Population-development: are these two terms incompatible or do they form a synergy for the future survival of the planet?
The debate on population and development is not new. Already, nearly 2500 years ago, Plato in his Republic was concerned with achieving the best equilibrium between population size and the perfect city-state, or between population and sustainable development. Concretely, estimating the number of inhabitants or the size of armies for the greater glory of a kingdom has been a constant throughout history. Clay tablets from ancient Mesopotamia give gruesome accounts of the enemies killed in battle. Ancient roman historians such as Livius often included estimates of army sizes and losses in battle. In general, through much of history, a large population was perceived as a reflection of the greatness of the state and was correlated to prosperity and to development. More fundamentally, the traditional interest in enumerating populations resided in finding a basis for taxation and recruiting soldiers.
Although, in the past, population growth was perceived very positively, I shall present the modern debate on whether population growth and development are compatible or not and some of its consequences. Then, in a second part, I shall focus on replacing population in an emerging development paradigm.
The concern for population and development has been taking a reductionist approach,
focusing on certain quantitative factors to the exclusion of others. The focus is on numerical
growth and the rate at which populations grow, i.e. growth in absolute and relative terms. The
most important factor in growth has been fertility. For development, the attention has frequently
focused on the quantitative aspects, such as the gross national product or GNP. These are the
kinds of issues the classic debate has concentrated on.
Obviously, population issues are far more complex and diverse than just their numeric
growth rate. A population is a complex set of human beings subjected to events from births to
deaths with multiple interactions. People develop, produce, consume, reproduce, move from
one
place to another and so forth. Collectively, human beings form populations with both
quantitative and qualitative dimensions, e.g. educational level. In a similar manner, one can
show that development has many dimensions; in fact its definition changes with the priorities
adopted. The emerging paradigm I shall present in the second part is now trying to take this
complexity into account.
The classic debate: is there a conflict between population and development?
There are two schools of thought, one is that population growth will be kept under
control
through development and, the other, that population growth can threaten developmental efforts.
Condorcet belonged to the first school and, in the typical manner of the Enlightment of the 18th
century, believed in the role of self-regulating mechanisms based on rational behaviour and
education which would lead to development and to happiness. This 18th century idea of
happiness can nowadays be understood as the qualitative dimension of development. The
proponents of this optimistic view of human behaviour and society have always stressed the role
of human ingenuity and ability to adapt, particularly in the face of challenge. Challenges were
believed by some to trigger invention and spur progress. For example, population pressure led
to
major innovations in agriculture, thus laying the ground for a new cycle of food and population
growth.
In practice, however, the Condorcet descendants branched into two schools: those who
believed that population growth did not result only in more mouths to feed, but also in more
hands to produce food, and, those who believed that development would be the best
contraceptive pill through reducing the need for children. In both cases, it led to inaction in the
area of population. On the contrary, Malthus, concluded that food production increases in an
arithmetic manner and population in a geometric one. Because of Malthus' social class
perceptions, the concern was with the increase in the number of the poor. It was the fertility
of
the poor which needed to be controlled, placing the onus on them. Being a pastor, Malthus'
analysis, expectedly, had moral dimensions which are important to highlight because they still
emerge in both the debate and in the actions recommended to resolve the problems of population
growth. What is important here, is to stress that the solution to the imbalance between the rates
of growth of food and of population was to be found in checking the growth of population rather
than in attempting to accelerate development. Population growth was the "guilty" element
responsible for the imbalance and, therefore, it was legitimate to intervene in order to promote
its
control. Such interventions were all the more justifiable since, in the absence of voluntary
checks, one could expect mortality increases to reestablish the broken balance. The result was
that, although population could increase and, because food production could do so too but at
a
slower pace, the standard of living would tend to be always at the minimum subsistence level.
This was due to the mortality check bringing back the population to the number that could be
fed
at a given level of agricultural productivity.
Another very important dimension contained in the Malthusian theory was the idea of
limits which trigger checks when reached. The question of limits has become the
focus of many
discussions, particularly with the recent concern for the protection of the environment and the
awareness that resources are not always renewable. This adds an element of urgency which not
only sharpens the debate, but also results in promoting more radical interventions. Once again,
the idea of limits orients attention to the population factor as the most important and easy one
to
intervene with rather than with the promotion of development.
During the 19th century when population growth was rapid in most European countries,
the solution to the Malthusian trap was found in emigration and in colonization. Inside Europe,
the debate had shifted from the food-population balance to that of balance between nations and
the possibility of expansion with definitely nationalistic and military connotations.
The dramatization of the debate: the population "bomb"
After the second world war, when mortality started to decline rapidly in the developing
countries, many of which were also emerging as independent states through decolonization, the
debate shifted back to the relationship between population and development. The declines in
mortality were celebrated as triumphs of medicine, science and development. A classic example
was that of Sri Lanka where malaria control programmes had considerable success. Mortality
was amenable to cheap and effective public health measures, eg. DDT, vaccinations. It became
clear that development could have an impact on mortality, which, to some extent, was amenable
to technical fixes without a great deal of development. The problem was that, in the absence
of
serious development schemes, fertility remained high and therefore, on a more sudden and much
grander scale than in 19th century Europe, population grew rapidly. The rapid population
growth
of the developing countries came as a shock and appeared as a menace to the developed ones.
Unlike in the 19th century Europe, there was no more room for massive emigration or for
colonization and it was hoped that the problems of high fertility would find their solution
through technical measures such as family planning programmes.
This concern with, and fear of, rapid population growth taking place in developing
countries led to considerable efforts in the areas of research, training and setting up family
planning programmes. In 1969, Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb was published
and clearly
represented the anguish created by rapid population growth. In a number of publications the
demographic and nuclear threats to humanity were often highlighted together and the
terminology used was dramatic. Projections, if not predictions of hundred of millions of deaths,
were made sometimes accompanied by specific scenarios such as a starving China invading the
Soviet Union by the late seventies. The population of China was just over 800 million in 1970,
projected to reach 1 billion by 1980. Would there be a crash before that date? China is now
over
1.2 billion... The purpose is not to ridicule such projections, but to underline the impact of such
debates. It is a fact that, through dramatization, the population-development debate spills out
of
the academic and decision makers circles to be presented to the general public, in order to
stimulate an awareness of the importance of the issues for the entire future of the planet.
Therefore, citizens in developed countries needed to be made aware of the problems and,
consequently, encourage their countries to provide assistance to developing countries wishing
to
reduce their rate of population growth. The Malthusian trap was thus considered applicable at
the global level, and required both technical and moral responses.
The implications of the debate: translating theory into action
The consequences of the population-development debate became very concrete. While
it
was often recognized that development had an impact on lowering fertility, the time necessary
for this effect was questioned and so was the possibility of waiting for the countries concerned
by
high population growth. For all kinds of reasons, ideological, political, theoretical and others,
a
number of countries chose to take no action in the area of population, preferring to promote
development. However, year after year, an increasing number of countries formulated
population policies based primarily on the recognition of the negative consequences of rapid
population growth.
One of the interesting characteristics of population programmes was that they attempted
to integrate research, policy and programme levels. The results of research were analyzed for
their policy and programme implications. The feeling of urgency led to the setting up of
military
style "campaigns" in some cases, setting "targets", and placing considerable importance on
logistics, organization effectiveness and marketing. Every conceivable method and strategy was
discussed, often experimented with, ranging from "inundation programmes" to distribute
contraceptives to finely tuned incentives for family planning workers and acceptors. Urgency
led, in some cases, to abuses, to violations of human rights and to discussions on coercion and
the primacy of collective interests over those of individuals. It must be recognized that there
were a few regrettable and condemnable attempts. Fortunately, such abuses provoked a backlash
which, in certain cases, resulted in reviewing programmes in order to more fully respect
individual rights.
The neglect of human factors and the top-down approaches resulted in attempts at social
engineering. A number of lessons have been learned from population programmes, in particular
the importance of respecting human rights and the need to empower people, especially
women.
In practice, a number of countries promoted activities in both population and
development rather than choosing one at the expense of the other. These countries generally
succeeded on both fronts, for example programmes of some South-East Asian countries.
Although these countries succeeded in fertility reduction and economic development, their
reductionist strategy led to neglecting other population aspects such as migration as well as other
development dimensions such as environment and quality of life, thus precipitating certain
difficulties in these areas.
The renewal of the debate: some examples
Now, I would like to provide some examples on how this debate was recently
renewed.
With the emerging concern for environmental protection and the introduction of quality
of life considerations into development, the Malthusian debate has been reborn like the phoenix.
It now raises, in a more subtle and refined way, the question of limits: are certain levels of
population growth and/or consumption and production patterns compatible with environmental
protection and conservation? Such a question can be expressed more crudely: can the planet
sustain the Western standard of living or mode of life for the present and projected populations
of
developing countries?
Such a question is perfectly legitimate and useful. Its policy implications are important.
But it is very difficult to answer. It requires quality data and methodological developments
which might not always be feasible.
I would like here to illustrate with some attempts which have been made and others
which are still on-going.
In the mid seventies, FAO embarked on a complex and ambitious research to determine
and project the population carrying capacities of various types of land. Very simply stated this
consisted in combining soil and climate maps in order to define "agro-ecological zones". For
each type of zone, in a rain fed agriculture system, it then became possible to determine the
production potential at various levels of agricultural inputs. This, in turn, would determine the
size of the population which a unit land could sustain. Three levels were defined,
low, which
corresponded to subsistence agriculture; intermediate, using a basic package of fertilizers and
biocides with some other improvements; and, high, with the best (for 1975) use of inputs and
technology. Population projections to the year 2000 were then integrated and the results were
very revealing. Globally, at low levels of inputs, the situation in developing countries would
be
tight, but, if all the developing countries successfully reached the intermediate level of inputs,
their land carrying capacity could be ensured. However, examining individual countries was
more realistic. Under the assumptions made, a number of critical countries were identified for
the year 2000, eg.: Rwanda, Yemen, Afghanistan, Haiti, Burundi, Somalia, Comoros, Ethiopia,
Uganda, Nigeria. Sadly, for some of these countries the projections proved to be true. This
shows that countries, in isolation, which are exclusively or mostly dependant on agriculture,
particularly subsistence agriculture, are very vulnerable to the imbalance between population and
development. Thereupon, the Malthusian trap can function ruthlessly. The projections also
show that it is possible to escape this predicament if proper investments are made in agricultural
development or if a country can import food through wealth generated in industry, services or
other sources such as oil.
Recently, with the growing concern about the possible limits to the availability of water
resources, an attempt has been made to introduce this further constraint into the preceding
picture. The results are disturbing. In Africa, for example, five countries would soon find their
population pressure beyond the "water barrier", i.e. the maximum population pressure that can
be
handled in the present state of water technology and management capabilities. A further group
of ten African countries would find themselves with increasing difficulties to develop because
they would reach water scarcity stage over the next few years. One can thus introduce new
issues and constraints into the debate. As seen, the water and land carrying capacities of
population can be combined.
These debates will continue and could take on new directions according to circumstances.
They have many policy and programmatic implications, in particular with respect to the need
to
invest more in agriculture, from research in plant genetics to human resource development and
to
introduce environmental and sustainability concerns. Just like in the recent debate over climate
change, even if one is far from certain of the importance of a number of linkages, it would be
prudent to take these issues seriously.
However, as mentioned at the beginning of this presentation, other developments are
unfolding which open some potentially interesting new avenues.
OR "POPULATION
OR DEVELOPMENT"?