are not up for negotiation it was once said, but poor women in developing nations who already lack just control over their reproduction are now having their childbearing be the topic of conversation and policy mandates of uppermiddle class development professionals a world away.
And contrary to the Birdsall et al paper, there is little empirical evidence, that reduction of population growth leads to widespread poverty reduction and human development. Pakistan and Bangladesh are two examples of countries with very different population policies yet similar rates of human poverty. [Bangladesh actually slightly higher rates according to UNDP HDR data.]
Examples can be given to prove the opposite as well, however nothing conclusive. What is more probable according to the evidence is that improving human development across society will lead to 'natural' demographic shifts and lowering fertility rates, which explains the persistence of high fertility among socially marginalized and impoverished groups in high-income countries such as the US contrary to the national trend.
So I hope CGDev can spare us the redux of Hardin's "life boat ethics" in the future. High income nations have to learn to put themselves under the same scrutiny they would rather reserve for the rest of the world.
Posted by: Khalil Tian Shahyd at February 26, 2008 11:03 AM
Policies supporting voluntary family planning, the path of least resistance Mr. Shahyd refers to above, remains of crucial importance to women around the world. Why should women in poor countries have to wait for demographic shifts to access contraception and services?
Posted by: Rose Reis at March 13, 2008 10:36 AM
The ability to achieve the demographic shifts implies that contraception and reproductive health services are made available, as these will be necessary components to achieve lower population growth.
No argument there....
Posted by: Khalil Tian Shahyd at March 18, 2008 10:06 AM