Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980605145635.0070d9d4@popact.org>
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 1998 14:56:36 -0500
To: ppn@csf.colorado.edu
From: Richard Cincotta <cincotta@popact.org>
Subject: Population, Poverty & Institutions
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Martha & PPNers,

(For me) Sen's article (Economics of Life and Death, Sc. Amer., May 1993)
and the recent article in JAMA demonstrate just how little people in
poverty actually benefit from (or participate in) modern institutions --
whether the institution in question is the market, or government policies &
programs. In fact, poverty seems less a function of income  than a lack of
access to institutions, particularly in developed countries. 

The conclusions of the JAMA research suggests to me that economics would
benefit from a better theoretical understanding of how modern
state-sanctioned institutions function -- and for whom. (Actually, the
classical economists did this for a living). Two modern authors -- Douglass
North and Irma Adelman -- have provided insight into how modern
institutions (e.g., markets & trade, policies, educational and health
programs, etc.) have evolved and function. 

[Now I'll blatantly promote my own work] Last year, Robert Engelman and I
put together an occasional paper entitled: "Economics & Rapid Change: the
Influence of Population Growth" (PAI Occasional Paper #3) which reviews an
emerging consensus in economics (which we call the "institutional thesis")
that population growth is mediated -- sometimes well, sometimes poorly --
by state-sanctioned institutions. We review that literature,  beginning
with the 1986 National Academy of Science study, and try to 'lay-out' the
institutional thesis.  

In short, we assert that recognizing the role of institutions in adjusting
to growth explains a great deal of the variation in economic response to
population growth, both across nations and within them. -- The
"institutional thesis," we find, makes substantial theoretical progress.
But we make a case that economists need to look even more closely at
institutions -- at how state-sanctioned institutions function, who makes
the rules, and who benefits when societies undergo rapid change (increased
needs for water, sanitation, schooling, food, etc.).

When institutional adjustment occurs, we find the losers to often be the
poor, the politically marginalized, many non-priced aspects of the
environment (such as other species), people and assets beyond borders, and
citizens of the future -- none of which are current "institutional
participants," nor have they much to say about the rules of institutions
(regardless of whether those institutions be market- or program-driven). In
this model, it is no surprise that the poor and the environment are losers
-- very often pitted against each other in lose-lose scenarios.  

Anyway, Occasional paper #3 can be obtained by requesting a copy from:
Akia Talbot  (atalbot@popact.org)

or downloading the paper from the web:  
   http://www.populationaction.org/why_pop/wealth.htm 


Richard P. Cincotta
Senior Research Assoc.
Population Action International
1120 19th St., NW
Suite 550
Washington, DC  20036
USA
(202)659-1833 x168
(202)293-1795 (fax)
cincotta@popact.org
See PAI Web site: http://www.populationaction.org/