##

1

changes in population policies in development discourse: empowering for women or more of the same old discourse?

In recent years, particularly since the Cairo Conference on Population and Development^[1] in 1994, it has been proposed that the ‘new’ policies on population and reproduction which emerged in Cairo represent a new paradigm. This ‘new’ paradigm, it is argued, fostered a new definition of population policy, one which emphasizes reproductive health and the empowerment of women, instead of (or at least, less than) the demographic rationale for population policy. But how realistic are these claims? Does the ‘new’ paradigm challenge existing structures of domination and exploitation? Or is it based on the same capitalist premises of unbridled economic growth as the old population policy with a bit of sweetening thrown in to mollify critics? In this paper, we will explore what the premises of population policies have been, what effects these policies have had on women in developing nations, what changes are proposed in the ‘new’ population policy, its formulation and its effects. In conclusion, we will provide an analysis of the ‘new’ population policy and its effects using Arturo Escobar’s Encountering Development, and a multicultural/global feminist perspective. For the purpose of clarity, we will give a brief explanation of multicutural/global feminism. Multicultural/global feminism have several distinct differences, but for the purpose of our analysis they share one primary idea that is, “that the definition of feminism must be broadened to include all things that oppress women, whether based on race or class or resulting from imperialism or colonialism.”(Tong 226) Global feminists place additional stress on the premise that oppression of women in one area of the globe is often affected by what happens in another area and that no woman is free until the conditions of oppression for all women, everywhere, are eliminated.

Population Policy: Historical Bases

Population policy primarily developed in the 1950’s as an outgrowth of development policies. Based on demographic models and studies such as the Coale and Hoover Study (1958)^[2], the major premise for 30 years has been that rapid population growth impedes development (economic growth). The theory underlying this belief had originally been developed by American demographers who proposed that rates of population growth in the developing world were much higher than those seen in the developed nations during their demographic transition. Additionally, they argued that this higher growth originated from different causes than that of the developed nations, which led them to question whether economic growth could even be achieved without first lowering fertility. The introduction of family planning services was expected to lower fertility rates at relatively low cost, so governments in developing nations with high population growth were (and are) ‘encouraged‘ to implement family planning programs. These demographically driven^[3] policies acted directly on fertility (primarily women’s). Often, these family planning methods included coercion against and abuse of women. For instance, China’s instituted ’one child rule’ has been used to legitimize invasive state interventions to monitor and contain family size. Women are often subjected to forced abortions, sterilization and other forms of violence if they do not comply with state policy. India, in 1951, was one of the first countries to develop a national population policy, which included a coercive sterilization program. In India, millions (women and men) were forcibly sterilized during the Emergency of 1975-1977. In Bangladesh, (and India) women were (and are) used as guinea pigs to test hormonal contraceptives that had been discredited in the developed world because of their side effects. Developing nations that would not comply risked losing international funding and other aid.^[4]

Effects on Women in the Developing World

These population policies brought the reproductive processes of women under the control of science, and eventually, the state. Women, i.e., women’s fertility, were seen as the cause of over-population therefore women were partly to blame for the lack of economic growth. The domination and control of women was critical for governments under pressure from outside organizations such as World Health Organization, United Nations Development Fund and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). This pressure led to the use of aggressive and invasive methods of control by these governments which dis-empowered and traumatized women. The focus on outside^[5] scientific methodology as a means to both detect the problem (over-population) and provide solutions to it (scientific family planning policies), led to disrupted or destroyed indigenous institutions, cultural family forms and methods, and sexual practices which women had traditionally used to regulate fertility.^[6] Governments were willing to commit to improving efforts to control population growth by whatever means necessary, not only to increase eligibility for international aid but because it was seen as a means of “enhancing the productive capabilities of their people.” (McIntosh and Finkle 234) This adherence to family planning programs, it was thought, would ultimately lead the developing nations to the capitalist trough.

The ‘New’ Paradigm

The ‘new’ population policies that were generated by the Cairo conference had unprecedented input from many NGO’s^[7] (international women’s groups and others) in formulating national policy statements and drafting the ‘new’ Program of Action. Previous meetings (Rome in 1954 and Belgrade in 1964) had consisted of population specialists and technical experts (scientific/demographic emphasis), many of whom were invited in their private capacities or were representing agencies that were doing scientific research in population fields. The agendas at these meetings were limited to technical demographic issues, thus reducing controversy. With the Bucharest (1974) and Mexico City (1984) conferences however, overt political agendas exploded onto the scene. The inclusion of varied groups in the Cairo conference is an offshoot of these controversies.^[8] By the broad inclusion of many groups, the UN hoped to defuse any such controversies prior to the conference itself. Bringing varied groups into the conference had some unintended consequences as well. This move allowed a non-demographic, individually based view^[9] of population control to come to the forefront of population policies and allowed feminist groups unprecedented input into the population policy formulation process. The results of this change on population policy are as follows. At Cairo, it was concluded that the old demographically-based programs were abusive and coercive of women’s right to choose the timing and number of children they will have, and should be scrapped. The ’new’ paradigm proposed advocated that the previous policies should be replaced with programs that increased women’s educational levels, provided them with satisfying jobs, lightened domestic responsibilities, and raised women’s status in families and communities. The primary goal was to empower women and foster development. This policy was based on the belief that when women become more empowered and educated, development will advance and women will decide to have fewer children, and thus population growth will slow. Proponents of the ‘new’ paradigm also argued that fertility would not fall until certain preconditions had been satisfied. These included; a higher rate of child survival (low infant mortality), more men taking responsibility for contraception^[10], and women having the right to control their own fertility and the political power to secure this right. In order for these preconditions to be met, women must first be empowered, usually through education.

Effects of ‘new’ paradigm^[11]

Proponents of the ‘new’ model argue that unlike the old, the ’new’ empowers women and involves them in the quest toward development. ‘New’ population policies enjoin governments to reformulate their population policies to broaden the scope of family planning to include reproductive and sexual health. The policies urge governments to address issues such as maternal mortality, prevention and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases (including HIV/AIDS), the prevention and treatment of unsafe abortion and primarily, the empowerment of women. In an about face from previous policies, the ‘new’ policies focus on an individual, rather than a societal approach to population growth, i.e., the policies stress individuals’ interests in having family planning services available to individuals, as an individual choice, instead of the collective(demographic) interest which is seen as leading to coercive population programs. This individualistic plan, it is argued, gives the ‘new’ policies their primary focus, which is women’s rights, status and empowerment. This methodology has drawn criticism from population specialists who argue that it is inadequate to rely on policies focused on the individual in those areas where there is little or no demand for contraception, where economic development has stagnated or declined and where religion and culture advocate pro-natalism.^[12] They point to the purported efficacy of the ’old’ population policies in lowering fertility and assert that “an important function of demographic science is to serve as a corrective for the excesses of policy advocacy in population matters.”^[13] These specialists feel that the policy changes proposed in Cairo have an ideological, not scientific basis, and as such are suspect. McIntosh and Finkle argue that in pushing this agenda through the Cairo conference, feminists in the international women’s organizations were returning to the earliest roots of the birth control movement in both its focus on the ability to control fertility and on women’s rights, emancipation and political reform. They note that during the UN Decade for the Advancement of Women (1975-1985) feminist critiques of the demographic approach to population problems, its narrow approach to family planning services and perhaps most importantly, the models of development, multiplied. These critiques argued that development projects have ignored the contributions of women, destroyed local environments on which women depend for work, food and water and are unsustainable. These factors have helped to undermine the social and economic status of women.^[14] Feminists advocating the ’new’ paradigm argue that once women are included in development, they become more empowered and development advances. Subsequently, women will choose to have fewer children and population growth will slow.^[15] But is this a ‘new’ paradigm? We will try to answer this question in our analysis.

Analysis of the ‘new’ paradigm^[16]

According to Escobar, the fact that this ‘new’ paradigm is constructed within the existing development discourse entails acceptance of its structures and organization. While Escobar would acknowledge that perhaps this change may be an improvement over past policies, it is still a development construct and still reflects the imposition of alien institutions upon developing nations. In addition, as Escobar points out in chapter 5 of Encountering Development, it is not altruism that motivates development institutions, but the growing capitalist notion that women can be an aid to increased productivity of a nation. Empowering women and stressing health issues is seen as a way of increasing women’s productivity, an attitude similar to that of keeping slaves healthy so they could work harder and produce more. Language used, such as the statement “[population control] enhanc[es] the productivity of [a country’s] people”^[17] reinforces the development discourse and promotes the hegemony of the liberal capitalist economic model.

Global/multicultural Feminists like Vandana Shiva and Maria Mies point out that all development discourses on population fundamentally subscribe to the “myth of catching up development.”^[18] This myth not only promotes the belief that population growth is not only a biological and statistical process, but implies that all people, everywhere, now and in the future, will aspire to and eventually attain the level of consumption known primarily in the developed world, but also among elites is the developing world. They argue that rather than address the true causes of environmental degradation, poverty and patriarchal exploitation/domination, population policy makers have chosen to ‘blame the victim’. In other words, rather than placing responsibility on the exploiters (the developed world, elites) for the present problems, instead it is the poor, in the exploited developing nations who are to blame. Women are particularly vulnerable to this kind of condemnation, because it is they who are the primary focus of attempts to control fertility. The quantification of peoples as ‘populations’ has led population controllers to envision women as “aggregated uteruses and prospective perpetrators of over-population.”^[19] Additionally, the myth of over-population that underpins the development discourse, and is accepted by Western governments, developing nations, international institutions and business, i.e., that development is hindered by population growth (among the poor), serves to legitimate intervention in reproductive behavior, whether in a coercive or ‘so-called’ empowering manner. Global feminists do not posit that there is no problem of over-population, but rather that the problem has been created and maintained by the development discourse. They note that prior to the introduction of scientific family planning, women used effective indigenous family planning methods to control their own fertility. The imposition of outside planning methods has disrupted this indigenous methodology and created the myth of over-population (or created its own reality).

The ‘new’ paradigm has little value to Global feminists. Education of women has not solved the problem of poverty for many women, and has certainly not addressed the cultural necessities of having many children in some areas.^[20] They note, as does Escobar, that the changes in development/population policies aimed at women are still subject to the same old capitalist political and economic framework. These ’new’ policies fail to question in any way the existing patriarchal system of domination, violence, sexism, racism and unbridled growth. Instead, while the ‘old’ policies saw women as “aggregated uteruses,” the ‘new’ focuses on women’s individual reproductive rights, but neither demand changes in the existing political and economic structures of the capitalist world order (or disorder, according to Shiva). Thus, the ‘new’ policy paradigm is constrained by its acceptance of the western capitalist development model. It also fails to acknowledge differences among women, in that it presumes that all women, whether in developed or developing nations will embrace new reproductive technologies and policies. In fact reproduction and population control have negative connotations for many women in developing nations, as well as for women of color in developed nations, because they have often born the brunt of particularly racist policies. Some examples of this include the sterilization programs mentioned previously occurring in developing nations and also sterilization campaigns against women of color in developed nations, e.g., so-called “Mississippi appendectomies” performed against/upon Black women in the southern United States.^[21] In making this assumption, global feminists would argue that the ‘new’ paradigm fails to explore the underlying racism in population policy. Ultimately, Multicultural/Global feminists would argue that in its acceptance of the structures of development and myths of patriarchy, capitalism and sexism/racism, the ‘new’ paradigm is not much of a change from the ‘old’.

Conclusion

While the Cairo conference may have represented a change for the discourse of development’s population policies, it still occurred within the context of that discourse, accepting its premise that Western style growth is the exclusive economic and cultural model. By continuing to adhere to a capitalist economic growth paradigm, the changes have failed to address the basic structures of Western domination and exploitation of women, and by extension, the developing world. The ‘new’ paradigm therefore is not radical, it is reformist. It seeks to reform the existing development framework, not truly change it. Any claims that the ‘new’ population policies herald a new model for development are untenable. We would do better, to paraphrase Escobar in Encountering Development, to seek “alternatives to development “ instead of “development alternatives.”

HOME

Bibliography

Dryzek, John S. The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses. Oxford University Press. 1997.

Escobar, Arturo. Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World. Princeton University Press, 1995.

McIntosh, C. Alison and Finkle, Jason L. “The Cairo Conference on Population and Development: A New Paradigm?”. Population and Development Review. Volume 21, Issue 2. (June 1995), 223-260.

Mies, Maria and Shiva, Vandana. Ecofeminism. Spinifex Press,1993

Mueller-Dixon, Ruth and Germain, Adrienne. “Population Policy and Feminist Political Action in Three Developing Countries.” Population and Development Review. Volume 20, Issue Supplement: The New Politics of Population: Conflict and Consensus in Family Planning (1994), 197-219.

Tong, Rosemary. Feminist Thought. Westview Press, Second Edition. 1998.

Home

---

^[1] The purpose of the conference was to formulate a consensus position on population and development for the next 20 years. It is important to note that these conferences and the policies they generate are non-binding upon the signatories who attend.

^[2] A simulation project undertaken by Ansley Coale and Edgar Hoover which examined the impact of India’s population growth on its economic development. The study suggested that lowering fertility would result in increasing per capita income, which would not occur with continued high fertility. (McIntosh 226)

^[3] Based on the study of populations, not individuals

^[4] Examples used are from Mies and Shiva, chapters 12 and 18.

^[5] That is, imposed from outside of the developing culture.

^[6] Not ‘scientific’ enough to please the population ‘experts’.

^[7] Non-Governmental Organizations

^[8] McIntosh, 229

^[9] Criticized by demographers as being too ideologically based, not scientific enough.

^[10] I find this somewhat unrealistic-there is no mention of how or why males would do this. Are they expecting some sort of spontaneous ‘gender consciousness’ to illuminate men’s role in contraception?

^[11] Is expected to generate/changes for women in Developing nations

^[12] McIntosh, 230

^[13] Just a small amount of scientific arrogance, McIntosh 242.

^[14] McIntosh 236

^[15] McIntosh 227

^[16] using Multicultural/Global Feminism and Escobar

^[17] McIntosh 234

^[18] Shiva and Mies 286

^[19] Shiva and Mies 282

^[20] While in the developed world there are programs of social insurance for the elderly, in many societies the insurance is having children to care for elderly parents. Also, in poor families, more children are seen as better, because then there are more people to work to support the family.

^[21] Tong 231