Not sure why that would make much of a difference John? There are many Politicians,clergy and perhaps even economists that might say that the RH bill would be detrimental to the economy here.. Im not saying I agree or disagree.. Just saying that I dont think it will make much difference in lets say the next 30 years.
Januarius - I found this article by Michael Tan in the Inquirer particularly persuasive: Last Sunday I was driving on Edsa when, approaching Quezon Boulevard, I saw a horde—and I am not exaggerating—of young boys, running down two lanes of Edsa, screaming like they were fleeing some disaster. I counted at least 18 of them before losing track. They were, of course, just having fun, deriving cheap thrills from running against the traffic. These are the batang hamog, children of the morning dew, urban poor kids out for Sunday sun, fun and exercise. “There’s your demographic sweet,” I said to no one in particular, the term having been used lately by central bank and finance officials, as well as groups opposed to the Reproductive Health bill, to argue that our large population has been beneficial because we now have many young people who will drive the economy forward as consumers. The term has been used interchangeably with “demographic dividend,” again to argue that we are reaping, or about to reap, the benefits of a large population so we don’t need to legislate support for family planning. But I’m afraid the talk of demographic dividends and sweets in the Philippines are more tricks than treats. The terms have been distorted and mangled, misleading people. Let’s get the definitions, and the facts, straight. Youth bulge It was a US group, Rand Corp., that popularized the term “demographic dividend” in a report published in 2003. The study was backed by various US philanthropies supporting family planning, including the Hewlett Foundation, Packard Foundation and others, the very ones anti-RH groups have attacked as “imperialist.” The Rand report says that it is not population growth per se that affects economic development but the age structure, meaning the breakdown of the population by age groups. This structure changes across time, depending on public health interventions, including family planning. As a country’s public system improves, you have higher rates of child survival, which will lead to a “youth demographic bulge.” Without strong family planning programs, this bulge can extend over time, as is the case with the Philippines. A first demographic dividend can come with the youth bulge, if a country generates enough jobs for this growing work force. A second demographic dividend comes later, with strong family planning programs, where smaller families mean more savings and more opportunities in terms of education and health care. For governments, too, there will be more money to go to public services including, yes, safe playgrounds. This healthier and better educated young population will still be sizeable, but will contribute to slowing down population growth even further, by postponing marriage and child-rearing. At the same time, these young people enter the work force with more available capital, knowledge and skills, contributing to economic development through entrepreneurial, technological and engineering innovation. That is what happened to the East Asian economies, the so-called Asian tigers, and is also happening now to neighboring countries like Singapore and Thailand, and emerging economies in other parts of the world, notably South Africa, Brazil and India. The “demographic sweet” concept seems to be a more recent creation, concentrating more on young upwardly mobile professionals (yuppies), with emphasis on their spending as a plus factor. This still relates to Rand Corp.’s observations about age structure, with the demographic sweet referring to young people of working age being able to spend more when there is a lighter dependency burden. demographic sweet is there when you have an age-dependency ratio below 50, meaning the total number of very young (below 16) and the elderly (above 64) is less than 50 percent of the population. An example is Thailand, where 29 percent of the population is aged below 16 and 13 percent are aged above 64, to give an age-dependency ratio of 41. Let’s get to the facts now for the Philippines: First, we are still in a youth bulge, one of the last countries in the region still in this difficult and precarious stage of a large population of young dependents, many neglected and doomed to unemployment and underemployment. We are missing out on the first demographic dividend, unable to create enough local jobs and exporting Filipinos instead, with social costs in terms of the young and the elderly left behind. Second, talk about a demographic sweet is premature. Let’s look at the age dependency burden of our neighbors as of 2011. I mentioned Thailand’s figure of 41. Singapore’s age-dependency ratio is 36, China’s 38, Vietnam’s 41, Indonesia’s 48. These countries can talk of a demographic sweet. The Philippines? The elderly comprise 6 percent of the population and the very young account for 57 percent of the total, giving an age-dependency burden of 63, the highest in the Southeast and East Asia. Club sandwich gen Let’s move away from the numbers to better explain the dependency. Many Filipinos know what it’s like to be part of the sandwich generation, where you have to support your children, and your parents. In recent years I’ve met more people in even direr straits, who, besides supporting their parents and children, sometimes have to shoulder the expenses as well of grandchildren, because their children are jobless or are not earning enough. The bittersweet reality is that we have here a “club sandwich generation,” where even the middle class has great difficulties making ends meet. Yet a study by a group called CLSA, released in October and based on interviews with 400 Filipino yuppies, claims we have this demographic sweet because yuppies, comprising 3 percent of the total population, account for 20 percent of discretionary consumption, meaning luxury items, recreation, vacations and nonessential goods and services. I do not see that as a source for rejoicing. Discretionary spending is not development. That in fact has been one of our biggest problems throughout our history, particularly in the postwar period. While our neighbors scrimped and saved, and had smaller families, our upper classes excelled in conspicuous consumption—weekends in Hong Kong, expensive imports like cars and other luxury items—while neglecting the development of local manufacturing, and the creation of jobs. Today the pattern of consumption-driven “development” in the Philippines has worsened, with a flood of imports from China, Korea and other countries that are truly reaping their demographic dividends by producing stuff to sell to the Philippines, where our young are enticed to spend beyond their means. I shudder to think, too, of what happens to the young and elderly dependents. The batang hamog I saw on Edsa reminded me of slightly older ones, fathers at age 15 or 16, in government hospitals’ obstetrics wards, desperate in their last-minute search for money for their girlfriends’ delivery, clutching a cell phone, some even two cell phones, but not having enough credit load in their phones to call or text. That’s discretionary spending, too, a demographic sweet causing pain. Let’s not be tricked by all this talk of treats. The Rand Corp. report is available on the Internet, Look up The Demographic Dividend: A New Perspective on the Economic Consequences of Population Change. You can also find the various references to “demographic sweet” online. http://opinion.inquirer.net/42105/treat-or-trick
It's a good start. Yes, I know the clergy and politicians that you mean. I can't see the wisdom in increasing the population size to maximise the OFW income. The population as a whole should start to enjoy an improvement in quality of life, obviously not over night but hopefully sooner rather than later.
Thanks for above..Interesting stuff. OFW remittances are worth about 10% of Philippine GDP BUT are not included in the countries GDP figures. Still,20 odd billion $`s a year being sent here in cold hard cash is largely being injected straight into the economy and right where it is needed every day.. That is directly the reason why I often cant find a spare seat in Pizza hut these days! So what makes up GDP of nearly $230 Billion here? agriculture: 12.3% industry: 33.3% services: 54.4% (2011 estimate) Such growth with extremely hostile local laws for foreign investors, is in my view pretty astounding.. Im almost speechless.
I could not agree more about the extraordinarily hostile conditions for foreign direct investment - compare, say, China! Or indeed any of the "tiger" economies. The idea of exporting labour on a big scale can be traced, I think, to the Marcos era, which was in many respects quite technocratic. It was obvious that the fifties and sixties with their "nationalist" laws restricting foreign investment had made th Philippines drop far behind in economic terms whilst the population was steadily growing. Something had to be done - but what? To open up to foreign investment was "heretical" at the time - only in Hong Kong under JJCowperthwaite was this being done - and Marcos lacked the popular support and legitmacy to risk it - besides, his own backing came from the Filipino capitalists who hated the thought of effective foreign competition,. A technocrat called Blas Ople set up and ran the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration and this, well run with quite sensible regulations, proved a sucess. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blas_Ople From that day to this no-one has dared to even suggest reform of the ghastly web of regulations that strangle Foreign Direct Investment, so that we see even places like Cambodia being far friendlier to the foreign investor than the Philippines, and the Filipinos continue to work abroad, at a ghastly cost to family life. The temptation to comtinue to rely on remittances sent from overseas workers is immense - but it cannot solve the nation's problem of chronic underemployment - only a reduction in the birth rate and genuine economic growth coming from foreign investment can do that. There is an unholy alliance between the Left, which inclines towards old style nationalism and sees colonialists under every rug, and the capitalist-political dynasties who control the levers of power in a "democracy" in which votes are routinely sold.
Marcos raped the country coffers after introducing marshal law.. He nationalized industry and agriculture then installed his political cronies to directly control these sectors.. He controlled everything including the banks! He had absolutely no use for Foreign investors and he set this country back 30/40 years IMO. Powerful,greedy Families such as the Cojuangco`s (Corys family) didnt do much to oppose him back then either..They were too busy land grabbing in Tarlac and beyond..(Had been since US independence) The Aquino in power now seems to be doing a far better job then his mother ever did battling corruption.. he has even given back the huge Hacienda Luisita back to the farmers.. 20 years late but there you go... This is the Philippines!! As I say... I have no idea how much the RH bill will effect economic change here.. Perhaps It depends on what counter strategy the RCC have in mind for the youth that attend church every Sunday. I have spoken to many older locals .. They still say "The more kids I have,the better". We did try to explain the benefits of only having 2 or 3 kids over a few brandies but it is like flogging a dead horse. One old fella..A Mechanic,has 15 kids..My brother in laws long term handyman..17 kids.. our local carpenter,15 kids..pretty normal family size in our Barangay.
Not all Filipinos think that way, though. But for those that do it is a case of education and raising awareness. Most of the rest of the world has already realised it and some are quicker to catch on than others.
If we are referring to the poor massa then we are already talking about the majority. It is the RCC that has traditionally taught the population about morals and what is expected of a family unit here for generations...Not schools. That will not change anytime soon IMO. But lets see!
I put a good deal of trust in the work of the Social Weather Stations organisation http://www.sws.org.ph/ The SWS data has consistently shown a majority in favour of the RH bill and in favour of limiting family size, see, eg, here: The Second Quarter 2011 Social Weather Survey, fielded from June 3-6, 2011, found that 82% say "the choice of a family planning method is a personal choice of couples and no one should interfere with it" and 73% agree that "if a couple wants to plan its family, it should be able to get information from government on all legal methods." A majority 68% also agree "the government should fund all means of family planning, be it natural or artificial means". A little over half of adults disagree that the use of pills (52%), condoms (51%), and intra-uterine device (IUD) (51%) can be considered as abortion. Pluralities also disagree that the youth would be sexually promiscuous if family planning would be included in their curriculum (46%), and that the plan to oppose the RH Bill by not paying taxes is a reasonable protest (39%). More now say family planning method is a couple's personal choice To the test statement, "The choice of a family planning method is a personal choice of couples, and no one should interfere with it" ["Ang pagpili ng pamamaraan ng pagpaplano ng pamilya ay personal na desisyon ng mag-asawa at walang dapat makialam"], 82% agree, 9% neither agree nor disagree, and only 8% disagree [Chart 1]. Compared to twenty years ago, agreement with the statement has risen by 21 points from 61% in November 1990. Twenty-six percent were undecided and 13% disagreed. Majorities in all areas agree that a family planning method is a personal choice of couples: 86% in Mindanao, 84% in the Visayas, 82% in Metro Manila, and 80% in Balance Luzon [Chart 2]. By class, 83% in class D or the masa, 82% in class E, and 77% in class ABC share this opinion. http://www.sws.org.ph/pr20110811.htm This shows a continuing increase in support as compared to the 2008 figures, here: 16 October 2008 Third Quarter 2008 Social Weather Survey: 76% Want Family Planning Education in Public Schools; 71% Favor Passage of the Reproductive Health Bill Social Weather Stations Seventy-six percent of adult Filipinos want family planning education in the public schools, and 71% favor passage of the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill, according to the Third Quarter 2008 Social Weather Survey, done on September 24-27, 2008. Support for the RH Bill is an overwhelming 84% among those previously aware of the bill, and a majority 59% among those who became aware of it on account of the survey. Support for both family planning education and for passage of the RH Bill is very high among both Catholics and non-Catholics. Regularity of church-going, and trust in the Catholic church, have no effect on support for the RH Bill. Support for family planning education and for passage of the RH Bill is very high among both men and women, whether single or married, in all areas of the country, and among all socioeconomic classes. 76% want family planning education for youth To the test statement, “There should be a law that requires government to teach family planning to the youth”, 76% agreed, and only 10% disagreed [Table 1]. Support for family planning is high in all areas: agreement is 78% in Balance Luzon, 77% in the Visayas, 76% in Metro Manila, and 72% in Mindanao. It is also high across socioeconomic classes: 78% in class ABC, 78% in class D, and 71% among class E. 71% favor the passage of the RH Bill The September 2008 survey found 46% already aware of the RH Bill prior to the survey. The balance of 54% learned about it on account of the survey [Table 2]. Prior awareness of the RH Bill is 54% in Metro Manila, 47% in Balance Luzon, 44% in Mindanao, and 42% in the Visayas. It is higher in the upper-to-middle class ABC (69%) than in class D (45%) and class E (41%). Regardless of whether they knew of the bill before, or learned of it during the interview, the survey asked all respondents if they favor it or not, and found 71% in favor, 21% undecided, and only 8% opposed [Table 3]. Those in favor of the RH Bill are 78% in Metro Manila, 72% in Mindanao, 69% in Balance Luzon, and 68% in the Visayas. They are 77% in class ABC, 70% in class D, and also 70% in class E. Support for the passage of the RH Bill among those previously aware of it is an overwhelming 84%, and is a majority 59% among those who learned of it because of the survey [Table 4]. Family planning education and RH Bill supported by Catholic and non-Catholics Seventy-six percent of Catholics and 78% of non-Catholics support family planning education for the youth. Such support is high regardless of frequency of church-going, and regardless of trust in the Catholic church [Table 5]. Awareness of the RH Bill, and public support for it, do not vary by religion, regularity of church-going, and trust in the Catholic church [Tables 6 and 7]. Seven out of ten Catholics (71%) and non-Catholics (68%) favor the passage of the RH Bill. I remember that the SWS polls were very accurate around the time of the end of the Marcos administration, so I am inclined to think that they are getting it right here, too. Individual baranagays and individual parishes will often differ, of course, as local personalities and local economic issues affect opinion.
Post 13 all makes sense to me. Depends what we all mean by poor, but from what i have seen, not all of the poor are unaware of the need for birth control for economic reasons or otherwise.
A politico-economic analysis, Benjamin Diokono, of the UP Faculty of Economics, here: Business World, 18 December 2012 By a decisive vote, the House of Representatives and the Senate approved, separately, on Monday evening the long-awaited Reproductive Health (RH) bill. The two versions of the bill will then go to the Third Chamber where their disagreeing provisions will be ironed out. I expect the reconciliation process to be short and sweet. And the two chambers might be ready to vote, as early as Wednesday, on the reconciled version of the RH bill. As in most landmark legislation, timing was crucial. The RH bill has to be passed before Congress goes on a Christmas break. The failure to do so would have fatally derailed the bill’s passage into law. The year 2013 is an election year, and politicians who are wary of displeasing the Catholic hierarchy, would have stalled the passage of the bill for the nth time. But then came the lucky break. Finally, President Aquino mustered enough courage to use his political capital. He assembled his political allies in the House and gave them clear instructions on what to do with the RH bill. And after a close vote in the House, he certified the bill as urgent, hence cutting the mandatory three-day period between the second and third readings. Once the RH bill reaches the presidential desk, there’s no doubt that Mr. Aquino will sign it into law. And after it is signed into law, what then? Managing expectations First, expectations have to be managed. The RH law is not a silver bullet that can slay everything that ails Philippine society. While I expect that it will be game changer, it’s impact won’t be instant. It’s short-term impact maybe imperceptible, but it has the potential of improving sharply the country’s economic and social future. Second, this administration and the succeeding ones should commit to adequately fund and implement vigorously the RH law. The program will costs the government a few billion pesos annually. But that money will be well spent. Higher returns can be expected in terms of reduced incidence of deaths of children and mothers, an improved life for those who have prevented unwanted pregnancies, and a better future for all. The alternative, meaning the failure to pass the RH bill, is economically and socially costlier. It means deepening poverty, more serious unemployment, and higher incidence of hunger for many Filipinos. Close to two million Filipinos are born every year. That’s horrible. Since more children are born from poor families than rich ones, this creates a cycle of deepening poverty. Tip-toeing around the high population growth issue, debating about things that don’t matter much in the overall scheme of things, is like rearranging chairs on the deck of the Titanic. Two million people is more than the population of small countries. Yet, some insist that high population is good; for them, it means a bigger market, higher consumer spending and higher growth. What they don’t see is the downside of a rising population: a rising army of uneducated, sickly and jobless people which could mean endless years of personal suffering and social tension. The failure to pass the RH bill means more public funds will go to social overhead (education, health care, and cash grants) and less for public capital formation. It could also mean unsustainable budget deficits in the future. As a nation, the Philippines has been under-investing in public infrastructure. With an increasing part of the budget is going to investment in human capital and poverty alleviation, very little is left for public investment. Given its past neglect, inadequate public infrastructure has always been cited by foreign investors as one of the country’s biggest turn-offs. And in order to catch up with its ASEAN-5 neighbors, the Philippines has to allocate — and complete — about 5% of its gross domestic product (GDP) for public infrastructure. That’s much less than what China and its other Asian neighbors spend for public infrastructure during their take-off years. Public infrastructure spending in recent years was dismal. It was 1.49% of GDP in 2006, 1.92% in 2007, 1.90% in 2008, 2.24% in 2009, and 1.83% in 2010. In 2011, Mr. Aquino’s first full year in office, it edged down further to a record low of 1.49%. How can the Philippine economy grow at 7% to 8% steadily in the next decade, with such a feeble investment in public infrastructure? I know that the government’s failure to invest in “hard infrastructure” projects which would increase the capacity of the economy goes beyond lack of resources. But precisely, scarce budget resources may be freed up for public infrastructure if only the government has to spend less for education, and health and conditional cash transfers. I know that in addition to poor budget prioritization, there is a problem with Executive Department’s poor ‘absorptive capacity’ (a.k.a. incompetence). I know that public-private partnership (PPP) initiatives have not moved because of deeper and more complicated problems, such as restrictive constitutional provisions which discourage foreign direct investments, lack of credibility, policy inconsistency, and failure to honor contracts. Opportunity for catching up The opportunity for catching up is now, while Europe, the US and the rest of the world are busy addressing their own internal economic woes and political uncertainty. With the cost of borrowing historically low, financing of an ambitious catch-up plan should not be a problem. The Philippine economy awash with dollars and pesos. The passage of the much awaited RH bill is great, but it is only the beginning. There are other serious game-changing reforms, such as, for example, the freedom of information, fundamental tax reform, electoral reforms, budget impoundment and control, and amendments of the 1987 Constitution that require close executive-legislative coordination and cooperation. On a positive note, the passage of the RH bill provides a glimmer of hope that the people’s representatives can be called upon to make the right decisions on issues than affect this country’s future. The ball, right now, is in the Executive Department’s court. http://www.econ.upd.edu.ph/perse/?p=1886
RH Bill was a big step forward (on paper).When Icame to the Philippines it was theend of the Marcos Era,a fresh census had a Population of 60 million People. (85/86) Now if this population would have kept stabil by a 2 child/Family average a dream would have become true. But unfortunately over 30 million more Pinoys are now populating this Nation. The Economy HAS grown, just not fast enough to give jobs to 30 million more People.In the eighties the Filipinos were able to sustain and feed themselves. Now almost everything is Imported. Also the Incometo purchasethose Imports comes from Abroad. It appears as if the most sucessfull export of the Philippines is Overseas Workers. But with a diminishing Western Economy and the willingness of more and more Westerners to also take lower paid/Lower Prestrige Jobs this days are counted also. The Overseas Workers have then no choice but to return,because unlike their Mid Eastern/Eastern or other immigrants they have never really bothered to build up businesses in the West. But what follows then ? If this happens ?
Good point. I can't cite statistics to support what I am about to say, but from observation a lot of overseas workers' remittances are spent in the three following ways: - in supporting family members, i.e. on consumption, - in building or improving houses, i.e. on construction - invested in businesses which tend to revolve around assets that wear out and where insufficient is put by to cover depreciation (owning a jeepney is a common one, but also internet cafes, etc) In other words, most of the money coming into the country from its army of OCWs is not invested usefully; it is just spent. I'd like to make an exception for money spent on education of siblings and children but alas the quality of education is often shamefully poor. As Guenther rightly says, OCWs seldom put down roots and establish businesses in the countries where they work; they want to come home.
