Comments on: Family Planning Summit: dilemmas of UK exceptionalism, private v public and population control

By: Jo Duffy

Jo Duffy — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 10:22:52 +0000

Hi Duncan,

Great post. Many of the issues you raise are being researched by the Pop-Pov Research Network, funded by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council and others. For more details about funded projects and access to working papers and published research papers see: http://www.poppovresearchnetwork.org/

An excellent summary of the work done so far by the network and its policy implications can be found at: http://www.prb.org/Articles/2012/poppov-economicdevelopment-reproductivehealth-women.aspx

By: Ben Niblett

Ben Niblett — Tue, 10 Jul 2012 11:06:26 +0000

My favourite climate and population stat is that it takes 66 average Bangladeshis to emit the same amount of carbon dioxide as the average American.

Or 33 for the average Brit.

(Based on the World Bank’s 2010 Little Green Data Book per capita CO2 emissions stats, 19.3 tonnes for the US, 9.4 tonnes for the UK, 0.3 tonnes for Bangladesh.)

By: David Taylor

David Taylor — Tue, 10 Jul 2012 10:52:12 +0000

Excellent post as always Duncan but (and the words before but are genuine not bollxxks!) on public v private, ideology isn’t a dirty word. Public services are what we want no just because the evidence shows it is better (as Oxfam have shown it does) but because we have a different value set that sees health and education as public goods leading to more equitable outcomes, whose curriculum is determined by (in theory) accountable politicians democratically elected by us.

By: Roy Tindle

Roy Tindle — Tue, 10 Jul 2012 10:47:01 +0000

Duncan,

In this and your last blog, you appear to give support to the suggestion that climate change is the most significant problem that we face and not just a symptom of a much wider problem. You suggest, reasonably, that an increasing sub Saharan population does not add to carbon emissions in the way that demand growth does within the most affluent countries.

You seem, though, to underestimate the other symptoms of resource depletion and species loss. Surely, increasing populations anywhere will require more arable land and at least one depleting resource, clean water.

The Earth is finite and increasing the number of human beings has put ever greater pressure on the evolved ecosystems on which all life depends. I often wonder why the idea of a finite planet is so hard to comprehend.

By: zohra

zohra — Tue, 10 Jul 2012 09:53:39 +0000

Re “I’m not completely clear from the documents I’ve read” on supply vs demand, does this help? (especially the diagram): http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2012/06/sex_choice_and_

Will be blogging for The F Word at the Summit, but can’t say I’ve figured out how to navigate the course (praise vs ‘but’) either.

By: Geoffrey Salkeld

Geoffrey Salkeld — Tue, 10 Jul 2012 09:52:33 +0000

Good summing up of the dilemmas. The public/private family planning debate is a bit more nuanced than you suggest. It goes back to the late 1960s when condom distribution through commercial channels began to be promoted by non-profit agencies and – in the case of India’s “Nirodh” condom – by the state. At that time FP services in many developing countries were provided by NGOs – typically the Family Planning Associations – many of which were in fact funded by aid donors including the UK Government. At that time the campaigning agenda was focused on legalization and getting UN agencies to promote reproductive health rights (leading to the setting up of the UNFPA. Today the focus has to be on so-called “cultural” barriers, usually with a strong gender bias, from religious and other reactionary quarters.