We use cookies for site personalization, analytics and advertising. You can opt out of third party cookies. More info in our privacy policy.   Got it


Click here to subscribe to the print edition. [image, unknown] new internationalist 126[image, unknown] [image, unknown] [image, unknown] August 1983[image, unknown] Click here to search the mega index.

[image, unknown] UP-DATE

[image, unknown]

[image, unknown]

New information on subjects covered in previous issues of the New Internationalist

Binders and complete sets of back issues are
available from our on-line shopping site here.

[image, unknown]

[image, unknown] POPULATION[image, unknown]

Child support
Why parents have children

CHILDREN in rich countries cost an average of $50,000 each—that’s by the time they have been fed, clothed and educated up to the age of eighteen. So ask a European or North American how many children they want and the thought that flashes through the mind may well be: How many can we afford?

But children in poor countries, particularly in rural areas, can actually be a source of income. From the age of five onwards they might be helping with the household chores or transplanting rice in the countryside — work that can add to the security of the family. So their parents might well ask themselves: How many children do we need?

These two different questions produce —not surprisingly — two different answers. Parents in rich countries nowadays want on average two children per family — while in the poor world the number of children wanted is on average between three and five - according to the 1983 State of World Population Report from the United Nations Fund for Population Activities.

At present there are four and a half billion people in the world: a number that will at least double in the future. The UNFPA Report says that world population could eventually stabilize at around 10.2 billion towards the end of the next century. But for population growth finally to come to a stop the number of children will have to be no more than needed for replacement. This will mean parents on average choosing to have only two children.

We are a long way from that. And the extent of the distance to go is indicated by the results of a survey by the East-West Population Institute in Hawaii. If parents everywhere are to have just two children they will have to see children in much the same light. This survey asked parents in many countries what they saw to be the advantages and disadvantages of having children. The differences revealed by the answers were striking.

In Ghana, for example, 64 per cent of women said that they had children chiefly for the economic and practical help they gave. In Peru this figure rose to 80 per cent.

But in the United States — as in other Western countries the economic benefits paled to insignificance, only being given as the most important reason by five per cent of the women surveyed. Companionship and happiness was what most motivated nearly half of US mothers. The majority of the rest sought psychological benefits from rearing children including, for example, the satisfaction that many parents get by experiencing the world anew through their offspring.

A levelling off in world population is more than a hundred years away but only if by then we can get to the point where Third World parents need, want — and can choose to have — two children on average. Without this the population plateau will remain an unattainable and distant feature on the horizon.

The main reasons for having children are shown below, along with the percentage of
parents choosing each as the most important In poorer countries, where children are
seen more as a financial asset birth-rates are higher.

[image, unknown]

Source: East-West Population Institute.

[image, unknown]

[image, unknown] SANITATION[image, unknown]

VIP toilets
Tackling the lethal taboo

EVEN in Biblical times people were advised to ‘turn back and cover that which cometh from thee’ (Deuteron. 23:13). But this basic environmental duty is still not observed in many parts of the world — a negligence that produces dangerous health hazards.

The threat comes mainly from human waste infected with diseases, such as cholera and typhoid fever. These are then transmitted either by flies or other insects or a contaminated water supply.

Management of excreta is not a topic that generates much public interest. But according to the World Health Organization some 15 million children below the age of five die in developing countries every year partly due to the absence of sanitation. Diarrhoea alone kill six million children every year and contributes to the death of another 18 million. Parasitic worms infect nearly half the people in developing countries.

In Western countries excreta are flushed into sewers and the wastewater is purified at a treatment plant. But according to Dr Krisno Nimpuno, who recently chaired a seminar on human waste in Bangkok. Thailand, ‘flush and forget’, sewerage systems are too expensive for poor communities.

The best known cheap alternative is the pit latrine — basically a hole in the ground. But the pit has odours that attract flies and rodents and can sometimes pollute groundwater. So a new ‘VIP’ latrine. (‘Ventilated Improved Pit’) has now been designed which does not give off odours and is both clean and safe. Many African countries have satisfactorily adopted it and in Zimbabwe a locally made VIP costs only $8.

But there are many social factors as well as technical ones which determine a community’s toilet customs. In one Central American country, for instance, despite health education programmes, women did not use public latrines. Subsequent studies revealed that the women felt going to the latrine was a private function and since the walls of the toilet did not cover their feet, they refused to use it.

Waste disposal is a collective concern that requires the active co-operation of all. But sanitation is a taboo subject. The solutions are there, but their application requires a lot more than technical expertise.

Kamon Pensrinukan, IDRC

[image, unknown]

[image, unknown] REFUGEES[image, unknown]

Fleeing Guatemala
Repression forces peasants into Mexico

DEPRESSION by the Guatemalan military government has now forced a large part of the rural population to migrate. More than half a million peasants have been uprooted during the last three years, of whom about one hundred and fifty thousand have crossed the border to seek refuge in Mexico. Close to 40,000 are concentrated in 36 camps situated along the border. The majority, however, is scattered in groups of a few families or in the inaccessible jungle of Chiapas where they are out of reach of all types of aid. Some have been taken by Mexican families who share their already scarce provisions.

Three-quarters of the refugees are children, for whom malnutrition is the main problem. All children under the age of five years show some signs of nutritional deficiency. Estimates made by the Mexican Secretariat of Health and by other organisations show that 20 per cent of the children have third-degree malnutrition.

Another health problem is the gunshot wounds. The Guatemala army has adopted the practice of contaminating the bullets with fecal material in order to cause grave infections in those wounded. It is quite common to see people die with light wounds which have been complicated by terrible infections.

The help of the Mexican Government and the United Nations has increased since the visit of the High Commissioner for Refugees, Paul Hartling, who announced aid of$1,700.000 for 1983. However, this is only for the refugees concentrated in the 36 camps, leaving out the rest of the immigrants. For those in the camps it amounts to about 8 cents a day each.

But in fact it is uncertainty and fear that continue to be the major problems for the refugees. In spite of the latest official declarations of help and protection, they still fear being expelled from the country.

[image, unknown]

[image, unknown] NUCLEAR ARMS [image, unknown]

Medical impotence
The consequences of warfare

[image, unknown] THE chances of victims of a nuclear attack receiving any medical attention at all are ‘next to nil’. This is the grim assessment of a ten-member expert committee in a report presented to the World Health Assembly in April.

There is no health service on earth, they pointedly say, that is geared to, or capable of, providing care for the injured or the dying during nuclear warfare, Even tending to those injured by blast, heat, or radiation from a one-megaton bomb would overwhelm a country’s medical resources. Although such a bomb is small by thermonuclear standards, it represents about an 80-fold increase over the 12.5 kilotons dropped on Hiroshima. ‘With facilities and supplies reduced, the capacity of the surviving medical personnel to provide adequate care, or even to provide first aid to keep the victims alive, would be next to nil,’ the experts state.

The view is corroborated by a US case study cited in the report which assumes a half of Boston’s population are casualties of a one-megaton bomb, with 700,000 estimated as dead and an equal number injured.

Even on the assumption that the rest of the country were spared devastation, and thus could divert all medical resources to the stricken city, this ‘would not suffice’.

The experts calculated in their report the consequences of three hypothetical situations:

1. A single megaton bomb dropped on a city the size of London. This, they say. would kill than 1.5 million people and injure as many more.

2. A war with small tactical weapons, totalling 20 megatons, and limited to military targets in central Europe. This would exact a toll of about nine million dead and seriously injured, plus about the same number of people with less severe injuries —a total of 18 million casualties.

3. A full-scale war, with 10,000 megatons of nuclear power unleashed — 90 per cent in Europe, Asia and North America, ten per cent in Africa, Latin America and Oceania. This ‘would result in about 1,150 million dead and 1,100 million people injured’. Or , put another way: ‘Altogether about half of the world’s population would be the immediate victims of war’.

Rescue work would be ‘scarcely other than makeshift’ with the death rate of health workers ‘greater than that of the general population because of their exposure to radiation, disease and other hazards’. As a result, ‘the majority of casualties would probably be left without medical attention of any kind’.

Peter Ozorio, WHO

[image, unknown]

[image, unknown] SOCIALISM[image, unknown]

Smashing the iron rice bowl
Chinese workers prodded by incentives

CHINESE shop assistants, notoriously offhand with customers in the past, are now vying with each other to offer good service. They have not only corrected their lax timekeeping, which often meant a 50-minute lunch break instead of the specified 30 minutes, but opening hours in many shops have now been extended.

[image, unknown] China’s biggest iron and steel works has achieved a 20 per cent annual profit increase since 1979. A collectively-owned construction company has proved to be more efficient than a more technically advanced publicly-owned one. And once-bankrupt stores now take huge sums of money daily from their customers.

Under the old system, the state assigned every worker a job for life, with low but guaranteed wages an ‘iron rice bowl’, the Chinese called it. No matter how hard or little the employee worked, the reward was the same or, as another Chinese saying put it, ‘everybody ate out of the same big pot’.

If an enterprise lost money, the state baled it out. Managements, accountable to no-one in particular, were bureaucratic and inefficient and since they handed over all profits to the State, there was no motive to raise production.

But under the new system the iron rice bowl is smashed. Workers are guaranteed only 70 or 80 per cent of their former pay; what they earn above that depends on their diligence.

The job-for-life principle is on the way out too. Workers are now hired on fixed-term contracts (usually renewable) which specify the circumstances under which they might lose their jobs.

Management reform is also under way. Managers have more personal responsibility for fulfilling state quotas, but also have greater flexibility including the right to award bonuses and to hire and fire middle-level office workers. They themselves face the sack if they do not come up to scratch. Instead of handing over all their profits to the state, enterprises now pay taxes and keep some of what they make. Unproductive ones face closure.

The days when the state was the sole provider of work have also ended. Much of the responsibility has now been handed to local neighbourhoods, which are creating thousands of small businesses, especially in the service sector with shops, cafes, hairdressers, electricians and shoe repairers. Individuals are now encouraged to start their own small trades and may themselves hire a limited number of workers.

The success of the responsibility system was first proved in agriculture, where farmers were allowed to sell surplus produce on the open market once they had fulfilled their state quota and also to run profitable sidelines such as raising animals or growing vegetables. The annual average peasant income per head as a result increased from $67 to $112 over three years.

[image, unknown] The Shoudu Iron and Steel Works just outside Beijing was the first individual plant to try the new system. And such was the success that the responsibility system is being encouraged throughout industry. By the middle of 1982 the changeover should have been completed in a quarter of China’s 42,000 state-owned industrial enterprises.

But there remains doubt in some minds whether certain transactions are ‘legitimate business’ or ‘illegal economic dealings’. Followers of the late Chairman Mao frown upon the responsibility system, which is one of the innovations inspired by senior politican Deng Xiao-ping.

To appease all views, the Chinese leadership will have to draw a careful line between bureaucratic control and free-for-all chaos.

But China’s biggest resource — its workforce — has entered the new system enthusiastically to judge by results so far.

Jane Marshall, Gemini

[image, unknown]

[image, unknown] TAKING ISSUE

Ashok Mitra

Ashok Mitra’s monthly column looks at one Indian family’s financial adventure.

The money man

They call themselves a savings and investment company. The agent, suave, pleasant to talk to, a could-well-be-a-film-star-but-some-how-missed-his-real-profession look about him, draws himself conspiratorially close and whispers into the ear of the house-wife: please keep your savings with us, we will offer you a tidy amount as interest, much more than the banks ever do. The banks offer you only 12 per cent, but we will give you as much as 48 per cent.

There will be a Sean Connery-ish wink here: we will, besides, pay you the interest, in cash, on the first of each month, right in your own home; look at the advantage of it, you are getting almost four times the interest the banks offer, you will have a steady monthly income at the beginning of every month, and, since the payment is in cash, no records will be kept, and you need not pay any tax on that extra income. In your income bracket the applicable rate of income tax is 30 per cent; therefore the effective rate of interest which the company is offering is really 70 per cent. Isn’t that simply wonderful?

Manika Pal, housewife, is bowled over. She is not aware of the intricacies of tax concealment, she is incapable of realising that the company is inviting her to be a common criminal, or that, if caught in the act, she could be sent away for hard labour for a minimum period of two years. Inflation is a great ethic-smasher. Month after month, food and clothing and house rent and power charges and water bills keep shooting up, but the family’s earnings remain where they were. Even moonlighting is out: there are too many already unemployed: they will not allow you to pick, even on the sly, a second job.

Manika Pal and her husband therefore succumb to the allure. They draw all the money out of their savings bank account, they borrow a hefty sum from the husbands provident fund account. Manika goes a step further and sells most of her jewels: it all adds up to a nice kitty, which they hand over to the agent. Nothing could be lovelier for the first six months. On the first day of each month, the agent would drop in and present a Sealed, elegant-looking envelope; it would contain ten crisp one hundred rupee notes, as much as the husband’s monthly salary. There would be much exchange of bonhomie, the agent would have his cup of tea and slice of cake, and take leave, promising a still higher rate of interest once the company is able to consolidate its investments.

On the seventh month, the agent did not come. Manika waited a week, and then sent a note to the agent, full of anxious enquiries on the state of his health. The letter came back, undelivered. Manika and her husband decided to call on the agent at the office of the savings-and-investment outfit. They were not the only ones calling. Quite a crowd had collected outside the office, whose shutters were down, and no trace was to be had of the sponsors. In the course of about twenty months, the company had drawn something like 2,000 million rupees 200 million dollars from the likes of Manika and her husband. They had not bothered to make any investments at all: a part of the money they collected each month they had used to pay the interest for the accumulated deposits. But the bulk — as much as 180 million dollars had simply been stashed away in property and assets in fictitious names.

In such cases, the government in a poor country always moves a little late. The birds have flown, the money is gone, inflation adds just another footnote to social history. Manika is without her jewels, her husband has lost all his savings. Suckers of the world, unite, you have nothing to lose by your illusions.

Previous page.
Choose another issue of NI.
Go to the contents page.
Go to the NI home page.
Next page.

New Internationalist issue 126 magazine cover This article is from the August 1983 issue of New Internationalist.
You can access the entire archive of over 500 issues with a digital subscription. Subscribe today »


Help us produce more like this

Editor Portrait Patreon is a platform that enables us to offer more to our readership. With a new podcast, eBooks, tote bags and magazine subscriptions on offer, as well as early access to video and articles, we’re very excited about our Patreon! If you’re not on board yet then check it out here.

Support us »

Subscribe   Ethical Shop