Graduate School of Public Policy
University of Tokyo
Case Study: International Political Economy
Summer Semester 2012

Population Policy and Economic Growth:
The Case of Thailand and the Philippines

Ida Marie T. Pantig
51-118223
MPP/IP
July 18, 2012

I.

Introduction

Asian countries have experienced unprecedented economic growth after 1960s. GDP per capita andother macroeconomic indicators has been improving for most countries, as well as other social
indicators such as life expectancy, employment, human capital investments and poverty among others.
An increasing trend is also observed in population growth rates. The rate at which the population grows
by one billion got shorter and shorter. It took 127 years for the population to reach two million in 1927
from one million in 1800, and now it only took 12 years to grow from six billion in 1999 to seven billion
in 2011 (UNFPA 2011). This sudden surge in population has prompted the United Nations, bilateral andmultilateral donors and leaders to prioritize population programs to help curb the environmental andeconomic effects of population growth (Mason 2001). East Asian countries which implemented theirown population control policies have already experienced economic growth at scales larger than thosecountries which did not.
This study looks into the cases of Thailand and the Philippines. Thailand was explicit in its
implementation of population control policies in the 1970s, while the Philippines only had it on paper.
The Philippines, together with India, had the so-called “model programs” back in the 1970s but ended
up at the end of the pack in terms of implementation. Comparing the economic growth of the twocountries, Thailand has left the Philippines trailing behind by a large margin in terms of economic
growth measured by GDP per capita.
This strong link between economic growth and population growth has been evidenced in most East
Asian countries. Scholars devoted to population studies have already identified the link between the
two. This study aims to present the evidences of economic growth resulting from the implementationof population control policies by presenting the cases of Thailand and the Philippines. Further, thisstudy aims to provide evidences to support the arguments in the population and economic growthdiscourse.
This paper will be divided into the following sections: Section II discusses the framework of the study,
where the hypothesis and the variables will be identified; Section III presents the various literatures
exploring the links between economic growth and population growth, as well as the politics inpopulation control policy implementation; Section IV presents the methodology; Section V expounds onthe data and analysis, and; Section VI concludes this study.

1

II.

Literature Review

Population has been growing since the 1960s all over the world, and this can be attributed to thedecrease in mortality brought about by advances in the field of medicine and continued increase inbirths. This continued increase in population growth rates has prompted the United Nations,multilateral institutions, bilateral foreign aid agencies and private organizations to invest in population
programs (Mason 2003). They recognized the strain that this issue will be putting on the available
natural resources due to increased demand.
Several Asian countries implemented population control policies in the 1970s, with Thailand, Japan,
Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and Indonesia as forerunners. Since their implementation of suchpolicies, these countries experienced economic growth which transformed them into economic
powerhouses in the region. Their experience can be considered as evidence that population size isrelated to a country’s economic growth.
A wide array of literature has provided evidences on the links of population growth and economic
development. Most of the literature shows that population control is not directly linked to economic
growth, but the enabling conditions leading to development that a smaller population creates. Jha,
Deolalikar and Pernia (1993) identified four key areas of interaction between population andsocioeconomic development:(1) Economic growth
Measuring GDP per capita or income per capita will provide a good link between population growth andeconomic growth. Kelly and Schmidt (1995) found a large negative effect of population growth on
economic growth. Further, they found that high crude birth rate decreases economic growth while
decreases in crude death rate increases economic growth. Bloom and Williamson (1997) suggest that
economic growth is not due to population decline per se, but due to changes in population structure. A
larger working-age segment of the population will result to larger output and per capita income growth.
Given this scenario, Orbeta and Pernia (1999) argue that “it seems reasonable to attribute some of thisslow growth in per capita income to the drag imposed by high population growth.”2

Saving, on the other hand, is a primary determinant of investment, and a high savings rate contributes
to economic growth. Saving is dampened by high dependency ratio and increases in birth rates (Orbeta
2003).
Employment generation is critical issue accompanying population growth. Following the law of supply
and demand, the higher demand for labor will result to lower wages, as argued by Bloom and Freeman(1986, 1988). Generating employment in more productive sectors will also contribute to economic
development, e.g. employment in the industry is more productive compared to employment in service
sector (Orbeta 2003).
(2) Human capital investment
High population will have a negative impact on education and health. More children mean lower levelsof child nutrition intake, poor nutritional status, higher infant mortality, smaller per capital health andfood expenditures, poorer access to preventive and curative medical care, lower schoolingexpenditures per child, lower grades for children enrolled in school, lower child intelligence (Jha,
Deolalikar and Pernia 1993). Although Schultz (1987) observed increases in enrolment rates withhigher population, per capita expenditure declines, which may affect the quality of education.
(3) Poverty
Poverty may not be directly linked to high population growth, but Ahlburg (1996) looked into thecorrelates of poverty to assess its negative impacts. He found that rapid population growth has led to
low wages, lack of human capital such as education and health, lack of income-earning assets such as
land, and income inequality and loss of economic growth. Intal (1994) also argues that there is morepoverty for larger families compared to smaller ones.
(4) Environment
As for the environmental impacts of population growth, a larger population would mean larger demand
for goods and services such as energy for household use, transportation, power and industry (Jha,
Deolalikar and Pernia 1993). Deterioration in water quality can also be attributed as a correlate ofpoverty, as water pollution is proportional to the quantity of waste discharged, which is directly related3to population size. Rapid population growth, according to Panayotou (1994), is also correlated todeforestation, soil erosion, destruction of local ecosystems, and general environmental degradation.
III.

Frameworki.

Hypothesis

Since Thailand implemented population policies aimed at reducing its high population growth rate in
the 1970s, per capita GDP is now four times that of in 1970. The Philippines, on the other hand,developed their own population policies and programs at almost the same time. But these programs
and policies were not properly implemented. The Philippines’ per capita GDP lagged behind that ofThailand’s.
With the forgoing, the hypothesis for this study is: population control policies, together with theenabling conditions that result from its proper implementation, contribute to the economic growth of acountry.
The hypothesis holds with the assumption that population control policies does not directly impact GDP
per capita, but rather the consequences of a smaller population has positive impacts on economic
growth. Population control policies, for the purpose of this study, are limited to programs with the aimof reducing fertility through family planning. As mentioned, consequences such as higher per capita
income growth, savings rate and employment opportunities, higher human capital investment,
improved living standards and enabling environment with adequate resources for the population are
the requisites for the accompanying economic growth.
ii.

Variables

This study aims to look at the effect of implementing a population control policy on economic growth.
Although there is a vast collection of literature available that empirically proves the link between thetwo, this paper will look into evidences from the case study countries, Thailand and the Philippines.
Thailand and the Philippines share the same experience post World War II. Recovery efforts prompted
the creation of development plans for both countries, initially focusing on infrastructure, agriculture,
manufacturing and industries. The rapid increase in population growth rate, however, prompted these4countries to formulate population control policies in order to curb this issue. Thailand, however, took off
with their population policies and the Philippines only had it in theory.
To analyze the hypothesis, the level of economic growth, measured in terms of GDP per capita (atconstant 2000 prices) will be the dependent variable. The independent variables for this study will be
the implementation of population control policies and its consequences. These factors are: savings rateof household, unemployment, life expectancy, enrolment rates, government spending for health andeducation, and poverty rate. The independent variables will be explained in detail in section five.

IV.

Methodology

This study will look into the evidences on the links between low population growth and economic
growth. This paper will attempt to compare the experiences of Thailand and the Philippines using datacollected from various databases and government agencies. Secondary data on country experiences
will also be used for this study.
This study will be descriptive in nature. Various data and statistics will be used to link the dependentand independent variables to arrive at a conclusion. This study does not intend to prove the link
between the two variables as already established by the breadth of literature available. Instead, it aims
to provide concrete evidences to ascertain the above claims in the two case study areas.
V.

Data and Analysis

In the 1960’s, Southeast Asian countries have started to recover since the Second World War. At thattime, almost all Asian countries were growing at almost similar pace. The Philippines even had a higher
GDP per capita compared to Thailand, at US$690 compared to US$321 (at constant 2000 prices).
However, Thailand continued to grow in terms of per capita GDP, reaching US$2,700 in 2011 comparedto the Philippines’ US$1,410.
Coincidentally, population growth rates have significantly dropped for Thailand, from 3.0% in 1960 to
0.6% in 2011. The Philippines, on the other hand, has not had any significant drop in population growth.
Population growth rate was at 3.3% in 1960, and was at 1.7% in 2011, one of the highest amongneighboring countries in Southeast Asia.

5

Various literature support the argument that population control policies are linked to economic growth.
As for Thailand and Philippines, Figure 1 illustrates the relationship between the two. The significant
decline in population growth rate in Thailand from the 1970s has resulted to significant increase in GDP
per capita in the 1980s. The Philippines, on the other hand, had a steady population growth rate decline
since the 1960s, and a corresponding slow and steady increase in GDP per capita.

3.5

2500

3

2000

2.5

1500

2

1000

1.5

500

1

0

0.5

population growth rate in percent

3000

Annual Population Growth,
Philippines
Annual Population Growth,
ThailandGDP per capita, Philippines
GDP per capita, Thailand

1960
1963
1966
1969
1972
1975
1978
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
2011

GDP per capita at constant 2000 US$

Figure 1. GDP per capita and Population Growth, Thailand and Philippines, 1960-2011

Source: World Development Indicators, The World Bank.

This study will be looking into the indicators which are correlated to population growth rate, and thissection will attempt to link these indicators to economic growth. The indicators to be examined are:employment, savings and investment, health and education outputs and poverty.

Employment
As population grows, a natural increase in demand for labor follows. The larger employment brought
about by the increase in population should increase national output, thus contributing to economic
growth. To achieve this, countries need to generate adequate employment to provide to the growing
labor force. To make full potential of this population growth, employment in the most productive
sectors should be made available.

6

The working age population in Thailand has been steadily increasing (Figure 2). The growth path,however, is becoming flatter, which can be attributed to the implementation of population control
policies. Unemployment rate, on the other hand, has maintained its below-4% level since late 1980s.
The decline in unemployment rate is noticeable in the late 1980s, less than 20 years since theimplementation of the population control strategies, which corresponds to the minimum working age.
The Philippines, on the other hand, has an ever increasing working age population, as illustrated in
Figure 3. Similarly, unemployment rates also appear to be on an increasing trend. The Philippines has
not experienced any significant drop in unemployment rates until 2004. However, this decrease is still
far from Thailand’s drop from 3.4% in 1998 during the Asian Financial Crisis to the current 1.2%. The
Philippines has a steady unemployment rate of 7.3% since 2006.

7.0

50,0006.0
5.0

40,0004.0

30,0003.0

20,0002.0

Working Age Population

2010

2008

2006

2004

2002

2000

1998

1996

1994

1992

1990

1988

0.0
1986

0
1984

1.0
1982

10,000unemployment rate(% of total labor force)

60,0001980

Population in thousands

Figure 2. Working Age Population and Unemployment Rate, Thailand (1980-2010)

Unemployment Rate*working age population: 15-64 years old
Source: World Development Indicators, The World Bank.

7

14.0

50,00012.0
10.0

40,0008.0

30,000

6.0

20,000

4.0

Working Age Population

2010

2008

2006

2004

2002

2000

1998

1996

1994

1992

1990

1988

1986

0.0
1984

2.0

0
1982

10,000unemployment rate(% of total labor force)

60,0001980

Population in thousands

Figure 3. Working Age Population and Unemployment Rate, Philippines (1980-2010)

Unemployment Rate*working age population: 15-64 years old
Source: World Development Indicators, The World Bank.

Employment generation may contribute directly to economic growth, but employment in productive
sectors has more weight on economic growth. Figure 4 shows the employment pattern for bothThailand and Philippines in the key sectors. The share of employment for agriculture has been declining
for both countries, while employment share for the services has been increasing.
The employment share of Thailand for agriculture is the largest in 2005 at 42.6%, with the services
sector trailing at 38.1%. The industry sector has had a significant leap from 10.3% in 1980 to 20.2%
in 2005. This entails that some of the surplus agricultural labor were absorbed by the industry, wherein
its value added constitutes a significant chunk of GDP.
The Philippines, on the other hand, experienced a different story. The share of employment inagriculture has been declining, to the point that the services sector takes a majority of the share of
employment in the country. Agriculture employed 36% in 2005, compared to 49% for the services
sector. The industry sector, on the other hand, had a constant employment share of around 16% since1980. It is clear that the surplus agricultural labor is being absorbed by less-productive services sector.
Employment alone is not enough as an indicator of efficient employment generation. Employment insectors with higher value will be more beneficial for an economy. Figures 5 and 6 present the value
added per sector as percentage of GDP. This represents the net output of the sectors after adding up
all the outputs and subtracting intermediate outputs. For Thailand, a noticeable increase in value added8

for the industrial sector is observed, while the services sector is observed to have an increasing trend
for the Philippines. ADB (2005) pointed out that the industrial sector is the “engine of growth” for an
economy due to the increasing returns to scale in the industry (due to large-scale production and lower
costs and its effect on capital accumulation; labor productivity also increases as output grows due to“learning by doing”). The expansion of Thailand’s industrial sector relative to the services sector might
have prompted its economic growth, compared to the Philippines’ growing services sector.

percent

Figure 4. Employment in Key Sectors for Thailand and Philippines, 1980-2005
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
ThailandPhilippines

ThailandAgriculture

Philippines

ThailandIndustry

1980

1985

1990

1995

Philippines

Services
2000

2005

Source: World Development Indicators, The World Bank.

Figure 5. Value added per sector(% of GDP), Thailand (1960-2011)

Figure 6. Value added per sector(% of GDP), Philippines (1960-2011)

100%

100%

90%

90%

80%

80%

Services

70%
60%

60%

50%

50%

40%

40%
Industry30%

Services

70%

Industry

30%

20%

20%

10%

10%

Agriculture

1960
1964
1968
1972
1976
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
2000
2004
2008

2008

2004

2000

1996

1992

1988

1984

1980

1976

1972

1968

1964

0%
1960

0%

Agriculture

Source: World Development Indicators, The World Bank

9

Health and Education
A smaller population means more resources for social service provision. As for health and education,
the higher spending per capita means quality services. Improvements in access to health care,provision of basic preventive and curative services, health financing and overall wellbeing of individuals
are expected. Figures 7 and 8 present the government’s health and education spending as percent of
GDP for Thailand and Philippines. For both sectors, Thailand has provided more to these sectors
compared to that of the Philippines.
A practical indicator for improvements in health services is life expectancy, which is the number ofyears a person is expected to live. Figure 9 compares the life expectancy at birth for Thailand andPhilippines. In the 1950s, the Philippines had a better life expectancy at 55 compared to 51 for Thailand.
However, as Thailand’s population grew at a smaller rate, their expected life expectancy for 2010-2015
is at 74, compared to the Philippines’ 69.
Figure 7. Health Expenditure (% of GDP)
1995-2010

Figure 8. Public Spending on Education(% of GDP) 1971-2010

4.5

6

4

5
4

3.5

3
3
2.5

ThailandPhilippines

2
Thailand1

Philippines

0219951997199920012003200520072009

197119801986199920012003200520072009

Source: World Development Indicators, The World Bank.

10

Figure 9. Life Expectancy at Birth, Thailand and Philippines, 1950-2015
80

74

75

years

70
65
60
55
50

69
55
Thailand

51

45

Philippines40
1950-1955

1960-1965

1980-1985

2000-2005

2005-20102010-2015

Source: World Development Indicators, The World Bank.

Savings
As mentioned, the impact on savings of the change in population growth is the key in the analysis of thelink between economic growth and population growth. The dependency ratios play an important partin this aspect. Dependency ratio is defined as the proportion of dependents (too young or too old towork) to those who are economically active. The higher the proportion of dependents means the higher
the household expenditure, and therefore savings are less.
Dependency ratios for Thailand and the Philippines show two different stories. Thailand has reduced its
total dependency ratio (child and old age dependency ratio combined) from 83% in 1950 to 42% in
2010. The Philippines, on the other hand, only reduced its total dependency ratio from 89% to 64%
during the same time period. These are presented in Figures 8 and 9, respectively. It is also worth
noting that the dependency ratio for Thailand started to decline in the 1970s, when the population
control policies were implemented. The Philippines, on the other hand, experienced a steady decline
due to the natural rate of decline of fertility and population growth rate experienced by countries.

11

Figure 9. Child and Old-Age Dependency
Ratio, Philippines (1950-2010)

100

100

90

90

80

80

70

70

60
50

percent

percent

Figure 8. Child and Old-Age Dependency
Ratio, Thailand (1950-2010)

Child
Dependency

40
30

60

Child
Dependency

50
40
30

20

20

10

Old Age
Dependency

010

Old Age
Dependency

0

Source: United Nations Population Division

Poverty
As mentioned, there is a negative relationship between population growth and the correlates of poverty.
Lower wages, lack of human capital in terms of education and health, lack of income-earning assets
such as land, income inequality and loss of economic growth, and gender, race and ethnicity are someof the correlates identified by Ahlburg (1996). Looking at the poverty headcount ratio based on national
poverty line, the portion of Thailand’s population under the poverty line is far less than that of thePhilippines’, at 8.1% compared to more than one-fourth for the Philippines in 2009 (Table 1). As
mentioned by Orbeta (2003), “high poverty incidence cannot be attributed to rapid population growthalone, it is clearly more difficult to reduce poverty when population grows faster than slower.”
Table 1. Poverty headcount ratio at national poverty line (% of population)

ThailandPhilippines

1990

1994

33.7

19
40.6

1997

1998

2000

17.5
36.8

33

2002

2003

2006

2009

21

14.9

9.6

8.1

24.9

26.4

26.5

Source: World Development Indicators, The World Bank.

12

VI.

Summary and Conclusion

The cases presented above are clear indications of the contrasts resulting from the implementation of
population control policies. Thailand had the political will to implement such population control policies
since they were able to anticipate the negative impacts of population boom based on their studies. The
Philippines, on the other hand, had the best policies in theory but was not able to implement them. A
crucial factor in its implementation is the role of the Catholic Church, which is against the practice ofartificial family planning.
Thailand is now an economic powerhouse in the region, while the Philippines is still in its “emerging”
stage. Can this be attributed to Thailand’s population control policies?
Employment, government spending on human capital, savings and investment and poverty have all
improved for Thailand since the implementation of the policies. These have created an environmentthat prepared its economy for growth. Essentially, smaller population means less natural resources
consumed, higher resource allocation per capita, higher labor productivity and higher income andoutput. Although improvements in GDP per capita are also experienced by the Philippines, its growthrate is not at par with that of Thailand’s and other neighboring countries.
This study presented evidences that support the population control-economic growth discourse. To
reiterate, there is no direct link between population control and economic growth, but it is the enabling
conditions that result from its implementation that result to economic growth.

-13

References
Ahlburg, D. (Ed.). (1996) Population Growth and Poverty. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Asian Development Bank. (2005). Labor Markets in Asia: Issues and Perspectives. Manila: ADB.
Bloom, D. & Freeman, R. (1986). The Effects of Rapid Population Growth on Labor Supplyand
Employment in Developing Countries. Population and Development Review, 12 (3): pp.
381-414.
Bloom, D. & Freeman, R. (1988). Economic Development and the Timing and Components ofPopulation Growth. Journal of Policy Modeling, 10(1): 57-81.
Bloom, D. & Williamson, J. (1997). Demographic Transitions and Economic Miraclesin Emerging Asia.
(NBER Working Paper 6268). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Intal, P. (1994). The State of Poverty in the Philippines: An Overview. in P. Intal and M. C. S. Bantilan(eds.) Understanding Poverty and Inequality in the Philippines. Pasig City: National
Economic Development Authority.
Jha, S., Deolalikar A. & Pernia, E. (1993). Population Growth and Economic Development Revisited with
Reference to Asia. Asian Development Review 11(2): 1-46.
Kelley, A. & Schmidt, R. (1995). Aggregate Population and Economic Growth Correlations: The Rule of
the Components of Demographic Change. Demography 32, pp. 543-55.
Mason, A. (2003). Population change and economic development: what have we learned from East
Asia experience? Applied Population and Policy, 1(1), pp. 3-14.
Mason, A. (Ed.). (2001). Population Policies and Programs in East Asia. Hawaii: East West Center.
Orbeta, A. & Pernia, E., (1999) Population Growth and Economic Development in the Philippines: What
has been the experience and what must be done? (Philippine Institute for Development
Studies Discussion Paper Series No. 99-22). Makati City: Philippine Institute forDevelopment Studies.
Orbeta, A. (2003) Population and Poverty: A Review of the Links, Evidence and Implications for thePhilippines. Philippine Journal of Development , 56(2), pp. 195-227.
Orbeta, A., Matro, J., & Del Prado, F. (2002). Review of Population Program: 1986-2002 (Philippine
Institute for Development Studies Discussion Paper Series No. 2002-18). Makati City:
Philippine Institute for Development Studies.
Panayotou, T. (1994). Population, Environment, and Development Nexus. in Cassen and contributors.
Schultz, T.P. (1987). School Expenditures and Enrollment 1960-1980: The Effects of Income, Prices
and Population. In DG Johnson and R. Lee (eds.) Population Growth and Economic
Development: Issues and Evidence. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
United Nations Population Fund. (2011). State of the World Population 2011. New York: UNFPA.

14