Inclusive growth: Possible with 100M?

In terms of growth, consistency is the key.  Growth in gross domestic product (GDP), for instance, must be consistent so that in due time it shall trickle down and the entire population can benefit from it.  Otherwise, if it will be a rollercoaster ride, even the affluent and the learned will find it difficult to navigate.

So far, the country’s GDP grew at a yearly average of 4.5% the past several years. Though we were in the receiving end of Yolanda’s rage and the tremor’s wrath, last year’s GDP is still expected to be in the vicinity of 6%.  With such performance, we shall remain at par with China growth-rate-wise.  Despite these real and encouraging growth statistics, however, majority of our population are still thirsting for it. It simply means, such GDP growth never trickled down to the grassroots.  Thus, poverty incidences are consistently way up. 

Truth to tell, in our sincere efforts to break the poverty cycle, we set aside a very significant statistics, population growth.  These are information that were readily available then and were scientifically gathered.  Thus, today, some are shocked by the announcement of PopCom Executive Director Juan Antonio Perez III that “definitely in the third or fourth quarter of this year, we will be more than 100 million”. 

The fact is, that we will be more than 100 million this year is nowhere anything new.  As early as October 16, 2002, the National Statistics Office (NSO) released the results of its 2000 Census of Population and Housing revealing that as of May 1, 2000 the country’s total population was 76,504,077.   In the same report, the NSO projected that (assuming the annual population growth rate of 2.36% remains)in 14 years from May 1, 2000, the country’s population shall reach 100 million.  Simple math tells us that 14 years from year 2000 is 2014.  So that confidently, PopCom Executive Director Juan Antonio Perez III asserted that we shall be 100 million by the third or fourth quarter this year.  Moreover, the same report projected that, again, if the annual population growth rate remains the same, our population as of May 1, 2000 shall double in 29 years.  That simply means we shall be over 150 million by year 2029. Therefore, there shall be more mouths that shall share on our already very limited resources.

To some extent, this swelling population is a consequence of some twisted mindsets.  Some parents look at kids as income producing properties.  So that, they dwell purely on a very stupid equation, the more kids = more hands to earn for them.   What makes matters worst is, this bunch of couples/individuals truly felt that what they have decided to do have sound backing from the so-called pro-life advocates.  The same pro-life advocates or anti-contraceptive backers who have entertained the thought that there is no need to curb population because some countries that are bigger than us (population-wise, like the USA)as well as countries that are more congested like Singapore are, obviously, enjoying better lives.  Thus, they alleged, that being plenty or congested have no direct correlation with poverty.

Frankly, most of us have wrong perceptions.  Agreeably, bigger number of inhabitants and the higher level of congestion do not directly connote poverty incidences.  What truly relates to poverty incidences is family size.  Truth to tell, despite the huge number or level of congestion in countries like the USA or Singapore, respectively, their average number of children per family is just about two. Due to limited space, they (in Singapore) are living in world-class tenements even comparable to what we popularly referred to us “high-end condominiums”.   Clearly, in these progressive countries, the common denominator isn’t their sheer number of residents or their level of congestion.  Apparently, these countries have kept their family sizes at manageable levels. 

Clearly, it starts with the right family size. The appropriate size that is very much within the family’s resources or income.  With this mindset prevailing, right thinking couples/individuals will tend to limit their number of kids so they can responsibly and comfortably raise their families.

Therefore, having the right family size is a matter of fiscal responsibility.  If one is a billionaire, then he can be like Solomon because he can afford to give better lives to a hundred children.  Otherwise, if he is a pauper, for heaven sake, he must not think of having more kids to have more hands to soon bail him out of poverty.

For your comments and suggestions, please email to foabalos@yahoo.com.