Population and
Development Linkages
Gavin W. Jones
JY Pillay Comparative Asia Research Centre
National University of Singapore
Introduction
•
•
•
General agreement among economists that lowering
population growth rates in high fertility populations is
favourable for development
But “the relations between population and economic
growth are part of a whole complex of interrelations
and interactions, which suggests that under different
configurations of factors and conditions, the impact on
economic factors may vary” (UN,1973)
“Demographic bonus” literature strengthened the
case for lowering fertility rates. Lowered dependency
rates helped create the high savings and investment
rates that fuelled the East Asian miracle.
Southeast Asian population policies
Indonesia, Thailand and Philippines all
introduced anti-natalist policies in 1970.
 The ASEAN-Australian Population
Program – 1981 report on “Population
and Development in ASEAN – a Status
Report” (Herrin, Pardoko, Lim and
Hongladarom)
 What did it say?
 What has happened since then?

Table 1. ASEAN 5 Countries –Demographic Indicators, 1980-2010.
Populatio
n growth
rate
Total
Fertility
Rate
Infant
Mortality
Rate
Per
capita
GNP*
Secondary
School E.R.
% Urban
Malaysia 1980
2.3
3.9
28
1820
46
42
Malaysia 2010
1.8
2.1
5
8150
67
72
Thailand 1980
2.3
3.9
54
710
28
27
Thailand 2010
0.3
1.5
12
4320
84
34
Philippines 1980
2.8
5.5
62
700
65
38
Philippines 2010
1.7
3.3
23
2060
85
49
Indonesia 1980
2.4
4.7
84
510
29
22
Indonesia 2010
1.4
2.5
29
2500
78
50
Singapore 1980
1.3
1.8
13
4920
n.a.
100
Singapore 2010
2.4
1.3
2
43980
n.a.
100
Remarkable progress in socio-economic
development, and in demographic transition.
What were the contributing factors?
“Virtuous circle”
 The relationship between economic and
demographic development is not a simple one of
cause and effect, but occurs in a broader context of
patterns of governance and economic policymaking.
 Andrew Mason: potential benefits of reduced fertility
can be realized “only if countries adopt sound
development policies that encourage innovation,
saving and investment, efficient allocation of labour,
rapid growth in industrial and manufacturing
employment, investment in human resources, and
the elimination of gender bias”

Figure 1.Total Fertility Rate and Number of Births
(in thousands)
in Southeast Asia, 1960-2010.
South Eastern Asia
TFR
2
2,000
1
0
0
2005-2010
4,000
2000-2005
3
1995-2000
6,000
1990-1995
4
1985-1990
8,000
1980-1985
5
1975-1980
10,000
1970-1975
6
1965-1970
12,000
1960-1965
7
TFR
Number of Births (thousands)
Births
14,000
8
5,000
4,000
3,000
4
2,000
3
2
1,000
1
0
0
Births
7
6
5
2005-2010
2000-2005
1995-2000
TFR
2,000
1,500
1,000
4
3
500
0
1,600
8
1,400
7
1,200
6
1,000
5
800
4
600
3
400
2
200
1
0
0
TFR
2005-2010
TFR
2000-2005
Indonesia
1990-1995
0
Births
1995-2000
0
1985-1990
1
1990-1995
100
2
1980-1985
3
1985-1990
200
1975-1980
4
1980-1985
300
1970-1975
5
2,500
1975-1980
6
1965-1970
400
1970-1975
6,000
1960-1965
7
1965-1970
TFR
1960-1965
500
Number of Births (thousands)
2005-2010
2000-2005
1995-2000
1990-1995
1985-1990
1980-1985
1975-1980
1970-1975
8
Number of Births (thousands)
2005-2010
2000-2005
Births
1995-2000
1990-1995
1985-1990
1980-1985
1975-1980
1970-1975
1965-1970
Malaysia
TFR
1965-1970
1960-1965
Births
TFR
1960-1965
Number of Births (thousands)
600
TFR
Number of Births (thousands)
Figure 1. Cont’d
Philippines
8
7
6
5
2
1
0
Thailand
TFR
What caused the decline in fertility?
Family planning programs?
 General socio-economic development?
 The argument largely irrelevant in SE Asia
now, because fertility is now low. BUT
 Still an issue in

◦
◦
◦
◦
Lao PDR
Timor Leste
Philippines
Indonesia (surprisingly)
Figure 2.Thailand’s Age Structure, 1970 and 2010
(Numbers in Millions).
Thailand- 1970
Male
Female
80+
75-79
70-74
65-69
60-64
55-59
50-54
45-49
40-44
35-39
30-34
25-29
20-24
15-19
10-14
5-9
0-4
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
Thailand- 2010
Male
Female
80+
75-79
70-74
65-69
60-64
55-59
50-54
45-49
40-44
35-39
30-34
25-29
20-24
15-19
10-14
5-9
0-4
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
100
Total
60
Child
Old Age
0
20
60
0
40
40
2030
2025
2020
2015
2010
60
60
2030
80
2025
2020
2015
2010
2005
2000
1995
1990
1985
80
2030
120
100
2025
140
2020
160
20
2015
Thailand
2010
0
2005
Child
2005
Old Age
2000
60
2000
Total
1995
120
1995
100
1990
140
120
1990
Singapore
1985
140
1980
SOUTHEAST ASIA
1985
160
1980
0
1980
20
1975
60
1975
140
1975
Child
Old-Age
1970
160
140
120
100
Dependency Ratio
Total
1970
100
Dependency Ratio
120
Dependency Ratio
160
1970
80
2030
2025
40
2030
80
2025
2020
2015
2010
2005
2000
1995
1990
1985
1980
1975
1970
Dependency Ratio
80
2030
40
2020
2015
2010
Dependency Ratio
40
2025
20
2020
2015
2005
2000
1995
1990
1985
1980
1975
1970
20
2010
2005
2000
1995
1990
1985
1980
1975
1970
Dependency Ratio
Figure 3.Trends in Dependency Ratios, Southeast Asian
Countries, 1970-2040
Indonesia
Total
Old Age
Child
0
Philippines
160
Total
40
Child
Old Age
0
160
Vietnam
140
120
100
80
Total
Child
20
Old Age
Dependency ratio trends very
positive
Over a period lasting decades, lowered
dependency ratios facilitate development
 Over the long run, they also lead to
population ageing
 The “window of opportunity” is only an
advantage if the opportunity is seized. Rapid
growth of labour force can be a disaster if
education and job opportunities not
expanded
 Changing internal structure of the labour
force must be kept in mind

Table 2. Southeast Asia: % growth of younger and
older working-age population since 1980
1980-85
1990-95
2000-05
2010-15
Aged 15-29
15.6
8.0
4.1
0.4
Aged 30-64
16.4
17.2
14.3
12.8
Aged 15-64
16.0
12.7
9.8
7.8
Figure 4. Index of Projected Population
Growth in Different Working Age Groups
2010-2030 - UN Medium Projections
Southeast Asia
150
144.1
140
135.8
Index
130
126.3
120
123.6
107.8
100.0
102.5
103.5
2015
2020
105.0
104.8
2025
2030
90
80
2010
15-64
15-34
114.4
110
100
119.7
113.6
35-64
The issue of ultra-low fertility
East Asian countries face this problem –
also Singapore and Thailand
 Vietnam is considering its situation
 Delays in modifying population policies in
East Asian countries. Why?

◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
Uncertainty – are the figures correct?
Population momentum
Unawareness about long-term implications
Vested interests in maintaining F.P. program
Table 3. Delays in modifying population
policy after reaching replacement level
Country
Year in which
replacement
fertility was
reached
Year in
which antinatalist
policy was
reversed
Number
of years
elapsed
% below
replacement
when policy
reversed
Singapore
1975
1984
9
25
Singapore
1975
1987
12
25
South Korea
1984
1996
12
20
South Korea
1984
2004
20
50
Taiwan
1984
1992
8
20
Taiwan
1984
2006
22
47
Japan
1973[1]
1990
17
25
Japan
1973
1994
21
China
1992 (?)
No reversal
22 (+)
32
Comments
Selective pro-natalist policies
for highly educated.
More general pro-natalist
measures.
Very mildly pro-natalist policies
More serious pro-natalist
measures
Pro-natalist statement but no
measures.
Specific pro-natalist measures
under consideration
Mildly pro-natalist measures
Angel plan was introduced in
1994, then revised in 1999 –
More forceful pro-natalist
measures.
25-30% below replacement in
2013; policy modified to allow
only child to have 2 children
after marrying.
Some key populationdevelopment linkages affecting
Southeast Asia
•Population density
•Population and environment
•Education and population
•Ageing
•Urbanization and migration
Figure 5. Secondary School Enrolment
Ratio (% gross)
China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia
90
China
80
Indonesia
70
Malaysia
China
India
60
India
Indonesia
Malaysia
50
40
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
30
Table 4.Trends in % of
population aged 65+
Singapore
Thailand
Vietnam
Malaysia
Indonesia
Philippines
SE ASIA
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
5.6
4.5
5.7
3.6
3.8
3.1
4.1
7.3
6.6
6.4
3.8
4.7
3.2
4.9
9.0
8.9
6.5
4.8
5.0
3.7
5.5
13.9
13.0
8.2
6.9
6.3
4.9
7.1
20.5
19.5
12.9
9.7
9.2
6.3
10.3
Urbanization and migration
Provinces with ultra-low fertility
(Shanghai, Guangzhou) growing rapidly
 Provinces with higher fertility (Sichuan,
Guizhou, Hubei) growing more slowly.
Why?
 Gu Baochang: “China has entered a period
in which demographic dynamics becomes
dominated by migration rather than
mortality or fertility”

Table 5.Trends in % of
Malaysia’s population –
Selangor and Perak
Year
Selangor
Perak
1970
9.4
15.0
1980
10.9
13.3
1990
13.1
10.7
2000
18.0
8.8
2010
19.3
8.3
The role of the United Nations in
population policy leadership





ICPD Cairo – major shift in approaches
Post-Cairo – Reproductive health approach good for SE Asia
But diversion of attention from need to reduce population growth
rates not good for Africa. The world has tired of funding FP/RH
programs, and successful promotion of HIV/AIDS has led to too
little of the limited resources going to FP/RH.
Turnaround in funding for unmet need for FP – 2012 London
summit called by British Government and Gates Foundation - $4.6
billion promised by donors.
Recent UN document on follow-up to ICPD – recognizes
inequitable distribution of the fruits of development and stresses 5
pillars for population and development – dignity and human rights,
health, place and mobility, governance and accountability, and
sustainability.
One working lifetime in population
policy
Experiences in Thailand – 1968-9 and
2012
 Changes have been remarkable
 Conventional wisdom has frequently been
proved incorrect
 Demographic factors need to be
integrated in development planning –
whether or not there is seen to be a
demographic crisis of some sort.

TERIMA KASIH!