Socially Embedded Preferences, Environmental Externalities, and Reproductive Rights

Abstract

AMONG ECONOMISTS and demographers, the dominant view of the effect of growing human numbers on the natural environment has alternated between concern and dismissal. If in the years immediately following World War II scholars were anxious that population growth would retard economic development in poor countries, they have not worried in recent decades. A series of influential reviews of the modern growth experience (National Research Council 1986;Birdsall 1988;Kelley 1988;Temple 1999;Helpman 2004) studied cross-country data and saw a negligible link-possibly even a small positive link-between population growth and growth in per capita gross domestic product. These analyses were convincing, but the underlying assumption that economic betterment is best seen in terms of growth in GDP per capita should be questioned. The presence of the qualifier "gross" in gross domestic product signals that the measure does not record the depreciation of natural capital that can accompany the production of goods and services.1 Other things equal, depreciation of natural capital reduces a nation's productive capacity, the correct measure of which is an inclusive notion of wealth. And normative economics tells us that the index we should deploy for assessing the sustainability of human development is the wealth of nations (Arrow et al. 2012), not the GDP of nations, nor the Human Development Index of nations. 2A rich demographic literature has offered insights into fertility behavior in the contemporary world. Those insights have been used by the United Nations to frame family planning programs (UNFPA 1995). More recently they have influenced the way family planning has been placed within the UN's Sustainable Development Goals. We apply those insights to argue that the basis on which women's expressed desired for children is elicited misestimates their desire. More importantly, it underestimates women's true need for family planning.

Contraceptive use and lengthening birth intervals in rural and urban Eastern Africa

“…At the macro level, high fertility rates and the resulting rapid population growth impede efforts to reduce poverty, particularly in the face of increasing global environmental and climatic instability (Dasgupta and Dasgupta 2017;Eastwood and Lipton 2011;Turner 2009). With regard to contraception, low levels of prevalence and high levels of unmet need for family planning are often problematic, as they are associated with high levels of maternal and infant mortality and morbidity as well as unwanted pregnancy and unsafe abortion.…”

The Effects of a Revenue-Neutral Child Subsidy Tax Mechanism on Growth and GHG Emissions

“…In contrast, Dasgupta and Dasgupta [3] validated the estimation of Daily et al [14] of 3.5 billion people under the assumption that the average yearly per capita income is PPP $20,000 per capita worldwide. According to these outcomes, there is a strong need to limit population growth.…”

“…The number of own children n t relative to the average number of children per female n t is creating utility. Such conformist behavior, as noted by Dasgupta and Dasgupta [3], leads to the high number of children per female in South Asia and Africa. Behavior is conformist when the family size that each household desires is positively related to the average family size in the community [60].…”

“…The odds of attaining the desired target is low because according the United Nations' estimates, the world population will increase from the current figure of 7.7 billion people to 11.2 billion people in 2100, an increase of about 45%. Astonishingly population growth was not an issue at the Paris meeting [3]. Additionally, Gerlagh et al [4] decomposed the 58.5% increase in total CO 2 emissions between 1990 and 2017 into population growth and the growth of per capita emissions.…”

Global population size and the UN's Sustainable Development Goals

“…This Note has been prepared for the Inaugural Issue of Ecology, Economy and Society. The demographic evidence presented here is drawn from Dasgupta and Dasgupta (2017) and I am grateful to Aisha Dasgupta for the many discussions we have had on the subject. The views expressed here are, however, entirely mine.…”