|
|
Reaction to 26 UP economists
|
August 15, 2008
Letter to the Editor
Philippine Daily Inquirer
Dear Editor:
May we comment on the article 26 UP economists urge gov’t to back population bill that appeared on the August 14 issue.
|
The article stated that …professors of the UP School of Economics said that after a studious reading, they found the Reproductive health bill to be propoor and authentically prolife and profamily.
We would like to stress that we are pro-lifers and we maintain that the RH Bill is not propoor, prolife and profamily. This is not the only distortions being made by these so-called economists. They claim that only 10% of poor families had only 1 child while 57% had 9 or more. Where did they get their facts? NSO data show that the Total Fertility Rate (average number of children per woman) is 3.2 as of 2006. NSO data also show that the average household size in RP is 5. If a household has a father and a mother, then the children comprise only 3. Their claim that 57% of poor women have 9 or more children does not seem to jibe.
The UP economists also claimed that among the poorest 10% of women of reproductive age, 44% of pregnancies are unwanted. But according to the 2006 Family Planning survey, 11% of married women of reproductive age in the poorest sector have unmet needs for family planning. So how do you reconcile these 2 data?
In relation to this, may we also inform the distinguished economists that according to the 2006 FPS, 19.9% of women do not want to use contraceptives because they want to have children, 3.*% is due to their religious beliefs, and only 2.9% reported lacking knowledge of contraceptives. It may also be good to inform them that 30% of women fear the side effects that is why they do not use contraceptives. Among the elementary undergraduate women, the second most reported reason for not using contraceptives is because they want to have children.
The UP economists also dabbled about the increase in number of poor Filipinos from 30.4% in 2003 to 33% in 2006. May we have the honor to inform the UP economists that TFR decreased from 3.5 in 2003 to 3.2 children in 2006. From 1973, TFR was 6 and steadily decreasing. Population Growth Rate is also decreasing from 3.01 in 1970 to 2.04 last year and projected to decrease to 1.9 next year and zero population growth
by 2025.
From these data, may we ask the UP economist why despite decreasing fertility and population growth, poverty is increasing. If their “studious reading” is right, decreasing population should have decreased poverty. But that is not happening. Why? Maybe the UP economists do not know, despite their “studious readings,” that poverty is not due to overpopulation but to excessive greed of those who are in economic and political power.
There are many countries with higher population densities than the Philippines and they are richer. There are also much more countries with lower population densities than the Philippines but they are poorer. May we request the UP economists to put their studious readings on these data. They are easily accessible in the internet.
If these are the kinds of economists that we have, no wonder this country is really going to the dogs.
MARITA F. WASAN
Executive Director
|
|
|
| JOIN MAILING LIST |
 |
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| Letters to the Editor |
|
|
|
|
| Letters by Sr. Pilar |
|
|
|
|
| Love Life TV |
|
|
|
| MAGAZINE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
| HOT TOPICS |
|
|
|
|
|
| ANTI LIFE ISSUES |
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
