Population decline: Greatest threat to humanity
(Part 5)
How can the Philippines avoid the worst results of falling fertility rates with the consequent population decline and rapid ageing? We shall now study the past, present and future of Philippine demographics.
After the Philippines obtained its independence in 1946, the country had a very high fertility rate which was typical of the world-wide “baby boom.” Fertility rates were as high as six to seven babies per fertile woman. There were, however, also high infant and maternal mortality rates. The population then was predominantly rural. Children were seen as economic resources, especially in agriculture; social security for old age; and blessings from God, consistent with traditional Filipino and Catholic values.
During the 1960s, the rapid population growth started to worry development planners as infrastructure, schools, and jobs lagged behind population growth. Unfortunately, there was a strong population-control bias among international institutions like the World Bank and US Agency for International Aid (USAID) that believed in the facile theory that in order to increase the per capita income of the developing nations, it was necessary to reduce the denominator, i.e., the number of heads.
They ignored the obvious fact that people are the ultimate resources, as taught by famous economist Julian L. Simon who argued that human ingenuity and creativity are the “ultimate resources” and not natural resources. They were blind to the fact that population growth, when combined with freedom and innovation, can lead to greater prosperity, not scarcity. Human beings are problem solvers, not merely consumers of finite resources. These ideas were diametrically opposed to the pessimistic views of British economic historian Thomas Malthus and Paul Ehrlich, the author of the book Population Bomb that was the bible of the pill and condom pushers. One does not have to be an economist or economic historian to know that Malthus’ prophecies of doom (i.e., worldwide starvation and death) were way off the mark. There was no worldwide shortage of food. In fact, advanced technology enabled countries like the US to produce millions of tons of surplus food, so much that they were forced to throw food away. This prompted the late Pope Francis to coin the phrase “throw away culture.”
In the 1970s, part of the demographic dividend paid off as Filipino workers were in great demand in labor-scarce countries abroad, especially in the Middle East. At first considered as a temporary solution, the overseas Filipino worker (OFW) phenomenon became a permanent feature so that today there are more than 10 million OFWs remitting some $40 billion yearly to the Philippines, which constitutes close to 10% of GDP.
Unfortunately, the exit of millions of Filipino workers constituted both a brain drain as well as a cause of lower birth rates as family separation took its toll.
The good news is that remittances give a big boost to consumption which has been the strong engine of growth of the economy. The bad news is that overdependence on remittances is postponing the restructuring of the whole economy so that there could be the necessary productivity increase in the deployment of labor in the various economic sectors for long-term sustainable growth.
This overdependence of OFW remittances could cause the Philippines to become ensnared in the so-called Middle-Income Trap. This can be avoided, however, if the country invests heavily in the reskilling, upskilling, and retooling of its workers, especially in technical skills and in the so-called Industrial Revolution 4.0 (Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, Internet of Things and Data Analytics).
At the start of the third millennium, fertility started to decline so that now it stands at 1.9 to 2.0 babies per fertile woman, already below the replacement rate. This places the country in a demographic transition, remaining still young (the median age is still the lowest in the Indo-Pacific region at 26) with the population still growing at less than 1% annually.
According to Fitch Solutions unit BMI, Generation Alpha, or those born between 2021 and 2024, will make up 27% of the Philippine population in 2030, positioning it to become a major consumer market. As of December 2025, the total Philippine population was estimated to be 117 million, 49.3% of which is urban (as compared to 27% in the 1950s). Assuming that fertility remains near 1.9 through the mid-century, the population in 2055 is projected to be 139 million. The country is still gifted with a demographic dividend with a large working-age population and slower growth of dependents. This endows it with the potential to benefit from its young population — as long as there are higher investments in education and skills development (4-5% of GDP) and productivity is increased, especially in the service sector which accounts for more than 60% of the labor force.
Also crucial is a significant increase in the productivity of the agricultural sector through higher investments in farm to market roads, irrigation systems, post-harvest facilities, agricultural extension and credit services, and other resources needed by the small farmers, especially in the rice sector, to be more productive. Side by side with the assistance to small farmers should be complementary efforts to consolidate part of the small farms into larger units so that there can be diversification into higher-value commercial crops like coffee, cacao, bamboo, mangoes, cashew, avocado, and pili nuts that can significantly increase the agricultural exports of the Philippines, following the very successful Vietnamese model.
Given what has happened to most of its East Asian neighbors, the Philippines should avoid rapid ageing before it becomes rich. This will happen if the fertility rate drops precipitously below its present 1.9 babies per fertile woman as has happened in South Korea and Spain.
The Philippines should do its best to maintain fertility around the replacement level, invest heavily in education and health, strengthen families and the “inviolable” institution of marriage, and use migration strategically. Unlike many ageing societies, the Philippines still has a very high value placed on children, strong kinship networks, and extensive religious support for family life (from both its two major religions, Christianity and Islam). These should all be considered demographic assets and not obstacles (as wrongly presented by the population control propagandists who have done so much damage to those who are now ageing irreversibly).
The Philippines should very actively harness its Catholic traditions. As we have seen in a previous column, Catholic Social Teaching (which highly influenced the writing of the Philippine Constitution of 1987) clearly espouses that:
a.) life is a gift, not a variable to be minimized. From this follows the need for constant vigilance of the Catholic (and Muslim) populations to make sure that the anti-abortion provision found in the Philippine Constitution should never be removed through a Charter Change (Chacha) process;
b.) the family is the basic unit of society and should be protected by the State from disintegration, one unique policy of which is the prohibition of divorce;
c.) population policy must support the strengthening of families, not to put undue pressure on them;
d.) intergenerational solidarity is a moral duty;
e.) a purely technocratic approach to demographics, as promoted by some international agencies, would undermine Filipino culture and would weaken long-term resilience of society.
(To be continued.)
Bernardo M. Villegas has a Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard, is professor emeritus at the University of Asia and the Pacific, and a visiting professor at the IESE Business School in Barcelona, Spain. He was a member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission.
