World Development Report 1984
World Development Report 1984
World Development Report 1984
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
FIGURE 8.4<br />
Fertility in relation to income: selected developing countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, 1972 and 1982<br />
Total fertility rate<br />
8<br />
7<br />
6<br />
5<br />
< ~~~~~~~Mexico<br />
\) * ~~Peru\<br />
ColombiaR!<br />
Venezuela<br />
* 1972<br />
* 1982<br />
4 Norm for 92 developimg countries, 1972<br />
3<br />
2<br />
4~~~~~ 4 I ~ ~~Braz ~ ~ __<br />
Costa Rica Chile<br />
Norm for 98 developing countries, 1982<br />
0 $1000 $2000 $3000 $4000 $5000 $6000<br />
Income per capita (1980 dollars)<br />
1980 fertility fell in both Mexico and Colombia by 1965 and 1975; in the 1980s the number of children<br />
about one-third; in contrast, it declined by less in the primary-age group will grow by less than a<br />
than 20 percent in Brazil, a country in which the million, easing the strain on the education budget.<br />
national government had not committed itself to a By 1990 the Colombian labor force will be growing<br />
population policy or program (see Box 8.7). by 2.2 percent a year, well below the 3.5 percent<br />
This contrast becomes even sharper when it is rate of the 1970s. With fewer new entrants to the<br />
noted that per capita real incomes nearly doubled labor force, a larger proportion of them can expect<br />
in Brazil but were up by only 50 percent in Colom- to qualify for high-wage jobs.<br />
bia and Mexico. Whereas Colombia and Mexico Looking ahead, Colombia and Mexico need to<br />
managed a sharp decline in fertility in relation to extend public family planning programs to the<br />
income growth, Brazil's fertility decline was more rural poor, and to do more to integrate population<br />
modest (see Figure 8.4). If Brazil had followed the policy into the overall framework of development<br />
pattern of Colombia and Mexico, its total fertility planning. Brazil's popular private sector prorate<br />
would have fallen to 3.0 by 1982 given its grams, long tolerated by the government, do not<br />
income growth; in fact it was 3.9. With a popula- have adequate resources. There is significant<br />
tion policy no more vigorous than that of Colombia unmet need for family planning in the poor Northand<br />
Mexico during the 1970s, Brazilian fertility east. Brazil spends more than 4 percent of its GDP<br />
might now be one-quarter lower than it is. Most of on health; by devoting a tiny share of that budget<br />
the difference would come from lower fertility to family planning, it could extend family planning<br />
among the poor, since it is they who would be coverage to the 40 million people of its poorer<br />
assisted most by a public policy. regions.<br />
The advantages of lower fertility are already Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico are not the only<br />
becoming apparent in some Latin American coun- countries in Latin America where population politries.<br />
In Colombia the number of enrolled primary- cies could be effective against poverty and inequalschool<br />
students increased by 1.6 million between ity. Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, and the Central<br />
171