 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |
| Population Boom or Broom? By Antonio C. Abaya March 30, 2005 Written for the Philippines Free Press, April 09 issue Opus Dei Economist Bernardo Villegas, who adheres to the ultraconservative position of the Roman Catholic Church on population management, claims that the Philippines� current population growth rate is �only� 1.94 (as per statistics, he claims, from the National Statistical Coordinating Board), and not 2.36 (as claimed by those who are alarmed at our population boom). �These statements about our population doubling are propaganda tools used by population controllers to frighten us�.All those claims that the population will double in 20 or 30 years � they are statistically false.� (Philippine Daily Inquirer, March 16). First of all, I do not know of anyone claiming that the Philippine population will double in 20 years. Villegas has built a straw man which he then beats with a broom. But a population of 84 million in 2004 and increasing by 2.36% every year, will balloon to 101.1 million by 2012, to 130.8 million by 2023, to 150.5 million by 2029, and to 169.2 million by 2034. In other words, 84 million will double to 169.2 million by 2034, or 30 years from 2004. Quod erat demonstrandum. If Villegas is right, that our current population growth rate is �only� 1.94, then our 84 million in 2004 will balloon to 101.8 million by 2014, to 130.7 million by 2027, to 149.5 million by 2034, and to 167.7 million by 2040. In other words, 84 million in 2004 will double to 167.7 million by 2040. Villegas gains six years with his �correction,� but the population will still double just the same, in 36, not 30, years. His statisticians in his University of Asia and the Pacific can confirm this. Villegas cannot sweep this under the rug with his population broom. According to the 2005 World Almanac and Book of Facts, which is a neutral source, the population growth rate of the Philippines is actually 2.03%. So our population will double in 34 or 35 years. We have to compare this with our neighbors� and rivals�, all of whom were inferior to us in economic development 40 years ago. According to the same Almanac, Singapore has a population growth rate of 0.56, China 0.61, South Korea 0.62, Taiwan 0.64, Thailand 0.91, Vietnam 1.34, Indonesia 1.49, and Malaysia 1.83. Only Malaysia comes close to us, but Malaysia has a population of only 20 million, compared to our 84 million, and its land area is bigger than ours (330,000 vs 300,000 sq kms.) Most importantly, Malaysia was able to build a broader manufacturing base than ours during the 1980s and 1990s and is therefore better able to generate more high-paying jobs than we can. So did most of our neighbors and rivals. According to the Almanac, in 2003 China exported a total of $436.1 billion worth of goods; South Korea $201.3 billion; Taiwan $143.0 billion; Singapore $142.4 billion; Malaysia $98.4 billion; Thailand $76.0 billion; Indonesia $63.9 billion; the Philippines $34.6 billion; and Vietnam $19.9 billion. Except for Vietnam, which remains largely agricultural, all our neighbors and rivals built their prosperity on the export of manufactured goods, which we failed to do, and which, coupled with their low population growth rates, translates into bigger shares of bigger economic pies for their people. In 2003, the per capita GDPs were as follows: Singapore US$23,700; Taiwan $23,400; South Korea $17,700; Malaysia $9,000; Thailand $7,400; China $5,000; the Philippines $4,600; Indonesia $3,200; and Vietnam $2,500. Villegas makes much of the fact our population density of 255 per sq. km. is much less than those of Singapore (7,223), Hong Kong (6,501), Taiwan (625) and South Korea (483). (All these numbers are his.) I am surprised that a serious economist like Villegas would take comfort from these numbers to argue for unchecked population growth rates. He should know that economic development is a function of the economic strategies followed, not of population density. Otherwise sparsely populated countries like Libya, Kazakhstan and Mongolia, or, at the other extreme, the most overcrowded like Bangladesh and Pakistan, would be among the most prosperous in the world. Villegas also argues that declining birth rates in the developed countries � like Japan, Russia, Germany, Italy, France, Scandinavia � are a source of worry for economic planners as fewer and fewer young entrants into the labor force are supporting more and more ageing pensioners with their work, from which the states derive the taxes to fund social welfare benefits. This is a real demographic worry, but it is not an argument for unchecked population growth rates. It does not follow that we should continue to multiply like tilapias because, if we were to reduce our population growth rate, 100 or 200 years from now we will run into the same problem that the Japanese and the Europeans are now facing (which they can solve through the calibrated immigration of needed workers).. Neither the Japanese nor the Europeans, it can be said with confidence, envy us for our excess population proliferating like rabbits along our railroad tracks, under our bridges and even on our city sidewalks. ***** Reactions to [email protected] or fax 824-7642. Other articles in www.tapatt.org. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Reactions to �Population Boom or Broom?� Looking back, we were something like 18 million at the end of the war in 1945 and about 40 million in 1972 when Marcos declared martial law (remember the U.S. Senator who said that the RP was populated by "40 million cowards and one son-of-a-bitch" then?). So, we have already doubled in 32 years and, for that, what do we have now: Baguio is gone, so are the Pasig River and Manila Bay. Does anyone remember Hinulugang Taktak? Last I heard, it was almost a garbage dump. Are we going to wait till an SM Mall stands in every municipality and city in the country. An SM Mall is, to my mind, the barometer of an overpopulated location. It has the segurista mentality of locating only where there is a "dagsa" of people. Villegas should be about 66 years old now ( I am 65) and our generation should precisely be the ones concerned about the degradation of our country because we can hark back to the past when Manila was sill a convivial place to live in and Baguio still smelled of pine trees and we could all enjoy a swim in Manila Bay. But not to be nostalgic about the past and to suggest that we can have more babies everyday is like saying: "Hey, there are still Tagaytay, Batanes, Palawan and Boracay to degrade". Mariano Javier, April 04, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww (Forwarded from the CePol egroup) Folks, here is an opportunity presented by our friend Antonio C. Abaya for us to check our arguments on the controversial population issue and be more or lesson the correct side. But careful folks, his "facts" may not be 100% right. Ogie, [email protected] April 04, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Mr. Abaya, I was just assigned to write an essay in my development economics class on "population and economic growth". Your article is fortuitously smack on the topic. With your permission, I would like to use some of your material. Yours, Jojo Vicencio, [email protected] April 04, 2005 MY REPLY. Permission granted as long as correct attribution is made. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony, Thanks for your comments on my criticisms of the population explosion mongers. Let me point out that the 1.6 to 1.9 growth rate I use come from the UN Population Division, a more reliable source than the World Almanac that uses secondary sources. Secondly, even assuming the growth rate is 2.03% in 2005, that figure is decelerating year after year because of the steep decline in fertility rate, even sans population management, already occurring. In 1975, the Total Fertility Rate (TFR) was 6 babies per fertile woman. Today, the TFA is 3.5 babies per fertile woman. In 2020, it will be below 2 babies because of urbanization, the education of women and late marriages. That is why, it is not statistically valid to use a static 2.03% and project population for the next 30 years. The growth rate changes every year. If you consult data from the UN Population Division, you will read a projection that sees our population peaking at 104 to 111 million in 2040. I fully agree with you that economic development is a function of economic strategies followed, not population density. This view contradicts those scaremongers who say we are overcrowded and are suffering from Standing Room Only. Lastly, the "calibrated immigration of needed workers" that developed countries will use to solve their aging crisis will precisely come from the Philippines in which the contraceptive mentality will not exist. Thanks again for your provocative comments. We can continue to disagree on our basic assumptions. Regards. Bernie Villegas, [email protected] April 04, 2005 MY REPLY. It is certainly true that population growth rates are dynamic, not static. The question is how fast or slow is ours decelerating? Without a population management policy, predominantly Muslim Malaysia�s has been hovering at 1.85-1.95 for several years. But they can afford it (because of a much smaller population, a bigger land area, and a wider industrial base), we can�t. Secondly, population growth rates decelerate as more and more couples use artificial methods of birth control, as is the case even in the predominantly Catholic countries of Western and Eastern Europe. So if these methods will become de facto the norm in our future, why oppose them now? wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mr. Abaya, I believe the reaction of Mr. Villegas is an answer to the support publicly given by a distinguished foreign visitor to the Lagman bill. Again, we see the hand of the Church beckoning a "distinguished," loyal servant to come to the aid of the master. Sometimes, I cannot help but ask myself why we are back to square one, i.e., why we have to scramble again with the people from the same institution Filipinos had fought more than a hundred years ago. When our forefathers revolted against Spain, the loudest cry was the abuses of the friars, which the Vatican never corrected and in fact tolerated even while the Americans had already taken over. Today, the friars are back, disguised in the same frock, showing off the weight of its clerical authority on what is more like a life-and-death issue for an impoverished nation. Is the Church really after the interest of the Filipinos, or is it simply fighting for its own survival? I am more inclined to take latter view. I think the Church sees contraception as a dagger aimed at its heart. I believe contraception is good for the country. By being reactionary, the Church is again "abusing" the Filipinos by misleading the faithful and blackmailing the politicians on an issue that had already been an accepted fact in most countries - the lesser mouth to feed the better. If worse comes to worse I say let the Filipinos take the religion but be gone with the priests. Perhaps, the greatest blessing that Filipinos awaits from God is to finally kick the Catholic Church out of this land. Yours very truly, Virgilio C Leynes, [email protected] April 04, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Wow � Thank you Tony. Am passing this article to my friends in San Diego, CA.. Rollie Villarba, [email protected] April 05, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Hello Mr. Abaya, This is Teresa again, reacting to your article on population. You mentioned: Neither the Japanese nor the Europeans, it can be said with confidence, envy us for our excess population proliferating like rabbits along our railroad tracks, under our bridges and even on our city sidewalks. This means you are aware that it is the poor in our country who tend to have more children. That is because they have more economic incentive for doing so. Children can help earn for the family at an early age, with minimal or no education. Contrast this to middle class families who, on average tend to have less children. You can use this same analogy for nations -- rich countries tend to have lower fertility rates than poorer ones. So what do these facts tell us? If you do a cross-section time series econometric regression on economic growth rates of countries (as dependent variable) on fertility rates and other covariates, you will see a slight negative coefficient for fertility rate. This means that there is a slight negative "correlation" between fertility rates and economic growth. But it is important to note that "correlation" does not mean "causation". This is what the anti-population growth planners are always, always missing. They think that lower fertility rates will "cause" economic growth. This is an unfounded assumption, proven false many times by history (the Industrial Revolution of England, and the initial start of economic growth in Asia). So you see, the population controllers have their causality direction wrong. Their policy is based on erroneous econometric assumptions. The poor have real economic incentives for having children. That is an economic fact. The cause of poverty in the Philippines is not "too many people", but structural weakness and corruption. This is why we need people like Mr. Chavez and Mr. Ongkiko who champion the anti-corruption cause in the legal arena, and people like you to write about these corruption issues. There are many other angles to the population issue but the point on "causality direction" is what I'd write about for now. Best regards. Teresa Taningco, [email protected] Doctoral Fellow, PhD in Policy Analysis Santa Monica CA, April 05, 2005 MY REPLY. I never said that low fertility rates �cause� economic growth. Economic growth is a function of the economic strategies followed, not of fertility rates, nor of population density, not even of the absence of corruption.. What I am saying is that economic growth can be realized faster if population growth were moderated. This is common sense and does not need a cross time series econometric regression to become self-evident. If an economic pie were to grow only as fast as, or only slightly faster than, the number of people who will eat it, then the share of each one will remain small or grow only by a small increment. And corruption, though morally repugnant, is not by itself a hindrance to economic growth. China achieved its highest growth rates (as much as 14% per annum) in the period 1985-1995 when it was also judged by PERC Ltd of Hong Kong to be the most corrupt country in Asia. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Bernie Villegas' prognosis and predictions on the economy have always been wrong, as far as I can recollect...they are impractical, theoretical and devoid of pragmatic common sense. Nonoy Yulo, [email protected] April 04, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww My Dear Abaya, I like your stuff. You are very real. There are another whole faction of writers out there who believe it is their duty to paint a rosy picture for the people, hoping to stop them from getting discouraged. You like to tell it like it is. My replies are never criticism but rather just another view point, often not tainted by the local cultures and beliefs. I have lived just long enough to know that there is no rosy picture, and that people only care about the three foot circle surrounding them which is their own life. All opinions and beliefs are self centered and subjective. Having said that, I think the Philippines has a population problem but not in the way it is presented to us. I wholly agree with your opinions, but I wish to add another dimension to them. There are four sides to the population problem. Not one of them has the slightest reality of what they are slamming or defending. First in our country is the Church. They clearly want more and more followers because Rome and the various parts of their system always want more money. Numbers also reinforce the beliefs. The leaders also appear to grow greater as the numbers increase. Clearly the Church would not admit to any overpopulation until we were overflowing the Churches but had no money to put in their plate. Second comes the Government. They have a slightly different perspective. They will only see overpopulation when they are unable to extract more taxes, or fees, from any given population. Governments would not accept overpopulation until all the country was completely full of standing room only unemployed squatters, sucking the rich dry. Thirdly come the environmental faction, who somehow in their sublime impotence always notice the deteriorating environment. They never do anything useful about the situation while noticing that rain-forests have all been cut down, that all African wild life has disappeared, that the Indian tigers are down from 4 million to 300, that the wild salmon have nearly disappeared from both East and West North America. The environmentalists are in a dream world. They think that Financial, Industrial and Commercial interests actually care or will do something about the fact that Pandas, Gorillas, Orangutans and chimps are down to the last few hundred before extinction. The fourth and most dangerous of all the players are the very people whom the environmentalists keep blaming as the cause the cause of desertification, Pollution, water deterioration and a whole host of unthinkable environmental crimes. The real problems are completely missed by all the players. The historians write of the times, circa the middle ages, when the plague swept Europe and killed 40% of the population. The real estate market, the cottage industry business and agriculture collapsed. Any house could be had for the taking and there was no work force to do any farming or manufacture. Our present economic system was created circa 1790 with what we now call the industrial revolution. The powered weaving looms kicked off what we know as Factory manufacture. After that the world was changed forever. Henry Ford�s assembly lines put the final nail in our coffin, when he allowed the consuming masses, and not just the rich elite, to own cars or any other manufactured item. After this the world was not only changed but on a collision course with nature. The Electronic and Information revolution circa the 1980's, set the pace for our final loss of reality. Our generation had grown up in a world of relative sanity. Third-world poverty, Lack of anti-biotics, European and World Wars had kept populations and their resultant economic destruction down to a dull roar and the future looked rosy. Africa had wild animals, Canada had salmon, India had tigers, Brazil still had an Amazon, and the list goes on. Weather was predictable. The Arctic and Antarctic were still frozen and the Ozone layer was still protecting us form skin cancer. If the Philippines has a population problem, or ifWhether it doubles or trebles tomorrow or the next day is totally irrelevant. The question of the Philippine�s population is far more profound. Nobody in the Philippines understands what the real problem is. In modern High-tech science we have a phrase called; � black-boxing it". What this means is; instead of trying to work our all the millions of things happening in a complex circuit, we pretend it is all just a balck-box. We measure what goes into the box and then we measure what comes out of the box. What happens in the middle is totally irrelevant. Lets Black-box the Philippines, with a few guesses as to what is happening within the box. Today�s Business World says the Philippines has to import 1.6 million tons of rice, 100,000 tons of grains. The coconut growers say that copra is not doing well. Sugar is at an historical low of about US 8c/lb. Sugar cane grown sugar actually costs more to produce than it sells for. All the old-world sugar-cane producers are of sugar are subsidized by their governments. Philippine education has fallen below the critical international threshold of actually being education anymore. Textbooks are a luxury, good teachers a rarity, free-thought impossibility. Provincial hospitals are positively dangerous to ones health. Medical aid is a cruel jok Manila and Cebu streets are choking the people to death; the traffic does not get through them. The Electrical, Water and Industrial infrastructures have collapsed. The punch-line here is that there is nothing coming out of the black-box. The number of people moving, living, or working within the box is totally irrelevant. Whether it is ten million or a hundred million, it is not working. If it doubles in one or ten years nothing changes. There is a GREAT TRUTH told of bacteria in a bottle. They double every minute. At midnight the bottle is full and they all die. The cruel reality is that at just ONE minute before midnight the bottle is only half full. No society knows it is terminal even one minute before it is too late. In history I find no society that predicts its own demise and is able to correct it for any length of time. In the final analysis the Philippine "overpopulation" has been a fact for many years. As a Black-box we have been unable to take care of whatever population we have had for a long time now. The only reason there has not been an obvious population problem is that we are living in a false American construct of keeping us on life support through The IMF and the World Bank. The Philippines can support as many people as the rest of the world will subsidize, so far it is only 84 million. The final definitive blow will come just a few seconds before midnight when the first-world sees no further advantage to subsidizing the Philippine population. If the US, Japan and the OFW money disappeared, the Philippines could not feed or sustain its people for more than 24 hours. The Philippines is only surviving because the US and Japan need it as a last fortress as Asia eclipses the US. The best example of how "population" sustainability and geo-politics work together would be North Korea. With only 20 million people North Korea is in a condition of famine, starvation and "overpopulation" purely because Coca Cola, IBM, GM, Microsoft, Mc Donald�s, Wal Mart, and etc. are not subsidizing the North Koreans to consume their junk. If Kim Jong Ill allowed his country to started consume the products that made the world ruling class rich, North Korea would be like all the other false-constructs, and be a consumers paradise right up until a few seconds to midnight. The Philippines is a 100% false-construct being kept afloat by the puppet masters. Even if we had 200 million people, �they� would keep us afloat as long as we �consumed� When the first world loses interest in us, we will have instant �overpopulation�, and nothing you or I ever do or say will change the realities of our situation. We will all go down, never knowing why. Each of the factions will be blaming the other. Regards Graham Reinders, [email protected] April 05, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Mr. Abaya, I enjoyed reading your article, �Population Boom or Broom�. Your criticism of Dr. Villegas and the Roman Catholic Church�s stance on �natural or rhythm method� as the only acceptable method of family planning, is a smack right on the topic. No amount of economic growth will uplift the poor in the Philippines if they continue to have large families which they cannot support. I also sent the articles to Dr. Villegas at UA&P. He has not acknowledged my e-mail. He probably chose to ignore it, because he toes the Catholic line and is blind to the sad economic reality that unbridled population brings. Since when have we found, in the developing Third World, a predominantly Catholic country that became economically advanced and its people enjoying a high standard of living? Just look at Central and South America and one will very easily arrive at an answer. The natural family planning method taught by the Catholic Church has failed in Latin American countries, and it has not and it will not work in the Philippines. Wishing you the best in 2007, Misael Balayan, [email protected], Hawaii, Jan. 07, 2007 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |