Visiting fellow John May is interviewed by LTEconomy about population policies.
The following article originally appeared in LTEconomy.
John F.May, in his book, tells the story of how the series of international population conferences that ran from Bucharest in 1974, through Mexico City in 1984, to Cairo in 1994 gradually created a global consensus in favor of a broad developmental approach to population policy, an approach that emphasized: the empowerment of women, improvements in maternal and young child health, voluntary family planning embedded in a broader reproductive health framework, and the protection of individual reproductive rights – the so-called Cairo Consensus.
He shows how the success of voluntary programs in many countries, as well as the excesses that led to human rights abuses in others, contributed to this consensus and how demographic changes over the past two or three decades have produced new concerns and new policy discussions about excessively low birth rates, rapid population aging, high rates of international migration, and sex selection. This book tells how difficult these issues are in developed countries as population aging challenges the survival of the post-industrial socioeconomic model and immigration is often perceived as a threat to national identities.
Now the increasing ecological impact of humanity on our Planet is raising an important question: Will our Planet survive to a further increase in the world population? John May is going to answer this and other questions.
Question: Since 1950, the world population has increased from 2.5 billion people to almost 7 billion people in 2011 and it is expected to overpass 9 billion by 2050. What kind of problems do you think this process will cause to the Earth?
Answer: The impact on the Earth of rapid population growth and the addition of 2 billion people to the planet’s population in less than 40 years cannot be dissociated from the impact of current levels and patterns of consumption. The major challenge is that more and more people, mostly in the emerging countries, want to consume like individuals in industrialized countries, a desire which is perfectly understandable. Therefore, one must absolutely change our consumption patterns and move rapidly into a green, or at least a greener, economy. In addition, greater access to family planning, on a voluntary basis, will slow down population growth. However, as advocated by the July 11 London Summit on family planning, this should be done with the view of empowering women and improving theirand their children’s health outcomes.
Question: Since the theory of Malthus, there have been movements around the world proposing the control of the population growth to avoid a progressive impoverishment of the humankind. Do you think the problem is the population growth or something else?
Answer: By and large, Malthus was proven wrong by history. Nevertheless, he might be proven right this time around, at least in some parts of the world (e.g., in the Sahel). As rapid population growth takes place essentially among the poorest countries, which are the less able to cope with a rapid surge in their population, Malthusian scenarios could occur (in the form of failed states, for instance). However, the population paradigm today is not to “control population” but rather to fulfill the reproductive rights of individuals and couples, which were established at the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) held in Cairo. In addition, there are pressing demands from many individuals to also change consumption patterns. In my view, the major breakthrough will be to think about population growth and consumption patterns simultaneously, as urged by the recent report “People and the Planet” of the Royal Society (London).
Question: Amartya Sen, in his book “Development as Freedom”, said that coercive birth control is ineffective and can cause collateral problems (as in China, where the “one child policy” has worsened the infant mortality rate and female condition inside families), while the development of capabilities (in particular female access to education and female independence) plays a major role in decreasing the birth rate. What do you think on this matter?
Answer: Coercive birth control in China started in 1979 at a time when fertility was already below 3 children per woman on average, but Chinese leaders were keen to obtain results rapidly and used authoritarian and top-down approaches to do so. As Amartya Sen argues, this coercive policy has also brought about most detrimental “side effects” such as rapid population aging, a shrinking labor force, and the scourge of sex selection through female fetuses’ abortion. On the contrary, empowering women through education and female autonomy can achieve the same results as “population control” policies, although results might be slower to come. What is more important, however, is that female empowerment brings results that are more sustainable in the long term, without the adverse impact of coercive policies.
Question: Could you summarize the main approaches on the population policy around the world: what are the main differences and what do you think are the countries or areas where such policies have been more successful?
Answer: The key demographic issue in the 1960s and 1970s was to reduce fertility levels, which were deemed to be too high. Programs in Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean succeeded in “talking fertility down”, as Australian demographer John Caldwell put it. Some counties, however, resorted to coercive family planning programs (e.g., China and India) and this has tainted the global family planning movement. By contrast, the majority of sub-Saharan Africa countries did not launch organized family planning programs. Their leaders believed that development was the first priority and that development alone would be sufficient to bring fertility down. Unfortunately, development did not occur as rapidly as they anticipated and rapid population growth made it virtually impossible for many sub-Saharan countries to build their human capital (e.g., education and health). These countries are now reassessing the population factor, albeit with a 30 or 40-year delay as compared to other parts of the world. In low fertility countries, policies designed to increase birth rates have been less successful, with the possible exception of France and some Nordic countries.
Question: Water, food, energy, houses, are the basic goods of living. How do you think humans must manage each of these goods to ensure them for a bigger population?
Answer: A key approach to address the issue of these “commons” would be to price them. This is easier to say than to do, because of equity issues. Pricing water, for example, will need to take account the ability to pay of poor segments of the population. Part of the solution to the scarcity of the basic goods of living will also need to come from technological advances, especially when it come to new and clean sources of energy. In total, social cohesion and solidarity will have to play a crucial role, within countries but also between countries, and this will need to be combined with technological advances.
Question: “The Global Footprint Network” stated that today humanity uses the equivalent of 1.5 planets to provide the resources we use and absorb our waste. The result is collapsing fisheries, diminishing forest cover, depletion of fresh water systems, and the build-up of carbon dioxide emissions. What do you suggest to do to reduce the “human ecological footprint”?
Answer: Again, we need to change our consumption patterns and trends. But we also need to look at new sources of energy, and clean energy for that matter. There are also economic incentives to be explored, for example by putting a tax on carbon dioxide emissions or pricing water. Slowing population growth is also part of the answer. However, the main point here is that no single intervention will be sufficient. On the contrary, it is a combination of diverse interventions and policies (each one bringing results at the margin) that will eventually make a significant difference.
Question: In some countries (in particular in Italy and in France) are emerging the so-called “movements of decrescita – decreasing”. Do you think a less consumerist lifestyle and self-production of goods can be the way for making the growing population more sustainable for our planet?
Answer: To consume less or to consume smartly is definitely one of the answers to population pressure on the eco-systems of our Planet. Recycling is already common in developed countries, although it has to be done more systematically.The self-production of goods could possibly help as well, although more research is probably needed on the economic rationale of this approach.
Question: Do you think current international policies are sufficient to avoid future massive immigration from poor countries to richer ones?
Answer: It might become more difficult to do so as migratory push and pull factors are increasing. In fact, one needs to distinguish between immigration-friendly and immigration-adverse countries. The former are welcoming immigrants for a variety of reasons, not the least being the economic rationale (cheap labor and/or the need for highly qualified workers). Immigration-adverse countries, on the contrary, are trying to “protect” themselves against what they perceive as “waves” of immigrants. It is speculated that the European Union spends more funds to check its borders than to provide assistance to countries where live the potential candidates for emigration to Europe. Another issue is the integration of immigrants once they have arrived in countries of destination. On this count, immigration-shy countries have a poor record whilst countries that have traditionally welcomed immigrants do significantly better.
Question: What do you think about the urbanization process?
Answer: The urbanization process is here to stay. In 2050, about two-thirds of the world population will live in cities (although definitions of urban areas do vary widely). Two factors will be crucial. First, the environmental footprint of the cities will need to be reduced dramatically. Second, the proliferation of slums in bulging cities will need to be addressed as well. Urbanization-focused policies will be necessary, in addition to traditional population policy interventions that have been focused essentially on high levels of mortality and, thereafter, on high levels of fertility.
Question: In “World Population Policies”, you explain that the focus of demographers has switched from the overall size of populations to their composition—that is, to age groups and their relation to one another. Instead of high fertility rates, demographers study ageing, dependency ratios, the“demographic dividend”. Why has there been such a changing perspective?
Answer: The key turning point in the change of perspective might have been the examination of the situation in East Asia, and the recognition that demographic change (in the form of shifting age structures and more favorable dependency ratios– this has been called the demographic dividend) has been a major engine of the stunning economic success of those countries (what has been called the East Asian miracle). Another explanation for this change of perspective is that population growth occurs today in a limited number of countries (about 50 in total). Finally, as the demographic transition continue its course and fertility levels reach very low levels (below replacement) in some countries, populations are inexorably aging. Hence, the new interest in population aging issues.
Question: What are the main social and economic consequences of the ageing population process?
Answer: Referring to one region of Belgium, the late French demographer Alfred Sauvy famously said that “a country without youth is condemned to become a country of old people brooding old ideas in old houses”. Although this view on the social consequences of aging might be too extremeand the loss of the innovative drive among aging societies is difficult to establish, the economic consequences of population aging are very real. In short, health systems and pension funds in many developed countries are struggling for more resources because population aging makes their expenses increase exponentially.
Question: If you could sent a message to humans, what would you advice them in order to preserve themselves and our Planet in the long period?
Answer: Bring every new life to Planet Earth in a responsible way, and consume much less.