Population and Development in the Philippine Context

Around the beginning of the 1960s, the Philippines, Thailand and the Republic of Korea had about the same population size. While these two other countries have long achieved replacement fertility (total fertility rate (TFR) of around 2), the Republic of Korea before the 1990s and Thailand about the middle of the 1990s, the Philippines has still a long way to go with the latest computed TFR of 3.5 in 2003. As a result, the population sizes of the three countries have diverged. By around 2000, Philippines had about 30 million more people than the Republic of Korea and 16 million more than Thailand (Figure 1 [ PDF 69.1KB | 1 page ]).² In addition, while these two countries continued to register consistently high economic growth, the Philippines had slow and inconsistent growth rates. After putting these two together, it would not be difficult to understand why the per capita income of the country has not gone far beyond 1,000 US dollars for more than two decades now (Figure 2 [ PDF 60.8KB | 1 page ]). It would not be surprising also to realize, as will be discussed in the detail in the succeeding sections, that poverty reduction has been slow and tentative (Reyes, 2002).

As one looks at other development indicators, the overall long-term development picture given becomes even easier to understand. Savings rates have been low, even often times lower than Indonesia in spite of the higher per capita income in the Philippines (Figure 3 [ PDF 64.9KB | 1 page ]). Labor force participation of women is lower compared to many other countries in Asia even if the educational attainment of women is higher (see for instance, Manning, 1999). The high school attendance rate³ that the country is proud about for so long is eroding fast.

Yet the issue of the role of population growth and family size in development, in general, and poverty and vulnerability, particular, is largely unresolved. This reality persists despite the growing literature worldwide and also in the Philippines providing evidence on the importance of population growth and family size in development (see for instance Schelzig, K. (2005), Alonzo et al. (2004), Orbeta (2002), and de Dios and Associates (1993) in the case of the Philippines). The two glaring testimonies to this problem are: (a) the equivocal support given by the government to the population program, and (b) the fact that up to now virtually all of contraceptives supplies in public facilities are supplied by donors as national government has not appropriated money for these commodities.⁴ Herrin (2002) describes in detail the noncommittal attitude of the national government on the program and the hazy population policy. He urges the national government to: (a) address the issue of rapid population growth and fertility reduction, (b) be clear about its population policy, (c) provide the needed resources for the program, (d) work with the Catholic church hierarchy, and (e) listen to the married couples with unmet needs who have consistently expressed their need for family planning services. There have been several ways the national leadership had avoided the issue. The current government, for instance, has left it to local government units (LGUs) to decide what to do with family planning services citing the Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991 as the basis. The LGC has transferred many direct services, including maternal and child health service and family planning, to LGUs. This lack of national guidance has resulted in a fragmented and local programs often working in opposite directions largely depending on the persuasion of the local executive (Orbeta 2004; Alonzo et al. 2004). One perhaps may ask whether there is any real demand for family planning services that government has to respond to. As pointed out by earlier, all demographic surveys have documented the consistent high demand for family planning services from women of reproductive age (Herrin, 2002). It has been pointed out also in Orbeta (2004) that the poor have lesser access to family planning services and that their unwanted fertility is very much higher than those of the rich. The demand, therefore, for an appropriately funded population program is clear what is absent is the national government’s resolve to push the program consistently as other countries, such Thailand, Indonesia and Viet Nam, have done. The environment is ripe for a long time but the national government has refused to respond positively to this consistent and well-expressed demand.

Download this Discussion Paper [ PDF 187.8KB| 24 pages ].

Comment(s)

There are [5] comment(s) for this entry. Post a comment.

1. Edgar
   (posted 01 August 2007 / 03:06:59 AM)
   
   I haven't really exhaustively read the discussion paper, just breezed through, so I might sound unfair, but I am now old enough to be highly distrustful of kneejerk reactions and conventional wisdom that suggest population is largely causative of family poverty. Has there not been enough research that large scale asset reform in highly skewed income distributive countries such as the Philippines is needed to industrialize a population and as a side effect put more females in the smokestack workforce? And this industrialization will lead to more families involuntarily spacing births? Come on, address land ownership first and produce indigenous jobs, rather than depending on migrant employment to create a surplus. Be more critical of theories that population is a major contributory factor to poverty.
2. krisjoy
   (posted 22 March 2007 / 03:27:52 PM)
   
   It's not enough to just be aware that we are poor. Since the government posted ambitious poverty reduction targets, then the average 'juan' will continue to think rice is special for more years. I think what we need is to work as a nation, achieving realistic marks for developments in agriculture, land reform, population planning, security issues, among others. I am young and I am earning; however, I feel very poor seeing that many of my fellowmen do not eat rice and that the tax I religiously pay does not get to projects.
3. MARIONNE
   (posted 06 March 2007 / 10:38:21 AM)
   
   poverty is a very hard opponent. if we want to have even a wee bit of development in our poor country, the government must see to it that poverty is lessened.
   tnx...
4. Junior
   (posted 01 March 2007 / 09:05:08 PM)
   
   In our country corruption is the number one cause of poverty thanks.
5. john
   (posted 11 July 2006 / 05:43:07 PM)
   
   Yes! It is evident here in the philippines
   because, as we can see now it is our problem ....thats all.