Population and education

11 June 2005

Ms. Rina Jimenez-David
Inquirer News Service

Dear Ms. Rina,

I read your article ("Back-to-school blues", PDI, June 8, 2005, p. A13) and I noticed some inaccuracies. I would like to highlight one of them here.

The papers you cited from the book "The Ties that Bid: Population and Development in the Philippines" seem to base their population projections to fertility rates alone. In my opinion, it is inaccurate to explain population growth solely on high fertility rates. Lower infant, maternal and adolescent mortality rates, brought about by improved health care, must also be considered. Thus, relating fertility levels, with the implication of reducing it, and the education scenario is purely hypothetical and cannot stand up to analysis.

Population, as a subject matter, is more complex than what these economists seem to think. In fact, it is a branch of science in itself, called "demography". Aside from mortality rates, demographers also factor-in the growing urbanization and the phenomena of rural-to-urban and international migrations. DepEd statistics will show that only in the congested cities there are shortages of teachers and classrooms. Schools in the rural areas enjoy adequate facilities and personnel.

The economists you quoted seem to subscribe to a widely-held idea in developed countries that birth control is the indispensable pre-condition for the "sustainable development" of poor countries. In my opinion, underdevelopment must not be attributed only to increase in population. "There are also other internal causes in developing countries. The low standards of living and the scarcity of food, even to the point of famine, can be the result of bad political and economic administration, often accompanied by corruption. To this must be added: ... the small amount set aside for education; ... glaring injustices in the allocation of revenues; the concentration of the means of production for the profit of a privileged group; ... the paralyzing burden of foreign debt accompanied by the flight of capital; the weight of certain negative cultural practices' unequal access to property; bureaucracies blocking initiative and innovation, etc." (Pontifical Council for the Family, "Ethical and Pastoral Dimensions of Population Trends", 1994, no. 18)

Many demographers think that "it would be difficult to find an example in history of a country which underwent a prolonged trend (more than 25 years) of falling population and enjoyed substantial economic development at the same time. It has even been shown that population growth has often preceded economic growth." (Pontifical Council for the Family, "Ethical and Pastoral Dimensions of Population Trends", 1994, no. 25)

I hope you do not mind my negative reaction to your article.

Family planning program in the workplace, stabilizing population growth, stable economy

3 June 2005

Ms. Rina Jimenez-David
Inquirer News Service

Dear Ms. Rina,

I am very happy to know, through your article ("Business folk and macho men", PDI, June 3, 2005, p.A15), that the business forum organized by The Forum for Family Planning and Development Inc. (FFPD) was poorly attended. I really laughed when I read that "over 30 confirmation" were received out of "over a hundred" invited. You did not mention how many actually attended. I bet it was less than 30.

I congratulate the invited businessmen who did NOT attend. They are really very smart (no wonder they are businessmen). It only takes a business mind of a "balut vendor" to realize that FFPD's brand of family planning program (which is synonymous to population and birth control) is not good for business. No wonder the businessmen did not attend.

Brainwashing the workforce into thinking that separating the sexual act from its reproductive function is good for their personal lives will develop in them a contraceptive mentality. This mentality, which is easily perpetuated from generation to generation, will result in a long-term, irreversible, negative population growth. With a declining population, how can a businessman project an increasing customer base? This is already occuring in developed countries. Some already see a serious problem looming in pension and other social security issues. Certainly, population control is bad for business.

Establishing a "stable economy" does not require "stabilizing population growth". Manipulating the population is not as simple as driving a car. In the population issue, one is dealing with families, human beings! Every family should be respected in their free decision on how big their family they want it to be. It is their basic human right. No one, even the employers, can coerce them. The population is not a mechanistic reality. A "stable economy" is attained by implementing sound government policies that stimulate the "real factors in development: enterprise, creativity, and risk" (William McGurn, 1996). As William McGurn (1996) contend "there is no fixed level of resources, no natural capacity, no predefined limit to what people might do if given the opportunity to exercise the real factors in development".

Creating a "larger consumer base with higher purchasing power" is not equivalent to a lower population growth. Wealth is not automatically redistributed fairly by just achieving a lower national fertility rate. If the government does not craft policies that would lower the gap between the poor and the rich, that vision will still be unattainable even if we lower our population. What is crucial are the government economic policies not the size of the population!

The UP Economics professors were only looking, in their study, at short-term effects ("time and productivity lost to pregnancy, maternity and paternity leaves, etc") of a growing population. They based their arguments on the premise that workers are just individual productive units. Should they not consider also the "family", the basic social unit, which is an undeniable reality in society? Should they not consider the workers as members of families whom they have to nurture and support? Moreover, employers have also to take into account their responsibility to society. And that involves the family, too!

I hope you appreciate and respect the point of view of this feedback. Thank you and more power to you.