Population and Poverty

Amid the hoopla surrounding the resignation of World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz, few noticed another battle going on within the World Bank on the question of population. According to press reports Bank Managing Director and former Finance Minister for El Salvador, Juan Jose Daboub, came under fire for a memo he sent allegedly directing that reproductive health measures be removed from a World Bank package to Madagascar. He was accused of imposing his religious beliefs on long standing policies of the bank involving reproductive health and family planning.

European delegates from Belgium, Norway, Germany, and France along with various non-governmental organizations including Planned Parenthood, CARE International UK, and Global Population Education also opposed U.S. attempts to limit abortion as part of health care. With the Wolfowitz affair absorbing most of its energy, the United States yielded to European pressure and reversed its opposition to World Bank funding of sexual and reproductive health programs that include abortion.

The real issue is: Why is the World Bank funding abortions in the first place? Supported by 185 member countries -- the United States is its largest donor -- the World Bank has supplied funds to developing countries for 60 years. According to a World Bank memo this includes over $2 billion within the last 10 years for “reproductive health” which includes abortion. What does this agenda have to do with its mission to “Create a World Free from Poverty”?

Of course the common perception is that population growth causes poverty, so reducing population should also reduce poverty. But the facts do not bear this out. Neither do basic economics.

The idea that population growth causes poverty comes from the ubiquitous zero-sum-game fallacy: the idea that the economy is a pie with only so much to go around. But the economy is not a pie -- economies can grow, and population growth can actually help development. A growing population means more labor, which along with land and capital are the main factors of production.

Behind much of the zero-sum thinking concerning population is the theory of Thomas Malthus, who in 1798 predicted the earth was heading for an impending food shortage because population was growing geometrically while the food supply was only increasing arithmetically. Thus, he predicted that the number of people would soon outstrip the food supply and lead to mass starvation by about 1850. Among his mistakes was the failure to account for technology -- a product of human creativity.

Not only did Malthus’ prediction not come true; today there exist food surpluses despite the fact that the earth’s current population is six times what it was in 1850. Famines today are not caused by lack of food, but by corruption, war, and bad economic policies. Despite evidence to the contrary, anti-population forces still hold fast to Malthusian predictions and continue to see people solely as consumers inhibiting economic growth. But people do more than consume; they also produce. They innovate and create wealth.

Statistics show no real correlation between population and poverty. If population were a determinant of poverty, it would be hard to explain places such as Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea and the Netherlands. All have high population densities and yet are wealthy. The United Kingdom has about three times the population density of Ghana, and eighty-one times the per capita GDP. There are many causes of poverty, but population is not one of them.

Despite the evidence, the World Bank continues lavishing American tax dollars on population control when that money could be put to better use on such things as infrastructure, telecommunications, and fighting corruption. Perhaps the World Bank has become captive to ideologues more concerned with the eugenic visions of Planned Parenthood than with actually helping families climb out of poverty.

Literally billions of dollars have been spent to reduce populations in developing countries, but have yielded no real economic progress. We know the factors that create economic growth and development: consistent rule of law for all citizens, property rights, sensible regulation, and a culture that encourages and rewards entrepreneurial behavior. These traits have never existed perfectly anywhere on earth, but the degree to which they have been present reflects the degree to which prosperity has been achieved. Conversely, where they remain absent -- as in much of the developing world today -- poverty and misery are found in their stead.

Many of the same people who protest the “cultural imperialism” of multi-national corporations like McDonalds, Coca-Cola and Wal-Mart vigorously support forcing the Western, secular sexual morality of contraception and abortion on women in Latin America, Africa and Asia -- many of whom view them as moral evils and a violation of their dignity.

People can choose whether to eat a Big Mac or shop at Wal-Mart, but when foreign aid is made contingent on reproductive health policies that include abortion -- and there is no choice -- that is real cultural imperialism. It is ironic that Europe, the very continent facing an economic crisis because of population decline, is busily promoting its own disease as a panacea for what ails the developing world.

The “population control” is more related to prosperity. The better people are off, more prosperous, more complicated and expensive child “grooming” becomes, the more they think of not having bundle of kids.
Money and taxes outdo “condiments”.

I think generally, more people, more economic activity, more want houses, cars, etc.
With declining population, less economic activity, more empty houses, less taxes, general decline.

There is a correlation between population growth and poverty. The wealthier countries become, the lower the population growth. Population growth rate

HK [.561%], South Korea [.394%], and the Netherlands [.464%] all have low annual growth rates.

The United Kingdom has about three times the population density of Ghana, and eighty-one times the per capita GDP. There are many causes of poverty, but population is not one of them.

Population density is different from population growth. The UK's annual population grow rate is .275% compared to Ghana's 1.972%. The UK has a population of 61 million and Ghana 23 million. The median age in Ghana is 20.2 years and the median age in the UK is 39.6 years. Comparing the economies of the two countries is nonsense, i.e., a developed country with a long history and a developing country that has just emerged out of colonialism 50 years ago.

I don't see that the table you cite shows much correlation. All three countries you cite have much lower rates of increase than the U.S.. On the other hand Luxembourg, not an especially poor country, has the highest rate of increase in Europe (well, after San Marino, which you would be lucky to find on a map). Some quite poor nations, notably Russia, are actually losing population.

I would like to say that I don't put much stock in the figures for most non-Western nations, even if they do come from the CIA. This is especially true of China; nobody, except possibly the Chinese government, knows what China's true population is or has been for decades.

Perhaps there would be a closer correlation if you plotted wealth against the rate of natural increase. Perhaps, but I doubt it.

I don't see that the table you cite shows much correlation. All three countries you cite have much lower rates of increase than the U.S..

Of course it does. Basically, the wealthier countries have a lower rate of population growth. My comments were made in the context of the article, which posits that there is no correlation between population and wealth. My point was that there was between population growth and wealth. Certainly the are some exceptions [most notably the oil rich Gulf states], but generally that is the case. The cases I cite are the ones that the author uses to buttress his case. He is talking about population density.

Some quite poor nations, notably Russia, are actually losing population.

And so are some of the wealthier countries like Germany. Russia does have the world's 15th largest economy, but the GDP per capita is low, around $4K. The US has one of the highest population growth rates among developed countries, but that is attributable primarily to immigration. Our fertility rate is 2.09 children per female or just at replacement level.

There is a correlation between population growth and poverty. The wealthier countries become, the lower the population growth. Population growth rate

You wrongly read these statistics. When a country become wealthier often it cause population decrease indeed. Still this is not population decrease which brought prosperity.Don't confuse effect with a reason. So, there is no correlation between population growth and poverty.

I didn't state that there was necessarily a cause and effect relationship between population and poverty. I did say that there is a correlation between the two. There is a difference.

The author states that "Statistics show no real correlation between population and poverty," and then uses population density to compare the UK with Ghana. These is comparing apples and oranges for the reasons I previously stated.

Here are some tables showing Rank Order - Total fertility rate and Median age by country. Anyone looking at this list, especially total fertility, can see that there is some sort of relationship between being a poor country and having a high fertility rate. Certainly there are other factors involved, but what is the explanation for this correlation?

FYI: We also find a similar correlation within countries, e.g, the US. Poor people generally have more children than rich people. Hispanic women have the highest unmarried birthrate in the country – over three times that of whites and Asians, and nearly 1 ½ times that of black women, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Every 1,000 unmarried Hispanic women bore 92 children in 2003 (the latest year for which data exist), compared with 28 children for unmarried white women, 22 for unmarried Asian women, and 66 for unmarried black women.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.