Population growth and poverty

[cho_pilo]

For the past seven decades, high fertility and poverty have been strongly correlated, and the world’s poorest countries also have the highest fertility and population growth rates.

Lower birth rates, a major component of population growth (mortality and migration are other determinants), do not, by themselves, guarantee greater prosperity. But they do make economic gains more feasible. Smaller families improve economic prospects for the household, and longer birth intervals improve child and maternal health, generating benefits over children’s entire life course. In addition, smaller families enable more women to join the labour force or engage in other entrepreneurial activities.

At the aggregate level, lower population growth may reduce the pressure on national resources and the need for social investments. Over the longer term, smaller families change the age structures of both families and countries in which they live. The greater number of people in the work force compared to the number of dependents allows for greater saving and investment. In Brazil, the effect at the household level is estimated to account for as much as a third of recent poverty reduction.[1]

Conversely, rapid population growth contributes to an increase of inequality. And, rising out of poverty is more difficult for larger than for smaller families.[2]

At the country level, economic benefits from lowered fertility are possible because a larger proportion of people are of working age relative to older and younger people. When the working population is relatively large and policies foster job creation, countries can build human and physical capital. However, economists caution that these benefits are not automatic and that they depend on appropriate institutional environments.

The ability to plan how many children to have and when to have them is a recognized human right. However, universal access to contraceptives is not yet a reality — especially among the poorest. Worldwide, 200 million women would like to delay or prevent pregnancy, but are not using effective contraception. Simply meeting this ‘unmet need’ for contraception would go a long way toward lowering fertility.

Demand for family planning is expected to soar in the next 15 years as millions of young people become sexually active and smaller families become the norm in many countries. But funding for family planning is declining, and has been doing so for more than a decade.

As most developing countries recognize, committed and focused policies and programmes are urgently needed to moderate population growth as quickly as possible, thus enhancing economic growth and easing demands on social services.

unfpa.org/public/home/factsheets/pid/3856

Comment from Catholics please?

 

[jps23430]

For the past seven decades, high fertility and poverty have been strongly correlated, and the world’s poorest countries also have the highest fertility and population growth rates.

Lower birth rates, a major component of population growth (mortality and migration are other determinants), do not, by themselves, guarantee greater prosperity. But they do make economic gains more feasible. Smaller families improve economic prospects for the household, and longer birth intervals improve child and maternal health, generating benefits over children’s entire life course. In addition, smaller families enable more women to join the labour force or engage in other entrepreneurial activities.

At the aggregate level, lower population growth may reduce the pressure on national resources and the need for social investments. Over the longer term, smaller families change the age structures of both families and countries in which they live. The greater number of people in the work force compared to the number of dependents allows for greater saving and investment. In Brazil, the effect at the household level is estimated to account for as much as a third of recent poverty reduction.[1]

Conversely, rapid population growth contributes to an increase of inequality. And, rising out of poverty is more difficult for larger than for smaller families.[2]

At the country level, economic benefits from lowered fertility are possible because a larger proportion of people are of working age relative to older and younger people. When the working population is relatively large and policies foster job creation, countries can build human and physical capital. However, economists caution that these benefits are not automatic and that they depend on appropriate institutional environments.

The ability to plan how many children to have and when to have them is a recognized human right. However, universal access to contraceptives is not yet a reality — especially among the poorest. Worldwide, 200 million women would like to delay or prevent pregnancy, but are not using effective contraception. Simply meeting this ‘unmet need’ for contraception would go a long way toward lowering fertility.

Demand for family planning is expected to soar in the next 15 years as millions of young people become sexually active and smaller families become the norm in many countries. But funding for family planning is declining, and has been doing so for more than a decade.

As most developing countries recognize, committed and focused policies and programmes are urgently needed to moderate population growth as quickly as possible, thus enhancing economic growth and easing demands on social services.

unfpa.org/public/home/factsheets/pid/3856

Comment from Catholics please?

I’m confused to what comments you are looking for from Catholics. The availability of contraception in these contries is irrelevant when you believe contraception to be inherently wrong. What specifically do you want a response to?

 

[purplesunshine]

If you look at the ACTUAL figures births are on a decline, and a steep one at that, even in developing countries and EVEN amoung countries of faith.

What is really changing the numbers is longevity. 100 years ago in most of the world being 60 was amazing. In a third-world country it was 40. Now we regulary see people reaching 100…and even 70’s in third world countries.

 

[Warrior1979]

What is really changing the numbers is longevity. 100 years ago in most of the world being 60 was amazing. In a third-world country it was 40. Now we regulary see people reaching 100…and even 70’s in third world countries.

What is actually changing is the “average” age, which is separate and distinct from whether people are living longer. People may be living longer, but not to the extent that the “average” age states.

A great deal of this has to do with the huge reduction in the deaths of young children. I can demonstrate with the examples in my own family. Using my great-grandmother and her siblings as a sample, the average age is around 40. Exclude the four children that died before 5 and that average age suddenly becomes 78…and that’s because one was sick all his life and died at 18, otherwise it would be pushing 90.

 

[Barbkw]

That study lacks any understanding of behaviorial sociology within each social group.

And it assumes that all people everywhere should aspire to one particular standard of social attainment orchestrated over by a governmental body. The study arrogantly presupposes that higher social attainment equates to a greater level of societal happiness.

Poverty does not equal unhappiness. Being rich does not equal happiness. Having available money up to some particualar ratio does not equal happiness.

Additionally, no government body can offer social system networks when it continues to kill and contracept its own taxpayers.

Government employees, government bodies and government systems should not remove, impede or replace social networks that are already in place within agrarian families.

Government established population control mechanisms (abortion, artifical contraception, sterilization programs) break up and break down long established agrarian based families and societies.

Government based systems selfishly need to social engineer the agrarian family networks out of existance through population control (abortion, contraception, sterilization) so that these agrarian societies implode upon themselves and are therefore forced into a manufacturing / employee relationship where additional tax money is structurally available for government use and abuse.

 

[Nate13]

Conversely, rapid population growth contributes to an increase of inequality. And, rising out of poverty is more difficult for larger than for smaller families.[2]

Completely dependent on the time period and the level said society is in technologically. The question we should all be asking is what are you proposing as a solution? I presume what needs to be added to your argument at the end is “thus contraception is necessary”. Of course that would be denying the fact that NFP works as well especially when coupled with ecological breastfeeding. Giving the African people contraceptives is essentially the same as treating them like animals. It assumes they aren’t capable of using reason to overcome their animal desires. Teaching them NFP/ecological breastfeeding acknowledges that they are human beings and helps the to realize the human dignity we all deserve in each other.

I think you erroneously believe that the Church teaches we are all supposed to have as many children as possible. If you had read Humane Vitae you would know this was far from the case. The Church realizes that not every couple is capable of raising the same number of children based on a variety of factors. The question is not whether we should be rational when determining whether we should have children, but rather by what means we should use to get to that point.

Responsible Parenthood

1. Married love, therefore, requires of husband and wife the full awareness of their obligations in the matter of responsible parenthood, which today, rightly enough, is much insisted upon, but which at the same time should be rightly understood. Thus, we do well to consider responsible parenthood in the light of its varied legitimate and interrelated aspects.

With regard to the biological processes, responsible parenthood means an awareness of, and respect for, their proper functions. In the procreative faculty the human mind discerns biological laws that apply to the human person. (9)

With regard to man’s innate drives and emotions, responsible parenthood means that man’s reason and will must exert control over them.

With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.

Responsible parenthood, as we use the term here, has one further essential aspect of paramount importance. It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter. In a word, the exercise of responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society.

From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to follow. On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator. The very nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the constant teaching of the Church spells it out. (10)

from Humane Vitae

 

[Ridgerunner]

If you look at the ACTUAL figures births are on a decline, and a steep one at that, even in developing countries and EVEN amoung countries of faith.

What is really changing the numbers is longevity. 100 years ago in most of the world being 60 was amazing. In a third-world country it was 40. Now we regulary see people reaching 100…and even 70’s in third world countries.

There were always people who lived to be 100 or into their 70s. Remember the biblical calculation of a man’s life as “three score and ten”? That’s 70.

We need to be careful about longevity statistics for two reasons:

1. Early deaths due to diseases or accidents skew the stats downward. The life expectancy of boys, for example, is much lower than that of girls, but narrows when they get into their mid-twenties, for the simple reason that more boys die in wars and in accidents.
2. The older a society gets, the higher is the longevity rate. That’s just a statistical thing, borne of the fact that everyone, no matter what age, has a life expectancy beyond his current age. Look up mortality tables and you will see that it’s true. As the average age increases, so does the life expectancy. So, in terms of years, the life expectancy of a healthy 30-year-old is less than that of a not-particularly-healthy octegenarian.

 

[purplesunshine]

There were always people who lived to be 100 or into their 70s. Remember the biblical calculation of a man’s life as “three score and ten”? That’s 70.

We need to be careful about longevity statistics for two reasons:

1. Early deaths due to diseases or accidents skew the stats downward. The life expectancy of boys, for example, is much lower than that of girls, but narrows when they get into their mid-twenties, for the simple reason that more boys die in wars and in accidents.
2. The older a society gets, the higher is the longevity rate. That’s just a statistical thing, borne of the fact that everyone, no matter what age, has a life expectancy beyond his current age. Look up mortality tables and you will see that it’s true. As the average age increases, so does the life expectancy. So, in terms of years, the life expectancy of a healthy 30-year-old is less than that of a not-particularly-healthy octegenarian.

Yes, we are dealing with stats. But the point is that 100 years ago a 70 grandpa/grandma would be on the farm helping with what he/she could. They were likely to have seen most of their children and grandchildren die. So yes, I get that its an average that includes infant mortality. However, the fact is that there’s alot more older people than there was years ago.

 

[Barbkw]

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9533

The Principle of Subsidiarity and the “Welfare State” by Don Fier

An abundance of government social programs has long been believed by many American Catholics to be an integral element of Catholic social teaching.

Fundamental to this social philosophy, which is often referred to as the Welfare State or the Social Assistance State, is that the burden of responsibility for securing many of the basic social welfare obligations incumbent upon any society falls upon the state or government.

In an important 1991 encyclical on social doctrine entitled Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II directed sharp criticism at the Welfare State, particularly at many governmental excesses and abuses that developed alongside it.

He noted that the Welfare State produced many negative outcomes as the result of "an inadequate understanding of tasks proper to the state.

"1’ Key among these harmful effects was a reduced sense of social solidarity—an undermining of the societal responsibility which citizens should have for one another.

Pope John Paul II demonstrates that the failings of the Social Assistance State are the result of the disrespect of a key moral tenet of Catholic social doctrine, namely, the principle of subsidiarity.

The term “subsidiarity,” derived from the Latin subsidium, means “support, help or assistance.”

In effect, subsidium refers to a second line of defense, a back-up that would come as aid.

In basic terms, then, the principle of subsidiarity holds that the state should undertake only those tasks which are beyond the capacity of individuals or private groups acting independently.

While providing aid to the needy when it is available by no other means, governmental agencies and those in positions of civil authority should not intervene unnecessarily, always respecting the basic rights of the members of society.

Furthermore, those in higher authority should recognize the rights of those in subordinate organizations or positions.

In other words, before a higher level entity becomes involved, the lowest societal unit that can perform a function efficiently and adequately with benefit to the welfare of the whole should have that responsibility.

As taught in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, the principle of subsidiarity holds that all societies of a superior order should adopt an attitude of help (subsidium) with respect to lower-order societies, and never destroy or absorb them.2

The basic moral principle of subsidiarity has been present as an unvarying and distinctive article of the Catholic Church’s social doctrine ever since the 1891 promulgation of the first great social encyclical, Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum.

His primary concern in the late nineteenth century was to defend the right of private property and to protect society against the twin evils of socialism on the one hand, and unrestricted or laissez-faire capitalism—the product of modern liberalism—on the other.

He supported limited authority of the state to participate actively in welfare, labor and economic programs, and did not explicitly discuss subsidiarity in Rerum Novarum.

However, the guiding light for the encyclical was its view of human dignity, which is a key foundational element for the principle of subsidiarity.

Perhaps this is most evident in light of Pope Benedict XVI’s teaching in Caritas in Veritate that "subsidiarity respects personal dignity by recognizing in the person a subject who is always capable of giving something to others."3

Pope Leo XIII emphatically stressed the need to "respect in every man his dignity as a person ennobled by Christian character"4 and opposed the reduction "of every citizen to being a ‘cog’ in the state machine."5

Such a practice would be akin to treating laborers as a mere commodity, thus demeaning the dignity of the human person and in contradiction to subsidiarity.

The remainder of the article is available at:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9533

 

[Ridgerunner]

Yes, we are dealing with stats. But the point is that 100 years ago a 70 grandpa/grandma would be on the farm helping with what he/she could. They were likely to have seen most of their children and grandchildren die. So yes, I get that its an average that includes infant mortality. However, the fact is that there’s alot more older people than there was years ago.

Relative to the population as a whole, and in terms of absolute numbers, that is undoubtedly true.

It is also true that a 70 year old at that time would quite possibly be a member of the work force, not dependent on others. In a farming family, he or she almost certainly would be. Among those ancestors of mine of whom I am aware, that was the case without exception. It seems odd now to realize how capable those people really were and what all they did.

Unfortunately, at present, the number of people who are paid “not to work” is large and growing. The various systems set up to pay for that are not functioning as planned or represented. Therefore, we do see an ever-increasing burden on younger, working people; a burden that will almost certainly become unsustainable.

The population/dependency relationship is a vicious downward spiral. The more workers are burdened with the cost of those who are paid “not to work”, the fewer children they have because of their perception that they cannot afford them. And the burden is not “someday or other”, it’s today. People just don’t realize it. Nowadays, most people are employed by others. To the extent that those others are facing increasing costs in the way of SS, pension benefits, healthcare, workers’ compensation costs, those costs are deducted from wages the workers might otherwise receive. And it runs up and down the various tax systems; state, federal, local.

Abortion rates are somewhat related, but not entirely. Workers’ share of national income decreases as abortion increases, but with about a 20 year lag.

 

[Barbkw]

I’d like to know what actually goes on in the mindset of governmental agencies.

They bring to ruin agragian based societies and when those peoples are forced to move into the slums of the inner cities the government can’t cope with the needs of them there.

So their first option is population control: kill the unborn, deter pregnancies in every way possible and stop the growth through sterilization.

Truely sickening.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Singapore and Hong Kong are packed to the gills with people; everybody is in high rise apartments.

NO natural resources.

Yet the population of those two places have the highest income and standard of living on the planet.

[Well, maybe one or two of the oil places have high incomes.]

Hmmmm.

 

[underacloud]

These are very complex issues, but I would like to offer two thoughts…

a) Poverty is the manifestation of unfair distribution of resources and wealth. The planet provides more than enough resources for all its inhabitants (and the many more potential inhabitants), it’s just that they aren’t distributed to everyone as needed.

b) Lower fertility rates will become a massive economic problem in the coming decades. As poeple live longer, developed countries will have larger aging populations, but declining workforces. Economically, it’s a recipe for disaster. We already see these issues playing out, such as currently in Greece, where the economy cannot support their generous retirement provisions. Austerity measures are being introduced in many countries which have zero or negative population growth, and we can expect the same issues to play out. Economic growth rellies on steady population growth.

Lowering fertility rates through greater access to contraception will not solve poverty. We already have the resources and wealth to solve poverty, but not the political and social drive. The Catholic Church the world over is on the front lines in the fight against poverty, and those who wish to criticise the Church ought to also consider their own contiribution to this fight.

 

[Warrior1979]

Singapore and Hong Kong are packed to the gills with people; everybody is in high rise apartments.

NO natural resources.

As long as they can use other people’s resources, they’ll be fine. If not, they’ll go the way of the Mayan Empire.

BTW, why did you use countries with a Christian minority to attempt to prove your point?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

As long as they can use other people’s resources, they’ll be fine. If not, they’ll go the way of the Mayan Empire.

BTW, why did you use countries with a Christian minority to attempt to prove your point?

No one is forcing them to “use other people’s resources” … they do, however, contribute a value-added component.

I picked countries with a work ethic and lacking an entitlement mentality.

People can freely leave anytime they want to.

 

[Warrior1979]

No one is forcing them to “use other people’s resources” …

That’s true…no more than anyone that anyone that’s been out in a desert for three days is forced to take a drink

They’re existence is only possible with the intense use of other’s resources. If those resources disappear, so does that population density.

 

[Ridgerunner]

That’s true…no more than anyone that anyone that’s been out in a desert for three days is forced to take a drink

They’re existence is only possible with the intense use of other’s resources. If those resources disappear, so does that population density.

In this sense, every trade, including one’s receipt of one’s wage, is “the use of others’ resources”. But for that, there would be no economy at all…not even barter.

The real question is whether the exchange of resources worldwide is or is not exploitive in favor of one group over another. Now, if one considers, for example, the immense “value added” which Japan adds to Philippine hardwoods, one might consider it exploitive in that the Filipinos get very little of the “value” of the ultimate product. But is that Japan’s fault in this example? They aren’t forcing it. It’s done voluntarily on both sides of the trade. If one takes Filipino corruption into account, it’s possibly so. But that still isn’t Japan’s fault.

40% of the American soybean crop goes to China. That’s a lot, and has forced changes in the way American livestock people feed their animals. But China gives value for the crop and Americans are willing to accept that value in exchange for the crop. In this instance, China is “using American resources” and, in turn, American soybean farmers are “using Chinese resources”. Why is this wrong?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

In this sense, every trade, including one’s receipt of one’s wage, is “the use of others’ resources”. But for that, there would be no economy at all…not even barter.

The real question is whether the exchange of resources worldwide is or is not exploitive in favor of one group over another. Now, if one considers, for example, the immense “value added” which Japan adds to Philippine hardwoods, one might consider it exploitive in that the Filipinos get very little of the “value” of the ultimate product. But is that Japan’s fault in this example? They aren’t forcing it. It’s done voluntarily on both sides of the trade. If one takes Filipino corruption into account, it’s possibly so. But that still isn’t Japan’s fault.

40% of the American soybean crop goes to China. That’s a lot, and has forced changes in the way American livestock people feed their animals. But China gives value for the crop and Americans are willing to accept that value in exchange for the crop. In this instance, China is “using American resources” and, in turn, American soybean farmers are “using Chinese resources”. Why is this wrong?

There is nothing to stop American companies from converting soybeans into useful products … and they do just that.

Nothing to stop companies in the Philippines from converting hardwood into useful products, and they probably do just that.

Ditto, Australian coal.

Ditto, oil from North Dakota or natural gas from Pennsylvania.

The idea that someone buys a natural resource and converts it into a manufactured product and that process is exploitation is ludicrous.

Usually, the manufactured product is sold to someone else who uses it to make something else and then sells that to someone else who adds another process to that and etc … until it finally ends up as a finished product.

That occurs with intermediate chemicals and with agricultural products … the “electric hybrid cars” get their batteries from Korea.

Clothing is made in one country from material made in another country which is made from fiber grown or raised in another country with fasteners made in another country. Production moves from Egypt to Argentina to Pakistan to China to Vietnam.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

That’s true…no more than anyone that anyone that’s been out in a desert for three days is forced to take a drink

They’re existence is only possible with the intense use of other’s resources. If those resources disappear, so does that population density.

Prosperity occurs when everyone works together … but no one person can dictate how economic growth will take place.

Just making a simple thing like a common ordinary pencil is unbelievably complicated.

Nothing exploitative in the free exchange of products and services.
’
Important to read this:

econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html

 

[Monte_RCMS]

As long as they can use other people’s resources, they’ll be fine. If not, they’ll go the way of the Mayan Empire.

BTW, why did you use countries with a Christian minority to attempt to prove your point?

There are a lot of useful examples.

Jamaica and Singapore;

freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2389904/posts

The useful thing about Singapore and Hong Kong as examples is economic success using trading and adding economic value … in an extremely high population density environment.

Singapore values education. More than most.