October 2014, 7.2 billion [Figure] Most population growth will occur in LDCs ◦ Growth is most rapid in the 49 LDCs, which are projected.

October 2014, 7.2

billion

[Figure]

Most population growth will occur in LDCs◦ Growth is most rapid in the 49 LDCs, which are projected to double in size from

900m to 1.8b in 2050 ◦ Over ½ of global population growth between now-2050 is expected to occur in

Africa

Europe is shrinking: population is expected to ⇓ by 14% by 2100. Population of India is expected to surpass China by 2028 Population of China is expected to start to ⇓ by 2030 (1.1b in

2100 Nigeria’s population is expected to surpass the US by 2050 and

could start to rival China as the most populous country in the world.

By 2100 there could be several other countries with populations over 200m: Indonesia, United Republic of Tanzania, Pakistan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Uganda and Niger

Age specific fertility rate: average number of children per year born to women in a particular age group

Total fertility rate: the average number of children that would be born to a woman over her lifetime if she were to experience the current

Birth rate of a population: annual number of births per thousand women of childbearing age

Death rate: number of people per 1,000 of a population who die each year.

Low-fertility: women who have fewer than 2.1 children on average over their lifetimes◦ 48% of the world lives in low fertility countries

Intermediate-fertility: women who have on average between 2.1 and 5 children over their lifetimes◦ 43% of the world lives in intermediate fertility countries

High-fertility: women who have on average more than 5 children over their lifetimes◦ 9% of the world lives in high fertility populations.

In 15 high-fertility countries of SSA, the estimated number of children per woman has been adjusted upward by more than 5%

Part of population growth is due to changes in fertility rates but, Part of this is from changes in life expectancy ◦ Global Life expectancy at birth rose from 47 years (19501955) to 69

years (2005-2010)

Population aging: as fertility rates decline and life expectancy rises, the proportion of population above a certain age rises.

This is occurring throughout the world. More developed regions

◦ 1950: number of children (<15) accounted for 27% and old (>60) accounted for 12%

◦ 2013: number of children (<15) accounted for 16% and old (>60) accounted for 23%

Less developed regions◦ 1950: number of children (<15) accounted for 38% and old

(>60) accounted for 6% ◦ 2013: number of children (<15) accounted for 28% and old

(>60) accounted for 9%

Togo IrelandPopulation growth (annual %) 2.24 2.20Birth rate, crude (per 1,000 people) 34.52 14.80Fertility rate, total (births per woman) 4.56 1.87Death rate, crude (per 1,000 people) 11.52 6.60Population ages 0-14 (% of total) 41.54 20.59Population ages 65 and above (% of total) 3.26 11.06

Why do we worry about large families? ◦ Much of international public policy is based on

ideas like: large families are bad and poor people can't control

their fertility. Ex: sterilization policy in India & one child policy in

China ◦ Some of these ideas come from Malthusianism

Argument: Since resources are finite (like land), with more people ⇒ less resources for everyone.

Argument: high mortality keeps population in check. But….we have since learned about technical progress -

which keeps making us more productive with the same set of resources.

Why do we worry about large families? ◦ Yet, we still tend to worry. ◦ Jeffrey Sachs: "Common Wealth: Economics for a

Crowded Planet" "Stabilizing the world's population is crucial to

ensuring peace and prosperity on this already crowded planet."

“If we ignore this issue we risk a massive and unsettling youth bulge, unbearable environmental pressures and unchecked global migration.“ Ex: population growth contributes to growing carbon

dioxide emissions and global warming Ex: drinking water is becoming scarcer due to growing

population

Question 1: Are large families poorer because they are large? ◦ household resources are spread thin - unable to

fully invest in health/education

Or

Question 2: Do households have high

fertility rates because they are poor?

So, let's think about the question: Are Large Families Worse Off?

Gary Becker, Nobel prize winner: (1960) "An Economic Analysis of Fertility". ◦ Seminal work on what is often referred to as the

'quality-quantity’ tradeoff faced by parents. ◦ Key features of the economic framework:

1. Each family is assumed to have perfect control over the number and spacing of its births.

2. Children are a source of psychic income or satisfaction and are considered then a durable consumption good.

3. Children may also provide money income and are then a durable production good as well.

Becker: quality/quantity key features of the economic framework:

4. A family must determine quantity and quality (amount to spend on each).

5. Now think about a rise in income. If goods are 'normal', then a rise in income means more

money is spent on that good - positive income elasticity of demand.

Becker argues that an increase in income should increase both the quantity and quality of children, but the quantity elasticity should be small in comparison to the quality elasticity.

6. Because quality is a relatively close substitute for quantity, families who have excess children would spend less on each child (each child is of lower quality) than other families with equal income and tastes

hence the quality/quantity trade off.

Becker: quality/quantity Evidence??? To see if there is evidence of this, we need some

exogenous changes in family size◦ Look for instances where there was an increase in family size

that was not a household choice Ex: birth of twins, family only wanted 2 children (boy/girl) and got

two girls, China's one child policy

◦ Results of several studies - little evidence of quality/quantity trade off

A study in Israel found that large family size has no adverse affects on education of children (even Arab children who are very poor)

On China's one child policy: Policy in some regions was relaxed to allow families to have a second child if the 1st was a girl. Result: girls (with a sibling) were more educated. Two was better than one.

So… are large families bad?

Do the poor control their fertility? Question again: Is this a supply issue or a

demand issue ◦ If Supply issue: we are asking, "Is Contraception

availability the Key Barrier?" ◦ If demand issue: we are asking, "What are household

preferences for fertility?“◦ Poor Economics argues: this is really a demand issue.

Example: Matlab program in Bangladesh (voluntary family planning program starting in 1977). Every 2 weeks a trained nurse brought family planning services, prenatal care and immunizations to women in their homes. result: sharp reduction in fertility. But authors believe the program

may have altered preferences for children, Program may have accelerated a trend of changing preferences

Do the poor control their fertility? Question: what about other issues of women's

choice?1. Role of women's rights

property rights, jobs, ability to divorce all give a woman bargaining power within the household.

2. giving women an opportunity to choose (away from husband)

• the Matlab program in Bangladesh was said to be successful in part because women were visited in their homes (away from husbands)

3. Fertility is often rooted in social and religious norms. Points:

1.Fertility decisions seem to the product of choice. 2.What leads individuals to make these choices may be, in part,

beyond their immediate control.

Children and missing markets ◦ Many LDCs have missing markets: no insurance, social

security, retirement savings. ◦ This role is filled by children

this is a natural perspective felt by most of the world's poor. ◦ Studies have indeed showed that children and savings

are close substitutes. China: household savings rates rose as a result of the one

child policy Bangladesh: treatment households in the Matlab program also

showed higher savings rates

Children and missing markets ◦ Implication: helps explain why we don't see the

quality/quantity tradeoff! Parents with fewer children need to save more, which means

it cuts into funds that they would have available to fund health/education.

◦ Implication: missing children: If parents don't expect a daughter to be as useful in taking care of them (in old age) as a son, parents are less invested in the lives of daughters

India (2011):only 914 girls for every 1000 boys China (2011): only 100 girls for every 119 boys.

Do the poor control their fertility? Question: what about controlling fertility among

young teens? ◦ Teens and social norms, a study in Kenya.◦ To prevent HIV and teen pregnancy in Kenya, ABCD

strategy programs have been launched: Abstain, Be Faithful, Use a Condom, or Disclose. Problem only A and B could be taught in schools. Thus the

concern was that kids will decide to get married. ◦ Study: in 2002-2003, 376 schools were randomly assigned

to 4 groups: 1. Control2. teacher training for HIV education3. free uniforms for kids in grade 7-84. both.

Kids were followed until 2011.