home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
TIME: Almanac 1995
/
TIME Almanac 1995.iso
/
time
/
062094
/
0620640.000
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1995-02-15
|
6KB
|
127 lines
<text id=94TT0797>
<title>
Jun. 20, 1994: Essay:Population: The Awkward Truth
</title>
<history>
TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1994
Jun. 20, 1994 The War on Welfare Mothers
</history>
<article>
<source>Time Magazine</source>
<hdr>
ESSAY, Page 74
Population: The Awkward Truth
</hdr>
<body>
<p>By Eugene Linden
</p>
<p> Why do Mexican immigrants in Los Angeles tend to have more
children than impoverished peasants living in Mexico City? The
answer helps explain why the international community has so far
failed to slow the population explosion, and why it will
probably fail again this fall when delegates from 180 nations
meet in Cairo to address the issue. But first a little
background.
</p>
<p> Twenty years ago in Bucharest, the United Nations World
Population Conference produced a wish list of things governments
might do to get a grip on population: improve the status of
women, expand access to health care, alleviate poverty. With the
notable exception of Africa, the world has made progress in
these areas: infant mortality has declined, as has the
percentage of people who live in abject poverty, and the Green
Revolution has improved the diet of hundreds of millions of
people.
</p>
<p> Despite this progress, the global population situation is
far more dire than it was back then. In 1974 the world had
roughly 3.9 billion people and was growing by 80 million a year.
Since then the world's population has grown nearly 1.7 billion,
and it now increases 90 million annually. Today the Green
Revolution falters, ecosystems are badly degraded and
fresh-water supplies continue to shrink. It is open to question
whether the world can feed the 3 billion to 5 billion mouths
that will be added during the next 50 years.Refugees produced
by population pressures in Africa and Asia already threaten to
destabilize nations.
</p>
<p> And so delegates from 180 nations will meet in Cairo for
another go at the population problem. Advocacy groups and
bureaucrats alike trumpet this conference as a breakthrough
because it will focus on women's issues. In U.N.-speak, however,
that translates into a catalog of desiderata ranging from
appeals to eliminate sexual stereotypes to calls for men to do
more housework--nice-sounding proposals that are irrelevant
to population control in many of the traditional cultures of the
Third World.
</p>
<p> In fact, this effort is unlikely to be any more effective
than the agenda that came out of Bucharest 20 years ago.
Reason: the principal assumption underlying decades of efforts
to halt the population explosion turns out to be questionable
at best. This is the "demographic transition," the notion that
people will have fewer children as their sense of well-being
increases. It has been embraced by such strange bedfellows as
the Reagan Administration and Vice President Al Gore because it
offers the bland assurance that a nation can achieve the aims
of family planning in the course of economic development.
</p>
<p> Trouble is, it often turns out that people have more
children as their sense of well-being increases, particularly
when technological advance or government largesse give them the
idea that the old limits no longer apply. So argues Vanderbilt
University anthropologist Virginia Abernethy and a growing
cohort of critics. In Kenya, for instance, total fertility rose
from 7.5 live births per woman in the mid-1950s to 8.12 in the
1960s and '70s even as infant mortality declined and incomes
rose.
</p>
<p> Conversely, it seems that countries often show a dramatic
drop in their birthrate not because of prosperity but because
of a decrease in people's sense of well-being. For instance, a
study of Nigerian communities revealed that bad economic times
in recent years caused young Yoruba families to turn to
contraception even though infant mortality was rising--a
development that directly contradicts conventional wisdom about
the demographic transition.
</p>
<p> This is not to argue that poverty is the way to control
population, but to point out that policymakers, in their
eagerness to embrace a politically correct approach to a
sensitive issue, frequently ignore what determines family size.
This brings us back to the question of the Mexican mothers.
</p>
<p> Conventional wisdom holds that poor women in Mexico City
should have more children than their counterparts in the U.S.
who have better health care and a higher standard of living. But
peasant families tend to have two or three children in Mexico
City, while those who immigrate to the U.S. average four or five
children. In crowded Mexico City each child imposes steep costs
on a family, while in the U.S. welfare payments and other social
safety nets buffer those costs. These skewed incentives convey
similar signals to poor young women in America's inner cities,
who in many cases see no reason to defer having children.
</p>
<p> Delegates going to Cairo should keep these subtle signals
in mind and scale back their ambitions to reform the world as
they formulate their action plan. Government programs that
subsidize jobs or housing can spur population growth by giving
people false confidence in the future, while a tiny loan that
enables a woman in Bangladesh to buy a sewing machine to start
a business may give her an incentive to limit the number of
children she bears. Such empowerment is more achievable in the
developing world than paid maternal leave, day care and other
high-minded calls that characterize population summits.
</p>
<p> Finally, 120 million couples who would like to limit their
family size still lack easy access to contraception. We must
help them get it. Promoting the use of condoms also helps impede
the spread of aids. If governments continue to fiddle while
human numbers explode, it becomes ever more likely the horsemen
of famine, disease and anarchy will have their day.
</p>
</body>
</article>
</text>