The Revisionist Perspective

The National Research Council¹s second economic review of population growth in the developing world,²⁸ published in 1986, stirred considerable controversy. Economists consider it a revisionist document,²⁹ a break from the traditional arguments that previously structured the population debate. To the surprise of many, the committee of authors declined to declare alarm over the roughly 82 million people being added³⁰ to the developing world annually. Neither, however, did the committee argue that rapid population growth was irrelevant to poverty or economic development. Instead, the 1986 National Research Council review on population growth presented decidedly middle of the road conclusions.

The review supported the idea that rapid population growth could have negative economic consequences. Slowing population growth, it stated, would likely ease rates of degradation of certain renewable natural resources, such as air, water, forests and many species of plants and animals. Lowering fertility would also help families spare the time and money for more adequate health care, nutrition and education for their children, while making it easier for governments to increase spending for each child in both health and education. And fertility decline in developing countries could, through various wage-related effects, help reduce income disparities between social classes.³¹

However, the 1986 review also noted that research had demonstrated only a few of the negative economic impacts that population growth was expected to produce. In particular, economists had not uncovered a significant statistical relationship‹not even simple correlations‹between growth in population and growth in gross domestic product. Nor did national statistics demonstrate a consistent relationship between declines in fertility and household or government savings. Nor were developing country governments falling hopelessly behind in providing education and health, despite the clear pressures of population growth.

National statistics demonstrated what was already obvious to most economists: developing countries experiencing rapid population growth were taking deliberate steps to accommodate that growth and counter its adverse effects. The degree to which modern institutions had developed in these countries appeared to heavily influence the likelihood of their economic success. Rather than erect a solid barrier to economic development, the review concluded, continued population growth would merely make existing problems more difficult to solve, and "exacerbate the ill effects of a variety of inefficient policies."³² "On balance," the National Research Council concluded guardedly, "slower population growth would be beneficial to economic development for most developing countries."³³

Supporters of U.S. family planning assistance had hoped the study would strongly confirm their own concerns and counter rising political opposition during the Reagan administration. For them, the mixed conclusions of the 1986 review were more than a setback; they were an intellectual rebuff. Even today, more than a decade after its publication, international donor organizations are reluctant to fund economic research on the impacts of population growth.