Zero Population Growth: The Goal and the MeansAuthor(s): Kingsley DavisSource:

Daedalus,

Vol. 102, No. 4, The No-Growth Society (Fall, 1973), pp. 15-30Published by: The MIT Press on behalf of American Academy of Arts & SciencesStable URL:

Accessed: 17/07/2009 13:12

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress.Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with thescholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform thatpromotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The MIT Press

and

American Academy of Arts & Sciences

are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserveand extend access to

Daedalus.

http://www.jstor.org

KINGSLEYDAVISZeroPopulationGrowth:TheGoalandtheMeans

Whenin1967"zeropopulationgrowth"wasfirstmentionedas agoalofpopulationpolicy,1itwasnotitselfdefendedordiscussed;onlythemeansofreachingitwereconsidered. Sincethattime,with ZPGbecomingthenameforamovement,alivelydebatehas ensuedoverthegoalaswellasthemeans.Inwhatfollows,Ishallfirstconsidersomeof themaindevelopmentsinthedebate,thensearch for whatliesbehind thedebate,hopingtoilluminatethenatureofpopulationpolicy.IThequestionatissuewhen ZPGwasintroducedwaswhether thepopulation policiesthencurrentwereeffectiveorineffective.Toanswerthatquestion,oneobviouslyneededtoknowwhatgoalthepoliciesweretryingtoachieve.Asearch of theliteratureofthepopulationmovementrevealednoclearstatementofthegoal."Populationcontrol"couldnotbeconsideredagoal,becauseitdidnotspecify"control towhatend."However,sincepopulationcontrolwasfrequentlyjustifiedinthepolicyliteraturebygraphicaccountsof thedangersofpopulationincrease?dangersseldomspecificforgivenratesofincrease butascribedtoanycontinuedexponentialrate?Idrewtheconclusionthat theimpliedaim wasnopopulationgrowthatall.Itherefore undertooktodetermine whether thepopulationmeasuresbeing pursuedoradvocatedinofficialcircleswerelikelytoachieve ZPG.Althoughaprominentfellowdemographerdescribedme ashaving "vigorouslyendorsed" thegoalofZPG,2thequestionwassimply,ifZPGisthegoal,willthemeasuresbeing adoptedsucceedorfail?TheanswerwasindependentofwhetherIoranyoneelseactuallyheldthataim,but,assubsequentdebateproved,ZPGorevenNPG(negativepopulationgrowth)wasindeedacommonaspirationamongpeopleconcernedaboutpopulationgrowth.Myconclusionwasthatmeasuresthencurrentdidnotprovide populationcontrolforanycollectivepurpose,leastof allforpopulationstability.Limitedto"familyplanning"and hencetocouplecontrol,aboutallthey15

16KINGSLEY DAVIScouldaccomplishwould betohelpcountriesapproachingamoderncondition reachanindustriallevel offertility,aleveltheywouldsoonreachanyway.Anindustriallevel,however,is farabove ZPG.Between 1960and1970,forexample,thefiftyindustrialcountriesoftheworldincreased theirpopulationby14percent,aratethat woulddoubleitinlessthanfiftyyears.Asaclass thesecountrieshadamorerapidincreaseafterWorldWarIIthantheunderdevelopedcountrieseverhadbeforethat.ForZPGasagoal,itwasunfortunatethat theconceptfirstarose inthecontextofacritiqueoffamilyplanningasthe exclusiveapproachtopopulationpolicy.Thepowerfulinterests vestedinthisapproachreactedbyattackingnotonlytheidea thatothermeansthanfamilyplanningmightbenecessary,butalsothegoalofZPGitself.Spokesmenforthepopulationprogramsoffoundations,internationalagencies,andgovernmentbureaus?allcommittedtotheassumptionthatthepopulation problemisduetounwanted births(unwanted,thatis,bythepeoplewhohavethem)andthatthereforethe solutionistoprovidemassivecontraceptiveservices?feltthattheirleadershiphadbeenchallenged.Accusedeitherofnotpursuingagoalthatmanyoftheirardentsupportershadassumedtheywerepursuingand whichtheirownargumentsseemedtoimply,orelseofusingmeansincapableofreachingthatgoal,theyhadeithertodenythegoalortoaffirmtheadequacyof themeans.Actually, theybeganbydoingbothbutlateryieldedground,especiallywith referencetothegoal.Letusexamine

theargumentsandcounterarguments.

ZPGasaGoalTodeclarethatZPGwasnotthegoalofexistingpopulationprogramswasdangerous.Yetsoonafter theZPGconceptappeared,threeleadersofthepopulationmovementnotonlymadethis declaration butwentfurthertosaythatthefamily-planningprogram,atleastinthe UnitedStates,isnotforpopulationlimitationatall. "Thefederalprogram[offamilyplanning]hasbeenadvanced,"theysaid,"not forpopulationcontrol,buttoimprovehealthand reducetheimpactofpovertyanddeprivation."3Otherswerelesshasty.TheydidnotdirectlyrepudiateZPGas agoalbutpainteditsad

vocatesasnaive,unrealistic,orauthoritarian.Forinstance,theuncertain

timingofZPGwasusedas abasis forcriticism.ByinterpretingZPGadvocatesasdemandingZPGimmediately,critics couldaccusethemofbeingenthusiastsignorantofthe scienceofdemographywhowere unwittinglythreateningAmericanswithachildembargo.Ontheotherhand,byinterpretingthemaswantingZPGonlysometimeintheindefinitefuture,criticscouldsaythattheyweremerelyrecommendingthe inevitable.Thesepointsareworthexamining.ImmediateZPG wouldcertainly requireadrastic reductioninfertility.Sinceexistingsocieties havehadmorebirthsthandeaths,theirage