World Development Report 1984

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