Transcript Population, Poverty and Sustainable Development: Review

Population, Poverty and
Development: Review and
Research Gaps
Aniceto C. Orbeta, Jr.
Philippine Institute for Development Studies
Outline
• Population and Development: A
•
•
•
comparison of Philippines and
Thailand
Population and Poverty
1. Philippine demographic trends
2. Philippine poverty alleviation record
3. Links
4. Evidence
Implications for Policy
Research Gaps
•Population & Development: Philippines & Thailand - 1/2
Fig 2. Per Capita GDP, Real US$ (1995=100)
Fig 3. Population Size, 1960-2000
Source: World Bank, World Development Indicators 2002
Source: UN World Population Prospects, 2000 Rev.
3,500
80
3,000
70
60
2,500
50
Philippines
2,000
Thailand
1,500
30
1,000
20
500
10
0
0
Philippines
40
Thailand
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Fig 5. Infant Mortality, 1960-65 to 2000-05
Fig 4. Total Fertility Rate, 1960-65 to 2000-2005
8.00
120
7.00
100
6.00
Philippines
Thailand
80
5.00
4.00
60
3.00
40
Philippines
Thailand
2.00
20
1.00
0
0.00
1960-65 1970-75 1980-85 1990-95 1995-00 2000-05
1960-65 1970-75 1980-85 1990-95 1995-00 2000-05
•Population & Development: Philippines & Thailand - 2/2
Fig 7. Gross Domestic Savings as % of GDP, 1960-2000
Fig 6. Youth and Old Dependency Ratios, 1960-2000
1.00
0.90
0.80
40
35
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
Phil., Youth
Thai., Youth
Phil., Old
Thai., Old
30
25
Philippines
20
Thailand
15
10
0.20
0.10
0.00
5
0
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Fig 10. Gross Enrollment Rate, Sec. & Ter., 1970-1998
Fig 8. Gross Capital Formation as % of GDP, 1960-2000
45
100
40
90
80
35
70
30
Philippines
25
Thailand
20
Phil, Sec.
60
50
Thai, Sec.
Phil, Ter.
40
15
30
10
5
20
10
0
0
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Thai, Ter.
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 1998
Population and Sustainable Development Framework
Population
Size
Structure
Distribution
Fertility
Mortality
Migration
Production
Production/
Employment
Productive
Capacity:
Natural Resources and
Environment
Physical Capital
Human Resources
Development
Goods and
Services
Capabilities/
Well being
Longer life
To achieve desired
fertility
Others
Review of demographic
developments
• Slow fertility decline; slower than most
countries in the region (Table 1)
• Average performer in mortality (Table 2)
• Continued high population growth; higher
than most countries in the region
• Implications:
1. Expect extended years of high youth
dependency
2. “Demographic onus” rather than “demographic
bonus” like East Asian Countries
Review of poverty alleviation
record
•
•
•
•
Modest gains from 44.2% in 1985 to 33.7% in
2000 or about 0.7 annually
Number of poor people increased from 4.6 million
in 1985 to 5.14 million in 2000
Gains are only clear in urban areas (declined by
14 compared to only 4 percentage points in rural
areas between 1985-2000)
Inequality has not improved:
1. Share of poorest quintile: 4.8% (1985) – 4.7% (2000)
2. Share of richest quintile: 51.2% (1985) – 54.8% (2000)
3. Gini coefficient: 0.47 (1985) – 0.51 (2000)
Family Size and Poverty
• An empirical regularity that poverty incidence is higher
the larger the family size
Poverty Incidence by Family Size
Family Size
National
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 or more
1985
1988
Poverty Incidence
1991
1994
1997
2000
44.2
40.2
39.9
35.5
31.8
33.7
19.0
20.0
26.6
36.4
42.9
48.8
55.3
59.8
59.9
12.8
18.4
23.2
31.6
38.9
45.9
54.0
57.2
59.0
12.7
21.8
22.9
30.1
38.3
46.3
52.3
59.2
60.0
14.9
19.0
20.7
25.3
31.8
40.8
47.1
55.3
56.6
9.8
14.3
17.8
23.7
30.4
38.2
45.3
50.0
52.6
9.8
15.7
18.6
23.8
31.1
40.5
48.7
54.9
57.3
Source of basic data: Family Income and Expenditures Surveys, 1985-2000, NSO
Population and poverty links
•
•
•
Growth Channel (Size of the Pie): Does
demographic change (change in population
growth, fertility, mortality, age structure, etc.)
affects changes in the level and growth of
average attainable well-being per person?
Distribution Channel (Sharing of the Pie):
Does demographic change affects the distribution
of income given attainable well-being per person?
Conversion Channel (Generating actual wellbeing from Share of the Pie): Does
demographic change affects the conversion of
attainable well-being per person into actual wellbeing per person?
Evidence on the growth channel
(Size of the pie)
•
•
•
Demographic changes (decline in population growth,
fertility, mortality and changing age distribution) have
sizeable impacts on economic growth; account for
about half of recorded economic growth in Southeast
Asia, one third in East Asia
Fertility and mortality effects are offsetting; mortality
decline stimulates growth, rise in fertility attenuates
growth; this is the primary reason for the limited
effect in earlier analysis that focus on population
growth
In the Philippines, decomposition analysis for 19852000 show that economic growth contributes bigger
proportion in reduction of poverty; in cross-country
analysis it contributes about one half
Evidence on the distribution channel
(Sharing of the pie)
•
•
•
High fertility skews the distribution of income
against the poor in cross-country analysis; in the
Philippines, there is still no direct evidence but
indications are pointing to the same direction
given the limited employment opportunities
generated and the rapidly growing labor force
The dilution effect appears to be not very strong
On the acquisition effect, there are mixed results
on the impact of an additional child on labor force
participation of fathers but this leads to a decline
of mother’s labor time and an increase in her
home time
Evidence on the conversion channel
(“Enjoyment” from share of the pie)
•
•
•
•
Doubts on whether poor families can achieve
their desired family size given poorer access to FP
services, particularly for the Philippines
There are evidence on both sides of the
economies of scale argument: some economies of
scale on food consumption but congestion effects
on housing
Clear deleterious effects of large family on
investments in human capital
Clear increase in vulnerability with larger family
size
Implications for policy – 1/2
•
•
•
Demographics play an important role in poverty alleviation;
better control of fertility should be an important component
of poverty alleviation
While there maybe reasons why the poor have large families
(e.g., to contribute to total family income, as a form of social
and old-age security), it will be difficult, particularly for the
Philippines, to sort which ones are due to lack of control over
fertility and which ones are due to preferences; better
control of fertility comparable to the rich is needed to clarify
this
There are intergenerational impact of current fertility choices
primarily via lower investments in human capital– this is the
main avenue of intergenerational transmission of poverty;
need for pro-active subsidy and better targeting of public
services, e.g. education and health, which are in themselves
investments with high social returns apart from indirect
returns through demographic changes
Implications for policy 2/2
•
•
•
Importance of consistent economic growth is
well-established; still the primary strategy of
development, in general, and for poverty
alleviation, in particular, for the Philippines; a
conducive economic environment is needed to
translate potential benefits from demographic
changes
With globalization, lower fertility is needed to
benefit from opportunities at the aggregate and
household levels, and to lessen the vulnerability
of households to economic shocks
There are enough justifications for government to
promote a small family size norm and help
couples achieve their desired fertility
Research Agenda – Population,
Poverty and Development
• Improve upon the current broad brush
attribution of the interaction between
population and poverty for the
Philippines. There is a need to continue to
clarify the interactions, at the macro,
community and household levels in the
Philippine context. The objective is to find
more effective policy handles
• Poverty, fertility management and
preferences and its implications at the
household level
Thank You
•Fertility and Mortality in Selected ASEAN Countries
TFR of Selected Asean Countries, 1960-2000
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
1960-65
1970-75
Phil
1980-85
Thai
Viet
1990-95
Ind
1995-00
Mal
IMR of Selected ASEAN Countries, 1960-2000
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1960-65
1970-75
Phil
1980-85
Thai
Viet
1990-95
Ind
Mal
1995-00
•Poverty and Inequality, 1985-2000
60
6
50
5
40
4
30
3
20
2
10
1
0
0
1985
1988
1991
1994
1997
Millions
Poverty Incidence and No. of Poor, 1985-2000
Phil
Urban
Rural
No of Poor
2000
Figure 1. GINI Ratios, 1975-2000
0.53
0.52
0.51
0.5
0.49
0.48
0.47
0.46
0.45
0.44
0.52
0.51
0.49
0.47
1985
0.47
1988
0.47
1991
1994
1997
2000
Family planning practice by
socioeconomic class - 1/4
Source
Poor/N-Poor
Ratio
Poor
Non-Poor
Total
29.5
13.4
42.9
37.6
13.9
51.5
35.1
13.8
48.8
0.8
1.0
0.8
FPS 2000\a
Modern
Traditional
Any method
26.3
13.9
40.1
35.0
15.1
50.1
32.3
14.7
47.0
0.8
0.9
0.8
APIS 1998\b
APIS 1999\b
40.5
33.7
46.2
37.0
44.1
35.8
0.9
0.9
90.7
93.1
88.7
91.7
0.9
1.0
Contraceptive prevalence
FPS 2002\a
Modern
Traditional
Any method
Access to family planning services
APIS 1998\b
85.2
APIS 1999\b
89.1
\a - socioeconomic status is based on a score derived from questions about housing
convenience/durable goods
\b - socioeconomic status based on income deciles: poor = lowest 40%; Nonpoor=highest 60%
FPS - Family Planning Survey
APIS - Annual Poverty Indicators Survey
Family planning practice by socioeconomic
class: Contraception -2/4
L. Middle
Middle
U. Middle
Richest
Total
Poor/Rich
Ratio
47.6
32.6
15.0
52.4
50.9
35.0
15.9
49.1
51.8
36.0
15.8
48.2
47.5
34.1
13.4
52.4
47.0
32.3
14.7
53.0
0.8
0.7
1.0
1.2
84.8
13.4
1.4
0.4
78.2
19.4
1.6
0.8
69.0
29.3
1.2
0.5
50.9
47.5
0.9
0.8
73.8
24.6
1.1
0.5
1.8
0.2
0.2
0.3
Reason for not using contraceptives
Wants children
14.6
18.1
Lacks knowledge
6.3
2.8
Method-related
27.9
28.9
Opposition to use
9.9
6.3
Relating to exposure
28.7
32.5
Others
12.6
11.5
18.4
2.2
29.7
3.9
35.7
10.1
23.5
1.3
24.7
3.4
37.4
9.7
25.4
1.4
19.0
3.5
43.6
7.3
19.8
3.0
26.1
5.6
35.3
10.3
0.6
4.5
1.5
2.8
0.7
1.7
Poorest
Contraceptive Prevalence
Any Method
37.6
Modern
24.0
Traditional
13.6
No Method
62.4
Source of M odern M ethods
Government
90.7
Private
8.8
Others
0.2
DK
0.2
Method-related=Health concerns, side-effects, inconvenient to use, cost too much, hard to get
Opposition to use=Opposed to family planning, prohibited by religion
Others=Fatalistic, others
Source: Orbeta et al. (2003); raw data from NSO, FPS 2000
Family planning practice by socioeconomic class:
FP, BF, BC Advice -3/4
Asset Class
Middle
U Middle
Poorest
L Middle
Philippines
Family Planning Advice
Breastfeeding Advice
Baby Care Advice
No. of Women ('000)
34.4
47.8
55.5
638
38.3
53.5
60.6
665
38.3
56.6
64.8
658
Urban
Family Planning Advice
Breastfeeding Advice
Baby Care Advice
No. of Women ('000)
42.0
51.1
61.9
91
37.6
55.1
59.5
229
Rural
Family Planning Advice
Breastfeeding Advice
Baby Care Advice
No. of Women ('000)
33.1
47.2
47.2
547
38.6
52.6
52.6
436
Poor/Rich
Ratio
Richest
Total
43.9
61.1
69.3
638
45.4
61.9
70.8
718
40.1
56.3
64.3
3,317
0.76
0.77
0.78
42.1
57.8
64.8
401
47.2
62.7
70.1
406
50.3
63.4
72.9
542
45.4
60.1
67.8
1,670
0.84
0.81
0.85
32.3
54.8
54.8
257
38.1
58.3
58.3
232
30.3
57.1
57.1
176
34.8
52.4
52.4
1,647
1.09
0.83
0.83
Source: Orbeta et al. (2003); raw data from NSO 2000 FPS
Family planning practice by socioeconomic
class: Unmet Need -4/4
Poorest L. Middle Middle U. Middle Richest
Total
Poor/Rich
Ratio
Total
26.9
22.2
17.2
18.0
15.6
20.0
1.7
Spacing
13.6
10.8
7.9
9.6
8.7
10.1
1.6
Limiting
13.4
11.4
9.3
8.3
6.9
9.9
1.9
Source: Author's Calculation; basic data from NSO 2002 FPS
Population Growth and Human
Capital Accumulation – Household Level –
1/2
Survey of developing country evidence
• King (1987)
1. Children in large families perform less well in school
2. Children in large families have poorer health, lower survival
probabilities, and are less developed physically
• Lloyd (1994)
1. Resource dilution with each child getting smaller share of family
resources including income, time and maternal nutrition
2. Diminished access to public resources, such as health and
education
3. Unequal distribution of resources among siblings
Population Growth and Human
Capital Accumulation – Household Level –
2/2
• Evidence from Philippine data
1. High fertility negatively affects school participation of older
children (13-17 years old) although it does not affect school
participation of younger children (7-12 years old) (Herrin
1983, Bauer and Racelis, 1992)
2. Large negative impact on boys (DeGraff et al., 1993)
3. Expenditure per child is also negatively affected (Bankosta
and Evenson, 1978)
Family Size and Vulnerability
•
Using the 1997 FIES
and the 1998 and 1999
APIS, it was found that
46% of the family
remained to be nonpoor (N) while 22%
remained to be poor
(P) throughout the
period. Interestingly,
as one goes from
households who
remained to be poor to
households who
remained to be nonpoor, the family size
declines (Reyes, 2002).
Poverty, Vulnerability and
Family Size, 1997, 1998, 1999
Poverty
Mean Family
Group
Size
PPP
PPN
PNP
NPP
PNN
NNP
NPN
NNN
6.1
5.1
5.4
5.4
4.8
5.1
4.6
4.6
Philippines
5.0
P-Poor; N-Non-Poor
Sources of Basic Data: Run f rom the
matched Public Use Files of the 1997
Family Income and Expenditures
Survey, and the 1998 and 1999 A nnual
Poverty Indicators Surveys.
Source: Reyes (2002), Table 32
Poverty Decomposition Analysis
Period
Total Change in
Growth Redistribution Residual
Poverty Incidence Component Component
1985-1991
1991-1997
1997-2000
-3.04
-7.74
1.38
-6.09
-12.09
1.72
2.56
2.58
-0.47
0.5
1.77
0.13
1985-2000
-9.4
-16.46
(175%)
4.66
(-50%)
2.4
(-26%)
Source: Reyes (2002)
Nothing follows!!!