New Directions for the Population Movement?

  • Oscar Harkavy
Part of the The Springer Series on Demographic Methods and Population Analysis book series (PSDE)

Abstract

By the mid-1970s, the population movement had achieved worldwide momentum. As of 1973, 132 countries with 75 percent of the Third World’s population had adopted official policies to reduce birthrates; another 31, containing an additional 16 percent of the developing world’s people, officially supported family planning programs for nondemographic reasons, such as health of women and children.1 Industrial world governments, international agencies, and foundations were together spending about a quarter of a billion dollars a year on overseas population assistance.2 Third World countries themselves were spending twice that amount on family planning out of their own national budgets. University-based population studies programs in the United States and abroad enjoyed high levels of support. Nongovernmental agencies dedicated to population work abounded. Population bureaucracies flourished in developing countries and in donor agencies.

Keywords

Family Planning Reproductive Health Population Movement Family Planning Program Population Policy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Dorothy Nortman, “Population and Family Planning Programs: A Factbook,” Reports on Population/Family Planning, no. 2, December 1974, Table 8, pp. 26-35.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA), Global Assistance Report, 1982–88 (New York: UNFPA, 1989), Chart 1, p. 14.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bernard Berelson and Parker Mauldin, “Conditions of Fertility Decline in Developing Countries, 1965–75,” Studies in Family Planning 9, no. 5 (1978):84–148, reprinted in John A. Ross and W. Parker Mauldin, eds., Berelson on Population (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1988), Table 15.7, pp. 240-241.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    New York Times, December 9, 1980.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Other activities also terminated were resources and environment, school finance reform, energy, public-interest law, women in politics, and day care (“Ford Foundation Program Directions: Historical, Recent, Present,” internal memorandum, July 6, 1982, p. 14). Ford Foundation Archives.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
    “Soft landings” were arranged for most of those dismissed, encouraged by an age-discrimination suit filed by some.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    President’s Review, Ford Foundation Annual Report, 1980.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Population Council, Annual Report, 1993, p. 129. The council’s total capital funds totaled $51.5 million at the end of 1993.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ford Foundation, “The Ford Foundation’s Work in Population,” discussion paper, August 1985.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    The foundation’s Child Survival/Fair Start for Children programs in the United States were terminated in 1988 and began to be phased out in the developing countries in 1992.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Population Council, Annual Report, 1991, p. 18.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    MacArthur Foundation, Report on Activities, 1990, pp. 102-103.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rockefeller Foundation, Population Sciences Division Strategy: “Mobilizing Resources to Satisfy Unmet Demand for Contraception and Complete the Demographic Transition” (draft), November 24, 1992. Rockefeller Foundation Archives.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ibid., p. 13.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Quoted in Alan Guttmacher Institute, Washington Memo, February, 18, 1994, pp. 3-4.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
  18. 18.
    Chapter I, “A Better Life for Future Generations,” The Amsterdam Declaration, November 1989, p. 1. United Nations Population Fund.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ibid., p. 5.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Catherine Pierce, personal communication, August 25, 1992.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, A/CONF. 151/4 (Part I), 22 April 1992, p. 34. United Nations.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ibid., p. 42.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    UN Population Division, Population Newsletter, December 1992, p. 1.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Thomas Homer-Dixon, “Destruction and Death,” New York Times, January 31, 1993.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Anthony Lewis, “What Will Happen?” New York Times, February 19, 1993.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich, The Population Explosion (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    UNFPA, “Population and the Environment: The Challenges Ahead,” Populi 18, no. 3 (September 1991):41.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nafis Sadik, Safeguarding the Future (New York: UNFPA, n.d.), p. 20.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ibid., p. 27.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    See, e.g., Vaclav Smil, “Planetary Warming: Realities and Response,” Population and Development Review 16, no. 1 (March 1990):21; John Bongaarts, “Population Growth and Global Warming,” Population and Development Review 18, no. 2 (June 1992): 312-313.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bongaarts, “Population Growth and Global Warming,” p. 316.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    New York Times, April 1, 1993.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Alan Guttmacher Institute, Washington Memo, April 29, 1994, p. 1.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    The Vatican actively sought allies among Muslim governments to oppose these aspects of the Programme of Action. Some Muslim governments withdrew from the conference.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    New York Times, September 14, 1994.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
  37. 37.
    United Nations, Population Prospects: The 1992 Revision (New York, United Nations, 1993), cited in Ronald Freedman, “The Fertility Transition in Asia: 1965–1990,” unpublished ms, July 1994, Table 1.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    John Bongaarts, Parker Mauldin, and James Phillips, “The Demographic Impact of Family Planning Programs,” Studies in Family Planning 21, no. 6 (1990):299–310. For contrary calculations, see Lant H. Prichett, “Desired Fertility and the Impact of Population Policies,” Population and Development Review 20, no. 1 (March 1994): 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Selected Bibliography

  1. Back, Kurt W., Family Planning and Population Control, Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1989.Google Scholar
  2. Bardin, C. Wayne, Public Sector Contraceptive Development: History, Problems, and Prospects for the Future, Technology in Society, 9 (3/4) 1987, 289–306.Google Scholar
  3. Baulieu, E.-E. RU-486 as an Antiprogesterone Steroid, Journal of the American Medical Association, 262 1989, 1808–1814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berelson, Bernard, Richmond K. Anderson, Oscar Harkavy, John Maier, W. Parker Mauldin, and Sheldon J. Segal, eds., Family Planning and Population Programs, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966.Google Scholar
  5. Berelson, Bernard, The Present State of Family Planning Programs, First Population Conference, Bellagio, Lake Como, April 6–8, 1970, Rockefeller Foundation, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Berelson, Bernard, Oral History, Ford Foundation Archives, November 21, 1973.Google Scholar
  7. Berelson, Bernard, Where Are We Going?: An Outline. Bellagio IV Population Conference, June 7–9, 1977, Rockefeller Foundation Working Papers, November 1977.Google Scholar
  8. Bongaarts, John, W. Parker Mauldin, and James F. Phillips, The Demographic Impact of Family Planning Programs, Studies in Family Planning, 21 (6), 1990, 299–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bongaarts, John, Population Growth and Global Warming, Population and Development Review, 18, (2), 1992, 299–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Caldwell, John, and Pat Caldwell, Limiting Population Growth and the Ford Foundation Contribution, London: Frances Pinter, 1986.Google Scholar
  11. Callahan, Sidney, and Daniel Callahan, eds., Abortion: Understanding Differences, New York: Plenum Press, 1984.Google Scholar
  12. Carter, Stephen L., Strife’s Dominion, The New Yorker, August 9, 1993, 86-92.Google Scholar
  13. Cleland, John, Marital Fertility Decline in Developing Countries: Theories and Evidence, in John Cleland and John Hobcraft, eds., Reproductive Change in Developing Countries: Insights from the World Fertility Survey, New York: Oxford University Press, 1985.Google Scholar
  14. Coale, Ansley J., and Edgar M. Hoover, Population Growth in Low Income Countries: A Case Study of India’s Prospects, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1958.Google Scholar
  15. Coale, Ansley J., and Susan C. Watkins, eds., The Decline of Fertility in Europe, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986.Google Scholar
  16. Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, Population and the American Future, The Report of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972.Google Scholar
  17. Demeny, Paul, Social Science and Population Policy, Population Council Center for Policy Studies Working Paper, no. 138, May 1988.Google Scholar
  18. Demerath, Nicholas J., Birth Control and Foreign Policy, New York: Harper and Row, 1976.Google Scholar
  19. Djerassi, Carl, Birth Control after 1984, Science, 169, no. 949, 1970, 941–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Donaldson, Peter J. Nature Against Us, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  21. Ehrlich, Paul R., The Population Bomb, New York: Ballantine Books, 1968.Google Scholar
  22. Ehrlich, Paul R., and Anne Ehrlich, The Population Explosion, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990.Google Scholar
  23. Ensminger, Douglas, Oral History, Ford Foundation Archives, 1971.Google Scholar
  24. Finkle, Jason L., and Barbara B. Crane, The Politics of Bucharest: Population, Development, and the New International Economic Order, Population and Development Review, 1, (1), 1975, 87–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ford Foundation, Report of the Study for the Ford Foundation on Policy and Programs, New York: Ford Foundation, 1950.Google Scholar
  26. Ford Foundation, Trustees’ Docket, July 15–16, 1952.Google Scholar
  27. Ford Foundation, The Ford Foundation’s Work on Population, New York: Ford Foundation, 1985.Google Scholar
  28. Freedman, Ronald, Social Research and Programs for Reducing Birth Rates, reprinted in Social Science Research on Population and Development, Ford Foundation Conference, New York City, October 29–30, 1974.Google Scholar
  29. Freedman, Ronald, The Contribution of Social Science Research to Population Policy and Family Planning Program Effectiveness, Studies in Family Planning, 18 (2), 1987, 57–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Greep, Roy O., Marjorie A. Koblinsky, and Frederick A. Jaffe, eds., Reproduction and Human Welfare: A Challenge to Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  31. Harkavy, Oscar, Funding Contraceptive Development, Technology in Society, 9 (3/4), 1987, 307–321.Google Scholar
  32. Harkavy, Oscar, Frederick Jaffe, and Samuel Wishik, Implementing DHEW Policy on Family Planning and Population, 1967, reprinted in Hearings before the Subcommittee on Foreign Aid Expenditures of the Committee on Government Operations, U.S. Senate, 1967–68, Part 1, 163-180.Google Scholar
  33. Hertz, Roy, A Quest for Better Contraception: The Ford Foundation’s Contribution to Reproductive Science and Contraceptive Development, 1959–83, New York: Ford Foundation, 1984.Google Scholar
  34. Hodgson, Dennis, Demography as Social Science and Policy Science. Population and Development Review, 9 (1), 1983, 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jain, Anrudh, Issues in Population Program in India, Population Council, March 1989.Google Scholar
  36. Johnson, Stanley, World Population and the United Nations, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  37. Jones, E. F., J. D. Forrest, N. Goldman, S. K. Henshaw, K. Lincoln, J. I. Rosoff, C. F. Westoff, and D. Wolff, Teenage Pregnancy in Developed Countries, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  38. Keyfitz, Nathan, Thirty Years of Demography and Demography. Demography, 30 (4), 1993, 533–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kirby, Douglas, Cynthia Waszik, and Julie Ziegler, Six School-Based Clinics: Their Reproductive Health Services and Impact on Sexual Behavior, Family Planning Perspectives, 23 (1), 1991, 6–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kirby, Douglas, Richard P. Barth, Nancy Leland, and Joyce V. Fetro, Reducing the Risk: Impact of a New Curriculum on Sexual Risk-Taking, Family Planning Perspectives, 23 (6), 1991, 253–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kiser, Clyde, The Work of the Milbank Memorial Fund in Population Since 1928, The Milbank Fund Quarterly, 49 (4), part 2, 1971, 15–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Krishnakumar, S., The Story of the Ernakulum Experiment in Family Planning, Government of Kerala, 1971.Google Scholar
  43. Kritz, Mary M., The Rockefeller Foundation’s Activities in Population, Rockefeller Foundation, April 1982.Google Scholar
  44. Mauldin, W. Parker, Nazli Choucri, Frank W. Notestein, and Michael Teitelbaum, A Report on Bucharest. Studies in Family Planning, 5 (12), 1974.Google Scholar
  45. McCarthy, Kathleen D., The Ford Foundation’s Population Programs in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, 1959–1981, Ford Foundation Archives, Report #011011.Google Scholar
  46. Menken, Jane, ed., World Population and U.S. Policy, New York and London: W.W. Norton, 1986.Google Scholar
  47. Minkler, Meredith, Consultants or Colleagues: The Role of U.S. Population Advisors in India, Population and Development Review, 3 (4), 1977, 403–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mosley, W. Henry, and Lincoln C. Chen, An Analytical Framework for the Study of Child Survival in Developing Countries, in W. Henry Mosley and Lincoln C. Chen, eds., Child Survival: Strategies for Research, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984.Google Scholar
  49. National Research Council, Population Growth and Economic Development: Policy Questions, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1986.Google Scholar
  50. Notestein, Frank W., Reminiscences, The Milbank Fund Quarterly, 49 (4), part 2, 1971, 67–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Notestein, Frank W., Demography in the United States: A Partial Account of the Development of the Field, Population and Development Review, 8 (4), 1982, 651–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Osborn, Fairfield, Our Plundered Planet, Boston: Little, Brown, 1948.Google Scholar
  53. Piotrow, Phyllis, World Population Crisis, New York: Praeger, 1973.Google Scholar
  54. Population Council, A Chronicle of the First Twenty-Five Years, New York: The Population Council, 1978.Google Scholar
  55. Preston, Samuel H., The Contours of Demography: Estimates and Projections. Demography, 30 (4), 1993, 593–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pritchett, Lant H., Desired Fertility and the Impact of Population Policies. Population and Development Review, 20 (1), 1994, 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Reed, James, From Private Vice to Public Virtue, New York: Basic Books, 1978.Google Scholar
  58. Rockefeller, John D., 3rd, Population Growth: The Role of the Developed World, Bucharest: IUSSP, 1974.Google Scholar
  59. Ross, John A., and W. Parker Mauldin, eds., Berelson on Population, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1988.Google Scholar
  60. Sadik, Nafis, Safeguarding the Future, New York: UNFPA, n.d.Google Scholar
  61. Schorr, Lisbeth, Within Our Reach, New York: Anchor Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  62. Shaplen, Robert, Toward the Well-Being of Mankind: Fifty Years of the Rockefeller Foundation, New York: Doubleday, 1964.Google Scholar
  63. Sheehan, Robert, and Elizabeth Weil-Fisher, The Birth Control “Pill,” Fortune, April 1958.Google Scholar
  64. Simon, Julian L., The Ultimate Resource, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981.Google Scholar
  65. Smil, Vaclav, Planetary Warming: Realities and Response, Population and Development Review, 16 (1), 1990, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Steiner, Gilbert Y, ed., The Abortion Dispute and the American System, Washington, D.C.: Brookings, 1983.Google Scholar
  67. Strickland, Stephen P., ed., Population Crisis, Hearings before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Foreign Aid Expenditures, Committee on Government Operations, Washington, D.C.: Socio-Dynamics Publications, 1970.Google Scholar
  68. Symonds, Richard, and Michael Carder, The United Nations and the Population Question, 1945–1970, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973.Google Scholar
  69. Thompson, Warren, Population, American Journal of Sociology, 34, 959-75.Google Scholar
  70. Trussell, James, Jane Menken, Barbara L. Lindheim, and Barbara Vaughan, The Impact of Restricting Medicaid Financing for Abortion, Family Planning Perspectives, 12 (2), 1989, 120–130.Google Scholar
  71. United Nations Population Fund, Global Assistance Report, 1982–1991, New York: UNFPA, 1992.Google Scholar
  72. Vogt, William, Road to Survival, New York: W. Sloane Associates, 1948.Google Scholar
  73. Ward, Martha C., Poor Women, Powerful Men: America’s Great Experiment in Family Planning, Boulder and London: Westview Press, 1986.Google Scholar
  74. World Health Organization, Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, Reproductive Health: A Key to a Brighter Future, Geneva: WHO, 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Oscar Harkavy
    • 1
  1. 1.The Ford FoundationNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations