This article, which appeared in the 1 December issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer reports on yet another paper published by professors from the UP School of Economics

making a stand on our present economic situation, this time entitled

“Population and Poverty: The Real Score”. Recall that a few months

back, they published ” The deepening crisis: the real score on deficits and the public debt” (click here to download a PDF copy),

a paper warning on an impending fiscal crisis if Government does not

implement concrete–and drastic–measures to curb a possible debt

default, which would lead to credit downgrade/s and consequently

further make it difficult for the government to finance its deficits

(due to higher cost of borrowing). Recall further that I likewise made a blog post commenting on their publication on fiscal crisis.

Now they’re raising another issue. I hope the Administration would

listen to the distinguished UPSE professors, similar to how Malacanang

seemed to have listened and reacted when the paper on the looming

fiscal crisis was published.

Status report: as

of writing, the Executive had facilitated/fast-tracked the endorsement

to Congress of eight revenue-generating measures, four of which had

been passed, albeit with revisions. The Executive had likewise

fast-tracked various “reorganization,” “rationalization,”

“streamlining,” “austerity”–or whatever you may call it–programs in

order to arrive at a leaner bureaucracy.

If you ask me, I’m still not quite comfortable with Government’s

passing the buck, or letting us, commonners, carry the burden of

providing the solutions, for instance in affording government employees

(such as myself) lesser benefits in terms of allowances and other

material or non-material perks in the face of the possibility that we

would have to carry the brunt of the increased taxes (which may

ultimately be passed on to us as consumers), and when big-time

officials are known to be spend-thrift with government resources. And

recent developments show that corruption still abounds even–or most

especially in?–the highest echelons of government and the military.

This is also in view of Congressmen still holding on to their PhP 70

million each in pork barrel allocations when they can instead allow for

some cuts to at least be able to contribute to the pagtitipid

(savings). But I guess that’s life. Perhaps I can only count on a move,

prospectively in the near future, to the more lucrative and challenging

private sector, if I want to provide better for my growing family (and

as well rid myself of the various headaches that are constantly

hounding me with all these issues I am involved in given my line of

work).

Come to think of it, the Administration may have reacted to the paper on fiscal crisis in an opportunistic manner,

since it greatly benefited from public perception especially on the

perceived need to immediately undergo several drastic measures, which

would have faced much opposition without an adequate justification or

precedent. But it cannot be denied that circa 2002 to 2003,

international publications (FEER, the Economist, Newseek, Time) were

already discussing about an impending debt crisis in the country, which

is precursor to a fiscal crisis.

Dr. Arsenio Balisacan, my

professor in Development Economics at the UPSE (DE 291, which I took

first Semester of SY 2004-2005) and, at present, also the director of SEARCA - the SEAMEO Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture,

made it a point to emphasize that an uncontrollable population growth

rate is one of the main reasons why the Philippines, which used to be

one of the fastest-growing, now lags behind its ASEAN neighbors in

terms of economic growth and development.

Dr. Balisacan had

co-authored a study, “The Population-Poverty Nexus: The Philippines in

Comparative East Asian Context,” which, is a part a Philippine Center for Population and Development (PCPD)-supported publication “The Ties that Bind: Population and Development in the Philippines.” The findings …

…

showed that the Philippines and Thailand were neck and neck in terms of

population size and per capita GDP in 1975. Twenty-five years since,

Philippine population ballooned to 75 million while the number of Thais

was pegged at 62 million. In the same year Thai women have, on the

average, only 2 children or a total fertility rate (TFR) of 1.9 while

the Philippine TFR stood at 3.6 or an average of 3 to 4 children per

woman.
…
The decline in the population growth rate of Thailand

is complemented with an increasing per capita GDP, growing to about 8

times the 1975 level. Indonesia ’s per capita GDP grew 6.5 times and

South Korea 10 times. And the Philippines ? A measly 2.6

times! But it had the highest population growth rate of 2.36 % a year,

on the average, among the four.
…
How much would the

savings be in terms of the cost of education and health services if the

Philippine population growth followed that of Thailand ? According to

the study, from 1996 to 2000 some 52 billion pesos from the health

sector and 128 billion from the education sector from 1991 to 2000

could have been saved. These savings could have been spent instead on

the agricultural sector where most of the country’s poor belong. With

greater investments in agriculture, slower population growth, and a

rise in income, rural poverty could decline by 70 percent and national poverty by 60%.

(A PDF copy of the “layman’s version” of the research can be downloaded through this link.)

In

our class, the professor often stressed the importance of supporting

theory with empirical evidence, and as well the need to distinguish

between correlation and causality. Now while there are numerous

theories on the relationship between population and economic growth and

development, it is evident from empirical findings that Government needs to take a firmer stance in population management if it is serious in reaching its goals for the economy.

Oddly,

Dr. Balisacan is not one of the authors of the new paper. I was

expecting he would be, given the topic, and given that he claims this

to be an advocacy of his. The professor related to us that he had, upon

invitation, presented the results of his study to Congress early second

semester of this year, when the population issue was still

hotly-contested, given Rep. Edcel Lagman’s sponsoring/proposing legal

measures to provide for more reasonable population management

programs/policies. Sadly, the media’s pick-up of the issue was quite

hyped, as they focused on population- or even birth-control (which, I

was informed, was quite far from what was proposed).

With all

the ensuing national issues and problems, including the fiscal crisis

scare, corruption scandals in the military, and most recently the wave of typhoons still currently devastating our northern and southern Luzon regions, the discussions on population management were thrown to the backburner. But with

the emerging arguments being brought forward by some distinguished

members of our academic community, perhaps we can again actively

discuss the importance of considering the contribution of sound

policies and programs in population management to the economic growth

and development of our nation, which is, arguably, currently still in

bad shape (yes, contrary to media spin by the Administration).

We

cannot turn a blind eye to this pressing issue. We cannot just let our

population grow at an uncontrollable rate for preference for ‘natural’

methods of family planning by the dominant institutions. I would argue

that it would, indeed, be more attuned to the teachings of our

faith to be humane and compassionate to our less fortunate brethren by

working for an improved economic situation in terms of growth and

development–most especially growth and development deemed to be

equitable.

It’s a difficult challenge, most

especially in coming to a consensus on the matter. But for sure, we

have problems, and someone has to address it at some point. As the old Philippine Collegian headline went, “Kung hindi tayo, sino? Kung hindi ngayon, kailan pa?”

(If not us, then who? If not now, then when?). I hope the Church,

Government and, more importantly, society, will be up to it.

- J. Angelo Racoma

By this time you may have already noticed that UPSE professors seem to be fond of “real scores.”

I

have yet to secure an e-copy of the publication cited, but once I do, I

will post a link here. An excerpt from the Inquirer article (emphases

mine) follows below.

UP economists ask Church to soften population stand
Updated 05:18am (Mla time) Dec 01, 2004
Blanche Rivera – brivera@inquirer.com.ph />

THE

COUNTRY’S top economists have called on the Catholic Church hierarchy

to adopt a “more tolerant and humane” stance on the need for a national

population policy for the sake of the poor who are suffering because of

their large family sizes.

In a paper titled “Population and

Poverty: The Real Score,” 17 economists from the University of the

Philippines School of Economics said the Catholic clergy in the country

should allow families to choose their preferred family planning method,

consistent with the Second Vatican Council’s teaching that the

final arbiter of moral decisions is one’s informed and responsible

conscience.
…
poverty incidence in the country rose

significantly with a bigger family size. Poverty incidence for a

“family of one” is 9.8 percent compared with 57.3 percent for a family

of nine or more.

“Family size is directly related to the

vulnerability to poverty or the likelihood of falling into poverty

owing to exogenous (external) shocks,” the paper said.
…
“It is more difficult to improve governance than adopt a national population policy.

Improving governance would take several decades to achieve based on the

experience of other countries, so we’re saying it is easier to adopt a

population policy to help address poverty,” [Dr. Ernesto] Pernia said.
…
The economists identified three elements for an effective population policy:

•

Reduction of unwanted fertility, which accounts for 16 percent of the

population growth. The economists urged the government to use public

funds to buy contraceptives as most poor families do not have access to

an effective family planning service.

• Raising the quality of

education and fostering women’s empowerment that would lead couples to

want smaller families. A large wanted family size contributes 19

percent to the country’s population growth.

• Creating job

opportunities for women that would result in later childbearing age and

wider birth spacing that would slow the population momentum, which

accounts for 65 percent of the population growth.

“These

measures are mutually reinforcing and, if backed by appropriate reforms

in the economic and other social sectors, would bring about the best

results… Even if not much can be done about public investments in

infrastructure owing to the fiscal constraints, it would help ease the

demand pressure coming from rapid population growth,” the paper said.

Tags: old, posts | Viewed 903 times