by Alex Roldan
Population growth is seen by many as a major concern in the Philippines. One report has it, that we have the highest rate of increase in Southeast Asia.
Newspaper reports that quoted population officials revealed, that in the four months since President Benigno Aquino III occupied Malacañang, the country has had about 500,000 more mouths to feed. That, even if each couple limits their children to two, the population will continue to grow. Today the estimated population of the Philippines is placed at 94 million.
I said it is now a major concern, because not only that we have the highest fertility rate among our neighbors, but Philippines has the highest unemployment rate, which is 8.0 percent, followed by Indonesia’s 7.9 %, Vietnam 4.6 %, Malaysia 3.7%, Cambodia 3.5% and Thailand with only 1.5%.
This is a double whammy for the government which has to find ways to feed these additional mouths in a situation where employment opportunities continue to decline.
Population growth is closely linked to fertility, which is the rate at which women produce offspring. Obviously, a nation with more than 50% of its population predominantly young, a faster population growth rate is expected.
With limited resources, a high population growth can lead to inadequate food and other amenities. However, this thought is not necessarily accurate at all times. Meaning, attempts to limit population growth can be achieved only in certain cases as population is also the strength of the country if harnessed effectively.
Thus, to me population control should not be viewed only as a drastic reduction of growth rate but should be viewed holistically – to determine why this is occurring, rather than simply finding forced solutions in trying to control the growth.
I am sure economics plays a vital role in determining population growth. Countries that are well developed tend to have lower population growth and are more urbanized, with a higher cost of living. The cost of raising a child certainly deters parents from having more than a couple of kids.
In my days as a development studies student, this was one of the most controversial issues we discussed, and it still is today. One of my classmates proposed that. to effectively control population, the cost of living should be increased – such as housing, tuitions, including basic commodities. This would, he said, discourage parents from having many children. Some were amused by this line of thinking, but to me he may have been right. However, certain conditions in the economy should be achieved first in order to lower growth rate. For example, poor communities, particularly in rural areas that have a lower cost of living, babies are their incentives as they will in time contribute greatly to the work on farms.
An economy that is only good at determining GNP growth rather than the effects of this growth to different sectors of the population could mislead policymakersto into thinking that fast population growth rate is a separate problem.
According to the paper written by Carolyn Kinder, titled The Population Explosion, scientists attribute the incredible population expansion during the 19th and 20th centuries to two major factors: improved medical and agricultural technology. People no longer died from diseases that used to plague humanity such as polio and smallpox. New farming techniques increased food production faster than increases in population. In the developing countries, population growth is expected to be high as they do not have latest farming technologies, thus, the need for more human labor is high.
There are population growth remedies that show enough success so much so that the need for experimental remedies is no longer necessary. As I stated earlier, the economic health of a nation has a direct link to fertility rates. Thailand is a good example. A study conducted by the University of Michigan showed that the country’s fertility rate dropped from six children per woman to two during the early 1990s, coinciding with the technology boom when the general populace realized that there were benefits to having fewer children. The study concluded that economic prosperity caused the natural lowering of birth rates. Meaning, boosting of national wealth can be seen as a desirable alternative to forced population control!
It is therefore futile to assert ethical or even religious disputes on the issue of high population growth rate. The real issue is whether the economic conditions in a country promotes the lowering of population growth. Why not focus on this specific question?
For comments, e-mail to: roldanalex@yahoo.com
