Population & Development Training

POP-5-TSS-95-10

UNITED NATIONS Department for Economic and Social Information and Policy Analysis Population Division

POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT TRAINING: GLOBAL ISSUES AND CHALLENGES*

A TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES REPORT
DECEMBER 1995

_______________________________

*/For more information and to submit comments, please write to C. Stephen Baldwin, TSS Specialist in Teaching of Demography and Population Training, Population Division/DESIPA, United Nations Secretariat, 2 United Nations Plaza (Rm. DC2-2070), New York, NY 10017, USA (Telephone No. 212-963-8394, Fax No. 212-963-2147 or 963-2638).

INTRODUCTION

What only scant years ago was termed "training in demography"---that austere-sounding social science so close to economics in its more dismal connotations---has emerged, especially since the 1994 Cairo Conference, to inherit a more appropriate title of "population and development training". The title is `appropriate' in the sense that true demographic training has always considered the interrelationships of population dynamics and development its proper scope, if not always central emphasis. But recent years, with the '94 Rio environmental meeting, Cairo ICPD, 1995 Copenhagen social development gathering and, most recently, '95 Women's Conference in Beijing, have had significant substantive impact on the field. Much that was always potentially relevant has been newly identified and/or underscored in its importance, including: population and the environment; empowerment and status of women; the diversity of family structure/composition; indigenous people; reproductive rights/health; HIV/AIDS; human sexuality and gender relations; and primary health care/the health care sector generally, with a new emphasis being placed on children, particularly the girl child; adolescents; the elderly; persons with disabilities; indigenous and internally displaced persons; as well as the categories of documented and undocumented migrants, refugees, and asylum-seekers.

Having broadened the field's scope does not mean that there are not other problems to be faced and challenges to be met. Some of these, which are common to all in the field, can appropriately be considered at the global level. These include issues of content; length, level and periodicity of training; who is to be trained; where the training should take place; and what should be the minimum indexes of long-term demand and commitment to suggest that such training be institutionalized at all. The discussion which follows treats each of these issues in a general fashion, to outline the qualities they share on a global level. One hopes this will provide a useful starting-point for consideration of appropriate strategies at the individual country level in the population and development training area.

ISSUE #1: WHAT IS POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT TRAINING?

Everyone in the population field is familiar with the problem of "population's" persistent all-inclusiveness; at one point in the 1960's it seemed all one had to do was express a sincere interest in people to be accepted as a "population scientist". The problem is compounded by the fact that, indeed, much that concerns the human condition is interrelated with its further development, and can be described and even analyzed accordingly. This understanding has permitted a legitimate linking of the dynamics of population with, among others, the environment, women's exposure to opportunities for gainful employment, and health. But it has also made very difficult the task of considering what to include---and what to exclude---from the training of population and development specialists.

At whatever level of training, and for whatever duration, some degree of substantive parsimony has to be exercised. Allied with this need is the question of how we can expect those responsible for deciding these issues---those who propose curricula and curricular change---to keep up effectively with changes in substantive orientation and emphasis. And finally, what is the most cost-effective way to ensure that what is being taught is appropriate to what the employment market demands?

None of these questions, or those that follow, have any simplistic, universally-applicable answers. The hard work of finding solutions appropriate to each situation and society has to be undertaken. Generally speaking, however, population and development training may be taken as concentrating on the most proximate known interrelationships between population variables and improvement of the human condition. Those responsible for shaping and modifying what is being taught should stay closely in touch with what their peers are doing, and what the field as a whole recognizes as important (as significantly through the considerations of such world fora as the Rio Conference on the Environment, the ICPD in Cairo and the Women's Meeting in Beijing). And employers should have a significant voice in deciding what should be taught, since it is by the skills of those taught that they will benefit and, in turn, continue to validate the training itself.

Notwithstanding the above, it may be useful to suggest the minimum content of such training. This should include, on the more classical side of demographic interrelationships and analytical techniques, an over-all introduction to population studies; substantive and technical demography, the latter to include, eventually, mathematical demography and advanced demographic and statistical techniques and methods; exposure to relevant mathematical, statistical and research methods; and computer use, with special reference to micro-computers (PCs) and computer packages for demographic and statistical analysis.

In the area of population interrelationships with development, curricula should include some attention to each of the following areas: population and

--health

--education

--environment

--resources

--labour force/employment

--empowerment/status of women and gender relations

--human sexuality (especially adolescent)

--STD/HIV/AIDS

--reproductive rights and health

--special groups (such as, according to local priorities, children; adolescents; the elderly; the disabled; refugees; etc.)

In addition, a complete population and development curriculum would include, either in the context of actual courses in the above areas or in special integrated modules, full attention to the population variable in a modern-day developmental context, to include: population density, migration, and distribution; labour force and employment; land use; food production and nutrition; urbanization; consumption and savings; education; health; water supply; deforestation/land degradation; non-renewable resources; special groups etc.

This is a long list. Even so, it may not include areas of particular importance to individual countries, with respect to locally-important population/development interrelationships. Few curricula would be able to include all of the above, so a certain amount of trading-off needs to be involved in structuring local curricula to best suit local needs. The idea here is to provide a conceptual as well as substantive starting-point for such decisions.

ISSUE #2: HOW MUCH TRAINING IS REQUIRED, AND AT WHAT LEVEL(S)?

The UNFPA's global programme in population and development responds to the need for relatively short-term---approximately one academic year---training, but it seems clear that even for admission to this programme, much less to achieve the substantive skills necessary to perform sophisticated population/development analyses, including those which focus on the causes and consequences of major population/development interrelationships, requires more. The question to be answered everywhere is: How much more? Is Diploma/Certificate-level training enough? Masters-level? Is training to the Ph.D. required? When does "contact" training or an actual major at the BA level suffice?

The specific answers to these questions must and will ultimately be answered at the individual country level. Among the relevant considerations are: what is the effective demand for population/development analyses, both qualitatively (in terms of sophistication, i.e. beyond the superficially descriptive into the acquisition and analysis of primary data) and quantitatively (in terms of the range and variety of such analyses in a particular country)? While mostly theoretical at present, consideration of such effective demand should include the needs of the private and NGO sectors as well. In addition, where academic programmes of such training already exist, the recurrent needs for replenishment of academic staff must also be taken into consideration.

A most useful analytical approach in this area was carried out recently(1) by Messrs. Rafiq, Katende and Mungyereza of the Department of Population Studies at Makerere University in Uganda. They suggest that elements of what they call an "Ideal/Reference Curriculum" may be divided into four separate parts, or "Training Modules". Two of these would be directed, respectively, at efforts aimed at enhancing general awareness of population and contemporary population issues in society; and efforts aimed at enhancing awareness of specific population policies, plans, programmes and activities in the country concerned. Both training activities are visualized as being implemented through seminars/workshops/conferences of 1-3 weeks' duration.

A third module, consisting of specialized short-term training aimed at enhancing the level of technical skills and expertise required in the country, could consist of seminars/workshops/conferences of slightly longer duration, say 3-6 weeks, and/or on-the-job training of 3 to 6 weeks. The fourth "module" consists of formal, long-term training offering specialization in demography/population studies at either the undergraduate and/or graduate/postgraduate levels. Here, the full panoply of academic-based instruction is implied, including lectures, tutorials, seminars, ex-class assignments, tests and examinations, research, theses etc., over a typical period of from 3 to 36 months.

It is somewhere in the latter species of training that the true "population and development" practitioner is formed. While the matter remains the subject of still inconclusive debate, it is probable that the ability to conduct truly independent and reliable analyses of population/development interrelationships, whether on the "cause" or "consequence" side, suggests a need for training in this area of somewhere between a minimum and a maximum of 1 to 3 years of post-graduate training, corresponding to the awarding of a Certificate, Masters, or Ph.D. in demography/population and development studies.

ISSUE #3: WHERE SHOULD WHAT TRAINING TAKE PLACE?

Where a country's public, private, and/or educational sector determines that some degree of recurrent training in population and development is required, whether at the undergraduate (BA/BS), MA, short-term (as in Certificate/Diploma), or Ph.D.-level; the next question to be answered is where each level should take place. In other words, what can and should be done at the country level, and what at the sub-regional, regional, interregional, or otherwise international? Is there justification for some countries never to build local capacity for regular, recurrent population and development training? Is there some minimum "critical core" need, to be replenished regularly on a recurrent basis, before a country should consider establishing its own permanent training in this area?

Among the most salient considerations here is cost. If the over-all effective demand for new persons trained to, say, the Masters level in the population and development area---i.e. to a level where fairly sophisticated analyses of primary or secondary data can be performed---is two annually, it would be difficult to justify the start-up and recurrent costs of establishing a local Masters programme. But where the demand starts to approach double figures, and the arithmetic of substituting some form of ex-country training, including travel and maintenance costs, as well as tuition, is performed, such justification may well be provided.

Add to this the usual need, perhaps stronger in some countries than others, to ensure that the content of the training is focused on local needs/conditions; the frequent difficulty in recruiting students to go to other countries, even neighboring countries, for prolonged periods and adjust successfully; language problems; also, not infrequently, the barriers to/limits on foreign student enrollment; and, finally, understandable national needs to possess the basic elements of an infrastructure, including educational, perceived to be at a "world standard".

A basic point remains: ideally, an assessment of local needs must first be undertaken. Based on it, some calculation should be made of the economic and social costs of either setting up in-country some of the training required, none of it, or some mix. What is clear is that there is great potential for continuing the present complementary role of regional/interregional training institutions (such as the Cairo Demographic Centre, RIPS, and IFORD, in the African case, and IIPS for Asia, CELADE for Latin America) and country-level efforts. Equally clear, in Africa at least, and most likely in the other major regions of the developing world, is the long-term scope for such continued cooperation, since the annual demands for training presently fall far short of what both the regional/subregional and country-level institutions can provide. For the future, it is appropriate to encourage more and more regular contact between the academic staff of these institutions to discuss specific ways to ensure that their efforts are truly complementary and not duplicative. One might also suggest, in this regard, that the regional/subregional institutes should concentrate especially on the highest-level training (M.Phil and Ph.D.-level) as well as on providing training opportunities at all graduate levels for newly-emerging countries and those too small or poor to consider establishing their own in-country training programmes in the population and development area, at least for the foreseeable future.

ISSUE #4: WHO IS TO BE TRAINED?

Closely related to the issues immediately preceding is the question who is to be trained? Practitioners in the population/development field---analysts, teachers, administrators, advocates---or policy-makers? Or "just" ordinary citizens in all walks of life who should, in order to function more effectively in society, be aware on some level of the role which population concerns play in its further development? Furthermore, how can we better, and more regularly, assess the needs for persons trained and relate them more closely with their supply, both qualitatively and quantitatively?

Once more, in this context one cannot proceed much further than the assertion that such questions must be asked, and ultimately answered, before decisions on training are taken. The heart of this issue is assessment. It must take place and be periodically up-dated, so that, if necessary, the training decision "mix" may in turn be revised. As a rough-and-ready rule it is probably the case that the less developed a particular society, in terms of its position on the population and development continuum of knowledge and concern, the greater training emphasis should be on the wide-scale population "contact" kinds of training---undergraduate-level and pre-university population education---and the sensitization of key policy-makers. As a function of success at these levels, subsequent effective demand will be created and expanded to some ultimate quasi-equilibrium state for analysts, teachers and the rest.

ISSUE #5: WHAT IS THE ROLE OF SHORT-TERM, SPECIALIZED TRAINING?

Generally and globally, the role of short-term, specialized training is to supplement established programmes either by providing exposure to areas whose treatment may be considered of importance but likely limited durability---such as hopefully the subject of HIV/AIDS---or, more likely, to provide refresher training to those already trained in the field, while the material is being incorporated into the recurrent training curriculum. The latter is exemplified most notably, in recent years, by training provided on the use of PCs and, either simultaneously or later, the use of various software packages for demographic analysis, projections etc. (Here, the discussion under Issue #2 above, especially on page 6, is also relevant).

Once again, assessment of local needs is the starting-point for answers. In addition, however, since such training is primarily a staff/resources issue, included in the assessment should be definitive answers to the related question of who will provide and who will pay for this training, and for the participation costs of trainees, especially if/when external funding for such activities is no longer available.

ISSUE #6: WHAT SHOULD THE TRAINING'S CONTENT BE?

The answer to this key question is related both to the issue earlier raised relating to what kinds of people are required; and to the question of where universal consensuses on the matter exist. In other words, it can be argued that, especially after the 1994 ICPD in Cairo, no formal population and development training, at whatever level or duration (except specialized short courses) should exclude attention to gender issues---even if the particular society expresses no effective demand for persons with such training. In other words, there exists, as in any discipline, a substantive "minimax", ideally subject to periodic if not constant up-dating---without close attention to which no training in the field can be considered respectable or effective. (Unfortunately, and thereby providing justification for a DESIPA/Population Division TSS comparative curricula examination currently underway, this periodic scrutiny of training programmes is too often honoured in the breach).

A CST colleague(2) has delineated some of the key issues most persuasively:

"The most effective way to strengthen population training and research programmes is to ensure that they are really useful and to demonstrate that to all concerned...(We should) see programmes that prepare students to identify and respond to major issues of public policy, to present policy-relevant information to decision-makers thoughtfully and clearly, to discuss with policy makers and to initiate and support collaboration between the producers and the users of demographic statistics. Are the graduates and faculty of population training and research programmes in a position to defend "family life education" programmes against accusations that they encourage sexual experimentation? Are they equipped to adopt an analytical approach to abortion? Are they prepared to deal analytically with the causes, consequences and policy implications of teen-age pregnancies? Are they in a position to determine whether significant numbers of men actually prevent their wives or partners from practicing family planning? Are they able to discuss AIDS knowledgeably and to analyze the policy options and implications?"

These are the kinds of questions that have to be asked---and ultimately answered---of local training programmes if their relevance, and thus their justification if not actual survival, is to be assured. In the event, and with reference to Mr. Herzog's point regarding service to and communication with policy/decision-makers, there seems to be a global case to be made for always including communication skills in population and development training. This, both in the more conventional areas of writing and even speaking more effectively about the subject, and, especially, with regard to communicating initially with actual and potential "users" of population and development information, as to their priority needs; and, later on, communicating concisely and routinely, the result of any investigations conducted.

ISSUE #7: HOW TO ENSURE SURVIVAL?

This final issue addresses the very serious need to determine, in each country where population and development training is at issue, that on-going commitment to it is sufficient to ensure its survival, if it is a new effort, after some reasonable period (say 5-7 years) of declining balance support from some ex-country agency like UNFPA. Again, to ask the question, usually of government policy-makers, is not necessarily to receive an answer or even, given the always evanescent nature of government structures everywhere, to justify action on the basis of the answer received. But not to ask the question at all, and as well and widely as possible, would simply be irresponsible. Securing specific commitments in advance with respect to numbers and kinds of posts authorized; recurring budgetary provision for, inter alia, equipment, maintenance costs, library and material supplies; adequate provision of office space etc., would be highly desirable in this regard.

CONCLUSION

As stated at the outset, what we have laid out in the most general terms above cannot be expected, at its global level of generality, to serve country purposes directly. On the other hand, there is a case, drawn from experience world-wide with training/research programmes in the population and development area over more than twenty years, for presenting a starting-point outline for more intensive consideration at the individual country level. Further experience at that level will determine its usefulness.

______________________

(1) "Essential Elements of an "Ideal Curriculum" for the Population-Related Training Efforts in Uganda"; UGA/93/PO2/18/95/1; Department of Population Studies, Institute of Statistics and Applied Economics, Makerere University; revised November 1995.

(2) Mr. John R. Herzog, Regional Adviser on Population Policy and Development Strategies, UNFPA CST, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; private communication to the author dated 15/IX/95.