Dr. Devendra
Kothari
Population and
Development Analyst
Forum for
Population Action
“Population
growth is a choice, not an inexorable force of nature”
Institute for Population
Studies, Berkeley, USA
With
India confronting a host of major crises relating to energy, water, poverty,
malnutrition, governance, corruption (especially at the day-to-day level), social and
religious conflicts, why should anyone be
concerned about population? The simple answer is that virtually all the major
problems that confront India today relate in some critical way to galloping
population. With density already great and living standards low, a continued
increase in number means continued tragedy. The country already has over 1280
million people and is adding more than 165 million each decade with 10 million
young people entering the workforce each year.
The
present analysis assesses the implications of massive and rapid population
growth for Prime
Minister Narendra Modi’s development goal, reflected in his poll slogan, “Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas” (together with
all, development for all). It is because
population growth shares complex ties with poverty and
inequality, exacerbating the gap between the rich and the poor, and creating
obstacles in achieving an inclusive development.
Population's role is often neither direct nor simple, and its impacts
can vary at the local, national and global levels. There has not, however, been
a comprehensive examination of how population factors (size, growth,
distribution, and composition) may affect both the supply and demand factors responsible
for overall development. “Supply and Demand is perhaps
one of the most fundamental concepts of economics and it is the backbone of a
market economy.” [1]
When supply and demand are equal (i.e.
when the supply function and demand function intersect) the economy is said to
be at equilibrium and moving forward.
At this point, the allocation of goods is at its most efficient because the
amount of goods being supplied is exactly the same as the amount of goods being
demanded. Thus, everyone (individuals or countries) is satisfied with the
current economic condition. On the other hand, economic disequilibrium, an
unstable situation in which some forces outweigh others, occurs whenever there
is a mismatch between supply and demand factors.
It is because galloping population leads to a
significant diversion of national investable resources to consumption which
could otherwise be used for increasing investment and productivity and for
improving the quality of public services, such as education, health,
sanitation, provision of safe drinking water and electricity.
Consider some facts:
India’s population has grown from
956 million in 1995 to 1282 million in 2015, that is, by 326 million in
the last twenty years; it is
still growing by around 16 to 17 million every year, or about 45,000 people per
day. If current trends persist, there will 200
million more people in the country in the next 15 years or by 2030, bringing
the total to about 1476
million, as per the UN Population Division.
That projected population growth raises a host of questions about the Modi government’s
plan for a prosperous, vibrant and inclusive India.
India now contains about 17.6 per cent
(i.e. every sixth person in the world is an Indian) of humanity. China is the
only country with a larger population ‑ in the order of 120 million more. The
Indian population grew at an annual rate of 1.24 percent during 2010-15. On the
other hand, China registered a much lower annual growth rate of population
(0.61 percent) during the corresponding period. In fact, the growth rate of
China is now very much comparable to that of the developed countries. Demographers expect the year 2030 India's
population wii surpass the population of China, currently the most populous
country in the world. At that time, India is expected to have a population of
more than 1476 million while China's population is forecast to be at its
peak of 1453 million and will begin to drop in subsequent years (Table 1).
Based on the analysis of recent data, the author came to the conclusion that
India will take over China in the next 8-9 years, that is before 2025.
Table 1: Trends in total population, net
annual addition, annual populati0mn growth, India and China, 1951 to 2050
|
Year
|
China
|
India
|
||||
|
Total population
in million
|
Net annual
addition
in million
|
% Annual
population growth rate
|
Total population
in million
|
Net annual
addition
in million
|
% Annual population
growth rate
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
|
1950
|
543.8
|
10.7
|
2.00
|
376.3
|
6.0
|
1.66
|
|
1960
|
650.7
|
16.4
|
1.79
|
449.6
|
7.3
|
2.04
|
|
1970
|
814.3
|
17.0
|
2.30
|
555.2
|
10.6
|
2.28
|
|
1980
|
984.0
|
18.1
|
1.56
|
699.0
|
14.4
|
2.24
|
|
1990
|
1165.4
|
11.5
|
1.20
|
868.9
|
17.0
|
1.91
|
|
2000
|
1280.4
|
7.9
|
0.59
|
1042.3
|
17.3
|
1.57
|
|
2010
|
1359.8
|
7.3
|
0.61
|
1205.6
|
16.3
|
1.24
|
|
2020
|
1432.9
|
2.0
|
0.22
|
1353.3
|
14.8
|
0.94
|
|
2030
|
1453.3
|
2.0
|
-0.07
|
1476.4
|
12.3
|
0.65
|
|
2040
|
1435.5
|
1.8
|
-0.30
|
1565.5
|
10.1
|
0.40
|
|
2050
|
1385.0
|
-5.0
|
-0.55
|
1620.1
|
5.5
|
0.19
|
|
Source:
World Population Prospects: The 2012 Revision, UN Population Division
|
||||||
Nearly 27 million children are born every year in India
and only 15 million in China. This has impact on people’s quality of life. For
example, life expectancy at birth in China is now 74 years vs. 64 years in
India. The corresponding figures for infant deaths/1000 births are 21 and 53,
respectively. Because of China's successful management of population issue, it
has been able to improve the quality of human resources - an important factor of economic development. India ranks among the countries having one of the lowest
productivity. Productivity,
a measure of the efficiency of the
human capital, can be measured by per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP). India
has become the tenth largest economy in the world in terms of GDP but still has
a very low per capita GDP. The country was placed at the 148th position among
the 187 countries in 2013, as per the World Bank. This is perhaps the most
visible challenge. It is interesting to
note that China’s GDP per capita value in 2013 was more than four
and half times that of India and its rank was 87th in the world.
The emerging population scenario, as noted
above, is a challenge for India’s development in the years immediately
ahead. There are three
important factors which should be discussed while understanding the role of
population issue in the sustainable but inclusive development of India.
First, current
population growth is mainly fuelled by unwanted fertility. More
than four in ten pregnancies are unintended/unplanned or simply unwanted by the
women who experience them and half or more of these pregnancies result in
births that spur continued population growth. Around 27 million
children are born in India every year, and out of this about 6 million births could be
classified as unwanted.
It is estimated that around 480 million people
out of 1280 million in 2015 in India were the result of unwanted
pregnancies. With such a large number of people resulting from unwanted
pregnancies, how can one think about using them for the nation building? [2] It is because the consequences of unwanted
pregnancy are being reflected in widespread hunger, poor health, poverty,
illiteracy, unemployment, regressing governance as well as increasing
scarcity of basic resources like food, water and space despite concerted
developmental efforts since 1991.
Second, the regional
disparity in population growth in India is now a matter of serious concern. Has
the regional disparity widened in the post-reform period? Existing data indicate
that while the growth rate of gross domestic product has improved only
marginally in the post-reform period, the regional disparity in population
growth has widened much more drastically. Industrial states (mainly located in
southern and western India) are now growing much faster than the less
industrial states mainly located in the Hindi belt; and there is no evidence of
convergence of growth rates among these states. Even more disturbing factor is
that there is now an inverse relationship between population growth and GDP
growth. And this relationship is stronger for the per capita GDP growth among
states.[3]
The findings of the Census of India 2011 clearly reinforce that two contrasting demographic "nations"
are emerging in the country. In 1951, the Four
Southern Indian (FSI) States (Andhra Pradesh (including Telangana), Karnataka,
Kerala and Tamil Nadu) had 26 per cent of India’s population, and by 2011 that
figure has declined to 21 per cent. In 2051, as per the Population Foundation
of India and Population Reference Bureau[4],
the combined population of these States is projected to be only 16 per cent of
the country’s total. On the other hand, the population of Four Large North
Indian (FLNI) States of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh , Rajasthan and Uttar
Pradesh will increase from 37 per cent
in 2011 to 44 per cent in 2051 (Table 2). The Sample Registration data indicate that the
overall decline in fertility rate in India during the last 30 years has been
substantial. There are, however, wide disparities that can be observed in the
rate of decline in various parts of the country. While all the states in south
India have already achieved the replacement level fertility of 2.1 children per
woman required to initiate the process of population stabilization, the FLNI
States have a long way to go before they achieve this level, as shown in the sixth
column of Table 2.
What are the
implications of such a scenario? Armed with reams
of demographic and other relevant data,
Nicholas Eberstadt, a senior political economist at the American Enterprise
Institute - a Washington, DC think-tank – argued that India is bisected
by a great north-south fertility divide. In much of the north, fertility levels
remain quite high, at four, five, or more children per woman; in much of south
India, however, fertility levels are at, or already below, the replacement
level. He concluded: “In effect, this means that two very different Indias are
being born today -- a youthful, rapidly growing northern India whose future
population structure will be akin to that of a traditional Third World society and
a southern India whose population growth will be slowing, where manpower growth
will be coming to an end, and where pronounced population aging will be taking
place”. He firmly believes that this emerging demographic
peculiarity could have major ramifications as India attempts to continue its
high growth rate over the coming decades.
Table
2 India: Emerging North-South demographic divide, 1951-2051
|
State
|
Percent
of India’s population
|
Total
Fertility Rate (Number of children/woman)
|
||||
|
1951
|
2011
|
2051*
|
1981
|
2011
|
2051*
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
|
Four
Large North India States (FLNIS)
|
||||||
|
Bihar
|
8.1
|
8.6
|
10.5
|
5.7
|
3.6
|
2.2
|
|
Madhya
Pradesh
|
5.2
|
6.0
|
6.4
|
5.2
|
3.1
|
2.0
|
|
Rajasthan
|
4.4
|
5.7
|
6.8
|
5.2
|
3.0
|
2.1
|
|
Uttar
Pradesh
|
16.1
|
16.5
|
19.9
|
5.8
|
3.4
|
2.3
|
|
India
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
4.5
|
2.4
|
2.0
|
|
Four
South Indian States (FSIS)
|
||||||
|
Andhra
Pradesh
|
8.6
|
7.0
|
6.0
|
4.0
|
1.8
|
1.8
|
|
Karnataka
|
5.4
|
5.0
|
4.3
|
3.6
|
1.9
|
1.9
|
|
Kerala
|
3.8
|
2.8
|
2.1
|
2.8
|
1.8
|
1.8
|
|
Tamil
Nadu
|
8.3
|
6.0
|
4.0
|
3.4
|
1.7
|
1.8
|
|
Source:
Sample Registration System, RG, India and * The Future Population of India,
PFI & PRB, 2007.
|
||||||
Demography, therefore, in the next 10 years
or so will pose serious challenges to economic growth, democracy and national
unity by its sheer size.[5] Unless the Centre
and FLNI states engineer a common population stabilization program to lift
these economies, the shadow of poverty and illiteracy as well as poor
governance issue will continue to haunt India and thwart its tryst with
destiny. This is a challenge for India’s development in
the years immediately ahead.
Third, the demographic-economic paradox is the inverse correlation found between wealth and fertility within and between nations - the higher the economic
status, the fewer children are born. One of the background characteristics used
throughout the National Family Health Survey-3, conducted by the Government of
India, is an index of the economic status of households called the Wealth
Index. The second column of Table 3
shows that the children per woman or Total Fertility Rate decreases steeply by
the household wealth index, from 3.9 children for women living in households in
the lowest wealth quintile to 1.8 children for women living in the highest
wealth quintile. Similarly, the level of unwanted fertility ranges from 0.3
children per woman in the highest wealth quintile to 1.6 children in the lowest
quintile (Col. 3). The fourth column shows that there are marked differences in
the use of modern contraception by wealth index. The modern contraceptive use
increases sharply from the lowest quartile to the highest one, from 35 per cent
to 58 per cent. It does not mean that
people belonging to the lower economic classes are against family planning.
Unmet need for family planning is an important indicator for assessing the
potential demand for family planning services. The unmet need for the
contraception is highest among the couples from the lowest economic strata. The
fifth column of Table 3 shows that unmet need decreases sharply with an
increase in wealth quintile. In short, most of the population growth in India
is contributed by the lower economic strata which they really do not want.
Table
3 India: Fertility and family planning by economic status
|
Wealth Index
|
Children per woman
(TFR)
|
Unwanted children per woman
|
% of eligible couples using modern
contraceptive (CPR)
|
% of couples with unmet need for family
planning
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
Lowest
|
3.89
|
1.6
|
31.6
|
18.2
|
|
Second
|
3.17
|
1.1
|
39.7
|
14.8
|
|
Middle
|
2.58
|
0.8
|
42.7
|
12.8
|
|
Fourth
|
2.24
|
0.5
|
48.8
|
10.6
|
|
Highest
|
1.78
|
0.3
|
0.8
|
8.1
|
|
Total
|
2.68
|
0.8
|
44.2
|
12.8
|
|
Source: National
Family Health Survey (NFHS-3) , 2005-06, IIPS, Mumbai, 2007
|
||||
How
to forge ahead?
While India’s
population continues to grow by 16-17 million people annually, and while 13 million
women, especially in the lower economic strata, seek to postpone childbearing,
space births, or stop having children; they are not using a modern method of
contraception. This is also known as the ‘unmet need’ for contraception. Often,
these women travel far from their communities to reach a health facility, only
to return home “empty handed” due to
shortages, stock outs, lack of desired contraception and/or non availability of
doctors and paramedical staff. When women are thus turned away, they are unable
to protect themselves from unwanted/unplanned pregnancies and sexually
transmitted infections, including HIV/AIDSs. And this type of incomplete
control over the reproductive process leads to relatively high levels of
unwanted childbearing and reduces the prospects for an early decline in the
rate of population growth.
Incidence of unwanted pregnancies can be dramatically
reduced, if not eliminated, within a decade by revamping family planning
program, as has been done in Andhra
Pradesh during the nineties. If Andhra, with little outside help, can
manage its population growth under relatively low literacy and high poverty,
there is no reason why FLNI States, with lesser problems and with increasingly
generous support from the Centre, should fail so spectacularly in managing
unwanted fertility.
In sum, at a time when the Narendra Modi government is
focusing on a manufacturing push to the economy with its ‘Make in India’
slogan, the galloping population fueled by unwanted fertility is a major
constraint. Thus, the Modi government must work towards population
stabilization [6]
under the broader context of reproductive rights. There is no need to implement coercive measures or to provide incentives
and disincentives. The real need is to provide services in un-served and
underserved areas. For this, some innovative measures are
needed. A user friendly service
delivery system can help address the causes that lie at the root of unwanted
fertility.[7] At the same time, investment in education has to be increased to improve
the quality of education especially at the government schools and colleges
where most of the students are from poor and rural families.
The writing is
on the wall. The question is not whether we act or not, but whether we act now
or later and deal with much more dire and expensive consequences. India cannot
afford business as usual.
[1] Read more at:
http://www.investopedia.com/university/economics/economics3.asp.
[2] Kothari, Devendra.
2014. “Managing Unwanted Fertility in India: Way Forward”, Institute of
Economic Growth (ed.): National
Rural Health Mission: An Unfinished Agenda, New Delhi: Book Well, pp.25-36
[3] Bhattacharya B.B.
and Sakthivel. Regional growth and disparity in INDIA: A Comparison of pre and
post-reform decades. Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi. For details see at:
http://iegindia.org/workpap/wp244.pdf
[4] For details, see: The Future Population of
India, Population Foundation of India and Population Reference Bureau, PFI, New
Delhi, 2007.
[5] During the
discussion on Consideration of Issues of Population Stabilization in the
Country held in the Lok Sabha on August 4, 2010, Sivasami, Member of Parliament
from Tiruppur, Tamil Nadu said: “In India, we find in the Southern States ……we
have succeeded there in bringing down the population increase. But in certain
Northern States we are quite unable to control population explosion and we are
really struggling hard. This has resulted in a situation where the Northern
States get more funds according to their population and the so-called States in
the South are getting reduced funds from the Centre. I urge upon the Union
Government to evolve a method to provide incentives to the Southern States
which have succeeded in effectively controlling the population growth, but on
the contrary they are being deprived of their share”. For
details, see Lok Sabha Proceedings, 2010, p. 4134.
[6] A population has stabilized when the number of births has come into balance with the number of deaths, with the result that the effects of immigration aside, the size of the population remains relatively constant.
[7] Kothari, Devendra
and Sudha Tewari. 2009. “Slowing Population Growth in India: Challenges,
Opportunities and the Way Forward”. MIPD
Policy Brief No.2, Management Institute of Population and Development, a
unit of Parivar Seva Sanstha, New Delhi.
