General Strategy and
Resource Allocations for AID Assistance
Discussion
1. Past Program Actions
Since inception of the program in 1965, AID has obligated nearly
$625 million for population activities. These funds have been used
primarily to (1) draw attention to the population problem, (2)
encourage multilateral and other donor support for the world wide
population effort, and (3) help create and maintain the means for
attacking the problem, including the development of LDC capabilities
to do so.
In pursuing these objectives, AID's population resources were
focussed on areas of need where actions was feasible and likely to
be effective. AID has provided assistance to population programs in
some 70 LDCs, on a bilateral basis and/or indirectly through private
organizations and other channels. AID currently provides bilateral
assistance to 36 of these countries. State and AID played an
important role in establishing the United Nations Fund for
Population Activities (UNFPA) to spearhead multilateral effort in
population as a complement to the bilateral actions of AID and other
donor countries. Since the Fund's establishment, AID has been the
largest single contributor. Moreover, with assistance from AID a
number of private family planning organizations (e.g., Pathfinder
Fund, International Planned Parenthood Foundation, Population
Council) have significantly expanded their worldwide population
programs. Such organizations are still the main supporters of family
planning action in many developing countries.
AID actions have been a major catalyst in stimulating the flow of
funds into LDC population programs - from almost nothing ten years
ago, the amounts being spent from all sources in 1974 for programs
in the developing countries of Africa, Latin America, and Asia
(excluding China) will total between $400 and $500 million. About
half of this will be contributed by the developed countries
bilaterally or through multilateral agencies, and the balance will
come from the budgets of the developing countries themselves. AID's
contribution is about one-quarter of the total - AID obligated
$112.4 million for population programs in FY 1974 and plans for FY
1975 program of $137.5 million.
While world resources for population activities will continue to
grow, they are unlikely to expand as rapidly as needed. (One rough
estimate is that five times the current amount, or about $2.5
billion in constant dollars, will be required annually by 1985 to
provide the 2.5 billion people in the developing world, excluding
China, with full-scale family planning programs). In view of these
limited resources AID's efforts (in both fiscal and manpower terms)
and through its leadership the efforts of others, must be focused to
the extent possible on high priority needs in countries where the
population problem is the most acute. Accordingly, AID last year
began a process of developing geographic and functional program
priorities for use in allocating funds and staff, and in arranging
and adjusting divisions of labor with other donors and organizations
active in the worldwide population effort. Although this study has
not yet been completed, a general outline of a U.S. population
assistance strategy can be developed from the results of the
priorities studied to date. The geographic and functional parameters
of the strategy are discussed under 2. and 3. below. The
implications for population resource allocations are presented under
4.
2. Geographic Priorities in U.S. Population
Assistance
The U.S. strategy should be to encourage and support, through
bilateral, multilateral and other channels, constructive actions to
lower fertility rates in selected developing countries. Within this
overall strategy and in view of funding and manpower limitations,
the U.S. should emphasize assistance to those countries where the
population problem is the most serious.
There are three major factors to consider in judging the
seriousness of the problem:
- The first is the country's contribution to the world's
population problem, which is determined by the size of its
population, its population growth rate, and its progress in the
"demographic transition" from high birth and high death rates to low
ones.
- The second is the extent to which population growth impinges on
the country's economic development and its financial capacity to
cope with its population problem.
- The third factor is the extent to which an imbalance between
growing numbers of people and a country's capability to handle the
problem could lead to serious instability, international tensions,
or conflicts. Although many countries may experience adverse
consequences from such imbalances, the troublemaking regional or
international conditions might not be as serious in some places as
they are in others.
Based on the first two criteria, AID has developed a preliminary
rank ordering of nearly 100 developing countries which, after review
and refinement, will be used as a guide in AID's own funding and
manpower resource allocations and in encouraging action through AID
leadership efforts on the part of other population assistance
instrumentalities. Applying these three criteria to this rank
ordering, there are 13 countries where we currently judge the
problem and risks to be the most serious. They are: Bangladesh,
India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey,
Ethiopia, Nigeria, Brazil, Mexico, and Colombia. Out of a total 67
million worldwide increase in population in 1972 these countries
contributed about 45%. These countries range from those with
virtually no government interest in family planning to those with
active government family planning programs which require and would
welcome enlarged technical and financial assistance.
These countries should be given the highest priority within AID's
population program in terms of resource allocations and/or
leadership efforts to encourage action by other donors and
organizations. The form and content of our assistance or leadership
efforts would vary from country-to-country (as discussed in 3.
below), depending on each country's needs, its receptivity to
various forms of assistance, its capability to finance needed
actions, the effectiveness with which funds can be used, and current
or adjusted divisions of labor among the other donors and
organizations providing population assistance to the country. AID's
population actions would also need to be consistent with the overall
U.S. development policy toward each country.
While the countries cited above would be given highest priority,
other countries would not be ignored. AID would provide population
assistance and/or undertake leadership efforts with respect to other
countries to the extent that the availability of funds and staff
permits, taking account of such factors as: a country's placement in
AID's priority listing of LDCs; its potential impact on domestic
unrest and international frictions (which can apply to small as well
as large countries); its significance as a test or demonstration
case; and opportunities for expenditures that appear particularly
cost-effective (e.g. its has been suggested that there may be
particularly cost-effective opportunities for supporting family
planning to reduce the lag between mortality and fertility declines
in countries where death rates are still declining rapidly).
3. Mode and Content of U.S. Population
Assistance
In moving from geographic emphases to strategies for the mode and
functional content of population assistance to both the higher and
lower priority countries which are to be assisted, various factors
need to be considered: (1) the extent of a country's understanding
of its population problem and interest in responding to it; (2) the
specific actions needed to cope with the problem; (3) the country's
need for external financial assistance to deal with the problem; and
(4) its receptivity to various forms of assistance.
Some of the countries in the high priority group cited above (e.
g. Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand) and some
lower priority countries have recognized that rapid population
growth is a problem, are taking actions of their own to deal with
it, and are receptive to assistance from the U.S. (through bilateral
or central AID funding) and other donors, as well as to multilateral
support for their efforts. In these cases AID should continue to
provide such assistance based on each country's functional needs,
the effectiveness with which funds can be used in these areas, and
current or adjusted divisions of labor among other donors and
organizations providing assistance to the country. Furthermore, our
assistance strategies for these countries should consider their
capabilities to finance needed population actions. Countries which
have relatively large surpluses of export earning and foreign
exchange reserves are unlikely to require large- scale external
financial assistance and should be encouraged to finance their own
commodity imports as well as local costs. In such cases our strategy
should be to concentrate on needed technical assistance and on
attempting to play a catalytic role in encouraging better programs
and additional host country financing for dealing with the
population problem.
In other high and lower priority countries U.S. assistance is
limited either by the nature of political or diplomatic relations
with those countries (e.g. India, Egypt), or by the lack of strong
government interest in population reduction programs (e.g. Nigeria,
Ethiopia, Mexico, Brazil). In such cases, external technical and
financial assistance, if desired by the countries, would have to
come from other donors and/or from private and international
organizations (many of which receive contributions from AID). The
USG would, however, maintain an interest (e.g. through Embassies) in
such countries' population problems and programs (if any) to reduce
population growth rates. Moreover, particularly in the case of high
priority countries to which U.S. population assistance is now
limited for one reason or another, we should be alert to
opportunities for expanding our assistance efforts and for
demonstrating to their leaders the consequences of rapid population
growth and the benefits of actions to reduce fertility.
In countries to which other forms of U.S. assistance are provided
but not population assistance, AID will monitor progress toward
achievement of development objectives, taking into account the
extent to which these are hindered by rapid population growth, and
will look for opportunities to encourage initiation of or
improvement in population policies and programs.
In addition, the U.S. strategy should support general activities
capable of achieving major breakthroughs in key problems which
hinder attainment of fertility control objectives. For example, the
development of more effective, simpler contraceptive methods through
big-medical research will benefit all countries which face the
problem of rapid population growth; improvements in methods for
measuring demographic changes will assist a number of LDCs in
determining current population growth rates and evaluating the
impact over time of population/family planning activities.
4. Resource Allocations for U.S. Population
Assistance
AID funds obligated for population/family planning assistance
rose steadily since inception of the program ($10 million in the FY
1965-67 period) to nearly $125 million in FY 1972. In FY 1973,
however, funds available for population remained at the $125 million
level; in FY 1974 they actually declined slightly, to $112.5 million
because of a ceiling on population obligations inserted in the
legislation by the House Appropriations Committee. With this plateau
in AID population obligations, worldwide resources have not been
adequate to meet all identified, sensible funding needs, and we
therefore see opportunities for significant expansion of the
program.
Some major actions in the area of creating conditions for
fertility decline, as described in Section JIB, can be funded from
AID resources available for the sectors in question (e.g.,
education, agriculture). Other actions come under the purview of
population ("Title X") funds. In this latter category, increases in
projected budget requests to the Congress on the order of $35-50
million annually through FY 1980 above the $137.5 million requested
by FY 1975 appear appropriate at this time. Such increases must be
accompanied by expanding contributions to the worldwide population
effort from other donors and organizations and from the LDCs
themselves, if significant progress is to be made. The USG should
take advantage of appropriate opportunities to stimulate such
contributions from others.
Year Amount ($ million)
- FY 1972 - Actual Obligations 123.3
- FY 1973 - Actual Obligations 125.6
- FY 1974 - Actual Obligations 112.4
- FY 1975 - Request to Congress 137.5
- FY 1976 - Projection 170
- FY 1977 - Projection 210
- FY 1978 - Projection 250
- FY 1979 - Projection 300
- FY 1980 - Projection 350
These Title X funding projections for FY 1976-80 are general
magnitudes based on preliminary estimates of expansion or initiation
of population programs in developing countries and growing
requirements for outside assistance as discussed in greater detail
in other sections of this paper. These estimates contemplated very
substantial increases in self-help and assistance from other donor
countries.
Our objective should be to assure that developing countries make
family planning information, educational and means available to all
their peoples by 1980. Our efforts should include:
- Increased A.I.D. bilateral and centrally-funded programs,
consistent with the geographic priorities cited above.
- Expanded contributions to multilateral and private
- organizations that can work effectively in the population
area.
- Further research on the relative impact of various socio-
economic factors on desired family size, and experimental efforts
to test the feasibility of larger-scale efforts to affect some of
these factors.
- Additional big-medical research to improve the existing means
of fertility control and to develop new ones which are safe,
effective, inexpensive, and attractive to both men and women.
- Innovative approaches to providing family planning services,
such as the utilization of commercial channels for distribution of
contraceptives, and the development of low-cost systems for
delivering effective health and family planning services to the
85% of LDC populations not now reached by such services.
- Expanded efforts to increase the awareness of LDC leaders and
publics regarding the consequences of rapid population growth and
to stimulate further LDC commitment to actions to reduce
fertility.
We believe expansions in the range of 35-50 million annually over
the next five years are realistic, in light of potential LDC needs
and prospects for increased contributions from other population
assistance instrumentalities, as well as constraints on the speed
with which AID (and other donors) population funds can be expanded
and effectively utilized. These include negative or ambivalent host
government attitudes toward population reduction programs; the need
for complementary financial and manpower inputs by recipient
governments, which must come at the expense of other programs they
consider to be high priority; and the need to assure that new
projects involve sensible, effective actions that are likely to
reduce fertility. We must avoid inadequately planned or implemented
programs that lead to extremely high costs per acceptor. In effect,
we are closer to "absorptive capacity" in terms of year- to-year
increases in population programs than we are, for example, in annual
expansions in food, fertilizer or generalized resource
transfers.
It would be premature to make detailed funding recommendations by
countries and functional categories in light of our inability to
predict what changes such as in host country attitudes to U.S.
population assistance and in fertility control technologies may
occur which would significantly alter funding needs in particular
geographic or functional areas. For example, AID is currently
precluded from providing bilateral assistance to India and Egypt,
two significant countries in the highest priority group, due to the
nature of U.S. political and diplomatic relations with these
countries. However, if these relationships were to change and
bilateral aid could be provided, we would want to consider providing
appropriate population assistance to these countries. In other
cases, changing U.S. - LDC relationships might preclude further aid
to some countries. Factors such as these could both change the mix
and affect overall magnitudes of funds needed for population
assistance. Therefore, proposed program mixes and funding levels by
geographic and functional categories should continue to be examined
on an annual basis during the regular USG program and budget review
processes which lead to the presentation of funding requests to the
Congress.
Recognizing that changing opportunities for action could
substantially affect AID's resource requirements for population
assistance, we anticipate that, if funds are provided by the
Congress at the levels projected, we would be able to cover
necessary actions related to the highest priority countries and also
those related to lower priority countries, moving reasonably far
down the list. At this point, however, AID believes it would not be
desirable to make priority judgments on which activities would not
be funded if Congress did not provide the levels projected. If cuts
were made in these levels we would have to make judgments based on
such factors as the priority rankings of countries, then-existing
LDC needs, and divisions of labor with other actors in the
population assistance area.
If AID's population assistance program is to expand at the
general magnitudes cited above, additional direct hire staff will
likely be needed. While the expansion in program action would be
primarily through grants and contracts with LDC or U.S.
institutions, or through contributions to international
organizations, increases in direct hire staff would be necessary to
review project proposals, monitor their implementation through such
instrumentalities, and evaluate their progress against
pre-established goals. Specific direct hire manpower requirements
should continue to be considered during the annual program and
budget reviews, along with details of program mix and funding levels
by country and functional category, in order to correlate staffing
needs with projected program actions for a particular year.
Recommendations
1. The U.S. strategy should be to encourage and support, through
bilateral, multilateral and other channels, constructive action to
lower fertility rates in selected developing countries. The U.S.
should apply each of the relevant provisions of its World Population
Plan of Action and use it to influence and support actions by
developing countries.
2. Within this overall strategy, the U.S. should give highest
priority, in terms of resource allocation (along with donors) to
efforts to encourage assistance from others to those countries cited
above where the population problem is most serious, and provide
assistance to other countries as funds and staff permit.
3. AID's further development of population program priorities,
both geographic and functional, should be consistent with the
general strategy discussed above, with the other recommendations of
this paper and with the World Population Plan of Action. The
strategies should be coordinated with the population activities of
other donors countries and agencies using the WPPA as leverage to
obtain suitable action.
4. AID's budget requests over the next five years should include
a major expansion of bilateral population and family planning
programs (as appropriate for each country or region), of functional
activities as necessary, and of contributions through multilateral
channels, consistent with the general funding magnitudes discussed
above. The proposed budgets should emphasize the country and
functional priorities outlined in the recommendations of this study
and as detailed in AID's geographic and functional strategy
papers. |