OBEKTIV DISCUSSION CLUB
Can a demographic policy be put in place Four decades ago, the birth of the eight-millionth Bulgarian was loudly celebrated. At the time, those in power were planning and estimating, with all the happiness of a farmer whose animals are rapidly multiplying, when the nine million mark would be reached. But this point has not been reached. Since that time, the birth rate in Bulgaria - as in most other European countries - has been declining. Since 1990, there has been no natural growth in population. As a result of the continuing process of emigration that has followed the democratic changes in the country, and with the end more than a decade ago of control by the authorities of travel abroad, the number of Bulgarian citizens has declined. Apocalyptic forecasts by some social scientists and demographers say that our nation will shrink by half within just a few decades, and in the long term, will disappear completely. Every Bulgarian government since 1968 has been trying to intervene in this process. In that year, a decree intended to stimulate the birth rate was signed. It gave parents the benefit of child care, a measure that had been introduced first by French president General Charles de Gaulle. At the time, when there was scant possibility of emigration, the measures decreed by the Bulgarian government seemed viable. The sale of contraceptives was banned, and committees could decide whether to allow a woman to terminate a pregnancy. But this approach, which regarded the country’s population as stock, failed to turn the tide. At the beginning of March 2006, the present government presented its new demographic strategy. Work on this strategy had started under the government headed by then-prime minister Simeon Saxe-Coburg Gotha, but had not been 26 OBEKTIV
completed during that government’s term of office. The strategy aims to slow the shrinkage of the population by 2020 by stimulating birth rates and through the expected immigration. In the past few years, especially after Bulgaria signed its accession treaty with NATO and was given a date of entry into the European Union, the number of people wanting Bulgarian citizenship has increased vastly. The reason is not so much Bulgaria’s economic development, but that would-be citizens hope to use Bulgarian citizenship as a means to move on to live and work in EU countries. Many countries put up obstacles to immigration, using various means to select people who have the best qualifications and the best prospects to be considered for citizenship. Whether Bulgaria will succeed in this is yet to be seen. Immigration could accelerate xenophobia in Bulgaria, which now even has representation in Parliament through political parties such as Ataka. Is the Government strategy realistic, how will it be implemented, and - most of all - can politicians actually influence the birth rate and demographic processes? To discuss these issues, we invited Nikola Cholakov, associate professor at the University of World and National Economy, and Dr Mihail Ivanov, adviser on ethnic issues to former Bulgarian president Zhelyu Zhelev and chair of the Working Group that started work on the strategy during the Saxe-Coburg Gotha administration. We also invited a representative of the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy. The Ministry’s media liaison office promised that if an expert could not participate in our discussion, they would reply to our questions in written form. Unfortunately, we have received no answers.
OBEKTIV DISCUSSION CLUB
Demographic strategies have been drafted since the 1960s, when the person responsible was Pencho Kubadinski, at the time a prominent figure in the Bulgarian Communist Party. What is new in the present government’s new demographic strategy?
Associate Professor Nikola Cholakov: ·WE WILL NEED AN IMPORTED WORKFORCE”
Dr. Mihail Ivanov: ·THE PROBLEM OF THE GHETTOS IS NOT AN ETHNIC ONE”
Mihail Ivanov: I am taking part in this discussion with mixed feelings, because until mid-2005 I chaired the working group appointed by the then-prime minister Saxe-Coburg Gotha to draft a National Strategy on Demographic Development. After I left the Council of Ministers’ administration, this work was continued with the active participation of Professor Atanas Atanasov. Under his leadership, a draft National Strategy for the Demographic Development of the Republic of Bulgaria (2006-2020) was completed, and published at the end of 2005. This is the text that was presented to President Georgi Purvanov, and that was the basis for the work of the Council on Demographic Issues, recently established by President Parvanov. The innovation in our approach is to try to shift the emphasis from the idea of increasing the birth rate, to the idea of securing high quality ·human capital”. This is a relatively new expression, taking account of people’s health status, abilities, and skills. Our emphasis is not so much on the increase or decrease in the population, which is indeed important, but on a factual assessment of how healthy this population is, and of its educational and professional stratification and structure. We also emphasize the balanced development of the population in terms of age, education, health status, and gender, because such factors are key to a better quality of life. The demographic strategies previously launched in Bulgaria were aimed at achieving a strategic goal reaching a certain number of population. In pursuit of this, the strategies set out the correct social and economic conditions to achieve this. We, on the contrary, offer a strategy where the goals are geared towards shaping a certain social and economic environment that will lead to the desired changes in the number and content of the population. We must be realistic in our prognoses. Throughout Europe, a negative birth rate is nothing new. The countries with the best indicators, such as France and Ireland, have a total indicator for fertility of 1.7-1.8, OBEKTIV 27
OBEKTIV DISCUSSION CLUB which does not lead to reproduction, which is achieved at 2.1. What is the situation in Bulgaria? The integral indicator that can evaluate a sharp discrepancy in health care, is death rates. Compared to other European countries, Bulgaria has high death rates, including a high overall death rate and a high maternal death rate, a high premature death rate among men, and a high infant mortality rate. The indicators of the death rates among the Roma and Turkish minorities in Bulgaria are typical for the most underdeveloped Third World countries. What is the conclusion: the critical state shown by this demographic index is a consequence of the crisis in our health care system. Our health care must be radically improved at an organisational level, in terms of revenues and the way that these are spent. According to the National Health Care Strategy adopted by the government in 2001, the share of GDP dedicated to health care was meant to be 5.8 per cent in 2005. Instead, it was only 4.3 per cent. This is the core of the matter. The same applies to the educational system of our society. In our analysis, we drew on data that showed that in the past 15 years, the number of illiterate and functionally illiterate young people has increased. These young people are mainly from the urban poor, people living in villages, and most of all from the two major ethnic minorities - the Roma and the Turks. According to United Nations Population Fund expert Sergei Sherbov’s analysis of Bulgaria, published at our symposium, if current trends continue at the same pace, the number of working people with higher education will remain the same while the number of illiterate people will double. Sherbov’s recommendation is clear - the Bulgarian Government should invest in education. This is something completely achievable. The ongoing crisis in education in Bulgaria is causing a crisis in human capital, and yet for education we devote a proportion of our GDP that is less than that of EU countries: 4.1-4.2 per cent. The next step is to consider the territorial imbalances, between undeveloped and wealthy regions, between city and village, and so on. A further imbalance is in regard to the vulnerability of families, especially young families. Recently, there has been talk that a Family Protection Act should be adopted. I think this is a good idea. There should be more effective protection and care for mothers throughout their pregnancy, after having their child, and then throughout childhood especially for mothers who have professional ambitions. Afterwards, the draft was taken up by administators, and I have to say, it was spoiled to a large extent. The provisions were rearranged, new clauses were introduced, others removed, and through this, the logic of the draft suffered and the 28 OBEKTIV
systematic order no longer made sense. But this is the lesser evil. What is worse is that a new section was added to the strategy in the draft, ·Objectives of the Main Directions”, these take the form of general recommendations. The consequence is, as in the attached draft plan, activities in various programmes and plans have been messed up, and have not been given financial security, something that has of late become common practice. There is no real coordination among various fields involved in areas of possible co-operation. There is a syndrome in Bulgaria of coming up with plans in such a way that nothing can result. Those matters set out in the strategy as general goals and as areas where an impact must be made have been deprived of their identities as a result of the current state of the plan. Of course, the documents are still in the process of being discussed. Emilia Maslarova, Minister of Labour and Social Policy, gave a briefing to journalists on the demographic strategy. At the same time, the question of a broad debate on the draft strategy and plan was raised (especially by the trade unions) at the January 2006 meeting of the President’s Consultative Council. Such a debate, it was suggested, should take place before the draft is approved by the Cabinet. But such a debate is not happening. That is why this discussion on the pages of Obektiv magazine fills a vacuum, and that is why it is so useful. Associate Professor Nikola Cholakov: The document that we are talking about has aspects that are new and aspects that have long been forgotten. My colleagues have chosen a difficult task. The team includes scientists, but also administrative officials. My experience tells me that these two professions hardly ever work well together. A scientist has difficulty in understanding the way that a bureaucrat thinks and works. The same applies to the bureaucrat. For a bureaucrat, real life happens between four walls. This inadequate approach, of mixed expert and administrative people, has nowhere in the world led to good results. I see here that colleagues of mine, professors and scientists, are trying to make policy and the result usually is to see politicians behaving as experts. It will only result in a mess, and in the end, nothing good will come of it. For me, this product will have problems in its further development, because it stands on a weak foundation. I think that the universities and the Bulgarian Academy of Science should give their opinion and say: ·This will be the demographic situation in Bulgaria in the next fifty or hundred years” and our politicians should come up with an adequate policy and find money to implement it. Another big trap is that in some places the project refers to ·demographic development”, but at the same time talks about education, health care, culture, share of working people, unemployment, in-
OBEKTIV DISCUSSION CLUB comes, etc. Such a wide understanding does not help demography. What is new in the draft? Major attention is given to the whole process, from marriage, to pregnancy, birth and the raising of children, etc. This is not demography. Still, I believe that such an approach is positive, and all the efforts of my colleagues - the demographers, social and culture scientists - should be united in this direction as well, because it is a complex problem. The function of the family is very different today to what it was fifty or a hundred years ago. Back then, the whole function of the family was to raise children and secure their existence. Family life today is far more difficult. The raising of children is just one of the family’s functions. Now we have two spouses who have professions and want careers, and are seeking more prestigious work and contacts in society. It is very difficult for parents today to stay in the framework of the family. Children today have a different meaning. That is why in all developed countries we are seeing decreasing birth rates. We can expect that the total coefficient of fertility will be 1.4 by 2020-2025. This is not a lucky guess. According to demographic data published by the UN, the coefficient for Bulgaria in 2050 will be 1.5, which is very realistic. But I think that THIS INDICATOR WILL HARDLY INCREASE IN THE FUTURE and if this happens, it will not be soon, bearing in mind the world tendencies. Currently, only a few countries in Africa have a high integral fertility coefficient of 7.0, but the birth rate there is also going down. Outside Africa, such indicators are seen only in Afghanistan, East Timor and Yemen and from the Americas - only in Haiti. In the past fifty years, the birth rate in Europe has also been going down. The situation is the same in the United States and Canada. In the past, families in the US had up to twelve children, but the present American family has one or two children. The same applies in Europe as well. The coefficient of 2.1, which secures a full replacement of generations, has not been achieved anywhere. Ireland has the highest rate of 2.0. France has about 1.71.8. Northern Italy, not Bulgaria, has been the European champion in terms of a decrease in the birth rate in the past twenty to thirty years. The strategy makes certain attempts to suggest that an increase in birth rate is possible, but this is not so striking. That is why I would not take this seriously, as long as it does not raise some expectations in political circles that it is possible. If, in some way someone is suggesting to the authorities that there could be a policy that will boost the birth rate in Bulgaria, this will be a certain setback to the times of Pencho Kubadinski and Peko Takov. My opinion is that such a term has no meaning. You cannot talk about man-
agement of the birth rate in general, and in this sense, encouragement is meaningless.
Are you saying that these processes cannot be managed and encouraged? If politicians cannot influence demographic processes, then there can be no demographic policy. Nikola Cholakov: The term ·demographic policy” is debatable. When we talk about the strategy, we understand the social policy, the policy on health care, and the policy on education. What I like about the project is that most of it is not about demography. The project could include other things about the birth rate as well, but not defined as part of demography and as demography policy. According to me, there should be a special register of pregnant women and pregnancy should be monitored by specialists. The draft says that parents who regularly pay their health insurance to the state will get benefits, which means only that the demographic, or actually the social, policy will be separated from those who have not paid their insurance. Such people are often representatives of the minorities and the poor. What should be done with them? This will only cause a social problem. I think that there is no need for financial help (whether one-off or bonuses) for the raising of children. If there is such a need, then it should be at the beginning of the pregnancy, or at least in the last four or five months. These funds should be allocated mainly to the health care of pregnant women and mothers and to the education of the minors. This should not happen uncontrolled. Mihail Ivanov: The approach of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences is that the whole complex of issues and problems related to the development of the population should direct the state to a policy of effective actions to overcome the crisis in health care, education and social and regional policy.
There is a certain fear in society of an ethnic imbalance, and that Bulgaria might be left without Bulgarians at the end: de-Bulgarisation, as the nationalists call it. How will the strategy solve this problem? Mihail Ivanov: We haven’t thought of balance on an ethnic basis. This would contradict our unOBEKTIV 29
OBEKTIV DISCUSSION CLUB derstanding of ethnic equality. The truth, however, is that illiteracy has increased in our society in the past few years, especially among the large minority groups. The problem is not that they are ethnic Turks or Roma; but rather that they are illiterate. Large groups of people are living in ghettos and poor agricultural regions where the level of health care and education is on the level of an undeveloped country. Many Bulgarians are also living in these ghettos and poor regions, and their situation is the same. Unfortunately, certain circles in our society are stoking fear that we will turn into a Roma nation. The reproduction rate among the Roma is 19/1000, but the infant mortality rate is 25/1000. In 1992, those who defined themselves as Roma added up to 313,000. With an increase of 20,000, in the next census in 2001, the number of Roma grew to 370,000. With these rates, if someone claims that we will turn into a Roma nation, then this means that they are trying to cause tension in the country on the basis of ethnic intolerance. It is shameful that people who are thought to be serious and respectable sociologists tell us that three out of four children born in Bulgaria are Roma children. It is true that Roma women give birth more often, but it is also true that the Bulgarian women outnumber them. In the period 2001-2004, sixty out of a hundred newborn babies were Bulgarian, thirteen were Roma babies, thirteen Turks. For the rest, the data does not say how they defined themselves. These are the data from the National Statistics Institute. It is also true that the health status of the Roma people is very low. The average life expectancy in Bulgaria is five to nine years lower than that in EU countries. This indicator among the Roma in Bulgaria is several times lower than the average for the country. Here we are not talking about some specific demographic policies, but about radical improvement of the health care in Bulgaria - prophylaxis, preventive medicine and active examination of diseases at an early stage, and of course, radical improvement in living conditions. The situation is the same with the education system. Although we are in the era of information technology, education in most of the schools is terrible. In the larger scale, in the poor rural regions and the ghettos where more than 400,000 people live, an illiteracy has been born, raised and reproduced. Then what will the contribution of the illiterate people be for Bulgaria’s GDP? What will their personal strategies for survival be? There is no ethnic problem connected with the demographic development. There is the problem of the ghettos. This problem exists in other countries as well. The recent events in France, and the on a lesser scale in other countries in Western Europe, was the problem of the ghettos. Those people were not Roma. The disproportions should be overcome; 30 OBEKTIV
THE GHETTOS SHOULD BE DESTROYED BECAUSE THE GHETTO PRODUCES A SUBCULTURE. Nikola Cholakov: The problem is not so an ethnic or a religious one. It is about the fact that in society there is stratification and fragmentation, which by chance has ethnic and religious dimensions. Because of this fragmentation, many Bulgarians, Roma and Turks simply slip out of the fabric of society. Who authorised the building of Roma ghettos? Who allowed or forced the Turks to deal only in tobacco production, and who makes their living a monoculture one? All Bulgarian rulers! What will the Turks do when there is no market for tobacco? Some of them will go into construction, others will become bricklayers, but what about the women and children? I lived in the United States for four years, and I have never seen ghettos like the Roma ghettos in Bulgaria. You will find nothing like it, either in Harlem, or in the black neighbourhoods around Washington. In the United States there is not a single street without asphalt. No potholes, nothing. There is not a single building without electricity supply. There, the state is present in the ghettos, and exercises strict control.
The draft plan for implementing the demographic strategy says ·Funding - according to the budget”. But the budget is not compiled according to the strategy. How will the strategy be implemented without the required additional funds? Mihail Ivanov: Now we enter the zone of populism and demagoguery. My biggest concern is that we would once again hide behind one big ·Hurrah”, doing nothing about problems which are very important to our society. Nikola Cholakov: This is a standard wording. The state should first of all answer the question: why the death rate among children is so high, and second, why it has been registered in such a way? If a newborn baby under 1000 grams dies in the first five or six days of his life, it is registered as an abortion. According to the standard of the World Health Organisation, if a newborn baby, despite its weight, shows even one of the three elements: cardiac activity, breathing and muscle movement, it is registered as live born. In this way, in Bulgaria the infant death rate has been covered up and has been artificially lowered. This approach, of making such strategies, plans and programmes by our administration, is completely wrong and wicked. If you take the present condition of the draft
OBEKTIV DISCUSSION CLUB plan, you will see activities from other areas - for example one from the work load area. The next thing is that some parts of other programmes will be copied and pasted into the plan. And all that in the framework of the state budget. They will be pleased to say that they have done something big on state policy on demographic issues.
Who from the executive branch of government will co-ordinate and be responsible for the implementation of the strategy? Mihail Ivanov: Such a strategy should be coordinated by the Council of Ministers. What I see here in the current text of the strategy is institutional chaos We have the Directorate on Ethnic and Demographic Issues at the Council of Ministers, and at the same time we have the Directorate on Demographic Issues at the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy. They say that the Ministry will have the leading role and the co-ordinating and control function. However it is not clear yet what the Directorate at the Council of Ministers will do. The idea of co-ordination among systems of education, health care, social and regional policy is relinquished. When we talk about education and health care, lots of things get mixed up. When I was working for the administration of the Council of Ministers, I saw no such co-ordination of work. We are faced with the danger of the next chaos in our administration. At the session of the President’s Consultative Council, there was talk of engaging other ·actors”. The unions were present. Employers and non-government organisations also should be included in the project. Things in the administration of the executive branch of government are sealed as they are in a shell. When there is work on some text, the documents sent via email say: ·Present your corrections by tomorrow”. Then matters are taken up by the administrators without any discussion of the problems. This will not lead to a good result. Nikola Cholakov: As a scientist, I would like to see demographic doctrine given by researchers in a loud voice in the public arena. If the state wants to have it in mind, all it needs to do is to take it. A university professor such as myself wants to see the very clearly the line between his own existence and that of the state. The problem regarding the balance of the population does not lie with the Roma or the Turks. The problem is that the number of people reaching retirement age is twice as much as those who are working. This means a double pressure on pension security. It seems to me that no one is thinking about this. If you look at the records of the National Statistics Institute, you will see that everything is perfect. What is the point, then, of talking about the balance of the population and its fragmentation? Bulgaria’s economy will need an imported workforce, something that the West had in the 1950s and 1960s. In
Switzerland, there has always been a foreign workforce. In Germany, there are about one million Turks. This will happen here and it must be foreseen. Scientists must make demographic prognoses for the next fifty years, for example. And if the state wants it, it can consider it.
Would our accession to the European Union increase the emigration of young and qualified people or it will decrease it? Nikola Cholakov: Here we could and should make a human, not demographic prognosis. We will enter the European Union and many young people will want to pursue their happiness somewhere else. They are doing so already. Mihail Ivanov: Some of the people who have left probably will return to Bulgaria, others probably will not. A person lives only once and makes his or her own personal strategy. We are talking about a brain drain to the United States, Canada and Europe. I know many young people who would have taken the chance of staying in Bulgaria if there was any possibility for better options in the area of science here. Currently, the conditions for professional development of such people in Bulgaria are not good, but after our accession to the European Union, I believe that this will change.
The strategy envisages the achievement of a positive migration balance in 2015. Will a flow of immigrants into Bulgaria increase xenophobia in Bulgaria? Nikola Cholakov: It is a fact that in the past few years xenophobia has appeared in Bulgaria. I wonder where it came from. I see that the project plan suggests that the immigrants would come mainly from the Bulgarian Diaspora abroad. It sounds a little bit too fantastic and not part of the issue at all. As a member of the European Union Bulgaria will become attractive for people from Asia, Africa who will use the country as a way to get to West Europe. What will we do then? What immigration policy will we conduct then? Are we going to give Bulgarian citizenship to every basketball player who comes to play in Bulgaria? All this should be taken in mind. Mihail Ivanov: I think that xenophobia has been inflamed by some politicians, and this is something very dangerous. Some of these politicians are only aimed at attracting supporters by telling them that foreigners are to blame for all the problems in the country. OBEKTIV 31