Population Policy and Economic
Growth: The Case of Thailand andPhilippines
IDA MARIE T. PANTIGJULY 18, 2012Outline of Presentation
Introduction
II. Literature Review
III. Framework
I.

I.
II.

Hypothesis
Dependent, Independent and Control Variables

IV. Methodology

Data
VI. Summary and ConclusionV.

http://www.subdude-site.com/WebPages_Local/Blog/topics/environment/enviro_worldPopGrowth_charts.htm

Introduction
 The exponential population growth has triggered

concerns on the available resources to support
people’s needs.
 This has prompted the United Nations, bilateral
donor countries and multilateral agencies to startinvesting in population control policies in order tocurb this anticipated problem.
 In the 1970s, countries in East Asia and the Pacificstarted to craft and implement their population
control policies, with particular focus on fertility
reduction.

Introduction
Thailand was strict in implementing their population
control policy, while the Philippines only had it on paper…
3.5

2500

32000

2.5

1500

21000

1.5500

10

2011

2008

2005

2002

1999

1996

1993

1990

1987

1984

1981

1978

1975

1972

1969

1966

1963

1960

0.5

population growth rate inpercent

GDP per capita at constant2000 US$3000

GDP per capita and Population Growth, Thailand andPhilippines, 1960-2011
Annual Population
Growth, Philippines
Annual Population
Growth, Thailand
GDP per capita,
Philippines
GDP per capita,
ThailandLiterature Review
 Population control is not directly linked to economic

growth, but the enabling conditions leading todevelopment that a smaller population creates.
 Jha, Deolalikar and Pernia (1993) identified four key

areas of interaction between population andsocioeconomic development: (1) Economic growth,(2) human capital investment, (3) poverty and (4)environment.

Literature Review (1) Economic Growth Kelly and Schmidt (1995): large negative effect of population
growth on economic growth (higher crude birth rate decreases
economic growth, while decreases in crude death rateincreases economic growth) Bloom and Williamson (1997): a larger working-age
population results to higher per capita output and income Orbeta (2003): high savings rate means higher investments,
achievable through low dependency ratio

Literature Review
 (2) Human Capital Investment
 Jha, Deolalikar and Pernia (1993): higher population meanslower government spending for health and education; lower
levels of child nutrition intake, poor nutritional status, higher
infant mortality, smaller per capital health and foodexpenditures, poorer access to preventive and curative medicalcare, lower schooling expenditures per child, lower grades forchildren enrolled in school, lower child intelligenceLiterature Review
 (3) Poverty
 Ahlburg (1996): high population growth may not be directly
linked to poverty, but it has a direct impact on the correlates ofpoverty: low wages, lack of human capital such as educationand health, lack of income-generating assets such as land, andin income inequality and loss of economic growth Intal (1994): there is more poverty for larger families

compared to smaller ones

Literature Review
 (4) Environment
 Jha, Deolalikar and Pernia (1993): a larger population would
mean larger demand for goods and services such as energy forhousehold use, transportation, power and industry; highpopulation growth also has an impact on deteriorating water
quality Panayotou (1994): deforestation, soil erosion, destruction oflocal systems, and general environmental degradation are
correlated to rapid population growthFramework Hypothesis
 The implementation of population control policies willcontribute to the economic growth of a country.
IVDV
EconomicGrowth
GDP per capita“enabling conditions
resulting from
population control”
Employment, Health andEducation, Savings,Poverty

CV

Macroeconomic
PlanningandStrategies

Methodology
 Since the arguments supporting the link between low

population growth and economic growth are alreadyestablished, this study will look into the evidences
linking the two variables by comparing the cases ofThailand and the Philippines.
 Study will be descriptive; secondary sources andstatistical databases will be used for this study.

Control Variable: Macroeconomic Planning
ThailandPhilippines

Development ofinfrastructure such as
roads, dams, etc

Post-war reconstruction,
agricultural andindustrial projects

Third Development PlanPopulation control policy

Employment generation
to support
industrialization

Structural Adjustment(due to public debt andcurrent account deficit)

Mid-1980s

Late 1970s

Development PlanningFirst and Second
Development Plans

Data: Unemployment and Working-age Population
Philippines
7.0
6.0

4.0
30,0003.0
20,0002.0

10,0001.00.0
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010

0

Working Age Population

Unemployment Rate

Population in thousands

5.0

40,00014.0
12.0

50,000unemployment rate(% of total labor force)

50,000Population in thousands

60,00010.0

40,0008.0
30,000

6.0
20,000

4.0

10,000

2.0

00.0

1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010

60,000unemployment rate(% of total labor force)

ThailandWorking Age Population

Unemployment Rate

Data: Unemployment and Working-age Population
 Thailand has kept its unemployment rates low while

the Philippines has a consistently highunemployment rate.
 Thailand’s working-age population is growing at a
declining rate, while the Philippines’ is growing at anincreasing rate.

Data: Employment in Sectors
Employment in Key Sectors for Thailand andPhilippines, 1980-2005
80
70

percent

60
50
40
30
20
100
ThailandPhilippines

ThailandAgriculture

Philippines
Industry

1980

1985

1990

1995

ThailandPhilippines
Services

2000

2005

Industry’s labor productivity is higher, compared to the services sector.
Higher employment in the industry means higher propensity foreconomic growth.

Data: Government Spending for Health and Education

Health (% of GDP)

Education (% of GDP)

4.5

6454

3.5

3
Thailand

1

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2001

2002

2000

1999

1998

1985

1986

0

Philippines

1980

2

Philippines

21975

2.5

Thailand1971

3

Data: Life Expectancy
80
75
70
65
60

ThailandPhilippines

55
50
45

40
1950-1955

1960-1965

1980-1985

2000-2005

2005-20102010-2015

Thailand’s life expectancy has surpassed that of the Philippines in the 1980s…

Data: Dependency Ratio and Savings
Philippines

100

100

9090

80

80

70

70

60

60

50

percent

percent

ThailandChildDependency

4050

40

30302020100Old Age
Dependency

ChildDependency

100Old Age
Dependency

Higher dependency ratio means higher household expenditure, and less savings.

Data: Poverty Headcount Ratio Thailand has reduced its

poverty headcount ratio
dramatically from 1990.
 The Philippines, on theother hand, still has onefourth of its population
under the poverty line.

ThailandPhilippines

1990

33.7

40.6

1994

19

36.8

17.5

33

2002

21

24.9

2003

14.9

26.4

2006

9.6

26.5

2009

8.1

1997
1998
2000

Summary and Conclusion The sudden decrease in population growthexperienced by Thailand corresponded to
improvements in a number of economic and socialindicators:
 Unemployment rates have remained low; employment in theindustrial sector has been increasing
 Government allocation for health and education haveincreased; life expectancy has improved Dependency ratio has decreased, implying an increase inhousehold savings
 Poverty has significantly dropped in the last two decades

Summary and Conclusion The Philippines, on the other hand, with its highpopulation growth rate, had experiences opposite tothat of Thailand’s”:
 Unemployment rates have remained high, and this isaccompanied by an increasing work-age population;
employment in the services sector is increasing
 Government allocation for health and education is lower
compared to Thailand; life expectancy is improving but at aslower rate Dependency ratio has remained high
 One-fourth of the population is living below the poverty line in2009

Summary and Conclusion The contrasts exhibited by Thailand and Philippines

in the conditions resulting from the implementation,or absence, of population control policies support thearguments asserted by scholars in the population
growth-economic growth discourse.
 To reiterate, there is no direct link between
population control and economic growth, but it is theenabling conditions that result from its
implementation that result to economic growth.
-o-Thank you.
Questions? Suggestions?