[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Thailand? You said? RE: Population


Clearly I see your arguement here as a very significant and enlightening
contribution to the discussion. Looking at models adapted by different
countries  is the benchmarking exercise that I mentioned in my earlier mail.

But have you looked at Kerala in India?  Somehow  it seems to defy your
model. The local govt there has made a massive effort to educate the masses.
You probably know that they have also acheived the lowest population growth
rate in India.

 I do not know if there is a serious correlation between the two, however,
the anomaly I see is that Kerala does NOT offer any opportunity to the
educated.( In fact it has very high  under employment.). Isn't this the
opposite of the situation in Thailand? Maybe education for the parents
(Kerala model)+ opportunity for the youth (Thai model) is the accelerated
model for India?

I strongly agree with you that creating opportunities will have a wide
ranging impact on India. Population reduction, Precapita growth,  Need for
higher level of education, ...Leading to quality consiousness, productivity,
global competitiveness. In fact , it will be a pull factor for economic
development  we all want to see happen in India. What are the impediments to
creating opportunities?  What stands in the way of each Indian hoping for
the best future for himself or his children?    What policies can we create
for this? How have others done it?

I'll be happy if we can see some answers to these. I am also sure that our
discussion will have more than academic significance if we can tackle some
of these issues. My appreciation to the leaders of this discussion who have
been strongly resisting the pulls from different debators to move towards
policital activitism.



-----Original Message-----
From: Sanjeev Sabhlok <sabhlok@almaak.usc.edu>
To: india_policy@cinenet.net <india_policy@cinenet.net>
Date: Friday, May 22, 1998 4:02 AM
Subject: Thailand? You said? RE: Population

>On Thu, 21 May 1998, Charudatt wrote:
>> Two models come to mind. The Chinese model has already been discussed
>> and I think we agree that it is socially unacceptable. I do recall
>> reading about Thailand having a very successful program of reducing
>> birthrates but I don't have any hard data [these were popular press
>> articles] as to actual drops in birthrate and what factors could be
>> statistically correlated with the drop. I do recall that the program
>> included a huge publicity campaign and distribution of contraceptives.
>> This is worth looking into.
>Aha Charu!
>Thailand you say? Wow! You are throwing the ball squarely into my own
>court without realizing what you have done! Now you'll have no choice but
>to listen to me, since I am a key player in this area, today, in the
>academic world.
>a) My Ph.D. dissertation is on the question of old age security motives
>and the role they have played in the unbelievably rapid declines in
>fertility in Thailand. The supply of contraceptives is what people think
>did the trick. It did play a great role. But that was not IT! That was not
>the determining factor.
>b) My study is the first, ever, based on a specific questionnaire designed
>by the International Labor Organization and my Chair [all credit goes to
>him], to examine the role of old age security on demand for children.
>Please see my disseration proposal for details.
>c) My preliminary results are out. The basic economic model/s etc., used
>are on my web site if you are interested. The preliminary results are
>rather conclusive on the very strong role played by this motive:
>i. The loyalty of children is a key determinant here. The contract across
>generations is an implicit contract, not enforceable in court.  However,
>if children are very loyal (as they are in Thailand), then parents, once
>assured of a higher return from educating children - as happened in
>Thailand in the past 30 years - will cut down on the number of children
>and go for the quality of children.
>ii. Other factors, such as infant mortality, education, etc., are almost
>clearly confirmed to be playing a role in the expected direction.
>Education of the parents is however, NOT playing a very significant role,
>though the direction of the effect is as expected. In other words, you do
>not need very highly educated parents to propel rapid declines in
>What is critical to the determination of these huge declines in fertility
>is the EXPECTED occupation of children in terms of job security. If you
>expect your child to be a doctor (high paying and secure) or a government
>employee (relatively high paying and secure), and you are assured of
>loyalty from your children, then you tend to cut down the number of
>children clearly, in favor of higher investment in the children's
>IMPLICATION FOR INDIA (and this is what I am highlighting in my "book" -
>not yet ready):
>In India we have, traditionally, very strong loyalty from children toward
>their parents.  Therefore as soon as parents start EXPECTING that
>educating their children (a high investment) will yield significantly high
>probability of higher returns, then they will automatically cut down on
>the number of children they have, VERY rapidly, as in Thailand. My study
>on Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, which is a very broad kind of study,
>showed clearly the strong correlations we are talking about in the
>In other words, India will follow the Thai model AS SOON AS we get out of
>socialism into the minimally regulated capitalism that we are advocating.
>The task now is very clear, as far as I can see: push the economy into a
>really high gear. That will resolve a huge bunch of problems almost
>In the best scenario, however, do not expect to see less than 1.6 billion
>people by 2050. That is the LOWEST possible we can get to. Else, if we
>continue with socialism, and kill our economy deliberately, expect to see
>at least 2 billion people by 2050 [and most of us on this list will be
>alive then to see this].  Keep this prediction down in front of you and
>see at once the impact of implementing policies designed to bring about
>rapid economic growth: 400 million less people. Economic growth is the
>best contraceptive, without any iota of doubt.
>And remember what I said about education: parents will DRIVE their
>children like cattle, to school and demand better schools the moment
>India's economy wakes up. You do not need to make ecucation a fundamental
>right. Parents are not fools. They are not bothered about education today
>simply because that does not do anything for THEM. Their children still
>loiter, after getting their high school diplomas, on the streets and take
>to guns as in Assam, because there are no opportunities and because we
>cheat our children by teaching them mostly irrelevant stuff.
>Take a very clear example: We did not have to "mandate" the existence of
>private computer schools in every street corner of India. Parents demanded
>it and supplied it, since they saw an opportunity for their children and
>hence for THEMSELVES, through these schools. Parents are no fools. Just
>remember that.
>Parents need to EXPECT that their children will be better off as a result
>of educating them. Else, no matter what mumbo jumbo about rights we
>mutter, nothing is going to budge them into sending their children to
>school. There is no HUNGER for education in India yet. There is, on the
>other hand, a desperate, panting, hunger for eduction in Japan.  Notice
>what economic incentives can do. They have the strongest effect on the
>demand for education.
>If you and I work for the right set of policies in India, and throw out
>socialism lock stock and barrel, we can cut down the population of India
>by 40 crores. And I am DEAD serious. Never more serious than this.
>However, if you and I talk too much about minor issues like supply of
>contraception, educational rights, minimum wages and regulating foreign
>capital, then India is GONE and you can see 40 crore more people in 2050.
>Period.  An I am prepared to take a major bet on this. My one year's
>income of 2025 (probably a peak earning year for me): I can predict
>India's size of population to the nearest 7 crores conditional on the
>economic policies in these 25 years. Anyone willing to take a bet? Then I
>will work out my prediction and we can wait and see what happens, in the
>public limelight. I promise to cut down 40 crore people in India if you
>"follow" the manifesto we are building. And we shall not touch a bullet or
>use force. People will choose this of their own.
>Questions, anyone? Would you like to see my actual results? A tentative
>model is posted below. I can post clear tables in Excel on the web for
>those interested.  Please note, however, that these results are clearly
>tentative, not yet published, and are not to be cited anywhere, yet, till
>I defend my dissertation.
>Probit of Wife: desired children (dchldn)      23:15 Wednesday, May 20,
>1998   1
>Probit Procedure
>Class Level Information
>Class    Levels    Values
>DF            7    1 2 3 4 5 6 7
>Number of observations used = 595
>^LProbit of Wife: desired children (dchldn)      23:15 Wednesday, May 20,
>1998   2
>Probit Procedure
>Data Set          =WORK.PINKW
>Dependent Variable=DF    Total chldn desired (incl. ceb)
>Weighted Frequency Counts for the Ordered Response Categories
>       Level     Count
>           1        27
>           2       243
>           3       194
>           4        82
>           5        36
>           6        11
>           7         2
>Observations with Missing Values=1181
>Log Likelihood for NORMAL    -720.6447
>^LProbit of Wife: desired children (dchldn)      23:15 Wednesday, May 20,
>1998   3
>Probit Procedure
>Variable  DF   Estimate  Std Err ChiSquare  Pr>Chi Label/Value
>INTERCPT   1 0.65904238 0.737664  0.798196  0.3716 Intercept
>AGE        1 -0.0946686 0.013821  46.91678  0.0001
>AGEDIFF    1 -0.0422493 0.011335  13.89324  0.0002 age difference between
>DC         1 -0.7521353 0.129566  33.69839  0.0001
>OPPCOST    1 -0.2423739 0.126974  3.643715  0.0563
>WPRIM      1 0.16646468 0.265877  0.391996  0.5313 wife: 1 if prim. sch.
>WSECH      1 0.23832694 0.332104  0.514989  0.4730 Wife secondary or
>HPRIM      1 0.21210857 0.330874  0.410953  0.5215 Husband: 1 if prim.
>HSECH      1 0.30085903 0.363647   0.68449  0.4080 Husband: 1 if sec or
>PELECT10   1 -0.1183794 0.049483  5.723312  0.0167 Propn. houses with
>electric 1
>BUS        1 0.05919112 0.111749  0.280562  0.5963 Have a business in last
>12 mt
>OWNHOUSE   1  0.0139893 0.132461  0.011154  0.9159 h owned by someone in
>CNTDUR     1 0.01400008 0.017286  0.655987  0.4180
>FARM       1 -0.2128655 0.126109  2.849168  0.0914 HH cultivates land
>FLANDOWN   1 -0.0041404 0.001755   5.56856  0.0183 Land owned by family
>VALHOUSE   1 0.00010668 0.006733  0.000251  0.9874 Value of house, if
>FERLEV     1 -0.1136547 0.059789  3.613515  0.0573 Ferlev: 1 Low 2 Medium
>3 High
>COMSIZ     1 -0.0514656 0.059418  0.750228  0.3864 Comsiz: 1 Small 2
>Medium 3 La
>SURECHIN   1 0.06803458 0.032847  4.290089  0.0383
>CHLDSIMP   1 -0.1399153 0.166733  0.704183  0.4014 Importance of children
>as sup
>SAVPSUP    1 -0.0786842  0.22256  0.124991  0.7237 Savings, pension,
>insurance a
>HELPFROM   1  0.0250692 0.100874  0.061763  0.8037 Help from parents/
>EXPEDUC    1  0.0770613  0.07682   1.00628  0.3158 Expected edu of
>studying chld
>EXPOCCCS   1 0.15750184 0.049158  10.26548  0.0014 Expected occ of chld
>based on
>FIN60ADQ   1 0.42782765 0.188182  5.168691  0.0230 living std adequate in
>INHEREXP   1 0.17449225 0.101066  2.980842  0.0843 Expectation of receipt
>of inh
>MMIMP      1 -0.3795375 0.129351  8.609281  0.0033 Financial help is most
>CIMIMP     1 -0.1669463 0.103151  2.619409  0.1056 Care when ill most imp
>DOWHINH    1 -0.2426208 0.114114   4.52039  0.0335 Strategic: withhold
>DOEDUC     1 0.44614905 0.220516  4.093372  0.0431 Human Resource: Give
>HWCHSUP    1 -0.1099575 0.148991  0.544666  0.4605
>HWSURE     1 -0.0006847 0.003005  0.051933  0.8197