According to ISSA, some 3.6 million Filipinos would have escaped poverty if the government had adopted a clear population policy and controlled the rapid population growth from 1975 to 2000. Dr. Arsenio Balisacan, director of the Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture of the University of the Philippines-Los Banos, said that the 3.6 million Filipinos "were trapped in poverty because of this rapid population growth."
Dr. Balisacan’s statement is supported by the National Statistical Coordination Board which said poverty was affecting 26.5 million Filipinos or 34 percent of the country’s population as of 2000. In an Asia Pacific Policy Center (APPC) study, Balisacan and four other authors measured the impact of high population growth as an independent factor on economic growth, poverty and social inequity. The study used cross-country data from 1975 to 2000 and employed simulation techniques to quantify the contribution of population growth to the observed difference in the per capita income of the Philippines and Thailand. It analyzed what would have happened if the Philippines had followed Thailand’s population growth path.
In the 25-year period, the gross domestic product (GDP) of the Philippines grew 4 to 1 percent while its population expanded by 2.36 percent. In comparison, Thailand’s GDP increased by 8.8 percent while its population went up by only 1.58 percent.
According to Reprowatch, the APPC study showed that the high population rate of the Philippines was the biggest factor in the country’s slow economic growth that accounted for 0.76 percent. Next is corruption, which accounted for 0.57 percent. Balisacan admitted that although high population rate is not the main culprit of the Philippines’ poor economic performance, "it is a key factor."
He added that had the Philippine population grown similar to Thailand’s during the period the per capita income of Filipinos would have increased by at least 0.76 percent annually. This would have translated to a cumulative increase of 22 percent on the average income of every Filipino by the year 2000.
"Economic growth would have been much faster and poverty reduced quicker, if the Philippines had Thailand’s population growth path," Balisacan said. He added that a slower population growth would have averted a fiscal crisis in the Philippines and the government could have saved P18 billion a year on health and education expenditures or P180 billion for 10 years.
"The fiscal deficit is very small compared to the savings we could have had from taming the population growth," Balisacan said. Balisacan said that for the economy to grow, the government has to institute a clear population policy. Under the 2004-2010 Medium Term Philippine Development Plan (MTPDP), the government seeks to spread the use of modern, natural or artificial planning methods to at least 60 percent of married couples by 2010.
Reprowatch said the APPC study was the first research to quantify the effect of population growth on poverty and economic growth.
Talking about water, water bottling enterprises have been having a field day supplying consumers with water, either mineral or purified, or sourced from clear, sparkling streams. Prices of bottled water vary – from P40 to P50 per 10-gallon container, and so does the taste, some taste sweet (do they add some sweetener?), others plain bland if not tasteless.
We wonder about the sources of the bottled water. I’ve heard it from a reliable source that people simply boil water from the tap, and label it as purified.
Scared of contracting diseases from tap water, people have been buying bottled water, without really knowing where the stuff is taken from. What government agency is in charge here? Can the entrepreneurs be charged of false advertising if they’re just using tap water without telling the consumers? And how much water is being siphoned off from Maynilad or Manila Water company faucets? It would be good to have a rep join Dondi at today’s Bulong.