(This speech was delivered during the December 8 Prayer Rally against the Anti-Life and Anti-Family Bills at the DWAD Gym)
POPULATION IS NOT CONTRARY TO DEVELOPMENT
By: Rafael F.
Baraan, City Administrator, Dagupan City
It is the popular belief that population growth hinders
economic development. This is influenced by the Malthusian Theory that
"population growth causes a congestion that reduces the ability of the economy
to satisfy the wants and needs of individuals."
The UN World Population Conference operates on the basis of
this flawed and questionable theory. It is, therefore, not surprising that most
countries have also embraced this belief, and have imposed coercive and
misguided policies to control population growth.
The Malthusian theory hinges on the faulty assumption that
"population growth is the key determinant of economic development".
Scientific studies, however, have shown that population and density do not
hamper development.
On the contrary, the same studies show that free market
countries with faster expansion in population have experienced more rapid
development on a per capita basis, than their neighboring socialist nations.
These studies present direct persuasive evidence to show that
IT IS NOT THE POPULATION but the NATION'S SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEM that is the main
determinant of economic growth.
|
Socio-economic System |
Econ. Dev. Growth Rate |
| Free market countries with high population growth rates and density |
2,73% |
| Socialist countries with the same or slower population growth rates and density |
0.90% |
A quick comparison of the countries of Germany, Korea, and China is also very
revealing.
|
Socio-economic Variables |
Germany | Korea | China | |||
| East | West | North | South | TAIWAN | ROC | |
| Output per person | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 1 |
| Hours to produce | ||||||
| - a unit refrigerator | 293 | 40 | ||||
| - a suit | 67 | 13 | ||||
| Houses with central heating | 36% | 70% | ||||
| -indoor toilet | 60% | 90% | ||||
| -bath/shower | 68% | 92% | ||||
The foregoing figures show that in free market economies,
there are fewer people needed to feed the population. The rate of economic
growth is high, the standards of living and productivity are much higher than in
closed, socialist economies.
The most eloquent proof of the decisive effects of the
political and economic structures upon economic development, and that the
country's socio-economic system is the major determinant of economic
development, and NOT POPULATION GROWTH AND DENSITY, is the case of China
compared with its own self.
In the past, i.e. before 1979, Chinese agriculture was
characterized by collective production. There was little incentive for hard
work; risk-taking was not encouraged; and, there was actually greater incentive
to loaf on the job.
As a result, there were no increases in per capita
agricultural production from 19501978. Food production stagnated, and about 30
million Chinese died of starvation during the period.
When reforms were introduced in 1979, and there was a
significant shift from collective production to individual enterprise, per
capita production doubled by 1985, and the figure is still growing up to now.
The China experience only goes to show that even with China's 1.3 billion
people, China's economy has started to grow by leaps and bounds, and it has
become the most vibrant economic success story in the world today, because it
reformed and liberalized its socio-economic system.
Because individual effort and creativity have become proportionately rewarding,
China is experiencing continually increasing rates of per capita productivity,
and consequently, higher per capita income levels. China has also become a
viable market for its own products, and an attractive market base for other
countries.
The story of Hong Kong is another outstanding proof that
population growth and density do not hinder economic development.
Between 1940-1950, Hong Kong was populated by huge masses of
impoverished people without jobs. There was a total lack of exploitable natural
resources; there was a continuous train of refugees pouring across the border
from communist China.
But look at the economic miracle that is Hong Kong today:
people enjoy high standards of living; there is low unemployment; there are high
rise buildings everywhere; you have the most modern transportation system; and,
one of the busiest transshipment ports in the world.
With greater individual freedom, and a good economic system,
Hong Kong's very dense concentration of human beings does not prevent
comfortable living and the successful pursuit of exciting economic expansion.
It is evident from the foregoing historical experiences that
it is economically sound and beneficial to promote population growth. While you
end up with a growing number of mouths to feed, you also increase the number of
productive hands and creative minds, with each person producing more than he
needs, and therefore, helping create an overall and healthy situation of
abundance and prosperity.
If, as the China and Hong Kong experiences show, population
growth stimulates economic growth, then the recent decline in population growth
in many countries promises to be detrimental to further economic growth.
Highly developed countries like China, Sinaapore, and most European countries,
suffered, or continue to suffer, from the serious, adverse effects of coercive
population control policies.
1) The case of China
China announced a "one-child-per-couple family planning
policy" in 1979.
In the early 1980s, there was evidence that China was
employing coercive abortion and compulsory sterilization to carry out this
policy.
As a result, the average Chinese woman will bear 1.5-1.65 children in her
lifetime. This is much lower than the population replacement rate (rate of birth
to make up for those that are dying) of at least 2.1 children per woman.
If the situation is not reversed, China stands to lose 20-30%
of its precious human resources over the next 50 years.
Because of its, predominantly ageing population, China, in
the words of one Chinese scholar, is fast becoming a "4-2-1" society, where each
child will have to support two parents, and four grandparents.
2) The case of Singapore
Singapore enforced a "Stop-at-Two" population policy until
1987 when local economists and social scientists realized, and started talking
about, the adverse effects of such a policy.
If the policy continued, it was projected that by 2030,
Singapore would have at least 800,000, of its 3.6 million residents, aged 65 and
older.
Among the serious concerns raised were that an increasingly older population is
a heavy liability, and the country would be unable to sustain economic
development, and to defend itself from external aggression with such an
increasingly old population.
Thus, on March 1, 1987, then Deputy Minister Goh Chok Tong
reversed the policy and encouraged Singaporeans to "have three or more babies if
you can afford it", complete with incentives to promote larger families, and to
attract foreign talents to come and migrate to Singapore.
In the year 2000, it was established that the average European woman will bear
1.37 children in her lifetime. This is only 65% of the total fertility rate
required to replace a generation of old and dying Europeans.
3) The case of Europe
Europe today is characterized by - declining birth rates
- ageing population
- tumbling marriage rates
- rising out-of-wedlock births.
In the same year, 17 European nations recorded absolute decline in numbers, with
deaths outnumbering births.
Because the values of responsibility, self-sacrifice,
altruism, and the sanctity of long-term commitments in Christian teachings were
systematically replaced with militant secular individualism focused mainly on
the desires of the self, Europe is experiencing a serious family and population
crisis, and its leaders are frantically looking for effective ways to reverse
the situation.
One of the most aggressive among them is Sweden, where so
many incentives are being introduced to encourage couples to have more children.
But it's still a long way to go before the situation is effectively reversed.
4. The case of the United States of America
In contrast to other highly developed countries, the USA is
experiencing an increasing trend in population growth, and has registered the
highest fertility rate in the developed world of 2.14% for the year 2000. This
figure was 22% above its total fertility rate in 1970.
There is enough persuasive evidence of the positive long-run effects of a
continually growing population, and the adverse consequences of coercive
policies to control population growth.
Most developed countries have already abandoned population
control, and are pursuing zealous and frantic efforts to reverse the situation
and to encourage their people to have more children.
The persistence of Philippine political leaders and
policy-makers to continue to pursue a national policy on population control is
highly questionable, ironic, and difficult to understand.