There is a growing realisation that if the developed world is to move towards a sustainable economy then a helping hand needs to be given to the developing world. While the UN predicts an increase in world population to reach 9 billion by 2050 the majority of this growth is in the developing world. As the developing world becomes developed people expect further consumption of goods such as cars and larger houses that put further pressure on the planet's resources. If 6 billion people are already causing so much damage to the planet, with a third of the population being responsible for the majority, what hope do we have with 9 billion people expecting the same level of lifestyle? The problem is that even if the developed world becomes completely sustainable, those developing cause just as much damage.
There are two apparent solutions: stop the developing world becoming developed or somehow force them to reduce their population growth rates. Neither of these are morally or politically acceptable, but there may be a solution that will solve all these problems in one. It may in fact be the case that doing the reverse is the best option. As populations become developed, their population growth rate tends to decrease.
This, at first, appears counter-intuitive. Surely as health care improves, more people will survive and therefore the population will grow? Evidence suggests otherwise however and some slightly more complex logic needs to be applied. In a developing nation it pays to have more children. Where infant mortality is high, parents have more children, assuming some may become ill they need more to compensate for this. They also need more children that are able to work so that they can provide for the parents when they become too old to work. The cycle then becomes a generational increase in population growth. When a country becomes more developed the population growth decreases for a variety of reasons. Improvements in healthcare mean child mortality improves, meaning parents no longer have extra children in case some die. Educational improvements mean people are able to make more informed decisions over parenting, most significantly, women are liberated and have a greater choice over whether to have children or not. Commercial improvements mean people are able to secure more stable incomes and do not need children that will support them in their later life.
I accept this is a very simplistic view and do not want to appear patronising. I don't think the conclusion of this is to simply impose 'Western' style developments on developing countries and expect them to become developed nations that are simply copies of existing countries. Yet there is a compelling case that by giving aid in the right areas developed nations can improve the lives of those living in developing nations as well as improving the global prosperity. Such giving, done in the correct way, can significantly help countries and in the longer term ensure global cooperation on many different levels that would not exist without such a view on the world stage.
Finally a little thought for you. The US spent a lot of money fighting the war in Vietnam to prevent it becoming Communist. What they achieved was alienating the people they sought to help and ultimately not doing much to stop the Communists. If the money they spent on bombs had been spent on rice and development aid they would have probably achieved a lot more with much less destruction. Will we ever learn lessons like this for international development?
No comments:
Post a Comment