Ernesto M. Pernia
While the Reproductive Health (RH) bill failed to make the legislative hurdle during the 14th Congress, it seems to be making promising headway in the current congress owing to a more favorable disposition of the new national leadership. Still, public debate remains heated. It’s time to take stock of the arguments contra and pro population policy.
Those opposed to the Bill assert that the Philippines does not have a population problem and that the focus of public attention should instead be on the corruption problem. They argue that a large population resulting from rapid population growth is, in fact, good for the economy. They add that attempts to slow population growth are ill-advised as they would only hasten the onset of the “demographic winter” or the problem of ageing currently experienced by the advanced countries. Moreover, the Catholic Church hierarchy and conservative religious groups assert that the RH bill is pro-abortion and is thus anti-life. This is because, in their view, modern contraceptives – which the RH bill proposes to make available along with the traditional methods (including “natural family planning”) – are abortifacient.
Those in favor of the Bill cite the conventional argument that slower population growth is more conducive to economic growth, poverty reduction, and preservation of the environment. Economic growth is facilitated by higher private and public savings – owing to slower growth of the youth dependents – required for investment in human capital (i.e., spending on education and health per person) and infrastructure. Slower population growth combined with faster economic growth will lead to more significant poverty reduction and inequality improvement. And slower population growth lessens the stress on the environment.
Furthermore, the pro-RH bill advocates invoke household survey data showing that women – poor women in particular – are having more children than they want and can adequately provide for. Poor women are unable to achieve their desired number of children due to lack of access to affordable modern and effective family planning methods. Unintended or mistimed pregnancies result in most of about 560,000 (as of 2000) induced and illegal abortions annually, such that improved access to modern and effective contraceptive methods could substantially reduce such illegal abortions. This implies that, contrary to the claim of the opposers, the RH bill is in fact anti-abortion and is pro-life. In fact, the Bill expressly proscribes abortion.
The argument of those who oppose the Bill that there is no population problem is borne out neither by serious empirical research nor by public opinion surveys. While rapid population growth may not be considered as the main cause of the country’s economic backwardness and poverty, at the very least it exacerbates its underdevelopment and makes poverty more difficult to tackle. True, corruption is probably the country’s primordial problem but it cannot be the sole focus of the country’s development effort. Corruption in varying degrees has also plagued many of our Asian neighbors but they have managed to achieve economic dynamism regardless, with good economic policies complemented by sound population policy.
Moreover, the argument that a large population resulting from rapid growth is good for the economy is starkly counterfactual. If, indeed, that were true, the Philippines, whose population (along with Nepal’s and Pakistan’s) has been growing the fastest in Asia should have the most dynamic and prosperous economy. Alas, these three countries are the region’s spectacularly laggard economies.
The fear of a “demographic winter” seems highly exaggerated. Simple demographic analysis would show that, if the average number of children per woman (currently 3.3 children) drops to the replacement level of 2.1 (expected to occur by around 2035-2040), it would take another 60 years or so before Philippine population ceases to grow, by which time population could total about 240 million under a “business as usual scenario”. To illustrate, while South Korea, China and Thailand had reached the 2.1 fertility replacement level before or in the 1990s, they continue to grow owing to ‘demographic momentum’ (i.e., large numbers of couples entering or already in their reproductive ages).
The assertion that the RH bill is pro-abortion and anti-life is an opinion that cannot be imposed as dogma. In fact, there is no unanimity – not even among theologians – on the question of when life does begin. The official view of the World Health Organization is that pregnancy starts after, not before, the fertilized ovum settles down in the uterus to become viable. Modern contraceptives, by definition, prevent ovulation, fertilization, or implantation in the uterus. Hence, they cannot sweepingly be regarded as abortifacient or anti-life.
So, what’s the score on the RH debate? It appears that the arguments contra are largely assertions based on ideology rather than empirical research. Gratis asseritur, gratis negatur (What’s freely asserted can be freely denied). By contrast, the arguments pro appear anchored on empirical studies and further consistently supported by inter-temporal public opinion surveys.
The population issue is long dead and buried in developed and most developing countries, including historically Catholic countries. If the government abides by the age-old dictum Salus populi suprema lex (“The welfare of the people is the supreme law”), it cannot continue to play blind to the merits of the RH bill just to accommodate the demands of the conservative religious groups. Such an accommodation largely explains why the Bill continues to hang in the balance in congress.
The passage or non-passage of the Bill will significantly further affect people’s lives one way or the other. Based on reliable public opinion surveys, it will matter to people how their elected representatives vote on the Bill, as it seems to have mattered to the outcome of the 2010 elections.
Professor Ernesto M. Pernia, Ph.D., is with the UP School of Economics, Quezon City 1101, and formerly Lead Economist, Asian Development Bank. Prior to economics, he studied philosophy and theology in the seminary. E-mail: empernia@skybroadband.com.ph
No comments:
Post a Comment