A major media storm has erupted about a new scientific paper published in the Lancet claiming that global population will soon peak and decline. The prospect is met with doom and gloom, rather than jubilation. But Jane O’Sullivan finds many reasons to challenge both the claim and its assumed economic threat. By escalating unfounded fears of population decline, the researchers could undermine women’s reproductive rights and global environmental security.
By Jane O’Sullivan
Another year, another claim that human population growth is on track to peak much lower than we all thought. This week, the Lancet published a major modelling exercise by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington in Seattle. Unlike last year’s offering, it was a serious scientific undertaking, and deserves close attention.
The study anticipates a peak global population of 9.7 billion in 2064, declining to 8.8 billion by 2100. If true, it would be overwhelmingly good news. But if not, it risks fostering a complacency that threatens to undermine our hopes for humanity’s sustainable prosperity.
There are two components of this paper that require separate critique. The first is the projections, the second is their discussion of the socio-economic and geopolitical implications.
Much is made of the superiority of these projections over the United Nations’ model, due to the use of completed fertility (the number of children a woman has by the time she reaches the age of 50) instead of total fertility rate (TFR), and by modelling key drivers of fertility decline: education, and met need for contraception (defined as “the proportion of women in a population of reproductive age whose need for contraception has been met with modern contraceptive methods”). However, the science on the extent to which these are key drivers is far from settled. IHME’s assertion that “These two variables alone account for 80·5% of the variance in CCF50 over time and location” is claiming correlation as causation.
“Met need for contraception” was adopted as a Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) indicator, as the positive reflection of the “unmet need” previously used to monitor family planning access. (Unmet need had the advantage of reminding us that family planning provision has not kept pace with the growing population of women who need it – at last count, 270 million women had an unmet need for contraception.) Interestingly, “unmet need” tends to increase in the early phase of the demographic transition, as women begin to recognise the desirability of limiting childbearing. The demand for contraception grows before supply systems can meet it. Hence the dynamics between met need, contraception prevalence rate and fertility can be quite complex.
The IHME study relies on education to generate the desire for smaller families. But globally, family planning promotion has had much more impact on the rate of fertility decline than education. Studies in sub-Saharan Africa have drawn the same conclusion. In any place and time, more educated girls tend to have smaller families, but this could be due to a range of factors causal on both outcomes. When the change across time is measured for education and fertility, improved education level explained only around 13% of the fertility decline in sub-Saharan countries from 1975 to 2005. In countries where family planning is actively promoted, uneducated women take up contraception as rapidly as those with secondary education. In contrast, in countries like Nigeria that have long had relatively high rates of girls’ schooling, desired family size has barely changed. The question arises, is the IHME model extrapolating a cross-sectional correlation (i.e. between different people at one time) to model a longitudinal effect (change in the same group of people over time)? That is a potential pitfall of their modelling.
If an effective policy choice is not modelled in projections, they can have the effect of dissipating political will for that choice. The UN’s population projections induce a fatalistic attitude to population, by expressing variation probabilistically, as chance rather than choice. The IHME paper emphasises that its focus on drivers of fertility decline should provide more impetus for efforts to enhance education and provision contraception, which is a good thing. But by omitting family planning promotion as a driver of fertility decline, they are directing attention to less effective levers, claiming that they are the most important, and thus undermining political will for the policies that have been most effective in the past.
So how likely are the IHME projections to come true? An initial level of scepticism must apply to projections which undercut the UN’s estimates by such a large margin. Regardless of methodological arguments, the UN has not proven to be too far off the mark over recent decades. It is only since around 2000 that the UN were found to be rather over-estimating the rate of fertility decline, having not anticipated the slow-down that followed the change in family planning programs after the 1994 Cairo Conference on Population and Development. Between 2000 and 2015, the UN repeatedly revised its projections upwards, from an anticipated peak at 9 billion in mid-century to growing beyond 11 billion by 2100.
Concurrently, the Wittgenstein Centre in Austria has been producing projections which, like the IHME, emphasise the role of education in reducing future fertility, and anticipate faster fertility decline and a lower peak than the UN’s. They have been even more wrong about near-term population growth than the UN (Figure 1). Why then should we expect IHME to be closer to the mark?
It is noteworthy that the IHME model uses education attainment at age 25 as a predictor of completed fertility at age 50. This means that only the historical relationships with education up to 1992 (25 years before their base year of 2017) can have been included in the calibration of their model. They therefore were not informed by the large increases in girls’ education that were achieved under the Millennium Development Goals (2000-2015), which coincided with slow-downs or stalls in fertility decline in many countries (although the lag effect on completed fertility is yet to play out). The fact that the 2017 fertility rates that IHME list for many high fertility countries are lower than those listed by the UN or Population Reference Bureau (PRB) might suggest that their model is already over-estimating the extent to which recent increases in education have reduced fertility (Figure 2). Such a head-start in establishing accelerated fertility decline, if untrue, would make their projected population totals much lower than are likely to occur.
Another major cause of difference between the IHME projections and those of the UN or even the Wittgenstein Centre is their assumption that fertility will settle at very low levels, below 1.5 children per woman in most countries. This is a highly speculative assumption, since the countries that have reached such low levels have particular disincentives to childbearing that might not apply elsewhere, and might not persist as population pressure eases. Before their rapid fertility decline, these countries tended to have reached levels of crowding that constrain both housing and employment prospects, and they tend to still have misogynistic cultures in which women find it difficult to combine careers with raising children. These countries also saw fertility fall during a period of rising secularism, in contrast to the persistent or rising religiosity in many of today’s high-fertility countries. As strongly religious people tend to have higher fertility, their proportion of populations is projected to rise, providing further resistance to fertility decline.
If we are able to achieve such low levels of fertility in most countries, I suspect that they would only be sustained through deliberate promotion of low fertility, embracing the benefits of population decline for the environment, and for human security and wellbeing. Can the slogan “One planet, one child” gain global following? We can only hope. Yet the IHME paper undermines this outcome, by arguing strongly for policies to maintain population growth through pro-natalism and “liberal” immigration as “the optimal strategy for economic growth, fiscal stability, and geopolitical security”.
Which brings us to the paper’s pre-occupation with the anticipated, but entirely unsubstantiated, hazards of declining and aging populations. The lengthy discussion of “profound economic, social, and geopolitical impacts” due to a shrinking “working-age” population (defined by IHME as people aged 20-64) far outweighs the passing reference to population decline’s “positive implications for the environment, climate change, and food production.”
And yet there is no evidence at all that a declining “working-age” proportion will limit economic activity. In the real world, aging countries have simply had higher workforce participation, not lower employment. The IHME study uses “GDP per working-age adult” to project economic growth, which assumes workforce participation won’t increase as the proportion of adults aged less than 65 declines and the labour market tightens. But it already has been increasing. This biases their projections to disadvantage countries that permit or encourage population decline.
By associating more working-age people with more economic growth, they are extrapolating an association that existed in the first half of the demographic transition, when working-age proportion increased concurrent with declining population growth rate, to the other end of the transition, in which working-age proportion is declining concurrent with declining population growth rate. But what if it is the declining population growth that generates economic stimulus, not the age structure? If so, they would be getting this relationship plain wrong.
There is good reason to believe that it is indeed high population growth rate, rather than a surfeit of “dependents”, which most impedes enrichment in high-fertility countries. The sheer cost of producing enough extra infrastructure, housing, schools, health services and everything else to support each year’s additional people, prevents countries getting ahead. On top of that, agricultural productivity growth falls behind population growth, exacerbating rural poverty, landlessness and unemployment. It was more likely the improvement in capital assets per person, rather than the availability of workers, which increased workforce participation and productivity in emerging economies as their birth rates fell. Neither rich nor poor countries show signs of a worker shortage.
Yet, on the basis of this unfounded assumption, the IHME paper presents a decidedly negative prognosis for population decline, despite the indisputable benefits for the environment on which we all depend.
Thankfully, they do argue strongly against coercive measures to boost fertility, such as limiting access to contraception and abortion. But their strident warnings about the economic hazards of declining working-age populations are exactly the sort of provocation that has induced countries like Iran and Tanzania to withdraw family planning access.
In the end, projections must be taken with a large pinch of salt. Particular care is needed to distinguish assumptions built into the model from genuine findings emerging from it. A case in point is the assertion that “Our findings suggest that continued trends in female educational attainment and access to contraception will hasten declines in fertility and slow population growth.” This is assumption, not finding. The strength of these as drivers of fertility decline is disputed in recent literature.
An important emergent finding is the wide divergence between the reference scenario and the “slower met need and education pace” scenario. Just a modest pull-back in the pace of fertility decline would mean that high-fertility countries increase their share of the global population so fast that global fertility goes up (Figure 3A), and we sail past 13 billion with no peak in sight (Figure 3B).
It is a sad reflection of our society’s economy-centred thinking that this risk, with its attendant existential threats of catastrophic climate change, famines and mass movements of desperate people, rates lower than the imagined hazard of having a slightly lower supply of able-bodied workers, even while jobs are being automated out of existence. Whatever happened to the Precautionary Principle?
I conclude that the IHME reference scenario is not the probable, business-as-usual outcome they claim it to be. For it to come true would take concerted efforts to change cultural norms around family size and to boost family planning programs in high-fertility countries, and for low-fertility countries to embrace their mature, declining populations instead of trying to boost growth. But these are exactly the actions that the paper discourages. With the media eager to present declining populations as disaster, and boosting growth as the solution, this paper could do serious harm to the advancement of women’s reproductive rights, and with it everyone’s prospects for environmental security. Because they chose to focus on unfounded negatives of “an inverted age structure” instead of the vast and certain benefits of population decline, sadly, the IHME projection is likely to be a self-defeating prophesy.
Solutions exist to rapid population growth and overpopulation. Learn more about them here!
11 thoughts on “Will global population peak below 10 billion?”
Great article. Thank you, Jane.
Great rebuttal, correct on all points. Get this published in The Lancet to balance their coverage. Evidence is mounting that old people like to keep working, at least part time, and can continue to do so. The crap about innovation and progress stalling in countries with large numbers of old people is nonsense. Germany and Japan are pretty competitive in tech, more so than Uganda and Somalia. Resources to educate smaller numbers of kids and support research counts more than aging loss of brain cells.
The philosophy of science is important. Frank Knight commented that after spending 300 years escaping from notions that stones are like people (ie superstitions about spirits), social scientists are studying people as if they were stones. The point is that directly addressing overpopulation and benefits of fertility reduction influence people’s choices. People are not passive objects acted upon by economic variables, they are active subjects, deciding how many children to have. Those choices depend on social norms that can be shifted by marketing campaigns and depend on more awareness of environmental limits and benefits of smaller families.
I do have hope that Africa is poised for a fertility decline, because it is becoming more obvious that the other option, mortality increase, will bite as limits to growth are reached. Subsistence farms divided repeatedly among five children for several generations become too small to support life. And tropical soils are easily damaged and lost. Plus climate change hits hard. Europe has a big stake in backing family planning in Africa and the Middle East to slow what could be billions of migrants they don’t want to accept.
And the arithmetic of possible rising fertility rates as the proportion of people increases in high fertility cultures makes the argument for direct policies to lower birthrates even more compelling.
I second all maxkummerow has written. ‘Can’t give O’Sullivan’s piece too much publicity; very, very well done! Look forward to reading much more of her quality analysis. Many thanks!
Go to http://www.jgbrent.com and read “The End”
Great rebuttal. Puts things into perspective.
Great piece which has put a lot of assumptions into their correct perspective.
My feeling after 1st coming across the speculations of IHME was that it was politically motivated. That is, Progressive propoganda to ‘scientifically’ reshape and redefine the boundaries of their culture war. Their imputus for cultural relativism and remaking unifying national cultures into globalised ‘neutral’ cultural sanctuaries for foreign national diasporas which also provides creative cultural space for hybridity including Black only or Progressive only cultural communities is clearly a risk strategy as opposed to a precautionary strategy.
In other words, what evidence do Progressives have that cultural relativism and its offshoot of multiculturalism produces sustainable, sufficient and resilient societies when the opposite seems to be true.
For example, population growth within developed countries is producing a resurgence in political projects that seek a unifying national culture as multiculturalism and population growth results in increased societal tensions which are refracted through ongoing culture wars. A simple appraisal of the dynamics of cultural relativism and population growth using ecological notions of interspecific interactions shows that as population sizes increase in relation to a reducing ecological capacity means increasing societal competition which is only mitigated by import dependancies.
In turn, these import dependancies stimulate land grabbing, evictions, deforestation and forced urbanisation that is increasingly blighted by poverty stricken existences that act as a strong push factor regarding migration into more affluent regions of the world. In other words, population growth within developed ecological debtor countries creates a vicious circle (positive feedback) of environmental and ecological destruction and transformation that leads to further population growth as a result of migration.
As such, Progressives not only ignore the effects of a reducing ecological capacity but also ignore the effects of interspecific interactions as resource availability per capita diminishes. The positive feedbacks that result from these dynamics can surely only be made worse through the dynamics of cultural relativism.
Jane, thank you for taking the time and care to rebut the IHME projections and the authors’ dubious analysis. When I read it I guessed to myself that none of the authors were family planning experts and quickly looking at their credentials, I think that’s the case. I hope you have shared this with the authors and I encourage you to submit a short version to the Lancet.
The idea that formal education is the key to women being able to control their fertility is deeply entrenched in the development community. A very recent piece by George Monbiot simply repeats this. He and others just seem to be shying away from the key issue of family planning, or the lack of it in many poor areas. Are they just squeamish about mentioning women’s health? Or are they wilfully diverting the discussion from the real issues? I suggest it is critical that we challenge this assumption.