Wednesday, July 16, 2008

After the Demographic Transition - The Future of Population Growth

Demographic theory, especially growth theory, is based largely in the basic truth of the theory of the demographic transition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition). What this standard theory proposes is that, as countries develop (always a slippery and inexactact word), the mortality rate (particularly infant mortality rate) falls and leads to falling fertility rates.

The reasons for the Demographic Transition are complex, but it has been a fairly good model for predicting population dynamics, at least the order, if not a time-frame. Nearly every country is passing through, or has passed through the demographic transition. As can be seen in the map (yellow: finished demographic transition; orange: late demographic transition; red: early demographic transition), there are already many countries which have passed through the four stages of demographic transition. In fact, nearly half of the world's population lives in such countries, a number which will most likely increase in the future.

What this means is that in the near future, the majority of the world will live in countries for which there is not an effective model for predicting future growth. The Demographic Transition model itself suggests that upon reaching stage 4 the population growth will remain roughly static. In the long term, this may well be the case, but the issue is that alternative possibilities do not seem much-considered.

The most important projections of the next 50 years are those which come from the United Nations Population Division (http://esa.un.org/unpp/index.asp?panel=4). These projections work under several assumptions, which are described in the above link, of which one strikes me as questionable: the UN shows high fertility, low fertility, and medium variants of population growth over the next 42 years, in which the fertility rate are assumed to converge on a single rate:1.35, 1.85, or 2.35 children per woman. This seems pretty odd, especially considering that no country has yet to have a particularly stable fertility rate at any level. Part of this may be wishful thinking, as a fertility rate of around 1.85 (medium variant) is just below replacement and would eventually lead to a very slow decline in population.

Basically, the UN predictions (and other such predictions) assume that once a country reaches a certain stage in its development, its once dynamic demographic structure freezes, in the long term. I would say that the model is much too uncertain for that, largely because of the simple fact that demographers have very little experience with stage four of the demographic transition in the long term. Only in the 1970s did most of Europe's (http://www.ihs.ac.at/pdf/soz/macinnestabs%20and%20fig.pdf), Japan's (http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/migration/japan.pdf) and the USA's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_the_United_States) fertility rates pass below replacement. Therefore, it's sensible to at least be open to the possibility that total fertility rates will do something other than remain static.

It's possible that they will continue to drop.
The first countries to pass through the demographic transition (Western Europe and the USA) mostly have not fallen very far below replacement. Few passed below the threshold of 1.5. However, the more recent countries to reach the fourth stage of the demographic transition have reached much lower rates. It may even be that every Eastern European, Southern European, and East Asian country which has been in stage four for 10 years or more has at least had a fertility rate of 1.5 or lower, while none of the earlier countries have done so (in order for this to be true, one must consider Germany to be an East European country. A bit of a stretch, but demographic and cultural borders need not be exactly the same). This may be accounted for by swiftness of transition; The countries of Western Europe and the USA took much longer to pass into the fourth stage of the demographic transition than those of Eastern Europe and Eastern Asia. Might that mean that these countries will stabilize their populations at a lower fertility rate? Would that mean that the next countries (such as Iran, whose fertility rate has gone from 7 to 2 in just twenty years) would stabilize at an even lower level?

Perhaps rates will rise again.
If one believes that the demographic transition is, in fact, a transition, with demographic stages through which one must pass through in the proper order, then a look at the future might best be found in the countries which first past through the transition: Western Europe and the USA. Judging by the three most populous countries in this group, the USA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_the_United_States), the UK (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6729953.stm), and France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_France), it is possible that rates are already rising. The fertility rates in the USA have been tentatively rising for over thirty years, from around 1.75 in the mid-70s to around 2.1 today. The trend is more short-term for France, but more dramatic, with a rise from 1.66 in the mid-90s to nearly 2.0 today. For the UK, the possible trend is even smaller and shorter, rising from a record-low 1.63 in 2001 to around 1.85 today. These trends are not much, but they give some idea of how dynamic demographics remain.

I do not claim to know the trends which countries will follow after the fourth stage of the demographic transition. However, I do believe that trends will eventually emerge and the demographic transition model will eventually be modified.


The demographic Transition graph was taken from bbc.co.uk.
The Demographic Transition Map was made by TheDauds

10 comments:

Unknown said...

Hey Tad,

Looks good! How do you see the future playing out for India/Pakistan/Bangladesh in terms of population evolution? I notice they have not completed the demographic transition but their neighbor China has. You think this is going to cause conflict down the road?

Ian

TheDauds said...

What I'd say is that both India and Bangladesh are pretty densely populated and growing relatively quickly (about 1.5% for India, 1.7%), so there will be population pressures, but mostly in cities, because I believe that rural India and Bangladesh are hardly growing because of urbanization. I think perhaps the biggest issue there would be the decrease in fresh water coming off the Himalayas. Most Indians and Bangladeshis are pretty reliant on it, but so are China and even Southeast Asia. Will definitely be something to deal with in the future

Anonymous said...

I happen to disagree with many points of this article. You seem to me to be ignoring some of the most important cultural factors which contribute to population growth rate decline. It is not always genuine social progress that allows a nation to pass into a stage 4 population growth. The regions you mentioned as having experienced this shift sooner, namely eastern europe and east asia, were, many believe less developed than the western style democracies that they were at least 10 years ahead of in terms of this change over.

What almost all of these countries had in common though was communism which artificially accelerated the process through draconian measures.

Consider the rapid, almost haphazard industrialization of russia china and the eastern bloc. Once people were crammed togethor in cities not always of their own free will, we saw nations leap ahead on this scale without any real corresponding social progress.

Autocratic communism had other, cultural effects, the de facto erradication of organized christianity, for example. This was in many ways not a good thing because it caused the uprising of a wide range of frankly dangerous cults of state and politician or general worship, but it also meant that people, even women, were being educated (even indoctrinated) into the belief that sustainability was to be sought rather than the miracle of creating new life at almost any cost. This along with legalized abortions, education in general, and bringing women into the industrial workforce, caused people to be unable or at least unwilling to care for large numbers of children. Further draconian measures (most notably in china) ensured that eastern europe and east asia would be forced along the curve without the voluntary, democratic, social progress that most people seem to believe is necessary.

A spin off point is this: if we know that we can advance to these levels of reproduction through authoritarian avenues, what is to say that once we reach, or go just below, replacement level, we cannot force ourselves to stay there by any means necessary.

TheDauds said...

I'm not sure what effect the authoritarian nature of the rule in these countries had upon fertility rates. Some things to ponder upon: if you look, for example, to East Asia, it's true that China's fertility rate dropped earlier than one might expect if you base it mostly on GDP per capita, but I don't think that that's really the driver of the transition, it's more about the education, female empowerment and employment, urbanization, etc. that accompanies the GDP growth... I think that the speed of transition and low fertility rates reached hold true for pretty much all of East Asia, not just the authoritarian countries. Taiwan, for example (a relatively free country) has just about the lowest fertility rates in the world.

As far as Eastern Europe, most of the really dramatic falls in fertility came as communism was collapsing. http://paa2006.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=60734 Not to say that communism didn't speed the demographic transition, but I think that it's only part of the formula for any one country.

I don't think I made a value judgment about whether the development required for demographic transition was progressive or not (I did say it was a slippery word!), and anyway I intended the post really to be about the uncertainty of the future, so I didn't want to go into specific causes too much!

That being said, I'm not sure exactly where you disagree with me.

To your last point, I think an authoritarian government COULD keep its fertility rate very low if it wanted to, but I think that it's very unlikely, because 1: the current consensus is that having the type of old population caused by low fertility rates hampers an economy; 2: when I said that 1.85 TFR is ideal, I meant ideal for the world, not for an individual country. Most countries with long-term low fertility rates are pro-natalist. I'm not sure just how effective pro-natalist policies are of the two developed countries with the highest TFRs, France has very extensive pro-natalist policies and the USA has pretty much none.

But basically all this stuff is really complicated, and I'm not sure that you can ever prove exactly why any one country is a particular way. That was kind of my point

Anonymous said...

Good stuff Tad. Iran and Sri Lanka being yellow is a surprise for me, any thoughts on those two? Why the drop from 7 to 2 in Iran?

My other question concerns immigration. I know it really wasn't the core of you piece, but it's pretty obvious that i/emmigration have a dramatic impact on fertility rates, no? Couldn't one attribute much of France and GB's rebound to the decolonization which led to former colonials settling in those countries (with birth rates higher than native French and Britons), or isn't there at least some correlation? The US, on the other hand, owes much of its rebound to immigrants from Latin America. Any thoughts?

You've got a nice academic style-- clear and easy to read, with curt, insightful sentences. Holla!

Anonymous said...

The point I wanted to make is that it may be simple urbanization, and or forced social change that causes decreased fertility rates independent of GDP or accurately measured economic or social progress. I'm not saying that a country must be authoritarian or reach or maintain this level, i'm saying we have seen it act as a catalyst, demonstrating that even artificially enhanced growth with few of the other benefits we usually assume to have an impact on fertility present.

Other considerations may, as Owen pointed out, include immigration, showing that much of the issue may be cultural rather than economic.

Other points of interest, does women's education work to reduce fertility? Yes, but obviously not alone. A recent UN report (need to find citation) on women's rights showed that the nation in which women were best educated relative to the male populace was the UAE, which incidentally was also one of the nations with the most legally oppressed women and a maintained high fertility rate.

Also, it should be noted that authoritarianism alone does not always lead to lower fertility rates, to clarify my point it seems to only be communist or at least rhetorically Atheistic autocracies which experience this.

Religious Autocracies not only, in general, encourage reproduction and oppress women, but lack rapid economic and social progress.

Furthermore, Fascist Autocracies, whether only through a wish for rapid economic growth or through their maintenance of close ties with the Catholic church, have also had high fertility rates for almost the entirety of their brief durations.

Anonymous said...

Tad, Love your map. Having the graphic assistance is really helpful.
You are right. We really don't know how this will all pan out. It is interesting to me that the birth rate went down and then went up a bit in France and the US. So we shall see. Please keep us posted.

Saroni Dorito

Anonymous said...

Tad,

Your comments remind me of courses that I took in ecology while in college. Specifically the evolution of disturbed environments (such as an abandoned pasture) to mature ones (such as an old-growth maple forest). The final type of growth (sand dunes/marshes/forests) depend on the environmental factors in the region. Sometimes a very small region such as a canyon bottom or a river estuary.

Perhaps the population growth numbers need to be overlaid on the ability of the areas to sustain agriculture. Siberia will have different numbers from Cuba. Britain will be different from the Sahara regions. Food can be transported of course but on a global caloric basis very little moves more than twenty miles per person I would think.

Dad

TheDauds said...

Dad,
I think I kind of disagree about food transportation. Most subsistance agricultural communities are not self-sufficiant, and some countries are major food exporters (USA, France, Australia, Thailand) while others import lots of food when they can. It's true that for an isolated agricultural society carrying capacity is tightly linked to food output, but trade and alternative production complicate things. Some countries with almost no agricultural cpability, such as the United Arab Emirates, don't have much concern about food security because of their ability to trade for food produced elsewhere, whereas some countries such as Zimbabawe with high agricultural capability have starvation and food insecurity because of their inability to make use of that capability (political instability, turmoil over land ownership, capital flight).

Today, the choice about reproduction (when a choice is in fact made)has less to do with whether the child will starve than whether the child will have a decent life. Not to say that starvation doesn't exist, as of course it does, but I believe that there is quite limited overlap between parents who exercise birth control and those who think their children may be severely malnourished.

I can't find it, but I read an article recently that talked about Saudi Arabia moving away from heavily subsidizing farms in Saudi Arabia in favor of instead purchasing farms abroad as a way to food security

Anonymous said...

hi all thefreshglobalnews.blogspot.com owner found your site via search engine but it was hard to find and I see you could have more visitors because there are not so many comments yet. I have found site which offer to dramatically increase traffic to your site http://mass-backlinks.com they claim they managed to get close to 4000 visitors/day using their services you could also get lot more targeted traffic from search engines as you have now. I used their services and got significantly more visitors to my website. Hope this helps :) They offer most cost effective services to increase website traffic at this website http://mass-backlinks.com