1. Population, Poverty and Development: Review and Research Gaps Aniceto C. Orbeta, Jr. Philippine Institute for Development Studies

2. Outline Population and Development: A comparison of Philippines and Thailand Population and Poverty 1.Philippine demographic trends 2.Philippine poverty alleviation record 3.Links 4.Evidence Implications for Policy Research Gaps

3. Population & Development: Philippines & Thailand - 1/2

4. Population & Development: Philippines & Thailand - 2/2

5. Population and Sustainable Development Framework Population Size Structure Distribution Fertility Mortality Migration Production Production/ Employment Productive Capacity:  Natural Resources and Environment  Physical Capital  Human Resources Development Goods and Services Capabilities/ Well being  Longer life  To achieve desired fertility  Others

6. Review of demographic developments Slow fertility decline; slower than most countries in the region (Table 1) Slow fertility decline Average performer in mortality (Table 2) Average performer in mortality Continued high population growth; higher than most countries in the region Implications: 1.Expect extended years of high youth dependency 2.“Demographic onus” rather than “demographic bonus” like East Asian Countries

7. Review of poverty alleviation record Modest gains from 44.2% in 1985 to 33.7% in 2000 or about 0.7 annually Modest gains Number of poor people increased from 4.6 million in 1985 to 5.14 million in 2000 Number of poor people increased Gains are only clear in urban areas (declined by 14 compared to only 4 percentage points in rural areas between 1985-2000) Inequality has not improved: 1.Share of poorest quintile: 4.8% (1985) – 4.7% (2000) 2.Share of richest quintile: 51.2% (1985) – 54.8% (2000) 3.Gini coefficient: 0.47 (1985) – 0.51 (2000)Gini coefficient

8. Family Size and Poverty An empirical regularity that poverty incidence is higher the larger the family size

9. Population and poverty links Growth Channel (Size of the Pie): Does demographic change (change in population growth, fertility, mortality, age structure, etc.) affects changes in the level and growth of average attainable well-being per person? Distribution Channel (Sharing of the Pie): Does demographic change affects the distribution of income given attainable well-being per person? Conversion Channel (Generating actual well- being from Share of the Pie): Does demographic change affects the conversion of attainable well-being per person into actual well- being per person?

10. Evidence on the growth channel (Size of the pie) Demographic changes (decline in population growth, fertility, mortality and changing age distribution) have sizeable impacts on economic growth; account for about half of recorded economic growth in Southeast Asia, one third in East Asia Fertility and mortality effects are offsetting; mortality decline stimulates growth, rise in fertility attenuates growth; this is the primary reason for the limited effect in earlier analysis that focus on population growth In the Philippines, decomposition analysis for 1985- 2000 show that economic growth contributes bigger proportion in reduction of poverty; in cross-country analysis it contributes about one halfdecomposition analysis

11. Evidence on the distribution channel (Sharing of the pie) High fertility skews the distribution of income against the poor in cross-country analysis; in the Philippines, there is still no direct evidence but indications are pointing to the same direction given the limited employment opportunities generated and the rapidly growing labor force The dilution effect appears to be not very strong On the acquisition effect, there are mixed results on the impact of an additional child on labor force participation of fathers but this leads to a decline of mother’s labor time and an increase in her home time

12. Evidence on the conversion channel (“Enjoyment” from share of the pie) Doubts on whether poor families can achieve their desired family size given poorer access to FP services, particularly for the Philippinespoorer access to FP services There are evidence on both sides of the economies of scale argument: some economies of scale on food consumption but congestion effects on housing Clear deleterious effects of large family on investments in human capitaldeleterious effects of large family on investments in human capital Clear increase in vulnerability with larger family sizeincrease in vulnerability with larger family size

13. Implications for policy – 1/2 Demographics play an important role in poverty alleviation; better control of fertility should be an important component of poverty alleviation While there maybe reasons why the poor have large families (e.g., to contribute to total family income, as a form of social and old-age security), it will be difficult, particularly for the Philippines, to sort which ones are due to lack of control over fertility and which ones are due to preferences; better control of fertility comparable to the rich is needed to clarify this There are intergenerational impact of current fertility choices primarily via lower investments in human capital– this is the main avenue of intergenerational transmission of poverty; need for pro-active subsidy and better targeting of public services, e.g. education and health, which are in themselves investments with high social returns apart from indirect returns through demographic changes

14. Implications for policy 2/2 Importance of consistent economic growth is well-established; still the primary strategy of development, in general, and for poverty alleviation, in particular, for the Philippines; a conducive economic environment is needed to translate potential benefits from demographic changes With globalization, lower fertility is needed to benefit from opportunities at the aggregate and household levels, and to lessen the vulnerability of households to economic shocks There are enough justifications for government to promote a small family size norm and help couples achieve their desired fertility

15. Research Agenda – Population, Poverty and Development Improve upon the current broad brush attribution of the interaction between population and poverty for the Philippines. There is a need to continue to clarify the interactions, at the macro, community and household levels in the Philippine context. The objective is to find more effective policy handles Poverty, fertility management and preferences and its implications at the household level

16. Thank You

17. Fertility and Mortality in Selected ASEAN Countries

18. Poverty and Inequality, 1985-2000

19. Family planning practice by socioeconomic class - 1/4

20. Family planning practice by socioeconomic class: Contraception -2/4

21. Family planning practice by socioeconomic class: FP, BF, BC Advice -3/4

22. Family planning practice by socioeconomic class: Unmet Need -4/4

23. Population Growth and Human Capital Accumulation – Household Level – 1/2 Survey of developing country evidence King (1987) 1.Children in large families perform less well in school 2.Children in large families have poorer health, lower survival probabilities, and are less developed physically Lloyd (1994) 1.Resource dilution with each child getting smaller share of family resources including income, time and maternal nutrition 2.Diminished access to public resources, such as health and education 3.Unequal distribution of resources among siblings

24. Population Growth and Human Capital Accumulation – Household Level – 2/2 Evidence from Philippine data 1.High fertility negatively affects school participation of older children (13-17 years old) although it does not affect school participation of younger children (7-12 years old) (Herrin 1983, Bauer and Racelis, 1992) 2.Large negative impact on boys (DeGraff et al., 1993) 3.Expenditure per child is also negatively affected (Bankosta and Evenson, 1978)

25. Family Size and Vulnerability Using the 1997 FIES and the 1998 and 1999 APIS, it was found that 46% of the family remained to be non- poor (N) while 22% remained to be poor (P) throughout the period. Interestingly, as one goes from households who remained to be poor to households who remained to be non- poor, the family size declines (Reyes, 2002).

26. Poverty Decomposition Analysis

27. Nothing follows!!!