POPULATION
| Population Growth The Philippine population in the early 1990s continued to grow at a rapid, although somewhat reduced rate from that which had prevailed in the preceding decades. In 1990 the Philippine population was more than 66 million, up from 48 million in 1980. This figure represents an annual growth rate of 2.5 percent, down from 2.6 percent in 1980 and from more than 3 percent in the 1960s. Even at the lower growth rate, the Philippine population will increase to an estimated 77 million by the year 2000 and will double every twenty-nine years into the next century. Moreover, in 1990 the population was still a youthful one, with 57 percent under the age of twenty. The birth rate in early 1991 was 29 per 1,000, and the death rate was 7 per 1,000. The infant mortality rate was 48 deaths per 1,000 live births. Population density increased from 160 per square kilometer in 1980 to 220 in 1990. The rapid population growth and the size of the younger population has required the Philippines to double the amount of housing, schools, and health facilities every twenty-nine years just to maintain a constant level.
Migration There were two significant migration trends that affected population figures in the 1970s and the 1980s. First was a trend of migration from village to city, which put extra stress on urban areas. As of the early 1980s, thirty cities had 100,000 or more residents, up from twenty-one in 1970. Metro Manila's population was 5,924,563, up from 4,970,006 in 1975, marking an annual growth rate of 3.6 percent. This figure was far above the national average of 2.5 percent. Within Metro Manila, the city of Manila itself was growing more slowly, at a rate of only 1.9 percent per annum, but two other cities within this complex, Quezon City and Caloocan, were booming at rates of 4 percent and 3.5 percent, respectively. A National Housing Authority report revealed that, in the early 1980s, one out of four Metro Manila residents was a squatter. This figure represented a 150 percent increase in a decade in the number of people living in shantytown communities, evidence of continuing, virtually uncontrolled, rural-urban migration. The city of Manila had more than 500,000 inhabitants and Quezon City had 371,000 inhabitants in such neighborhoods. Moreover, rural-urban migrants, responding to better employment opportunities in peripheral metropolitan cities such as Navotas, had boosted the percentage of squatters in that city's total population. A second major migration pattern consisted of resettlement from the more densely to the less densely populated regions. As a result of a population-land ratio that declined from about one cultivated hectare per agricultural worker in the 1950s to about 0.5 hectare by the early 1980s, thousands of Filipinos had migrated to the agricultural frontier on Mindanao. According to the 1980 census, six of the twelve fastest growing provinces were in the western, northern, or southern Mindanao regions, and a seventh was the frontier province of Palawan. Sulu, South Cotabato, Misamis Oriental, Surigao del Norte, Agusan del Norte, and Agusan del Sur provinces all had annual population growth rates of 4 percent or more, a remarkable statistic given the uncertain law-and-order situation on Mindanao. Among the fastestgrowing cities in the late 1970s were General Santos (10 percent annual growth rate), Iligan (6.9), Cagayan de Oro (6.7), Cotabato (5.7), Zamboanga (5.4), Butuan (5.4), and Dipolog (5.1)--all on Mindanao. By the early 1980s, the Mindanao frontier had ceased to offer a safety valve for land-hungry settlers. Hitherto peaceful provinces had become dangerous tinderboxes in which mounting numbers of Philippine army troops and New People's Army insurgents carried on a sporadic shooting war with each other and with bandits, "lost commands," millenarian religious groups, upland tribes, loggers, and Muslims. Population pressures also created an added obstacle to land reform. For years, there had been demands to restructure land tenure so that landlords with large holdings could be eliminated and peasants could become farm owners. In the past, land reform had been opposed by landlords. In the 1990s there simply was not enough land to enable a majority of the rural inhabitants to become landowners. International migration has offered better economic opportunities to a number of Filipinos without, however, reaching the point where it would relieve population pressure. Since the liberalization of United States immigration laws in 1965, the number of people in the United States having Filipino ancestry had grown substantially to 1,406,770 according to the 1990 United States census. In the fiscal year ending September 30, 1990, the United States Embassy in Manila issued 45,189 immigrant and 85,128 temporary visas, the largest number up to that time. In addition to permanent residents, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, more than half a million temporary migrants went abroad to work but maintained a Philippine residence. This number included contract workers in the Middle East and domestic servants in Hong Kong and Singapore, as well as nurses and physicians who went to the United States for training and work experience, a fair proportion of whom managed to become permanent residents. The remittances sent back to the Philippines by migrants have been a substantial source of foreign exchange. Population Control Popcom was the government agency with primary responsibility for controlling population growth. In 1985 Popcom set a target for reducing the growth rate to 1 percent by 2000. To reach that goal in the 1990s, Popcom recommended that families have a maximum of two children, that they space the birth of children at three-year intervals, and that women delay marriage to age twenty-three and men to age twenty-five. During the Marcos regime (1965-86), there was a rather uneasy accommodation between the Catholic hierarchy and the government population control program. Bishops served on Popcom, and the rhythm method was included by clinics as a birth-control method about which they could give information. A few Catholic priests, notably Frank Lynch, even called for energetic support of population limitation. The fall of Marcos coincided with a general rise of skepticism about the relation between population growth and economic development. It became common to state that exploitation, rather than population pressure, was the cause of poverty. The bishops withdrew from the Popcom board, opposed an effort to reduce the number of children counted as dependents for tax purposes, secured the removal of the population-planning clause from the draft of the Constitution, and attempted to end government population programs. Attacks on the government population program were defeated, and efforts to popularize family planning, along with the provision of contraceptive materials, continued. In the early 1990s, however, the program generally lacked the firm government support needed to make it effective.
궜궜궜궜궜궜궜궜궜궜궜궜궜궜궜궜궜궜궜궜궜궜궜궜궜궜궜궜궜궜궜궜궜 Philippines Population growth rate
Philippines Population Growth
The Philippine population in the early 1990s continued to grow at a rapid, although somewhat reduced rate from that which had prevailed in the preceding decades. In 1990 the Philippine population was more than 66 million, up from 48 million in 1980. This figure represents an annual growth rate of 2.5 percent, down from 2.6 percent in 1980 and from more than 3 percent in the 1960s. Even at the lower growth rate, the Philippine population will increase to an estimated 77 million by the year 2000 and will double every twenty-nine years into the next century. Moreover, in 1990 the population was still a youthful one, with 57 percent under the age of twenty. The birth rate in early 1991 was 29 per 1,000, and the death rate was 7 per 1,000. The infant mortality rate was 48 deaths per 1,000 live births. Population density increased from 160 per square kilometer in 1980 to 220 in 1990. The rapid population growth and the size of the younger population has required the Philippines to double the amount of housing, schools, and health facilities every twenty-nine years just to maintain a constant level.
FAMILY PLANNING ISSUES IN THE PHILIPPINES · Access to family planning information
· Access to contraceptive materials and products.
It has been projected that the lack of adequate supply of contraceptives for couples needing these would push the country’s population to double every year. Obviously, the loss of 80% of contraceptive supply, and the government’s refusal to fill up the shortfall could aggravate and expand the Philippine population to 180 million in about 15 years, instead of the current projection of 30 years.
UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE PHILIPPINES
Definition of Unemployment rate: This entry contains the percent of the labor force that is without jobs. Substantial underemployment might be noted.
FAQ: Global Urban Population in Developed and Developing Countries
Developed nations have a higher percentage of urban residents than less developed countries. However, urbanization is occurring rapidly in many less developed countries, and it is expected that most urban growth will occur in less developed countries during the next decades. Figure 2 shows the projected growth of the urban and rural populations in developed and less developed countries. The definition of an urban area changes from country to country. In general, there are no standards, and each country develops its own set of criteria for distinguishing cities or urban areas. A city is generally defined as a political unit, i.e., a place organized and governed by an administrative body. A way of defining a city or an urban area is by the number of residents. The United Nations defines settlements of over 20,000 as urban, and those with more than 100,000 as cities. The United States defines an urbanized area as a city and surrounding area, with a minimum population of 50,000. A metropolitan area includes both urban areas and rural areas that are socially and economically integrated with a particular city. Cities with over 5 million inhabitants are known as megacities. There were 41 in the year 2000. This number is expected to grow as the population increases in the next few decades. It is predicted that by the year 2015, 50 megacities will exist, and 23 of these are expected to have over 10 million people. Table I is a list of the world’s 25 largest cities in 1995.
Why is the urban population increasing so fast? The rapid growth of urban areas is the result of two factors: natural increase in population (excess of births over deaths), and migration to urban areas. Natural population growth has been covered in other units, and consequently, here we will concentrate on migration. Migration is defined as the long-term relocation of an individual, household or group to a new location outside the community of origin. Today the movement of people from rural to urban areas (internal migration) is most significant. Although smaller than the movement of people within borders, international migration is also increasing. Figure 3 shows the annual net international migration totals and migration rates in the world’s major areas between 1990 and 1995. Both internal and international migration contribute to urbanization.
Migration is often explained in terms of either “push factors” – conditions in the place of origin which are perceived by migrants as detrimental to their well-being or economic security, and “pull factors” – the circumstances in new places that attract individuals to move there. Examples of push factors include high unemployment and political persecution; examples of pull factors include job opportunities or moving to a better climate. Typically, a pull factor initiates migration that can be sustained by push and other factors that facilitate or make possible the change. For example, a farmer in rural Mexico whose land has become unproductive because of drought (push factor) may decide to move to Mexico City where he perceives more job opportunities and possibilities for a better lifestyle (pull factor). In general, cities are perceived as places where one could have a better life, because of better opportunities, higher salaries, better services, and better lifestyles. The perceived better conditions attract poor people from rural areas. In order to better illustrate the causes of rural migration, we will consider policies that have led to migration in many developing countries. In order to pay foreign debt and to be more competitive in international markets, national governments have encouraged the export of national resources and agricultural products. Agricultural products (sugar, flowers, coffee, etc.), and primary-sector goods (timber, fish, minerals, etc) become natural resource capital that can be traded to bolster the national economy. In order to produce agricultural products quickly, efficiently, and for a decent prize, national governments often look to decrease the number of small producers, and turn agricultural production and resource extraction over to larger enterprises, with larger production facilities, and a lower per-unit cost of production. This trend turns land into a commodity, that can be bought and sold, and it is viewed only in terms of its productive capabilities. Free market economics pursues economic efficiency to deliver goods at the lowest possible price, and its advocates maintain that any government intervention diminishes this efficiency. Consequently, they seek to eliminate farm programs such as farm subsidies, cheap credit policies, etc. intended to help the farmer, and to maintain stable prices. This scenario leaves farmers to shoulder the burden of farming, sometimes with no alternative but to sell their land to a foreign investor or a domestic-owned enterprise, and move to the cities, where the farmer hopes to have a better life. Other policies reinforce the above scenario. In this case, in order to boost the production of cheaper goods, governments have maintained artificially low food prices in urban areas. The strategy here is to maintain urban food prices below market levels to reduce the cost of urban labor and urban life. This policy has resulted in inadequate compensation of rural producers for the costs they incur to produce food products and thus have aggravated rural poverty. On the other hand, these policies have also made city life more attractive and pulled them from rural areas. As a result of these policies, an average of 270,000 rural migrants have been arriving in Mexico City annually over the last ten years, transforming it into one of the largest cities in the world. International migration includes labor migration, refugees and undocumented migrants. Similar to rural-to-urban migration, individuals move in search of jobs and a better life. Income disparities among regions, and job opportunities, are key motivating factors. The migration policies of sending and receiving countries also play a key role. The best current estimate from the United Nations Population Fund, indicates that more than 100 million people were living outside their countries of birth or citizenship in 1998. There is a number of reasons why this figure is rising, but an important one is that the native labor pool in the industrialized countries is shrinking, while the developing world’s workforce is rapidly increasing. Figure 4 shows the countries with largest stock of migrants in their population, while figure 5 shows the countries whose populations have the largest percentage of migrants. Today, international migration is at an all-time high. About 2% of the Earth’s population has moved away from the country of origin.
International refugees contribute to the urban migrant population. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) reports that most of the 22 million people who came under its wing in 1997 were fleeing from domestic or international conflict. Figure 5 shows the number of refugees registered by the United Nations between 1960 and 1997. The Geneva Convention (1951) on Refugees defines refugees as those individuals who migrate because of:“….well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular group, or political opinion”. Nations honoring the Geneva Convention have an obligation to determine whether, in fact, individuals will truly face persecution at home. Excluded are those who fear famine or are pushed out by natural disasters. The overwhelming majority of refugees come from developing nations, and most of them flee to poor countries.
What are the Problems Associated with Rapid Urban Growth? The urbanization process refers to much more than simple population growth; it involves changes in the economic, social and political structures of a region. Rapid urban growth is responsible for many environmental and social changes in the urban environment and its effects are strongly related to global change issues. The rapid growth of cities strains their capacity to provide services such as energy, education, health care, transportation, sanitation and physical security. Because governments have less revenue to spend on the basic upkeep of cities and the provision of services, cities have become areas of massive sprawl, serious environmental problems, and widespread poverty. During the 19th and early 20th centuries, urbanization resulted from and contributed to industrialization. New job opportunities in the cities motivated the mass movement of surplus population away from the countryside. At the same time, migrants provided cheap, plentiful labor for the emerging factories. Today, due to movements such as globalization, the circumstances are similar in developing countries. Here the concentration of investments in cities attracts large numbers of migrants looking for employment, thereby creating a large surplus labor force, which keeps wages low. This situation is attractive to foreign investment companies from developed countries who can produce goods for far less than if the goods were produced where wages are higher. Thus, one might wonder if urban poverty serves a distinct function for the benefit of global capital. One of the major effects of rapid urban growth is “urban sprawl"- scattered development that increases traffic, saps local resources and destroys open space. Urban sprawl is responsible for changes in the physical environment, and in the form and spatial organization of cities. Developed and less developed countries of the world differ not only in the percent living in cities, but also in the way in which urbanization is occurring. In Mexico City (950 square miles), as in many other megacities in the developing world, urban sprawl exists as nearly 40% of city dwellers live in the urban periphery in poverty and environmental degradation. These high density settlements are often highly polluted owing to the lack of urban services, including running water, trash pickup, electricity or paved roads. Nevertheless, cities provide poor people with more opportunities and greater access to resources to transform their situation than rural areas In the United States, poorly planned urban development is threatening our environment, our health, and our quality of life. In communities across the United States, sprawl is taking a serious toll. Consequences of sprawl in the United States · Increases traffic · Pollutes air and water. · Worsens the damage from floods. · Destroys agricultural land, parks, and open space. · Costs cities and counties millions of dollars for new water and sewer lines, new schools, and increased police and fire protection. · Creates crowded schools in the suburbs and empty, crumbling schools in center cities. Solutions to decrease sprawl · Enacting growth boundaries, parks and open space protection · Planning for and directing transportation dollars to promote public transportatio. · Reversing government programs and tax policies that help create sprawl. · Revitilizing already developed areas through measures such as attracting new businesses, reducing crime and improving schools; · Preventing new development in floodplains, coastal areas and other disaster- prone areas.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment