Making Population Matter: The Demographic Dividend and Sustainable Development

Post by Olivia Gilmore

Yesterday I ventured out of RioCentro and over to Athletes Park, a separate collection of pavilions and individual country centers with a much more casual feel. What brought me there was an event entitled Making Population Matter: The Demographic Dividend and Sustainable Development, hosted by USAID, The Aspen Institute, and the Center for Population and the Environment. It took place in the U.S. Center, a drab navy box lacking the flair and style of the Italian Center or United Arab Emirates, but which was compensated for by the genuinely interesting dialogue among the panelists and audience.

Panelists included Cassio M Turra, Professor of Demography, Carmen Barroso, Regional Director of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, Susan Reichle of USAID’s bureau of Policy, Planning, and Learning, and Eliya Msiyaphazi Zulu, Executive Director of the African Institute for Development Policy. The Aspen Institute’s Peggy Clark acted as moderator; closing remarks were given by USAID’s Deputy Administrator Donald Steinberg.

The event began with an explanation of the demographic dividend, which for those of us that are unfamiliar with the term, generally refers to the economic growth a country with a large youth population can realize if it invests in the following four things: child survival, access to reproductive health, increased access to education, and job creation. If these things can all happen together then exceptional growth can be achieved.

Cassio Turra went on to explain that the economic benefits that the demographic dividend relates a change in age structure during demographic transition to economic growth. However, it is important to note that this growth is not automatic. It is more like an opportunity, an opportunity that can be missed if countries do not have the right policies.

Brazil is often cited in relation to the demographic dividend, with huge leaps in women’s education and empowerment leading to smaller family sizes. The “Asian Tigers”, such as Taiwan and South Korea were also mentioned.

However, where this opportunity is missed the social and economic realities are particularly devastating. Speaking to this point, Deputy Steinberg referenced Robert Kaplan’s famous article in the Atlantic, The Coming Anarchy, which made quite a stir in the early 90’s of the Clinton Administration. When the article showed up on his desk with a giant question mark on the top put there by the President himself as if to ask “Is this true?”, Steinberg’s response was “Maybe”. Whether this gloom and doom outlook is true or not depends on if we are dealing with the demographic transition or a youth bulge. A youth bulge is a threat to security, drag on the economy, and a situation which breeds gender and domestic violence and social unrest. The demographic dividend means a positive use of a nation’s human capital and unprecedented social and economic growth. As Steinberg pointed out, the youth bulge is seen in the people in IDP camps we don’t reach. The demographic dividend is represented by the young boy, who after receiving the Ambassador’s tie, is inspired to further his education and better his life.

At the end of the session I asked a somewhat pointed question. The phrase “integrated approach for sustainable development” was thrown around a lot, but without any explanation as to how exactly the demographic dividend is achieved without further environmental degradation. After all, rapid economic development is typically anything but sustainable. I directed my question to Susan Reichle, asking her to please speak to how the policy, planning, and learning bureau of USAID works with environmental concerns and natural resource management in countries where the demographic dividend is possible. I cited Nigeria as an example where oil has been a resource curse for the population, causing violence, corruption, and terrible pollution, often at the hand of U.S. companies. Oil… conflict… environment… U.S. interests… not surprisingly my question was conveniently sidestepped with a diplomatic response – something to the effect of “USAID considers social and environmental concerns when implementing all projects… ”.