Basil Jarrett | Is two still better than too many? – Part 2

LAST WEEK I wrote about the real possibility that Jamaica was facing a crisis of having a rapidly ageing population, and asked if we, as a country, were concerned about our Total Fertility Rate (TFR) of 1.9. Against the background that a TFR of 2.1 is required to keep the total population constant, I also asked if we were running the risk of the attendant burdens that come with an ageing population, namely, a shrinking labour force, an increased per capita burden of taxation, decreased innovation, a slower economy and greater healthcare demands due to an abundance of geriatric diseases. I also highlighted the example of Japan, where its TFR of 1.4 has led to an ageing crisis, most alarmingly illustrated when sales of adult diapers exceeded those of baby diapers in the early 2000s.

That article generated some amount of mail, phone calls, WhatsApp messages and heated debate about what was really happening in Jamaica. Part of the problem, some argued, is that the explanation about women waiting longer to have kids only explains what was happening in a fraction of the society. Despite seismic changes in women accessing careers and higher education, a large majority of our women who do not move on to university or to these lofty managerial positions are still having more than two children, they surmised. In other words, the Judith Johnsons from those ‘Two is Better Than Two Many’ TV commercials of the 1980s are doing their part by having fewer and fewer kids, while the Bev Browns are still very much holding up the team with more and more children being born in less-than-ideal socio-economic conditions. The rapid decline in TFR, they argued, was due mostly to a smaller section of the childbearing society adhering to the two is better philosophy, as opposed to an across-the-board reduction.

SEARCHING FOR ANSWERS

Having declared openly that I am not an expert on population growth and do not have any academic qualifications in sexual and reproductive health or eugenics, I willingly conceded to some of the points and counterpoints raised. What I do have, however, is a curious and analytical mind, and when I encounter questions that I cannot answer, I seek out the assistance of those who can.

So I reached out to the Statistical Institute of Jamaica (STATIN) to help shed some light on the deeper meaning behind the population growth and birth rate numbers released by the National Family Planning Board (NFPB) two weeks ago. In my experience, journalists, with the best of intentions, aren’t always able to capture the full picture when covering stories that are deeply statistical and require complex analysis to unravel. I did expect then that my sojourn would take me down a complex path of theories, hypotheses, margins of error and confidence intervals. STATIN was very helpful in directing me to the NFPB website where the full document, in all its 422-page glory was to be found.

WEALTH DISPARITIES

And there it was. Chock-full of valuable and insightful data and analysis and I tip my hat to the good folks at STATIN who put it together. I tried my utmost not to be distracted by the huge amount of data and the enormous wealth of information on topics such as maternal and infant health, contraceptive knowledge and use, sterilisation, HIV/AIDS and intimate partner violence, among others. Important stuff and certainly deserving of a few late nights. But I was here to answer one question. Did the Bev Browns outnumber the Judith Johnsons as some had suggested? In other words, were low-income women still having more children than those in the mid to upper-income sections of society? Or was our TFR consistent across the board? Well, as I learnt, the answer is yes and no.

According to the report, women in the lowest and second lowest wealth quintiles were still having more children than those in the mid to highest earning brackets. Just not by as much as you’d think. Those second lower and lowest-income women had a TFR of 2.1 and 2.2, respectively, while their better-off counterparts were having 1.8 (middle class), 1.9 (middle upper class) and 1.5 (upper class) children. From the survey data, therefore, younger females with secondary or post-secondary education, and those in wealthier quintiles were more likely to have fewer children or to be childfree. Teen pregnancy, it also noted, is more prevalent among socially disadvantaged youths, precipitating school dropout and lower educational attainment, alongside other health, social and economic disadvantages. As Jamaica and countries worldwide continue to see lower fertility rates, therefore, the report warned, our population is slowly transitioning from a structure with a bulging reproductive age cohort to an ageing population.

MORE BEV BROWNS

I came away from reading that report with a far deeper appreciation of what was happening in Jamaica today. It was now clear to me that not only are we on the brink of having an older society with all the attendant pitfalls, but a deeper conversation needs to be had, when these numbers are juxtaposed against what is happening in other critical areas such as education and crime. For instance, is the fact that the majority of our children are being born into poor, ‘Bev Brown’ families one of the drivers behind our challenges with education, given that poor families struggle more to send their children to school? And what about the high incidence of crime that is also a feature of those communities where Bev Browns live? Are those two problem areas inextricably linked to our population and reproductive dynamics? And if so, how are these numbers being integrated and factored into our discussions around solving our education and security challenges?

But let’s get back to our original question around our ageing population. To my mind, if half of the solution to avoiding a Japan-life scenario is for the Judith Johnsons to start having a few more kids, then the other half of the equation must be for the Bev Browns to be given more support in the form of greater prenatal care, subsidised childcare, paid parental leave and, most importantly, greater investment in early childhood education. After all, as John F. Kennedy told the United States Committee for UNICEF in 1963, “Children are the world’s most valuable resource and our best hope for the future.”

Major Basil Jarrett is a communications strategist and CEO of Artemis Consulting, a communications consulting firm specialising in crisis communications and reputation management. Follow him on Twitter, Instagram, Threads @IamBasilJarrett and linkedin.com/in/basiljarrett. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com