Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T00:21:20.126Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

World Population Growth, Family Planning, and American Foreign Policy

Part of: JPH 30th Anniversary Most Cited

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2011

John Sharpless
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The U.S. government position on world population growth as it emerged in the early 1960s was a fundamental departure in both content and commitment. We embraced the idea that one of the goals of American foreign policy should be the simultaneous reduction of both mortality and fertility across the Third World. It was not simply rhetoric. As the years passed, we committed a growing portion of our foreign aid to that end. The decision to link U.S. foreign-policy objectives with the subsidy of family planning and population control was truly exceptional in that it explicitly aimed at altering the demographic structure of foreign countries through long-term intervention. No nation had ever set in motion a foreign-policy initiative of such magnitude. Its ultimate goal was no less than to alter the basic fertility behavior of the entire Third World! Whether one views this goal as idealistic and naive or as arrogant and self-serving, the project was truly of herculean proportions.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Policy History , Volume 7 , Special Issue 1: The Politics of Abortion and Birth Control in Historical Perspective , January 1995 , pp. 72 - 102
Copyright
Copyright © The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. 1995

References

Notes

1. Research for this essay was funded by grants from the Social Science Research Council, the Rockefeller Archive Center, and the Graduate School of the University of Wisconsin. None of these institutions is responsible for the opinions expressed. I wish to thank Wendy Sundby for her editorial assistance in the final preparation of the manuscript.

2. Teitelbaum, Michael S. and Winters, J. M., Fear of Population Decline (Orlando, 1985)Google Scholar.

3. Glass, D. V., The Struggle for Population (Oxford, 1936)Google Scholar and Population Policies and Movements in Europe (Oxford, 1940)Google Scholar.

4. For a discussion of the pro-family social and political environment in the United States during the 1940s and 1950s, see Mintz, Steven and Kellogg, Susan, Domestic Revolutions: A Social History of the American Family (New York, 1988), 177–94Google Scholar; Jones, Landon, Great Expectations: America and the Baby Boom (New York, 1980), 11–35Google Scholar. For Canada, see Banting, Keith G., The Welfare State and Canadian Federalism (Kingston, Ontario, 1982)Google Scholar, passim. For France and comparisons elsewhere, see Sauvy, Alfred, General Theory of Population (New York, 1969)Google Scholar. See also Leroy, Marcel, Population and World Politics: The Interrelationships Between Demographic Factors and International Relations (Leiden, 1978), 11–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5. Reed, James, The Birth Control Movement and American Society: From Private Vice to Public Virtue (Princeton, 1984), 263–69Google Scholar; Kennedy, David M., Birth Control in America: The Career of Margaret Sanger (New Haven, 1970), 259–67Google Scholar.

6. de Arellano, Annett B. Ramirez and Seipp, Conrad, Colonialism, Catholicism, and Contraception: A History of Birth Control in Puerto Rico (Chapel Hill, 1983), 30–56Google Scholar; Presser, H. B., Sterilization and Fertility Decline in Puerto Rico, Population Monograph Series, no. 13 (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1973)Google Scholar.

7. Chesler, Ellen, Woman of Valor: Margaret Sanger and the Birth Control Movement in America (New York, 1993), 355–70Google Scholar; Reed, The Birth Control Movement and American Society, chap. 22.

8. Chandrasekhar, S., Population and Planned Parenthood in India (London, 1955), 75–78Google Scholar.

9. Report of the Health Survey and Development Committee (New Delhi, 1946), 2:486–87Google Scholar.

10. Crocker, W. R., The Japanese Population Problem: The Coming Crisis (New York, 1931)Google Scholar; Dennery, Etienne, Asia's Teeming Millions, and Its Problems for the West (London, 1931)Google Scholar; Carr-Saunders, A. M., World Population: Past Growth and Present Trends (Oxford, 1936, 1937), 260–94, 220–29Google Scholar.

11. Anderson, David M., “Depression, Dust Bowl, Demography, and Drought: The Colonial State and Soil Conservation in East Africa During the 1930s,” African Affairs 83 (1984): 321–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12. May, Elaine Tyler, Homeward Bound: American Families in the Cold War Era (New York, 1988), 135–61Google Scholar; Piotrow, Phyllis T., World Population Crisis: The United States Response (New York, 1973), 15–17Google Scholar; Chesler, Woman of Valor, 371–95.

13. Thompson, Warren S., Population and Peace in the Pacific (Chicago, 1946)Google Scholar; Nef, John U., War and Human Progress: An Essay on the Rise of Industrial Civilization (Cambridge, Mass., 1950)Google Scholar; Bouthoul, Gaston, Les Guerrs: Eléments de Polémologie (Paris, 1951)Google Scholar.

14. In the records of the Economic Cooperation Administration (a predecessor of USAID) are files dealing directly with the development of the colonial area held by our European allies. The strategic materials problem is only one of a number of issues that concern U.S. development planners. A complete listing would be impossible here. As an initial entry into this material, see Record Group 469, “Strategic Materials,” Box 12 (one of three), Overseas Territories Division, Subject Files (1949–51), Special Representative in Europe (National Archives, Washington, D.C.).

15. Vogt, William, Road to Survival (New York, 1948)Google Scholar; Osborn, Fairfield, Our Plundered Planet (Boston, 1948)Google Scholar. See also Osborn's, The Limits of the Earth (Boston, 1953)Google Scholar.

16. The division between the “agricultural optimist” and the “population growth pessimists” has been a constant in the great population debate since the time of Malthus. Early in the twentieth century the food-crisis argument was posed by Thompson, Warren S., Population: A Study in Malthusianism (New York, 1915)Google Scholar, and East, Edward M., Mankind at the Crossroads (New York, 1924)Google Scholar. These works, however, often muddled the food/resource argument with the eugenics issues of race and differential mortality. In the postwar period that debate reemerged, this time more technical in style and much less eugenic in tone. See Schultz, Theodore W., ed., Food for the World (Chicago, 1945)Google Scholar; London International Assembly Conference Report, Freedom from Want of Food (London, 1944)Google Scholar; United Nations, The State of Food and Agriculture (Rome, 1953)Google Scholar.

17. Sharpless, J. B., “The Rockefeller Foundation, the Population Council, and the Groundwork for New Population Policies,” Rockefeller Archive Center Newsletter (Fall 1993): 1–4Google Scholar; Reed, The Birth Control Movement and American Society, 283–89: Harr, John E. and Johnson, Peter J., The Rockefeller Century (New York, 1988), chap. 23Google Scholar.

18. Population Council, The Population Council: A Chronicle of the First Twenty-five Years, 1952–1977 (New York, 1978)Google Scholar; Harr, John and Johnson, Peter, The Rockefeller Conscience (New York, 1991), chap. 3Google Scholar.

19. Caldwell, John and Caldwell, Pat, Limiting Population Growth and the Ford Foundation Contribution (Dover, N.H., 1986), 59–128, 143–50Google Scholar.

20. Actually two essays form the basis of the “Malthusian tradition”: the “first essay,” of 1798, entitled An Essay on the Principle of Population as it Affects the Further Improvement of Society (Harmondsworth, 1970)Google Scholar, and the “second essay,” An Essay on the Principles of Population (London, 1803)Google Scholar.

21. Thompson, Warren, “Population,” American Journal of Sociology 34 (May 1929): 959–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22. See, for example, Notestein, Frank W., “Summary of the Demographic Background of Problems of Undeveloped Areas,” in International Approaches to Problems of Underdeveloped Areas (New York, 1948)Google Scholar.

23. Hodgson, Dennis, “Demography as Social Science and Policy Science,” Population and Development Review 9 (March 1983): 1–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24. Perhaps the most influential contribution to this controversy was the work of two economists, Ansley Coale and Edgar Hoover, who sought to calibrate the economic consequences of continued population growth in India; see Population Growth and Economic Development in Low-Income Countries (Princeton, 1958)Google Scholar. The book's influence on the theoretical debate over economic development and population growth cannot be underestimated. It is the “first footnote” in nearly all the subsequent academic literature. Its importance to government officials is shown by the fact that the Population Council distributed this book free to policymakers, demographers, and politicians throughout the Third World in the years following its publication.

25. May, Homeward Bound, 150–51.

26. Davis, Kingsley, “Population and Power in the Free World,” in Spengler, J. and Duncan, O. D., eds., Population Theory and Policy (Chicago, 1956), 356Google Scholar. See also Davis, Kingsley, “The Political Impact of New Population Trends,” Foreign Affairs Quarterly 36 (January 1958): 296Google Scholar, and Hauser, Philip M., ed., Preface, Population and World Politics (Glencoe, Ill., 1958), 14–15Google Scholar.

27. Draper, William et al. , President's Committee to Study the United States Military Assistance Program, Final Report (Washington, D.C., 1959), 94–97Google Scholar. For a detailed discussion of the background to the Draper Committee, see Piotrow, World Population Crisis, chap. 4.

28. The speech was reprinted as Population Growth: A World Problem, Statement of U. S. Policy (U.S. Department of State, January 1963). See also Richard N. Gardner, “The Politics of Population: A Blueprint for International Cooperation,” Department of State Bulletin (10 June 1963).

29. U.S. Senate, “Population Crisis,” Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Foreign Aid Expenditures of the Committee on Government Operations, 90th Congress, November 2, 1967–February 1, 1968 [Published in Four Parts] (Washington, D.C., 1967–68). For background on the Gruening Hearings, see Gruening, Ernest, Many Battles: The Autobiography of Ernest Gruening (New York, 1973)Google Scholar, and Piotrow, World Population Crisis, chap. 11.

30. Symonds, Richard and Carder, Michael, The United Nations and the Population Question, 1945–1970 (London, 1973)Google Scholar.

31. United Nations, Final Act of the International Conference on Human Rights, Tehran, April 22 to May 13, 1968, U.N. Doc A/Conf. 32/41, para. 16.

32. Warwick, Donald P., Bitter Pills: Population Policies and Their Implementation in Eight Developing Countries (Cambridge, 1982)Google Scholar.

33. U.S. National Archives, Record Group 237 [Documents and Memoranda of the National Security Council], NSSM 200, “Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests” (10 December 1974), declassified, 1989.

34. Ehrlich, Paul, The Population Bomb (New York, rev. ed., 1971)Google Scholar; William, and Paddock, Paul, Famine 1975 (Boston, 1967)Google Scholar; Tydings, Joseph, Born to Starve (New York, 1970)Google Scholar; Borgstrom, Georg, The Hungry Planet (New York, 1967)Google Scholar.

35. Jason L. Finkle and Barbara B. Crane, “The Politics of Bucharest: Population, Development, and the New International Economic Order,” Population and Development Review 1 (September 1975): 87–113.

36. The argument for coercion is stated boldly in Ehrlich's Population Bomb, but the basic logic is detailed in a famous essay by Hardin, Garrett, “The Tragedy of the Commons,” Science 180 (December 1969): 1243–48Google Scholar.

37. For a review of trends in family planning policies, see Mauldin, W. Parker and Ross, John A., “Family Planning Programs: Efforts and Results, 1982–89,” Studies in Family Planning 22 (November–December 1991): 350–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38. Michaelson, Karen L., “Population Theory and the Political Economy of Population Processes,” in And the Poor Get Children, Michaelson, Karen L., ed. (New York, 1981), 19Google Scholar.

39. Bauer, P[eter] J., Equality, the Third World, and Economic Delusion (Cambridge, Mass., 1981), 64Google Scholar. See also Simon, Julian, The Ultimate Resource (Princeton, 1981)Google Scholar; Simon, J., The Economics of Population Growth (Princeton, 1977)Google Scholar.

40. Pope Paul VI, “Address to the General Assembly,” United Nations, 20th Session, 1965; 1347th Plenary Meeting, 4.

41. Hartmann, Betsy, Reproductive Rights and Wrongs: The Global Politics of Population Control and Contraceptive Choice (New York, 1987), xivGoogle Scholar.

42. Mass, Bonnie, Population Target: The Political Economy of Population Control in Latin America (Toronto, 1976)Google Scholar; Hartmann, Reproductive Rights and Wrongs, 217–20, 237–41; Warwick, Donald, “The Ethics of Population Control,” in Roberts, Godfrey, ed., Population Policy: Contemporary Issues (New York, 1990), 21–37Google Scholar; Rolt, Francis, Pills, Policies, and Profit (London, 1985)Google Scholar.

43. The idea of an international conspiracy to assure the continuation of neo-Malthusian propaganda is discussed by Julian Simon in “The Population, Corruption, and Reform,” in G. Roberts, ed., Population Policy: Contemporary Issues, 39–59.

44. For a review of this debate and its relationship to ecological issues, see Keyfitz, Nathan, “Population and Development Within the Ecosphere: One View of the Literature,” Population Index 57 (Spring 1991): 5–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45. An enormous amont of bureaucratic energy was expended in the controversy surrounding the ouster of Dr. Rei Ravenholt, who had served as director of the Population Program at USAID since the Johnson years. His controversial style had offended many in the family planning community. His removal in the Carter years corresponded with a reorganization of the Population Program, which gave more power to USAID regional directors. See Donaldson, Peter J., Nature Against Us: The United States and the World Population Crisis (Chapel Hill, 1990), 76–92Google Scholar.

46. James L. Buckley, “U.S. Commitment to International Population Planning,” a statement presented to the International Conference on Population, Mexico City, 8 August 1984, Current Policy no. 604 (Washington, D.C., 1984). See also Finkle, Jason L. and Crane, Barbara B., “Ideology and Politics at Mexico City: The United States at the 1984 International Conference on Population,” Population and Development Review 11 (March 1985): 1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pool, Ian, “From Bucharest to Mexico: The Politics of International Population Conferences,” New Zealand Population Review 11 (1985): 52–63Google Scholar.

47. Camp, Sharon and Lasher, C. R., “International Family Planning Policy: A Chronicle of the Reagan Years,” Working Paper (DRAFT COPY), Population Crisis Committee (Washington, D.C., 1989)Google Scholar.

48. Clinton, Bill and Gore, Al, Putting People First: How We Can All Change America (New York, 1992), 93–99Google Scholar.

49. Gore, Al, Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit (Boston, 1992), 307–14Google Scholar.