1 / 21

The arguments against donor involvement in family planning: How valid are they?

The arguments against donor involvement in family planning: How valid are they?. Monica Das Gupta Development Research Group The World Bank. Outline of talk. Background: the support for family planning from the 1960s

suzuki
Download Presentation

The arguments against donor involvement in family planning: How valid are they?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. The arguments against donor involvement in family planning: How valid are they? Monica Das Gupta Development Research Group The World Bank

  2. Outline of talk • Background: the support for family planning from the 1960s • Arguments underlying loss of donor interest in family planning from the 1980s • What happened in SubSaharan Africa while donors neglected family planning? • Conclusions: what needs to be done in SubSaharan Africa?

  3. Background:the support for family planning from the 1960s • From 1960s, strong movements to reduce fertility in much of the developing world: • Driven (esp in Asia) by national governments deeply concerned by data showing their rapid population growth • And strongly supported by donors till 1980s

  4. E.g. India • 1961 Census shock with high rates of population growth • And in early 1960s, serious food shortages • So the government began work on: • increasing food production (Green Revolution) • massive family planning campaign to • reduce demand for children through huge media effort • increase supply of free contraception • Total Fertility Rate fell. 2006 DHS estimates: • Fertility at or below replacement level of 2.1 children per woman in 10 states, and close to it in several more states • But in states of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, current Total Fertility Rate around 4. Significant pockets still have high fertility.

  5. And e.g. China • Faced similar problems of increasing food production and reducing population growth • Started campaign to reduce fertility around 1969 • Politically feasible to have a program with very strong sanctions against non-compliance. Esp following the Cultural Revolution • Fertility dropped like a stone

  6. Source: Yao and Yin (1994) Basic Data of China’s Population, Beijing: China Population Publishing House.

  7. Then donors lost interest:What arguments underlay this shift? • Fertility declining across much of developing world, lowered donor interest (but Asian governments maintained strong programs) • Political shifts against family planning: • Political and religious movements • Feminist movement to protect women’s Reproductive Health instead of imposing family planning (let women make own choices) • Intellectual shifts: • Argument that family planning programs don’t work • Argument that population growth may not make much difference to the prospects for economic growth: Human inventiveness will (at least in the long term) overcome the pressure on resources placed by population growth --- e.g. through greater efficiency in service delivery, higher productivity, technological innovation

  8. Then donors lost interest:What arguments underlay this shift? • Fertility declining across much of developing world, lowered donor interest (but Asian governments maintained strong programs) • Political shifts against family planning: • Political and religious movements • Feminist movement to protect women’s Reproductive Health instead of imposing family planning (let women make own choices) • Intellectual shifts: • Argument that family planning programs don’t work • Argument that population growth may not make much difference to the prospects for economic growth: Human inventiveness will overcome the pressure on resources placed by population growth --- e.g. through greater efficiency in service delivery, higher productivity, technological innovation

  9. Argument 2bHow best to improve RH? Reducing fertility has huge impact on women’s reproductive health: • adolescent health (reduce adolescent childbearing) • maternal mortality • maternal morbidity • maternal depletion Women’s mortality risk remains elevated for long after childbirth: a study in Bangladesh found that it is nearly twice as high as normal for up to two years after childbirth (Menken et al 2003)

  10. Then donors lost interest:What arguments underlie this? • Evidence of declining fertility across much of developing world, lowered donor interest (but Asian governments maintained strong programs) • Political shifts against family planning: • Political and religious movements • Feminist movement to protect women’s Reproductive Health instead of imposing family planning (let women make own choices) • Intellectual shifts: • Argument that family planning programs don’t work • Argument that population growth may not make much difference to the prospects for economic growth: Human inventiveness will overcome the pressure on resources placed by population growth --- e.g. through greater efficiency in service delivery, higher productivity, technological innovation

  11. Argument 3a:Family planning programs don’t work Studies show that: • Merely increasing contraceptive availability may not reduce fertility • But media campaigns have proved very successful at reducing desired family size and building demand for services • Much evidence of rapid uptake of idea that “smaller families are happier families” • Reduced demand for children followed by increased use of family planning

  12. Then donors lost interest:What arguments underlie this? • Evidence of declining fertility across much of developing world, lowered donor interest (but Asian governments maintained strong programs) • Political shifts against family planning: • Political and religious movements • Feminist movement to protect women’s Reproductive Health instead of imposing family planning (let women make own choices) • Intellectual shifts: • Argument that family planning programs don’t work • Argument that population growth may not make much difference to the prospects for economic growth: Human inventiveness will (at least in the long term) overcome the pressure on resources placed by population growth --- e.g. through greater efficiency in service delivery, higher productivity, technological innovation

  13. Argument 3b: Rapid population growth may not affect economic growth How did this work out in China? • Unique combination of development vision & ingenuity, and lack of political impediments to actualizing its vision • From 1970, reduced fertility at blistering speed • From late 1970s, blistering pace of: • economic growth • employment growth (manufacturing sector growth) • and poverty rates plummeted • And yet even today, many decades later: • there are still significant levels of poverty in China

  14. Poverty trends in China • During 1981-2004: • the fraction of the population below the World Bank poverty line fell from 65% to 10% • and the absolute number of poor fell from 652 million to 135 million • But almost a third of China’s rural population was consumption poor in at least one year between 2001 and 2004 (% of the rural population that was dollar-a-day consumption poor in one or more years) Source: World Bank (2009) From poor areas to poor people: China’s evolving poverty reduction agenda

  15. Argument 3b: Rapid population growth may not affect economic growth • Even in China, human ingenuity only mitigated (not negated) the impact of rapid population growth • Countervailing forces: • Population growth increases pressure on resources • Human ingenuity mitigates this effect Optimal outcomes if combine effects of lower population growth + human ingenuity

  16. 3. What happened in SubSaharan Africa while donors neglected family planning? • Fertility levels remain high in much of subSaharan Africa • Rapid population growth

  17. Source: United Nations World Population Prospects: The 2008 Revision

  18. Source: United Nations World Population Prospects: The 2008 Revision

  19. 3. What happened in SubSaharan Africa while donors neglected family planning? • Rapid increase in numbers shrinks the resources for investing in: • Human capital • Economic growth, to expand sources of livelihood • And poor Reproductive Health --- highest rates of maternal mortality

  20. 4. Conclusions:What can be done in SSA? • The good news is that many countries in SSA show the beginnings of fertility decline • So people increasingly want smaller families (despite donors and national govts) • Can build on this changing demand for children and accelerate pace of fertility decline: • Media campaigns to accelerate the fall in desired family size and build demand for services Vast experience on this available from elsewhere, e.g. Mexico and India • And expand supply of family planning services to respond to growing demand

More Related