WE GENERALLY hear that economic development in Pakistan is slow, because of its large and the increasing population. There are indeed some countries with lower population density and high per capita income.

However, there are many countries with a large population, measured in terms of density of population, but are included among the most developed countries. Similarly, there are many countries with small population but low income per capita. What really matters in economic development, is not size of population, but quality of population as judged in terms of education, hard work, honesty, discipline and devotion. Some examples of countries, in all the categories from different parts of the world are given in table 1. These comparisons show some interesting facts. Table No 1.

As for growth rate of population, it depends on certain factors: increase in crude birth rate; decrease in infantile mortality in early years; decline in crude death rate, because of the better health facilities, and increase in life expectancy at birth.

Thus, growth of population reflects increase in “survival rate” not increase in “birth rate” or “flood of population”, to be checked. A major cause of increase in population is that fewer people die, both because there are fewer cases of infantile mortality, and fewer deaths of adults. People now live longer. Life expectancy at birth has increased from 44 in 1960 to 63 in 1998. We are sure that no body would like to reverse this phenomenon. According to the Census of 1998, rate of growth of population has decreased from 3.2 to 2.4 per cent per annum. Now let us look at some of the statistics relating to demographic factors in Pakistan:

The figures show that there was a “decline” of 8 percent in crude birth rate during the 18-year (1980-1998), and a decline of 35.3 per cent in the 38 years period (1965-1998). Crude death rate has declined by 55 per cent during the last 38 years. Natural decrease in population, therefore, was 25 and 22.6 per cent in the 38 years. Thus, we see there is no “flood of population”. In fact, the water is receding as far as birth rate is concerned. Rate of increase in or growth of total population which is really rate of “survival” is not as slow as it might have been. The reason for survival, as mentioned above, is control of infantile mortality, and longer life of an “average adult”.

It is necessary to have a look at the pattern of population tendencies in the process of economic development. The normal pattern is that as soon as even a modest beginning of economic development is made, infantile mortality, and death of under five year babies, decreases visibly. It is partly due to increase in per capita income, a little more food, and expansion of hospitals and medical facilities, howsoever primitive. Similarly, adults get some medicines and live a little longer. Gradually, these things improve, and death rate declines.

After some time, economic development reaches a stage where death rate and infantile mortality decrease substantially, and these declines reach stability. This is the stage when “survival rate” or natural growth rate reaches a sort of plateau. So trend of population growth slows down as a result of development and progress. It is a fallacy that control of population would lead to economic development. Population has its own pattern, which cannot be “influenced”, much less “controlled”, by either publicity or persuasion or otherwise. We in Pakistan have seen that obsession of family planning, which Ayub Khan has had, gave no results. Since then, many billion rupees have gone down the drain, with no significant, substantial, or commensurate results.

Let us see how and when does the “crude birth rate” declines. As economic development makes major headway. Attitude of parents, regarding size of family, changes as a result of urbanization and economic growth. Men are, by and large, rational and know their practical economics much better than the policy makers or rulers. People look at “marginal cost” and “marginal benefit” of a child and size of family, as in other matters. In a rural society, where majority of population is in Pakistan, and many other developing countries, lives, “marginal cost” of a child is negligible. No expensive hospital bills are to be paid, no cost of education, which they do not get or wish, is incurred. Cost of food, clothes and shelter is nominal. “Marginal benefit” is, however, “significant” in a rural society. Boys mean additional help and working hands in farming or any other economic activity.

Moreover, when they grow up, the boys support their old parents, who do not get any pension, or provident fund, or claim on life insurance. The “ marginal benefit” is indeed very important. Girls help their mothers in kitchen, and house chore. There are no fancy cooking ranges, or gas stoves, or refrigerators, deep freezers, dish washers, clothe washing machine, grinding machines, and such other facilities or luxuries. “Marginal benefit” is again significant. Those people can not comprehend what is meant by higher standard of living. In this setting, preaching about small families does not get much results.

In the urban society where per capita income rises, a race for a higher standard of living is accelerated, and keeping up with Joneses (neighbours, relatives and friends), becomes the most important value. Here the “marginal cost” of a child is “substantial”, and even prohibitive. Hospitals and medical expenses in ante-natal and post-natal stages and obstetrical fees add up to a huge sum, several thousand rupees. Then, tinned baby foods, diapers, clothes, toys, tri-cycles and such other paraphernalia cost a great deal. Then, comes the education of children. Monthly fees, books, exercise books, transport, etc. require from Rs 1,500 to its 15,000 per month per child.

It is not difficult to see why “marginal cost” of a child becomes “substantial” or prohibitive. Then, there are desires starting from refrigerators to colour television with dish antenna or cable, to airconditioners, and good cars. There is a long line of competing objectives with limited income. People automatically keep the number of children limited. No body needs to “tell” them about desirability of a small family. Economic forces and pressures convince them much better than brochures, or field workers of population welfare or commercials on TV.

The “marginal benefit” of a child is almost “nil” in an urban society. Parents know that they will continue to live in Nazimabad or North Karachi, and their sons will move to Defence Housing Authority or Clifton in Karachi. Parents will live in Samanabad, or Bhati Gate, and grown up sons will move to G.O.R., Defence Society or Gulberg in Lahore. They, therefore, make their own financial plans like insurance policy, some investment in real estate, besides pensions, provident fund, gratuity etc. “Marginal cost” of a child in urban areas is “prohibitive” in literal sense, and “marginal benefit” virtually “nil”. Thus, the attitude of the people changes as of urbanization and development, But not before that. Any attempt to put the cart before the horse means waste of national resources. Table No 2.

Based on above analysis and statistics certain points emerge very clearly:

A large population in terms of density of population per square kilometre is not necessarily accompanied by low per capita income. It may be true in some cases, but not in all cases.

The attitude of people about the size of the family undergoes a change over a period of time. As a result of urbanization and accompanying economic development, attitude undergoes a change. As man is a rational being, he compares “marginal cost” of a child with “marginal benefit” of a child. In rural society “marginal cost” of a child is almost nil, but “marginal benefit” is significant. In urban society, however “marginal cost” of a child is substantial, while “marginal benefit” is almost nil.

The growth of population measured in terms of crude birth rate, crude death rate and natural increase in population undergo changes as a result of economic development and urbanization. Mere size of a family in itself, detached from economic development does not mean much.

The above conclusions are applicable to any country undergoing some urbanization and economic development has been historically same as that of Pakistan.

The crude birth rate in Pakistan has started declining long ago, and the decline in birth result rate takes its own course as a result of economic development and not because of a publicity campaign. Rate of population growth in Pakistan according to 1998 census has declined from 3.2 percent to 2.4 percent because of urbanization, and some economic development. If the process continues, it may decline a little more.