BERNARDO M. VILLEGAS August 8, 2008 MISTAKEN NOTIONS ON POPULATION CONTROL There are those who are lobbying for birth or population control whose motives are suspect. Among those are groups from the U.S. and other advanced countries who are worried that the expanding populations of the newly emerging markets which include the Philippines will no longer allow them to make use of the resources of other countries as they keep their own natural resources intact for posterity. This was clearly the message of the secret Kissinger report in the 1980s that was declassified later. Other lobby groups are the multinational companies that will benefit from sales of artificial contraceptives. Our legislators should be careful that they do not become stooges of these vested interests. I must admit, however, that there are legislators and other concerned citizens who are sincerely interested in combating poverty through population control. What is wrong with them is not their motivation but their diagnosis of the problem of poverty. They are advocating the wrong solution to a real problem. For example, some of them are blaming the expanding population in the emerging economies for the dramatic increase in the prices of fuel and food prices. They are wrong on two counts. First, the high prices of fuel and food today are not due to very rapid increases in population today. On the contrary, population growth is decelerating in all developing countries and actually declining in developed countries. The high prices of commodities today are due to dramatic increases in demand because of significant improvements in the incomes of hundreds of millions of previously impoverished segments of populous countries like China, India, Brazil, Russia, Vietnam, Indonesia, etc. This development is definitely good news. Prices of food products have risen, not because the world is running out of resources, 2 but because international markets for food have been totally distorted over the last three decades for two reasons. Because of these distortions, the supply for food is unable to respond immediately to the increased demand. To address the problem of high food prices, the direct solutions are not found in population control. On the side of the developed countries like the U.S. and members of the European Union, an urgent solution is the removal of the subsidies that they have granted to their agricultural sector, which subsidies have distorted international markets, driving food prices to very low levels and prejudicing hundreds of millions of poor farmers in the Third World who have been unable to sell their products at profitable prices. Now that food prices are higher, there is absolutely no need for these subsidies which have been the primary causes of the repeated failures of attempts of the World Trade Organization (WTO) to reform the world market for commodities. This point has been dramatized by the recent failure of the Doha round of the WTO. The other major error as regards the agricultural sector has been the utter neglect of infrastructures in the rural sector in most developing countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America, with the exception of a few countries like Thailand. Over the last three decades, these countries had an irrational obsession with large-scale, capital-intensive industrialization under the banner of self-sufficiency and nationalism. Massive resources were wasted on inefficient and uncompetitive industries while the agricultural sector was made to languish with little or no investments in such infrastructures as farm-to-market roads, irrigation systems, post-harvest facilities and agricultural extension services. It is no coincidence that in these countries, including the Philippines, mass poverty is fundamentally a rural phenomenon. Population control in no way addresses these two problems, i.e. distorted international markets for food and the backward state of agriculture. In fact, the very absence of infrastructures in the countryside is a primary motivation for rural families to want to have 3 numerous children who are needed as farmhands. It is inconceivable for a household in the countryside to survive with only two children per household. Also in the Philippine context, thanks to larger family sizes, each household not only can have sufficient hands to do the work for daily subsistence but can also hope to send one or two to some foreign country as overseas workers in order to supplement their meager incomes. Direct solutions to the problem of poverty, such as reforming international agricultural markets and heavy investments in rural infrastructure together with initiatives of civil society in microfinance, improving the quality of public education, social housing such as the very creative solution provided by the Gawad Kalinga movement, will help to significantly raise incomes which, in turn, will reduce the fertility rate. Countries like Ireland, France, Spain, Austria, Italy, Portugal, etc. have low fertility rates, not because they had State-sponsored contraceptive programs, but because they had enlightened economic policies that enabled their economies to grow rapidly. Rapid economic growth coupled with social policies to redistribute incomes led subsequently to the reduction of the fertility rate. This is a lesson our legislators have to learn. Distributing contraceptives for free does nothing to address the poverty problem and may not even reduce the fertility rate. Addressing the problem of mass poverty directly through market and social reforms will increase incomes and reduce fertility rate. Finally, reducing maternal mortality rate must be addressed also directly through measures to help pregnant mothers have a safe delivery and not through preventing motherhood. That is why we have to support all the programs of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to ensure safe motherhood. Among other measures are the upgrade of hospitals to extend obstetric, gynecological and surgical services to pregnant women, who must be discouraged from home-based delivery where most maternal deaths occur. This focus of the present Administration makes a lot of sense. It could lead to a 15 percent drop in the 4 maternal mortality and neonatal rates. To summarize, let us quote the response of Deputy Presidential Spokesman Anthony Golez to the critics of the government's reproductive health program: "This has to be viewed in totality. Population equals economy plus education plus rural development plus infrastructure plus basic services. It's the whole gamut of factors that is being addressed by this administration." bvillegas@uap.edu.ph. I can only say Amen. For comments, my email address is