UN Population Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs,
with support from the UN Population Fund (UNFPA)
|
| UN Population Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, with support from the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) |
|
************************************************************************
The electronic version of this newsletter is being made available by the
Population Information Network (POPIN) Gopher of the United Nations
Population Division, Department for Economic and Social Information and
Policy Analysis, in collaboration with the Population Reference Bureau
and with funding from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.
************************************************************************
Population Today
May 1995
Please note: The graphics that appeared in the printed copy of
Population Today have not been included here. For a complete copy
of Population Today, send $2.00 to Population Reference Bureau,
1875 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 520, Washington, D.C. 20009.
*****
IN THIS ISSUE: The Myth of Delayed Childbearing...Cuts Ahead for
Population Funding?...Was the Social Summit a Success?...Spotlight
on the Philippines...News and Resources
*****
U.S. AGING: "GOLDEN OLDIES" REMAIN VULNERABLE
By Judith Treas
We started the century young, but we are ending it old. In
1900, the United States had a young population. There were only 3
million people age 65 and older--less than 1 in 25 Americans. In
1995, almost 34 million Americans have lived past their 65th
birthday--fully 1 in 8 Americans.
The growth and change of America's older population may rank
among the most important demographic developments of the 20th
century. Fewer children per family and longer lives have
transformed the elderly from a small component to a significant
part of the U.S. population. A sizable segment of all consumers,
voters, homeowners, and family members are older adults.
Yet, this enormous growth is just the beginning of the graying of
America. After the first of the post-World War II baby-boom
generation turns 65 in 2011, the ranks of the older population
will swell again. After 2030, however, when the baby-bust
generation begins to reach retirement age, the rate of increase of
the elderly population will slow. Nonetheless, by mid-century
there will be 80 million people age 65 or older, roughly 1 in 5
Americans.
The fourth White House Conference on Aging, taking place this
May in Washington, D.C., will focus the attention of the public
and policymakers on aging issues.
Golden oldies?
Older people are living a lifestyle that few could have
envisioned in their youths. Public programs for the elderly_and
the succession of increasingly wealthy generations of elderly_has
brought retirement (and even early retirement) within the reach of
most people. Active retirement has emerged as an idealized
lifestyle that encompasses social engagements, travel, hobbies,
volunteer activities, independent living, Sunbelt migration, and
even part-time jobs.
U.S. life expectancy is at an all-time high. A person age 65
can look forward_on average_to another 17.3 years of life. Those
who survive to 85 years have an average of 6.0 years of remaining
life.
Today's elderly benefit from government income and health
care programs, private pensions, and the unprecedented postwar
prosperity that permitted them to own their own homes and save for
their later years. They also tend to have more assets than younger
people. Among households that had assets, those headed by a person
age 65 or older had an average net worth of $88,192, compared with
a U.S. average of $36,623.
Older people also enjoy substantial political clout. Fully 78
percent of all persons age 65 and older reported they were
registered to vote in the U.S. presidential election of 1992_the
highest registration rate of any age group. Seventy percent of
older Americans said they voted, compared with 58 percent of
people age 25 to 44. The growth of the older population combined
with their high rate of voting have made senior citizens an
important political factor in elections. One in five voters in the
1992 elections was age 65 or older.
Vulnerabilities
Yet many vulnerabilities remain. Poverty is no longer endemic
in the older population as it was 40 years ago, but it is a
reality for 12 percent of all elderly people, 28 percent of older
African Americans, and 21 percent of elderly Hispanics. Sixty
years of Social Security and 30 years of Medicare underpin the
well-being of older Americans. Social Security accounts for two of
every five dollars older Americans receive. It is the biggest
single source of income for older Americans.
Government noncash benefits also improve the economic welfare
of older people. Medicare provides significant health insurance at
relatively little or no cost. About 5 percent of the elderly live
in subsidized or public housing, and 5 percent live in a household
receiving food stamps.
There are holes in this silver safety net, however. One of
the most feared is the need for long-term care, whether in the
community or in a nursing home. Medicare offers very limited
coverage of long-term care services, and much of the cost is borne
by older people and their families. Since nursing home care
averages $37,000 a year, lifetime savings can quickly be depleted.
The large role played by government programs makes the
elderly potentially vulnerable in an era of federal spending cuts.
If Social Security and other government payments were not counted,
the poverty rate for the elderly would be four times higher than
its current rate, and half of all persons age 65 and older would
live in poverty.
21st century challenges
The growth of the population age 65 and older poses a major
challenge to the current programs that support older people. It
will affect the costs of Social Security, private pension
programs, Medicare, Medicaid, and a host of other services and
programs for the elderly. Moreover, the changing ratio of elderly
to working age people will be a policy concern. Other demographic
factors will also influence the future course of America's older
population. The increasing diversity of the U.S. population will
alter the racial and ethnic composition of America's older
population. Changing family patterns_particularly the trends
toward smaller family size, childlessness, and divorce_mean that,
while today's elderly typically have several grown children to
turn to in times of need, the baby boomers themselves will have
far fewer family resources.
For more information, see "Older Americans in the 1990s and
Beyond," by Judith Treas, Population Bulletin 50, no. 2, May 1995.
Cost: $7.00 each, bulk discounts available. To order, call: 1-800-
877-9881. Judith Treas is professor of sociology at the University
of California, Irvine.
*****
THE MYTH OF DELAYED CHILDBEARING
By Carl Haub
In the late 1980s, the U.S. birth rate rose after more than a
decade of virtual stability. News articles interpreted this rise
as a sign that the women of the baby boom generation, having
completed their educations and launched their careers, were
finally beginning to listen to the ticking of the biological time
clock. But was this really the case? Did the birth rates of older
women (say, age 30 or older) go up in the late 1980s? And if so,
did they change enough to make a difference in the overall birth
rate?
A little history
In 1976, the U.S. TFR (total fertility rate, or average
births per woman) was at a (then) all-time low of 2.01 children
per woman_a big drop from the 3.65 children just 15 years earlier.
The TFR then remained pegged on 1.8 for the next 10 years. In
1987, however, the TFR began rising unexpectedly, reaching 2.1 by
1990. Why?
"Thirtysomethings" had little impact
Was the rise in TFR because of baby-boom women who postponed
childbearing until after age 30? If so, then what we would expect
to see is an increase in fertility rates for older women while
rates for younger women remained flat, or even went down.
The issue here is not whether fertility among
"thirtysomethings" rose, but whether they are solely or chiefly
responsible for the late-1980s TFR rise. Were they? No, they were
not.
The age-specific fertility rates tell the story of the late-
1980s shift (see table). The age-specific fertility rate for women
ages 20 to 24 in 1990 was 116.5 per 1,000 women in the age group,
up from 107.4 in 1986. This means that, of 1,000 U.S. women ages
20 to 24 in 1990, about 116, or 11.6 percent, gave birth that
year. For women 30 to 34, the rate was 80.8 (8 percent), up from
70.1 in 1986. Birth rates were about the same in 1992, the most
recent year available: 114.6 per 1,000 for women ages 20 to 24 and
80.2 per 1,000 for women ages 30 to 34.
In terms of absolute change, the increase was relatively
even_increases of between 9 and 11 percentage points_for the four
age groups between ages 15 and 34. But in terms of percentage
change, women over 30 really stand out: an increase of 15.3
percent for ages 30 to 34, 29.9 percent for ages 35 to 39, and
34.1 percent for ages 40 to 44. A lot more older women were having
children in 1990 than just four years earlier.
But, percentage change figures can be misleading, especially
if they start from a relatively low baseline. The change from 4.1
to 5.5 for women in their early 40s had an insignificant impact on
the overall TFR. It accounted for only 2.0 percent of the
increase, as the last column of the table shows.
What age group was responsible for the late-1980s baby
boomlet? The answer, it seems, is "all of the above." Women under
30 accounted for 60 percent of it; women age 30 and older made up
40 percent. Therefore, the rise in the TFR from 1.8 to 2.1
children per women was not solely due to delayed childbearing_but
due to a rise in fertility across the board.
*****
CUTS AHEAD FOR POPULATION FUNDING?
By Susan Kalish
Funding for international population programs, which have
enjoyed 30 years of bipartisan support in Congress and received
renewed priority in the Clinton Administration and the previous
Congress, is now caught in the squeeze between pressure for
spending cuts and debate over government's role. In the process,
the funding guidelines negotiated just last September at the
International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD),
held in Cairo, Egypt, are up for grabs.
The Cairo conference produced an important international
agreement on improving women's well-being, slowing rapid
population growth, and protecting the environment. In a 20-year
Program of Action adopted by consensus, 179 countries agreed on
the need to provide family planning and other reproductive health
services, to give girls the same chance at schooling as boys, and
to provide women with a greater role in development programs.
The estimated price tag for international population
assistance and related programs was a relatively modest $17
billion per year. ICPD called on developing countries to pay
most-two-thirds-of the tab, with developed countries contributing
one-third through foreign aid programs.
Sea change in Congress
That was September. But then came the U.S. congressional
elections in November, a turnabout of power in Congress, and-
suddenly-all bets were off. The 104th Congress moved to cut back
the $575 million in family planning and reproductive health funds
already allocated for the current budget year by the previous
Congress. On March 16, half-way through the current budget year,
the House passed by a vote of 227 to 200, rescissions of the FY95
budget_including total foreign operations cuts of $191.4 million.
Of this, $9 million was cut from population assistance and $45.5
million from development programs such as health, nutrition, and
HIV/AIDS prevention, administered by the Agency for International
Development (USAID). The bill also took back $25 million slated
for UNFPA_funding restored by President Clinton after a long
hiatus during the Reagan and Bush years.
In the meantime, Clinton had already sent his FY96 budget
request up to Capitol Hill in early February. It contained about
$635 million for family planning services and commodities, with
the remainder for other reproductive health programs, child
survival, basic education, and HIV/AIDS prevention. Another $500
million was slated for other sustainable development programs-such
as environmental protection, promotion of democracy, and
encouragement of microenterprises-that would support the broader
Cairo goals.
But even before the House and Senate began to focus on the
specifics in Clinton's budget, foreign assistance was already in
trouble. As part of a five-year plan to trim $190 billion from
federal spending overall, the House Budget Committee called for a
cut of $2.7 billion to USAID over the next five years. Even deeper
cuts, however, could result from an estimated $1.8 billion in
foreign aid supplemental requests that the President is making
this year-but that would be slated to be paid back out of FY96
funds.
What the Senate will do is difficult to predict. The Senate
Appropriations Committee panel approved a Senate FY95 recission
package on March 24 with about half the level of House foreign
operations cuts. Population assistance retains support in the
Senate, including Mark Hatfield (R-OR), chair of the
Appropriations Committee, Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Alan Simpson (R-
WY), John Kerry (D-MA), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Patty Murray (D-
WA), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), and Jeff Jeffords
(R-VT). However, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse
Helms (R-NC) and Mitch McConnell (R-KY), chair of the Foreign
Operations Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee,
both want to reduce foreign aid, remove the earmarks from
population funding, and abolish USAID as a separate agency. Also,
in both houses of Congress, even traditional proponents of foreign
assistance-such as Rep. Benjamin Gilman (R-NY, Chairman of the
House International Relations Committee), Sen. Nancy Kassebaum (R-
KS), and Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) favor its restructuring.
Congress will hold hearings and debate proposals on agency
consolidation this spring. The annual foreign aid appropriations
process will start in the spring and conclude by the start of the
1996 fiscal year on October 1st. The situation is volatile and the
outcome unpredictable.
Members of the population community who feel strongly about
continued support for international population activities can
write their representatives (U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20215) or senators (U.S. Senate, Washington, DC
20510).
*****
WAS THE SOCIAL SUMMIT A SUCCESS?
By Alene Gelbard
In early March, world leaders assembled in Copenhagen to
address social development. The World Summit for Social
Development was about "putting people first" and investing in
human development to achieve world peace and security. More than
120 heads of state met to pledge their commitment.
Strengths
Was the Social Summit a success? Reviews are mixed. Those who
see it as a success point to the following:
* The summit was an historic event. It brought together the
largest number of world leaders ever assembled to pledge their
commitment to human development and especially to alleviate
poverty.
* The Social Summit affirmed the importance of investing in
women in order to achieve both economic and social development-
reinforcing recommendations from the International Conference on
Population and Development (ICPD), held last September in Cairo,
Egypt, and paving the way to the fourth International Conference
on Women, to be held in Beijing, China, next September.
* The Social Summit maintained language relating to the family
and reproductive health, previously negotiated at ICPD, in the
face of counter efforts by the Vatican, countries such as
Guatemala and Malta, and some NGO coalitions. Affirmation of the
ICPD Program of Action by Social Summit participants was
significant. Many of the Copenhagen delegates, although committed
to addressing issues closely linked to population and development,
were unfamiliar with ICPD issues. Yet, they agreed on the same
solutions.
* It called upon institutions implementing structural
adjustment programs to protect the most vulnerable groups from the
negative effects of these programs.
* The summit called for considering debt cancellation on a
case-by-case basis, enlisting multilateral banks to help resolve
debt problems.
* The Social Summit Program of Action incorporates a version of
the "20/20" proposition: it calls on developing countries to
allocate 20 percent of their national budgets to social
development (including education and health) and developed
countries to allocate 20 percent of their overseas development
assistance to social development programs.
* The Program of Action also calls for the eradication of
absolute poverty (defined by the World Bank as earning less than
US$1 a day) by a target date specified by each country.
* This was the first forum to recognize the importance of
meeting the needs of people with disabilities.
Shortcomings
Critics, however, have expressed disappointment in the
summit's outcome. They charge that agreements concerning debt do
not go far enough and that the 20/20 compact is too weak. They
point out that 20/20 compliance is voluntary, and governments fix
their own target dates to eradicate absolute poverty.
The commitments coming out of the Social Summit are thus not
as strong as some had hoped. However, they serve as a useful
framework for how to advance human development. In this context,
it is highly significant that delegates to the Social Summit, in
addressing poverty, did not attempt to reinvent the wheel, but
drew upon recommendations from earlier conferences on environment
(Rio, 1992), population (Cairo, 1994), human rights (Vienna,
1993), and children (New York, 1990). This reflects a growing
awareness of the interlocking nature of all these problems.
In the final analysis, the Social Summit's success can really
only be measured by what countries do to follow through on the
commitments and recommendations the leaders supported. As one NGO
noted, "the time for talking is over-we know what the problems
are. Now we need to do something about them."
Alene Gelbard, PRB's director of International Programs, was a
U.S. delegate to the 1995 World Summit for Social Development.
*****
PHILIPPINES
by Stefanie Durbin
Population: 68.7 million
Land Area: 300,000 sq. kilometers
Births: 30 per 1,000
Deaths: 7 per 1,000
Infant deaths: 40 per 1,000 live births
Natural increase: 2.4 percent
Total fertility: 4.1 births per woman
Life expectancy: 63 male/66 female
Capital city: Manila
The second largest archipelago country in the world, the
Republic of the Philippines embraces 7,107 islands between the
Pacific Ocean and the South China Sea. Three major island groups-
Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao-cover an area slightly larger than
Arizona, consisting of a terrain of mountains and coastal plain,
with sparse lowlands.
With 68.7 million people, the Philippines would double its
population in 29 years if current growth rates continue.
Almost half of the population lives in the overcrowded urban
areas. The country faces an intensifying challenge to educate and
provide employment for its youthful population: almost 40 percent
of Filipinos are under age 15.
The Philippine economy depends heavily on agriculture,
fishing, and forestry. Agriculture contributes one-third of the
GNP, and 45 percent of the labor force is engaged in farming or
other subsistence activities. Industry and commerce employ 16
percent of the population, the service industry 18.5 percent, and
10 percent work for the government.
In the wake of Mexico's economic crisis, the government of
the Philippines is attempting to alleviate investors' anxiety that
its economy could follow suit. It has begun to dig itself out of
debt, and inflation and recession are receding. The GDP expanded
by 4.3 percent last year, inflation was at 5 percent, and exports
were up 30 percent. Furthermore, the International Monetary Fund
estimates that, in the next five years, the Philippine economy may
expand at an annual rate of more than 6 percent.
The islands of the Philippines are home to wildlife,
fisheries, rich soils, forests, a diverse array of plants and
animals, mineral deposits, and small deposits of oil. However,
poverty and landlessness have driven some peasants into upland
areas where deforestation and soil erosion are severe. As recently
as the end of World War II, half of the Philippines was forested;
now, less than one-fifth of the terrain is forest. Moreover, in
some coastal areas fishers have resorted to dynamiting coral reefs
to harvest fish.
In 1992, Filipinos elected Fidel Ramos president with 24
percent of the vote, a narrow plurality. Ramos is the Philippines'
first Protestant president. Unlike his Catholic predecessor,
Corazon Aquino, Ramos is a proponent of family planning programs.
Birth rates in the Philippines have been dropping for the
past 20 years. In 1973, the total fertility rate (TFR) was almost
six children per woman. In 1993, the TFR was 4.1 births per woman.
A strong Catholic influence (eight in ten Filipinos are Roman
Catholic) has sometimes hindered family planning programs,
although roughly 2 million married women say they would like to
space or limit births. Two in five married women of reproductive
age use some form of contraceptive. The most frequently used
modern contraceptives are sterilization (12 percent) and the birth
control pill (9 percent). However, 14 percent use traditional
methods, such as withdrawal or periodic abstinence. Knowledge of
contraception is high. Almost all (97 percent) married women could
name a method of contraception, and 93 percent knew a source.
The Philippines has been the site of important initiatives
combining family planning education with entertainment. In the
early 1980s, the government launched a successful multimedia
entertainment/education campaign, using young pop/rock singers Lea
and Charlie, to appeal to young people to delay sexual activity.
President Ramos has recently reaffirmed his support for family
planning programs, and POPCOM (the Filipino Commission on
Population) has lately started to focus on the link between
population growth and sustainable development.
*****
NEWS AND RESOURCES
Knock Your SOCs Off
The Office of Management and Budget has authorized the Bureau
of Labor Statistics (BLS) to coordinate an effort to revise the
Standard Occupational Classifications(SOC) Manual. The intent is
to create an updated, possibly skill-based system, which will be
used by the major federal agencies that gather occupational data,
such as the Department of Labor, the Census Bureau, and the Office
of Personnel Management. Establishing a uniform, broadly accepted
classification system will allow for comparison and analysis of a
wide range of occupational data that has not, to this point, been
possible.
A SOC Revision Policy Committee has been created, chaired by
the Bureau of Labor Statistics, with the task of developing the
new standard. The proposed time frame allows for the publication
of the new OMB-approved SOC by the end of 1997, in time for the
Census Bureau to incorporate the changes in the 2000 Census. For
more information, contact: Paul Hadlock, BLS, 202-606-6502.
More teens having unprotected sex
The proportion of teenage women (15 to 19 years) using
contraception hovered at about one-third (32 percent) from 1988 to
1990, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. But
among sexually experienced teens, contraceptive use fell slightly,
from 61 to 58 percent.
There are indications that sexual risk-taking increased among
teens. The proportion who reported sexual activity in the past
month without using contraception went up dramatically-from 8 to
22 percent-during the late 1980s. During the same period, the
proportion of this group that reported no sexual activity in the
month prior to being surveyed shrank (from 23 to 10 percent).
["Contraceptive Use in the United States: 1982-90," by Linda S.
Peterson, Advance Data, no. 260, February 14, 1995.]
A metro is a metro is a metro
"Metro area" seems to be in for another change in definition
for the 2000 Census. Some are wondering if there really are any
"non-metro areas" left. There will be an opportunity to discuss
the issue at the Council of Professional Associations on Federal
Statistics (COPAFS) conference on "New Approaches to Defining
Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan Areas," November 29 to 30, 1995.
Recommendations will feed into 2000 Census planning. Contact
Edward Spar or Susan Cohen at COPAFS, 703-836-0404; fax: 703-684-
2037.
PRB's new reproductive health poster
"What do they share?" is the question posed by a new PRB
poster, featuring a photograph of three generations of developing-
country women. The answer: they are at risk for poor reproductive
health. The poster is available in English, Spanish, and French.
The English-text version is available with photographs featuring
either African or Asian women. Price: $5.00. Contact: PRB,
Circulation Dept., 1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Washington, DC
20009-2728, 1-800-877-9881.
Most U.S. black children live in one-parent families
In 1993, 58 percent of the 67 million African-American
children under age 18 lived with only one parent, says a new
Census Bureau report. This proportion is up 82 percent since 1970.
Family structure has a big impact on family resources. Black
families maintained by a woman with children had a median income
of $10,390-only 28 percent of the median income of black married-
couple families with children ($36,810). Black children are
almost three times more likely than non-Hispanic white children to
have an absent parent. ["The Black Population in the United
States: March 1994 and 1993," by Claudette E. Bennett, Current
Population Reports, P20-480, Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the
Census, 1995.]
BOOKS RECEIVED
Adolescent Health: Reassessing the Passage to Adulthood, by
Judith Senderowitz. Washington, DC: World Bank, 1995. 54 pages.
$7.95. ISBN 0-8213-3157-4.
Africa South of the Sahara: A Geographical Interpretation, by
Robert Stock. New York: The Guilford Press, 1995. 435 pages.
$45.00. ISBN 0-89862-406-1.
Development Ethics: A Guide to Theory and Practice, by Denis
Goulet. New York: The Apex Press, 1995. 252 pages. $12.95. ISBN 0-
945257-64-3.
Families in Multicultural Perspective, by Bron B. Ingoldsby
and Suzanna Smith. New York: The Guilford Press, 1995. 432 pages.
$45.00. ISBN 0-89862-307-3.
Mega-City Growth and the Future, edited by Roland Fuches et
al. Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 1994. 428 pages.
$43.00. ISBN 92-808-0820-6.
Population Displacement and Resettlement: Development and
Conflict in the Middle East, edited by Seteney Shami. Staten
Island, NY: Center for Migration Studies, 1994.
Post-1965 Immigration to the United States: Structural
Determinants, by Philip Q. Yang. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers,
1995. 229 pages. $55.00. ISBN 0-275-95001-8.
The Human Volcano: Population Growth as Geologic Force, by
Jon Erickson. New York: Facts on File, 1995. 210 pages. $24.95.
ISBN 0-8160-3130-4.