6:25:37 PM

New Head of UN Population Division

Earlier this month the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (you may have heard of it as “DESA”) received a new director for its Population Division, John R. Wilmoth.  Wilmoth was previously a professor at the University of California at Berkeley and has also worked at the DESA population division before. From 2005-2007 he was Chief of its Mortality Section. (Imagine having that as your job title? “Hello, I’m Chief of the Mortality Section”. I’m sure that that’s a conversation stopper at parties...)

 So what exactly does the Population Division of DESA actually do?  Luckily for all of us, Wilmoth has told us:

“The Population Division serves two key roles, both equally important and unique. First, we produce the “estimates of record” for monitoring world population patterns and trends, including projections of future trends. Our estimates of population size are a critical component of some of the most widely cited indicators used for monitoring social and economic development, including literacy rates and GDP per capita.... Second, the Population Division services the intergovernmental discussion of topics related to population trends and processes, by producing authoritative studies, in-depth data analyses, and thoughtful interpretations and commentaries.”

In essence then, the Population Division produces statistics and studies about the world’s population and its trends. As for those trends, Wilmoth identifies three that he sees as important for the world’s future:

“I think most people would agree that the three major trends are: population growth, population ageing, and migration (both within and between countries). Each of these presents important challenges to Member States and to the UN system, but we should not forget about the opportunities... A similar principle applies in the case of population growth or ageing. It is seldom true that a particular population trend is inherently good or bad.”

Wilmoth therefore has a somewhat more nuanced view on population growth than many others, which is good to see in someone at such a level in the UN.  What is also refreshing to see is his hesitation about the possibility of making cast-iron predictions about our demographic future:

“Demographers often make projections of future population trends and can be surprised when reality diverges from their forecasts – but that is the nature of this business. An earlier generation of demographers was surprised by the extremely rapid growth of populations in the decades after the Second World War, which was caused by the Baby Boom in industrialized countries and by very rapid reductions of mortality in the less developed regions. For my generation I suppose the two biggest surprises have been the phenomenal speed and depth of fertility decline, and the persistent increase of human longevity.”

As Wilmoth elaborates, these two surprises took earlier population experts by surprise (maybe they even took a certain Paul Erlich by surprise? Perhaps not, he seems quite oblivious). Anyway, back to Wilmoth:

Fertility levels have fallen substantially in most regions, far beyond what most observers expected 50 years ago...In many parts of Europe and East Asia, fertility is now well below two children per woman, and some populations have started to shrink in size. Such low fertility accelerates the process of population ageing, with substantial implications for government budgets given the high costs of old-age pensions and medical care. Mortality trends have offered surprises too. Fifty years ago many observers believed that human longevity was reaching an upper limit, since by then most deaths (at least in the more developed regions) were due to diseases of old age. Since around 1970, however, death rates at older ages in many countries have been falling at an unprecedented rate. Reductions have been rapid in particular for deaths due to heart disease and stroke.”

This is one of the reasons why we should be very reluctant to embark upon huge social change for the good of the future based upon future demographic projections. The inherent uncertainty in projecting what human beings will do in the future, (particularly in trying to project one of their most personal decisions: how many children they will have) is something that Wilmoth seems to be sensitive to:

"I expect that demographers will continue to be surprised by trends that do not follow our prior expectations. It is for this reason that the Population Division has worked hard in recent years to be more explicit and precise about the degree of uncertainty affecting projections of future population trends.”

Of course, whether policy makers choose to take heed of this uncertainty in formulating their plans remains to be seen.

to make a comment, click here

about this blog | Bookmark and Share

Search this blog

 Subscribe to Demography is Destiny
rss RSS feed of posts

 Recent Posts
Russia: Growing and More Assertive
14 Apr 2014
Japan’s Shrinking Role in the World
8 Apr 2014
Why you shouldn’t take alarmist population predictions seriously
6 Apr 2014
Is Single Occupancy Vandalising the Environment?
4 Apr 2014
Worldwide migration: a constant factor
1 Apr 2014

 MercatorNet blogs
Style and culture: Tiger Print
Family social policy: Family Edge
US political scene: Sheila Liaugminas
News about bioethics: BioEdge
From the editors: Conniptions

Apr 2014 | Mar 2014 | Feb 2014 | Jan 2014 | more >>

 From MercatorNet's home page

A deal with the devil
11 Apr 2014
Why did American officials refuse to prosecute Japanese doctors who had committed horrendous crimes in World War II?

“Is this the upshot of your experiment?”
10 Apr 2014
A Nathaniel Hawthorne tale of scientific obsession sheds light on today's designer children.

Protecting the first “little platoon”
10 Apr 2014
Society needs family values - but not the faith they are based on? Where a liberal proposal falls down.

US defence policy in the wake of the Ukrainian affair
10 Apr 2014
Rethinking American strategy in the framework of conventional war against enemies fighting on their own terrain.

Why schools deny that bullying causes suicide
8 Apr 2014
They can't afford to take responsibility for their failed policies.

Save the Children, superbugs, sustainability, French-Canadians, Law, Jersey, Churchill, bankruptcy, Malthus, Population, baby boomers, Britain, Recession, superannuation, global hunger, retirement age, The Economist, Rome, society, Zimbabwe, Dan Brown, Food wastage, famine, Ukraine, census, Jonathan Sacks, Norman Borlaug, population projections, Vladimir Putin, working class, satire, pension, elderly, Sir Andrew Green, Educated women, US, city life, Phillipines, Budgeting, disability, Beneficiaries, food production, March for Life, declining population, Maternity Care, Europe, United States Elections, Latin America, Save the Children Fund, youth bulge, United States, grandchildren, low fertility trap, fertility rate, Manny Pacquiao, careers, Ted Turner, Latvia, total fertility rate, science, foetus, birth rates, birth rate, Ban Ki-moon, Asia, Lithuania, wealth, Ageing, Israel, centenarians, Christmas, Retirement, Vatican, New Zealand, Migration, loneliness, Cuba, fertility, China, Carbon Credits, election, Rugby World Cup, Population Association of America, immigration reform, ITU, travel, Japan earthquake, ramadan, forced sterilisation, HIV, Government spending, Auckland, EU, one child policy, internet, child restriction policy, Ehrlich, Finland, Malaysia, Crimea,
Follow MercatorNet
Sections and Blogs
Family Edge
Sheila Reports
Reading Matters
Demography Is Destiny
Conniptions (the editorial)
our ideals
our People
Mercator who?
partner sites
audited accounts
New Media Foundation
Suite 212
75 Archer Street
Chatswood NSW 2067

+61 2 9007 1187

© New Media Foundation 2014 | powered by Encyclomedia | designed by Elleston