Vietnam: Fighting inequality not enough
As a celebrity goodwill ambassador, Miss Vietnam World Luu Thi Diem Huong tells children why it is important to wear a helmet. www.globalgiving.org
When I first went to Vietnam in 1992, its population was 68.4 million, or about 4 million more than that of the Philippines. Traveling through Songbe province, where I was inspecting Oxfam-supported projects, was like being in the Philippine countryside in many respects, especially when it came to encountering large numbers of very young children in rural communities.
This was a time of transformation in Vietnam, with the economy shifting from classical centralized socialism to one that had a greater role for the market. The government recognized that large families, especially in rural areas like Songbe, threatened to foreclose any possibility of sustained economic growth.
The early 1990s was also the time that family planning was set in stone as official policy. In the historic words of the Population and Family Planning Strategy to the year 2000, the objective of the program was to “have small, healthy families in order to make favorable conditions to have a prosperous, happy life.”
Contrast
Nearly 20 years later, in both the countryside and the cities, children are less ubiquitous and they certainly look better-fed and better-clothed than they were two decades earlier. In Hanoi, which I recently visited, one sees few of the armies of street children that populate Manila and other urban centers in our country.
In terms of stabilizing the population, the family planning program has been a big success. In 1989, Vietnam’s population, at 64.7 million, was bigger than the Philippines’ 60.1 million. By 2010, the situation was reversed, with 93.6 million Filipinos to only 88.2 million Vietnamese.
Absent the family planning program, demographers estimate that Vietnam would now have 104.4 million people.
Eighteen million fewer births meant that Vietnam could devote more resources to upgrading the quality of education, alleviating poverty and raising investment. The country registered a growth rate of 7.2 percent per annum in the period 2000-2010. One percent of that figure, according to Pham Van Chuong, a central figure in the country’s population management effort, is attributable to the family-planning program.
This is critical since developing countries have to grow by at least 6 to 7 percent a year to achieve sustained growth and stave off poverty. By 2010, the average per capita income had tripled in one decade—a reflection of how economic growth was outpacing the population growth rate.
In contrast, the Philippines, burdened with a continuing high population growth and a low economic growth rate, could only double its per capita income.
Demographic bonus
It was a remarkable performance for a country that was mired in war while the Philippines was one of the more advanced Asian economies in the 1950s and 1960s. Some estimates now put Vietnam as overtaking the Philippines in GDP per capita by 2015.
The disparity will increase because Vietnam is entering the so-called “demographic-dividend” period. This is a period when the proportion of people of working age (15-59) relative to the rest of the population is high, at some 50 percent and above.
This means a relatively small dependent population (those below 15 and above 59), which translates into, among other things, a bigger part of economic production being invested instead of being consumed, resulting in faster economic growth. This “window of opportunity” arrived in 2010 and is expected to last till 2040, when the dependent population will rise to some 50 percent and above.
In contrast, given its current fertility trends, the Philippines is not expected to enter its demographic bonus period until 2030, by which time Vietnam would have pulled away in economic terms.
Why did Vietnam succeed?
What accounted for Vietnam’s success?
Reasons for success
First of all, there was always a sense that abolishing inequality, which is the primordial objective of revolutionary movements like the Viet Minh, is not enough to promote social welfare.
Even when the country was still North Vietnam and fighting to incorporate “South Vietnam” in the period 1961-75, family planning was promoted, aiming at smaller-sized family with three children, longer birth spacing and delayed births in order to achieve “better maternal health, good nurturing of children as well as happiness and harmony in the family,” as one early family planning guidebook described it.
Second, national support for the program was consistent and deepened over time. Following the expulsion of the United States in 1973-75, family planning became a central concern of the now unified nation. The National Committee for Population and Birth Control was established in 1984.
In 1993, the program was institutionalized in both government and civil society, with the landmark document referred to earlier, Population and Family Planning Strategy to the Year 2000, setting the goal of persuading families to limit their size to “two children [on the] average in order to stabilize the population size by the middle of the 21st century.”
From 2003 on, the focus has not only been extending the reach of family-planning services but also improving their quality and “improving the quality of the population.”
Well-organized
Third, family planning has been extremely well-organized, being carried out with that flair for comprehensive organization with which the Vietnamese conducted their war for national liberation against the French and the Americans.
Three interrelated organizational structures have been used to promote family planning: the communist party structure, the government structure and the mass movement.
To promote family planning as a mass, grassroots movement, the Vietnam Family Planning Association was set up in 1993.
The battle for effective family planning has been waged like a political campaign and the results have been impressive. The population growth rate is down to 1.2 percent, compared with the Philippine rate of 2.04 percent.
The total fertility rate (TFR), or the average number of children per woman of reproductive age, dropped from over 6 in 1961, when the program first began, to 2.1, a figure that demographers tag as “replacement level fertility.”
The Philippine TFR is much higher at 3.5.
Contraceptive prevalence
The contraceptive prevalence rate or contraceptive use among women of reproductive age is almost 80 percent, compared with 51 percent in the Philippines. Seven out of every 10 women of reproductive age use modern methods like the pill, injectables or intrauterine devices (IUDs), while 1 in 10 resorts to less reliable traditional methods like withdrawal or calendar-based methods.
Still, Vietnamese reproductive health experts worry about an unmet need for family planning, especially among adolescents and in remote rural and upland areas.
Up to 11.2 percent of adolescents in Vietnam have sex and 34 percent of them do not use any contraceptive, according to the World Health Organization.
Lack of access to contraceptives as well as rudimentary knowledge of the ABCs of reproduction among the young, say Vietnamese experts I interviewed, contributes to the country’s high abortion rate.
Antidote to abortion
The country’s reproductive health leaders go to great lengths to claim that, unlike in the case of China, which has a one-child policy, Vietnam’s family-planning program is not coercive. And unlike in China, the menu of family planning methods excludes abortion.
The country, they say, is a signatory to the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development Program of Action and takes seriously Paragraph 8.25 of this code, which states that:
“In no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning. All government and relevant intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations are urged to strengthen their commitment to women’s health, to deal with the health impact of unsafe abortion as a major public health concern and to reduce the recourse to abortion through expanded and improved family-planning services. Prevention of unwanted pregnancies must always be given the highest priority and all attempts should be made to eliminate the need for abortion.”
The answer to abortion, in other words, is better access to contraceptives and better counseling.
Reproductive rights
The family-planning program began with an overwhelming focus on the need to limit fertility to provide the space for development. Over the years, however, the stress on the need for family planning to promote women’s reproductive health has become an equally central concern.
Reflective of this is the felt need for improved delivery of counseling and supplies to avert abortion and what Vietnamese health practitioners see as its negative impact on a woman’s health. Indeed, family planning is now also being popularized with a rights-based justification.
As the Vietnam Family Planning Association (Vinafpa) Strategic Plan for 2004-2010 put it:
“Sexual and reproductive rights are human rights. Vinafpa advocates recognition and respect for these rights. Sexual and reproductive-health services must reflect high-quality practices and standards. Vinafpa advocates and demonstrates these standards, particularly in the care and respect for the privacy and confidentiality of all clients.
All people have the right to receive services of the highest quality; furthermore, this quality of service will in itself motivate the people using these services.”
Lessons for Philippines
Vietnam has many lessons for the Philippines, among them the importance of a sustained national commitment to family planning, a comprehensive approach that involves both government and mass organizations, and a perspective that rests on the twin pillars of rational population management and promotion of reproductive rights.
But perhaps the most important lesson is that, contrary to what some well-intentioned but unfortunately misinformed antireproductive health people think, measures to promote social justice and reduce inequality are not enough to end or reduce poverty. No government has been more dedicated to promoting social justice and abolishing inequality than the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
A key measure of income distribution is the Gini index; the lower it is, the more equal a country’s income distribution is. With a score of 0.34, Vietnam, along with Laos, has the lowest Gini index in East Asia. Japan’s is 0.37, Malaysia’s is 0.49, and the Philippines’ is 0.44.
Fighting poverty
Despite its having waged a revolution for social justice and achieving a rate of income distribution that is the best in the region, Vietnam still found the need to promote comprehensive family planning to bring about economic development and end poverty.
Without an effective population management and reproductive-health program, which is a necessary condition for economic takeoff and growth, measures to redistribute income and assets will merely result in a redistribution of poverty, say reproductive-health practitioners I met in Hanoi.
Family planning + economic growth + redistribution remains the indisputable formula for ending poverty and improving the welfare of the people.
(Walden Bello represents Akbayan [Citizens’ Action Party] in the House of Representatives. He recently traveled to Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam to investigate family-planning programs in those countries.)
