Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
& Family Planning, Human Development and Growth in Uganda Jouko Kinnunen, VATT Hans Lofgren, World Bank Dino Merotto, World Bank Presentation for the Twelfth Annual Conference on Global Economic Analysis, Santiago, Chile June 10-12, 2009 THE WORLD BANK GOVERNMENT INSTITUTE FOR ECONOMIC RESEARCH (VATT), Finland Background and Motivation • Extremely high fertility and youthful population in Uganda; why a problem? • Development and public expenditure planning needs of GoU • Need to endogenize population in MAMS • Role of fertility within development • Recent changes in the international politics of family planning 2 Research Questions • What is the impact of increased family planning (FP) services on macro and MDG indicators in Uganda? • Does the way of financing the increased (?) public expenditure on FP matter? • How sensitive are the results to FP cost estimates? 3 Main results • Major effects of FP: – – – – improved EV welfare for (living) Ugandans; better outcomes for MDG indicators; and creation of additional fiscal space in the medium- to long-run Macro-level effects are otherwise minor • ”Domesticity” of the adjusting government income variable plays a role • Expected per-capita cost of FP very moderate • Qualitative results are not very sensitive to the cost of FP 4 Current situation • • • • • • • • Total fertility rate (TFR) close to 7 children Dependency ratio = [population not 14-65]/[population 14-65] = 110 percent Unmet demand for contraceptives for 41% of households Current contraception prevalence = 24% 2 out of 7 children unwanted High pressure on land use potential for conflicts Pressures on public expenditure on health and education Dependency of GoU on foreign aid (its value similar to direct tax receipts) 5 Economics and Demography • Links between growth in per-capita GDP and population • Age structure affects labor supply, private and public consumption, investment, and productivity • Human development and demography closely linked: MDGs, social services • Increasing number of CGE models with (at least partly) endogenous demography 6 MAMS • • • • • • • • MAMS = Maquette for MDG Simulations Developed at World Bank; applied to 35 countries (in many cases in collaboration with UNDESA and UNDP) Used to analyze medium- to long-run impact of strategies, including effects on monetary poverty and human development (MDG indicators). Recursive-dynamic single-country model Government services modeled in relatively detailed fashion: public sector as producer, consumer, and investor Productivity impact of public infrastructure MDGs covered in Uganda application: 1 (headcount poverty), 2 (net primary completion), 4 (under-five mortality), 5 (maternal mortality), 7 (access to improved water) For more information on MAMS: www.worldbank.org/mams 7 The demographic extension • Population disaggregated by gender and (one-year) age cohorts • Fertility and mortality modeled with two-level constant elasticity and logistic functions (mimics modeling of MDGs in MAMS) • Constant net migration rates 8 The dynamics of the demographic extension Fertility (by age of mother, sex of child) at time t Mortality (sex,age) at time t Migration (sex, age) at time t Population(sex,age) at time t (beginning of the year) Population(sex,age) at time t+1 9 Constant elasticity function (bottom level) QQ; poptot; QHPC ; ZDEMG dmg CE MDGVAL ; QFINS ; QFINS mdg flab fcapgov inf intermedia te per capita service level; per capita hhd consumptio n; variable for CE MDG indicators 2 and 7a; share of educated of labor force; demographi c infrastruc ture capital stock indicator 10 Mortality rate (top level) MORTRATE a , g LOG ZDEMG mrt ; MDG 4 ADJ mortality rate for int ermediate general development indicator ; other causes than LOG adjustment factor btw aggregate MDG 4 value and disaggrega te mortality values maternal mortality 11 Fertility rate (top level) FERTRATE a , g LOG ZDEMG frt * 1 FAMSERV fertility rate for int ermediate general development indicator ; 1 family planning 15 49 olds per LOG adjustment factor btw aggregate MDG 4 value * service effect on age group and and disaggrega te mortality values fertility gender of child 12 BASE scenario 2003-2030 • Annual GDP growth 6.2% (recent average growth rate). • Growth in government consumption declines due to completed reforms in primary education • Improvements in MDGs • In terms of official MDG targets, only MDG1 (poverty) is attained by 2015 • TFR falls from 7.3 in 2003 to 5.6 in 2030 • Compared to UN medium variant projection: – population growth rate (3.1% 2003-2030) is very close; – dependency ratio, mortality and fertility rates are all higher 13 Real growth of GDP components, percent under BASE scenario 2009-2030 9 8 7 6 5 4 GDP growth 3 Government consumption Private consumption Exports 2 Imports Private investment Government investment 1 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 14 MDG indicators for BASE 150 Poverty rate (%) Net primary completion rate (%) Under-five mortality (per 1,000 births) Maternal mortality (per 10,000 live births) Access to clean water (% of population) 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 15 Policy simulations: increased family planning • Gradual increase in spending on FP starting from 2007, ceteris paribus reducing the fertility rate by 20% in each year (of what it otherwise would be at that year) with simulationspecific financing adjustments: – – – – fp-ftr fp-tax fp-db fp-fb foreign transfers domestic taxation domestic borrowing foreign borrowing 16 Results for FP scenarios • Small macro effects: sligtly slower GDP growth, higher export share of GDP, more rapid growth in higher consumption per capita • Impact of FP on public expenditure: higher 2007-2016, lower 2017+ • Very small differences in demographic outcomes between FP scenarios • ”Domesticity” of the clearing variable for government expenditure matters: most favorable macro effects when changes (increases) in fiscal space are used to adjust (cut) taxes. • Population in 2030 declines from 61.0 to 53.7 million 17 Average growth rates of macro indicators Table. Real macro indicators by simulation (% annual growth from 2006 to final 2030) 2006 base fp-ftr fp-tax Absorption 15532.6 6.22 6.08 6.19 Consumption - private 10337.2 6.27 6.19 6.33 Consumption - government 2275.5 6.04 5.69 5.65 Fixed investment - private 2205.0 6.32 6.15 6.32 Fixed investment - government 715.0 5.57 5.34 5.35 Stock change 0.0 Exports 1781.0 6.56 6.94 6.72 Imports 3517.6 6.22 6.07 6.23 GDP at market prices 13796.1 6.26 6.20 6.26 GDP at factor cost 12648.1 6.25 6.21 6.25 Total factor employment (index) 5.09 5.02 5.06 Total factor productivity (index) 1.155 1.189 1.194 Real exchange rate (index) -0.19 -0.02 -0.17 Note: Base-year column shows data in LCU. fp-db 6.18 6.31 5.65 6.27 5.35 fp-fb 6.08 6.19 5.69 6.15 5.34 6.64 6.21 6.23 6.23 5.04 1.188 -0.17 6.94 6.07 6.20 6.21 5.02 1.189 -0.02 18 Population for BASE and FP-ftr 30,000 People in working age (over secondary school age) 6 to 12 base 6 to 12 fp-ftr 25,000 13 to 17 base 13 to 17 fp-ftr 20,000 18 to 64 base 18 to 64 fp-ftr 15,000 Primary school age 10,000 5,000 Secondary school age 0 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 19 Dependency Ratio 120 110 100 90 base fp-ftr 80 fp-tax fp-db fp-fb UN Medium variant 2008 70 60 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 20 Total Fertility Rate (TFR) 7.5 base fp-ftr fp-tax fp-db fp-fb UN Medium variant 7 6.5 6 5.5 5 4.5 4 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 21 92 92 88 88 84 84 Base scenario 80 80 Women 76 76 2025 2030 2030 2005 2003 2010 2020 2015 Men 72 72 68 68 64 64 FP-tax scenario 60 60 56 56 52 52 48 48 44 44 40 40 36 36 32 32 28 28 24 24 20 20 16 16 12 12 88 44 00 -1300 -1300 -1100 -1100 -900 -900 -700 -700 -500 -500 -300 -300 -100 -100 100 100 300 300 500 500 700 700 900 900 1100 1100 1300 1300 22 MDG indicators for fp-tax: change from BASE 4 Poverty rate (%) Net primary completion rate (%) Under-five mortality (per 1,000 births) Maternal mortality (per 10,000 live births) Access to clean water (% of population) 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 23 Change in final-year EV per capita, % 40% 35% 30% 25% FP - foreign transfers FP - foreing borrowing 20% FP - domestic borrowing FP - taxation 15% 10% 5% 0% Rural households Urban households Rural Rural Urban Urban households households households households income quartiles income quartiles income quartiles income quartiles 1-2 3-4 1-2 3-4 All households 24 Annual growth rate of per-capita consumption 6 5 4 base total fp-ftr total fp-tax total fp-db total fp-fb total 3 2 1 0 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 25 Sensitivity to cost of FP • Even five-fold annual per-couple cost of protection (~$15 to ~76$) does not change the qualitative result of the study – FP economically beneficial in the long run • Government expenditures lower than under BASE first in year 2023 instead of 2017 • An evaluation of whether FP is desirable or not does not only depend on economic outcomes 26 Change in Government Expenditure when Annual Cost of Protection per Couple is: $76 $15 $31 400 200 0 -200 -400 fp-ftr fp-fb fp-tax fp-db -600 -800 -1000 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 27 Government’s share of GDP with FP unit cost of $76 24 22 20 18 16 base fp-ftr fp-tax fp-db fp-fb 14 12 10 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 28 Final Conclusions & Remarks • Major effects of FP: – improved EV welfare for (living) Ugandans; – better outcomes for MDG indicators; and – creation of additional fiscal space in the medium- to long-run • Expected per-capita cost of FP very moderate • Integration of economywide and demographic models is often desirable • Topics for possible future studies using this framework (with marginal adjustments) include various issues in health economics, including AIDS 29 Thank Your for Your Attention! ¡Muchas gracias por su atención! [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] 30