| Home | Publications | | |||
Publications |
 |
||
|
THE CHALLENGE OF POVERTY ERADICATION IN AFRICA AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT: THE ZAMBIAN CASE STUDY BILLBOARD IDEOLOGY A few years ago I recall seeing a very large advertising billboard in downtown Lusaka that carried the message: "A Small Family Is a Happy family." The billboard featured on the left-hand side a very large and very sad family of dejected father, worn-out mother, and six very hungry children, standing outside a collapsing hut in a crowded and abject urban slum. On the right-hand side of the billboard was pictured a family of well-dressed father, smiling mother, and two bright children holding schools books, sitting within a well-furnished flat. Below the pictures, in large letters both in English and ci-Nyanja, was the caption: "Plan Your Family for a Prosperous Future." I was particularly caught by the pictures and message, because at the time I was doing a study on the impact on the family of the neo-liberal economic reform being imposed on Zambia, the IMF-World Bank model of "Structural Adjustment Programme. At the same time, I was noting in the rural outstation where I serve on Sundays the increasing difficulty of the people to meet the minimal requirements of livelihood, independent of the size of their family. It was obvious to me then, and it is now several years later, that the billboard’s message, indeed, its ideology, was not only false but also dangerous. It was false because it said that impoverished life-style is primarily a consequence of large families – ignoring such obvious questions as:
Moreover the message was dangerous because it distracted people politically and ethically from deeper issues of macro-economic policies and social priorities. A simple solution was being offered to people in a very poor country: have fewer children and you get out of your poverty. While the solution is alluring in its simplicity, it is perilous in its consequences. The condition of poverty and the issue of population size and growth rate are removed from any overall framework of integral human development, economic models, and political priorities. POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT In my paper, I want to revisit the population-development debate with a specific focus on Zambia, where I have lived for the past decade. I say "revisit" because I engaged very vigourously in this debate in the early 1970s, when I was part of the large group of Jesuits active in the United Nations Population Conference in Bucharest (1974) Being a participant in this International Population Concerns meeting this year in Delhi has called me to look again at the thesis many of us put forward at the time of the Bucharest Conference: effective and equitable population policy must be part of a dynamic and sustainable development policy. Population problems are often the consequences of social problems and not their causes. Unless the social problems are addressed, population problems cannot be dealt with. This means that poverty eradication is central to any policy that would address the demographic challenges facing a poor country. To put the thesis in a technical phrase: population pressure is both an independent variable (cause) and a dependent variable (effect) in relation to the progress of development. It is my contention here that the thesis we worked on in 1974 stands today. And it is solidly verified in Zambia – not matter how many billboards present an opposite ideological position! ZAMBIA: POVERTY AND POPULATION Zambia today is one of the poorest countries in the world, though it enjoys rich mineral and agricultural resources. According to the UNDP Human Development Report 1999, Zambia now ranks 156 out of 174 countries, having fallen consistently over the past few years, from 136 in 1996, to 142 in 1997, to 146 in 1998. Indeed, of 79 countries for which data is available between 1975 and 1997, Zambia is the only country where the value of the Human Development Index is lower than it was in 1975. To be honest, in preparing a paper such as this I must personally resist two extreme temptations: (1) pass over in silence the horrendous picture presented by statistics, or (2) overwhelm the reader with a host of officially-substantiated data indicative of massive human suffering. Let me offer a middle ground by citing only a few of the more pertinent data.
The poverty picture in Zambia is indeed startling. But what about the population picture? Zambia is also a country with very high population growth rates. While the growth rate has declined from a high of 3.7% in the mid-1980s, it currently is 3.1%. The total fertility rate (average number of children per women) fell from 6.5 children in the early 1990s to 6.1 children in the late 1990s. Estimated population figures: 1995, 8.1 million; 1999, 10.1 million; 2015, 13.2 million. The population growth rate for 1995-2015 is projected to be 2.5%, with population doubling by 2023. About 45% of the population live in urban areas, one of the highest rates of urbanisation in Africa (largely the consequence of colonial emphasis upon the mining industry). About 50% of the population are under the age of 15. The African Synod (1964) spoke about the challenges of demographic concerns and urbanisation. Zambia is certainly faced with both these challenges. Moreover, the issue of population and environment is of critical concern. A situation that cuts across the poverty and population picture in Zambia is the prevalence of HIV/AIDS in the country. Again, Zambia is in the top sector of countries with high prevalence, since close to 20% of the population is estimated to be infected (exceeding the sub-Saharan average of 7.8%). Of the sexually active age-group (15-49 years) in Lusaka, almost one-third are estimated to be infected, with much higher proportions among women and youth. The social and economic consequences of the spreading pandemic have been well documented and are experienced every day in families, schools, churches, businesses, industries, agriculture, etc. Every family has been deeply touched by the many premature deaths; every social activity has been profoundly shaken by the numerous occurrences of funerals (which in Zambia have major social demands and economic consequences). It has been estimated that the growth of GDP in Zambia has been set back by ten years because of HIV/AIDS. What may be the future impact of HIV/AIDS on the population size and growth in Zambia? As it is in other parts of the world, this is a very controverted point. It does seem clear that already some slackening in the growth rate is occurring as well as a decline in the fertility rate. This may be due to a variety of factors: decreasing numbers of sexually-active persons because of death, lower fertility rate among HIV-infected women, specific choices to plan families because of socio-economic factors, wider use of condoms, etc. Some estimate that Zambia’s population will begin to decline in the next few decades if the HIV/AIDS pandemic is not effectively dealt with. However, this position is neither scientifically demonstrable at the moment nor is it popularly accepted. Something that is extremely important to pay attention to, in Zambia and elsewhere, is the link between poverty and HIV/AIDS. This link is not always stressed when discussions go on about finding ways to prevent the spread of the disease and minister to those infected. While it is true that HIV is not limited to the poorer sections of society, poverty does contribute significantly to both to its spread and to its impact. Some of the ways this occurs in Zambia are as follows:
Thus it is a sad fact that the very situation of poverty which is intensified by the presence of HIV/AIDS in Zambia in turn leads to an increase in the spread of the disease. This is one more reason why poverty eradication must be seen as central to any treatment of population issues in Zambia today. POVERTY ERADICATION POLICY Having seen the context within which the billboard about size of family and poverty conditions was set in Lusaka, what can we say about the relationship between population and development and how does the issue of poverty eradication figure into the argument? To begin with, in our discussion we need to be very clear about the distinction between "poverty eradication" and "poverty alleviation."
It is clear that the first approach is long-term, affecting such things as industrial development, agricultural sustainability, employment generation, human capital improvement (education and health), etc. The second is short-term, dealing with immediate needs, emergency requirements, one-off assistance, etc. Programmes to meet the great human crisis of widespread and growing poverty in Zambia and elsewhere must obviously include both approaches. But I argue here that the first approach, poverty eradication, must indeed be first in priority, policy and politics. Poverty has come to be understood analytically today not in the limited sense of inadequate income only but in a more holistic sense of deprivation of a series of human basics – economic, social, political, cultural, ecological, etc. According to the UNDP Human Development Report 1997: Poverty has many faces. It is much more than low income. It also reflects poor health and education, deprivation in knowledge and communication, inability to exercise human and political rights and absence of dignity, confidence and self-respect. There is also environmental impoverishment…. Behind the faces of poverty lies the grim reality of desperate lives without choices and, often, governments that lack the capacity to cope. The link between population and development is specifically treated by other papers prepared for this conference. Malthusian and Marxist disciples have continued to debate the dynamics of demographic transitions in both the rich and poor countries. And church-related discussions have added another dimension to the debate, but with contributions that are not always helpful, in my opinion, because they are guided at times more by concern for the authority of teaching than the demands of real life situations. But I will return to this thorny issue at the conclusion to my paper. Here it is sufficient to note that the population and development argument takes on significant policy implications in a poor country like Zambia when we begin to focus more directly on poverty eradication policy. A HOLISTIC APPROACH What is my main point here? In situations of extreme poverty such as Zambia, population policy must take a holistic approach characterised by three inter-related points:
A) Size of population and rate of growth First, it is clear that Zambia's primary demographic problem at the moment is not too many people, but too few resources that are too ineffectively utilised to meet the needs of a rapidly growing population. This is why we must both analytically and practically distinguish between size of population and rate of growth of population. Zambia is a large country and with effective utilisation of its many resources of land, water, minerals, agricultural potential, etc., more people could be adequately hosted. I would not venture a guess of how large a population could be sustained but it certainly is more than currently present in the country. The current population of 10.1 million lives within 750,000 square kilometers of land, with huge percentage of it arable but not yet tilled. Zambia is one of the African countries with least population density (contrasted, for example, with Rwanda) and most available arable land (contrasted, for example, with Kenya). It is helpful to look first at the size and rate of growth of a family. In a country like Zambia, large numbers of children within a family can be beneficial because of the labour-intensive character of the economy, with many people involved in subsistence farming and informal economic activity such as vending. Moreover, children are social security for old age, something not provided for by the government. (A ciTonga proverb says: "Bulemu bwa nkuku mapepe" – feathers clothe a chicken with respect, meaning that having many children gives a person status and security). But on the other hand, large numbers of children born at a rapid rate can have an unfavorable effect on maternal and child health and can put a strain on the limited resources available for basic needs. Data in Zambia sadly indicate that monthly expenditures on food do not necessarily change with the increasing size of the family. Hence, our malnutrition rates are indeed shocking. Now look at size and rate of growth within the country at large. A large population in Zambia can have advantages in providing more workers, larger domestic markets, more creativities among citizens, etc. After all, people are the most important and most precious resources that any country has. But a rate of growth that over-reaches available resources at the moment, putting demands that cannot be met, increases human suffering and poverty. Shanty compounds (slums) grow in urban areas, schools and health facilities do not meet the needs, and unemployment grows with consequent difficulties of security and civil unrest. We see this situation in startling and disturbing fashion today in Zambia. So we can see that both within a family and within a nation, there are advantages and disadvantages to large populations. In the case of Zambia, effective utilisation of resources to meet population increases is seriously hampered by four key factors:
Obviously, population policy such as encouraging smaller families can only touch on the first of the factors outlined above, the need to slow down a unsustainable growth rate. Therefore to encourage a "billboard population policy" outside of consideration of the context of the other three major factors is certainly counter-productive and irrelevant to the real situation. B) Population Policy within Development Policy Second, population policy for Zambia must be integrated into a sustainable human development policy. This point relates to issues raised in the previous part of my paper. And it is a point that should be very obvious. But to be honest, it seems not to be so obvious to many involved in energetically pushing for population control measures that lack clear and effective relationship to genuine development concerns. For example, Oskar Wermter, a Jesuit writing from Zambia’s southern neighbour, Zimbabwe, critiques a book published last year that upholds the thesis that because population growth is outstripping economic growth, the first place to begin addressing the consequent social problems is to take significant steps to curb population growth. Wermter notes that the Zimbabwean government’s National Population Policy (1998) also puts more emphasis on population control measures than on a developmental context within which such measures might be evaluated for how they contribute to integral development and not simply how they curb population growth. On the other hand, It is encouraging to note that in Zambia, official government policy does emphasise the link between population and development, stating clearly that "The GRZ’s [Government of the Republic of Zambia] major population and development strategy is to address population issues within the context of sustainable development." What does it mean to say that the development context is central? For years, demographers spoke of a "threshold hypothesis" that states that a certain level of per capita income is necessary before birth rates will decline. But recent studies have shown that it is not higher levels of income but wider distribution of development benefits that has greater impact on birth rates. Where increases in the output of goods and services are distributed for the benefit of a substantial majority and not just for a small minority of the people, then a significant long-term impact appears to be made upon reducing population growth. Development strategies that focus on employment, health-care systems, literacy programmes, agricultural productivity, land reform, savings schemes, etc., make the difference even in low per-capita income countries. Key to population stabilisation programmes that promote smaller families is motivation. And key to motivation is the dynamic that sees hope for the future not necessarily in many children but in visible signs of development. In Zambia, this requires more emphasis on the benefits of development being widely shared. Population policy must not be simply about how to provide more family-planning programmes (though increased services are necessary) but about how to stimulate motivation to encourage a greater number of families to desire fewer children. This comes about not be designing more propaganda for smaller families (as is seen regularly on Zambian evening television) but by putting in place socio-economic policies that improve standards of living, provide access to education and medical services, and offer security for old age. To put the case very simply, for many poor families in Zambia, children are riches. There may be one more mouth to feed now but two more hands to work in the fields later; one more child may have to be taken care of now but this means one more child will be there to take care of parents in their old age. To ask poor families to have fewer children without addressing their poverty is to ask them to be poorer. C) Poverty Eradication as a Priority Third, from what has been said so far it is clear why poverty eradication is central to dealing with population challenges today in Zambia and other African countries (indeed, in other developing countries in general). It is not a case of "either/or" – either focus on poverty issues or focus on population issues. Both are important. But a "billboard population policy" such as I have noted at the outset of this paper distorts the complex relationship between the variables of population, development and poverty. Recalling that poverty eradication differs from poverty alleviation, we can see why the former must be a priority in a development policy that effectively integrates population policy. Programmes of poverty alleviation treat people as objects of welfare assistance, necessary for survival but not enough to move people out of their poverty. On the other hand, programmes of poverty eradication treat people as subjects of productive involvement, shaping a future of decency and self-sufficiency. What does that mean here in Zambia? The Government of Zambia, striving to respond to the commitment it made at the 1995 United Nations Summit on Social Development (Copenhagen), has been developing a "National Poverty Reduction Plan." The ambitious goal of this Plan is to reduce the number of persons living in poverty from the current 70% to 50% by 2004. Strategies of the Plan include:
I would like to be optimistic about the outcome of this Plan, but two major factors militate against its success unless significantly changed: (1) lack of political will to put this as a national priority, and (2) lack of sufficient funding to make this a practical reality. The first factor obviously influences the second factor. But this is where the population issue comes into consideration. The effort to slow down Zambia’s population growth rate is linked so closely to poverty eradication because economic factors are major determinants of fertility rates. While it may be true in some instances that poverty stimulates a desire for smaller families, it is more true that the desire for larger families is more common among poor people. What one study reports of Africa in general is surely true of Zambia in particular: Africa’s population problem is one of high desired fertility, rather than a need for contraceptive services…. High fertility in Africa probably reflects a combination of low socio-economic development (for example, in terms of education and gender inequality) and sociocultural practices that reinforce a preference for large families. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS Given the links, then, between population, poverty and development, what lessons can be drawn from the Zambian case for policy recommendations that promote social justice, which is, after all, a central aim of the Jesuit network of "International Population Concerns." For the sake of conciseness, let me suggest two macro-economic proposals and two micro-economic proposals. These certainly do not exhaust the list of recommendations that need to be designed and implemented, but I believe that they point the way to a fuller programme. A. Macro-economic 1. Reform the package of economic reforms imposed on Zambia. The international financial institutions and major donors have one model of economic reform: the neo-liberal structural adjustment programme. But nowhere, and certainly not in Africa, can a case be found where the rigid and ideological implementation of SAP has brought significant poverty eradication. Where in a few instances it has promoted some economic growth, this must not be equated with poverty reduction. Economic growth must be subjected to the questions: What sort of growth? Is it growth in some sectors at the expense of other sectors? Who participates in the growth? Who benefits and who suffers from the growth? Is the growth sustainable? Economic growth may be a necessary condition for dealing with poverty (and hence for dealing with population issues), it is not a sufficient condition. As explained earlier in this paper, distribution factors must be taken into account and an overall poverty eradication programme must be made a central priority of any economic reform effort. 2. Get Zambia out from under the crushing debt burden. Scarce resources that might improve the social conditions of the majority of Zambians – and have consequences for our population growth problems -- are today diverted to meeting the inexorable demands of debt servicing. In recent years, Zambia has spent more on servicing its external debt than on health, education and other social sector expenditures combined. This is a situation of grave social injustice with serious social impacts on the well-being of the vast majority of Zambians. This is why we in Zambia support the Jubilee 2000 campaign for outright cancellation of our debt. We must resist the IMF and World Bank pseudo-solutions of the redesigned HIPCs and reformed ESAFs. B. Micro-economic 1. Lower the rate of child mortality. As noted at the outset of this paper, Zambia has a shockingly high rate of child mortality. Infant mortality is 112 per 1000 live births, the 16th highest rate among 194 countries. Under-five mortality is 202 per 1000 live births, meaning that one in five children die before reaching the age of five. Ranking Zambia today as number 12 among 194 nations, this rate has increased dramatically since the early 1980s when the rate was around 150. The collapsing economy and the harsh measures or SAP (such as user fees for health facilities), along with the worsening incidence of HIV/AIDS, account for this increase. It is well recognised that high infant and child mortality rates contribute strongly to high fertility rates. Because of the fear, indeed the expectation, that children will die young and therefore deprive the family of an important asset, there is pressure have more frequent births. Thus a strategy aimed to reduce infant and child mortality rates will not only address the tragic loss of life but also bring about some fertility decline. 2. Promote girl’s education opportunities. One of the worst consequences of the deteriorating economic situation in Zambia and the SAP-inspired imposition of user fees in schools has been the significant drop in school enrolment. This drop is disproportionately higher among girls, with important consequences for population dynamics. Surveys have shown that on the average Zambian women who had no education give birth to 7.1 children, those with only primary education to 6.8, those with secondary or higher education to 4.9. Moreover, child mortality rates decline substantially when mothers have had education opportunities and, as noted above, this has consequences for reducing fertility. CONCLUSION To return to the opening of this paper, I repeat my thesis: effective and equitable population policy must be part of a dynamic and sustainable development policy. The few recommendations made above, for macro-economic and micro-economic initiatives, are designed to move toward the poverty eradication that is essential to development and hence necessary for population stabilisation. Obviously, more can and should be done, and other papers at this conference will present deeper analysis and wider recommendations. I want to conclude with a word regarding church policy and initiatives and the relevance of this to Jesuit responses encouraged by this conference. Speaking of the Zambian case, I can say that the official church leadership has been very outspoken on the issues of poverty and development, with strong pastoral letters addressing social justice issues in the economy. Moreover, in a recent pastoral letter on abortion, the Catholic bishops of Zambia explicitly reiterated the importance of responsible parenthood and spoke clearly about the relationship between fertility and development. But I do not believe that the Zambian Catholic church – hierarchy, clergy and pastoral agents, parishes and schools, etc. – have adequately faced up the to challenge of promoting a more realistic commitment to responsible parenthood in the current context of the country. The high rate of growth in the population should not go unchallenged in the midst of the poverty and economic stagnation that causes such suffering for the majority of the people. I do not believe I am alone in conjecturing that either unrealistic reiteration of condemnation of contraceptives or irresponsible ignoring of the critical situation is about all the church offers. This is, I am afraid, an instance of where upholding an interpretation of teaching authority overrides a concern for pastoral care. Personally, I hope that this conference of International Population Concerns will address this issue. I hope it will provide analytical and practical assistance for me in both my professional character as a specialist in the political economy of development and in my pastoral responsibility as a priest serving in a very poor and underdeveloped country in Africa that has tremendous resources, the most important one being its people. Peter Henriot, S.J. |
|||
