Poverty and family size: The real score

Despite our size, as race and nation, we have always found ways of either being on the top or be more recognizable. Charice, the young and petite champion singer, stamped her class alongside the elite in the grandest stage of world entertainment. Our very own Manny Pacquiao outshines other sport’s brightest stars as he established himself as this year’s perennial pound for pound king. Added to those illustrious names are the Pinedas, and some Fil-Am entertainers who’ve added glitter to Hollywood. 

Indeed, the entertainment scene is an area where we excel and are recognizable in a good way. Apart from it and several favorable surveys of world’s emerging cities (like Cebu), we have nothing more to brag about. 

Recently, the Zurich-based Gallup International group released the result of its World Food Survey. The survey was conducted between June and September. Interestingly, these were the months when the country experienced an acute shortage of the basic staple. Nonetheless, the survey revealed that we are fifth among the nations participating in the aforementioned undertaking. We were just better off against Cameroon (55 percent), Pakistan (53 percent), Nigeria (48 percent) and Peru (42 percent). Closely following us were Bolivia and Guatemala (tied at 35 percent), Ghana (32 percent) Mexico and Russia (tied at 23 percent).

To recall, we also topped several months ago in another survey, the survey on the most corrupt countries as conducted by Transparency International.   Comparing these two (2) results, we can easily conclude that in countries where corruption is a way of life, poverty incidence is so high.

While most surveys reveal that more often poverty and corruption go hand in hand, let us set aside this correlation momentarily. Let us delve into the relationship between population and poverty incidence, as well as, poverty incidence as associated with family size.  

Standing alone as a statistic, population data is nothing but incomprehensible assembly of numbers. In 2006, the US Census Bureau estimated that the Philippines is the 12th most populous country in the world. Ahead of us are, (1) China - 1,313,973,713, (2) India-1,095,351,995 (3) USA - 298,444,215, (4) Indonesia - 245,452,739, (5) Brazil-188,078,227, (6) Pakistan - 165,803,560, (7) Bangladesh - 147,365,352, (8) Russia- 142,893,540, (9) Nigeria - 131,859,731, (10) Japan - 127,463,611, (11) Mexico - 107,449,525.

If the number of inhabitants in a country is the sole determinant as far as poverty incidence is concerned then, the United States of America and Japan should not just be hungrier than us but should be among the hungriest countries in the world today. The reality is an absolute “NO”. The answer is simple. With their vast land area, naturally, they will have more residents or bigger population.

The more logical question, therefore is -are they crowded? Coherently, therefore, the better statistics should be the data that reveals the number of people for every square kilometer in a given country. This information is called density. 

So, where are we as far as density is concern? With 292.86 per square kilometer, we ranked 26th overall. Notably, better off countries like Monaco ranked 1st with 16,205 per square kilometer, and Singapore followed with 6,386.29. Bahrain is in 5th with 1,035.44 per square kilometer, South Korea is in the 11th place. Starving countries in the list includes Bangladesh in 6th and Sri Lanka in 23rd. The United States of America is 124th.

If density or the level congestion in a country is a principal barometer on poverty incidence, then, Monaco and Singapore, the most densely populated countries should have higher incidences in this regard. But no, they are among the world’s richest countries.

If the bigger number of inhabitants and the higher level of congestion do not directly connote poverty incidences, then more relevant information is necessary to understand this crisis we are in. Such significant information is family size.

Despite the level of congestion in countries like Monaco or Singapore, the average number of children per family in these countries is just about two. More often, some are just happy with one kid. Due to limited space, they are living in world-class tenements even comparable to what we popularly referred to us “high-end condominiums”.  

Clearly, in these progressive countries, the common denominator isn’t their sheer number of residents or the density factor of their population. Apparently, these countries have kept their family sizes at manageable levels. 

Learning from these countries’ experiences isn’t difficult. Understanding their ways of managing their families isn’t incomprehensible too. Having manageable sizes of families simply bring about positive consequences. Obviously, taking care of dozen children is so different from taking care of just two. The parents can spend quality time with their kids and can handily remember their birthdays and immunization schedules. 

In a very manageable family size, the wives or mothers benefits the most. They can find jobs or do more productive chores apart from taking care of the kids. With all these pre-occupations, women will try to space their pregnancy or most probably just be contended of having a few. With both parents doing productive undertakings, families’ needs would be handily and responsibility taken cared off.

However, knowing fully well that having a manageable family size is the key to conquer hunger isn’t enough. Imparting them to those who needed education is the most challenging part. 

For your comments and suggestions, please email to [email protected].