The UNFPA State of the World’s Population has just been published, with the title The Power of the 1.8 Billion: Adolescents, Youth and the Transformation of the future. So what does the report show (beyond the importance of summarising the argument in the title!?)….
The 1.8 billion refers to the number of people aged 10 to 24 years (one in four of the world’s population), of whom nine in ten are growing up in poorer countries. The report’s main thrust is to identify a potential demographic dividend that is a large young workforce, but one which will reduce as countries experience the demographic transition of falling fertility rates.
The report draws on the experience of East Asian countries, highlighting the importance of investing in human capital (we can probably call that education …) at the same time as countries experienced declining fertility rates.
The obvious question this raises is what do governments need to do to realise the potential of this demographic dividend, and what is getting in the way? At the time of our last survey round, the Young Lives Older Cohort were aged about 19, and we have data from them since they were aged 8. We are now in the process of identifying trends in the findings from these first 4 rounds of data (which we have presented in Delhi and at Equity for Children in New York).
So what do our early findings from the 19-year-olds suggest?
First, maximising the human capital potential of all in society requires a focus on equity. Substantial numbers of young people are still in some form of education at the age of 19, often combining this with work. There has been a generational shift in how much schooling young people receive,
However, it is striking that it is the least-poor young people (the better-off), those whose parents had higher levels of education, and those in urban areas who are most likely to remain in education.
In Vietnam the least-poor 19-year-olds are twice as likely as their poorer peers to be studying (69% compared with 35%). Gender differences also increase during adolescence, especially for the poorest children. By the age of 19 young women in Andhra Pradesh are 16 percentage points less likely to be studying than young men (
Second, early marriage and early motherhood persist. Stopping such practices requires an understanding of why they persist, which cannot only be put down to ignorance. We are seeing that poor girls still marry and have children well below the age of 18. The majority of young people are not yet married, but in Andhra Pradesh 37% of girls are married by the age of 19 and 21% already have a baby. Between 9%of girls (in Ethiopia) and 24% (in Peru) had given birth by age 19. Poorer young women and those living in rural areas are more likely to have married and had a child. Early marriage and other traditional practices , such as FGM in Ethiopia, are often seen by communities as ‘protective’ of girls’ social reputation and as a means of ensuring that girls are provided for in adulthood. Shifting global and national norms are receiving increasing attention in debates about the new Sustainable Development Goals. Going beyond policy which simply outlaws such practices certainly requires engaging with local community opinion and would be considerably strengthened by ensuring effective support structures exist for young people (social protection, decent work) which can open up better life-chances.
Third, adolescence can be seen as a second window of opportunity, and public investments made during this age ought to support and protect the gains which need to be made during early childhood. So a creative youth policy needs to start with the early years. What is additional and different to the early period of life, however, is how ‘future-facing’ decisions taken within households by and about young people are. In Andhra Pradesh, for example, young women tend to leave school earlier than young men, but in a context where women do not have the same opportunities as men in the labour market. And so while it is education discrimination that young women experience, it is hardly surprising that hard-pressed households are influenced by the likely future household benefits of investments in different children’s education.
Improving life-chances for young people can be supported both by looking back to early childhood, and looking forward to the opportunities available to them as adults.
The UNFPA State of the World’s Population has just been published, with the title The Power of the 1.8 Billion: Adolescents, Youth and the Transformation of the future. So what does the report show (beyond the importance of summarising the argument in the title!?)….
The 1.8 billion refers to the number of people aged 10 to 24 years (one in four of the world’s population), of whom nine in ten are growing up in poorer countries. The report’s main thrust is to identify a potential demographic dividend that is a large young workforce, but one which will reduce as countries experience the demographic transition of falling fertility rates.
The report draws on the experience of East Asian countries, highlighting the importance of investing in human capital (we can probably call that education …) at the same time as countries experienced declining fertility rates.
The obvious question this raises is what do governments need to do to realise the potential of this demographic dividend, and what is getting in the way? At the time of our last survey round, the Young Lives Older Cohort were aged about 19, and we have data from them since they were aged 8. We are now in the process of identifying trends in the findings from these first 4 rounds of data (which we have presented in Delhi and at Equity for Children in New York).
So what do our early findings from the 19-year-olds suggest?
First, maximising the human capital potential of all in society requires a focus on equity. Substantial numbers of young people are still in some form of education at the age of 19, often combining this with work. There has been a generational shift in how much schooling young people receive,
However, it is striking that it is the least-poor young people (the better-off), those whose parents had higher levels of education, and those in urban areas who are most likely to remain in education.
In Vietnam the least-poor 19-year-olds are twice as likely as their poorer peers to be studying (69% compared with 35%). Gender differences also increase during adolescence, especially for the poorest children. By the age of 19 young women in Andhra Pradesh are 16 percentage points less likely to be studying than young men (
Second, early marriage and early motherhood persist. Stopping such practices requires an understanding of why they persist, which cannot only be put down to ignorance. We are seeing that poor girls still marry and have children well below the age of 18. The majority of young people are not yet married, but in Andhra Pradesh 37% of girls are married by the age of 19 and 21% already have a baby. Between 9%of girls (in Ethiopia) and 24% (in Peru) had given birth by age 19. Poorer young women and those living in rural areas are more likely to have married and had a child. Early marriage and other traditional practices , such as FGM in Ethiopia, are often seen by communities as ‘protective’ of girls’ social reputation and as a means of ensuring that girls are provided for in adulthood. Shifting global and national norms are receiving increasing attention in debates about the new Sustainable Development Goals. Going beyond policy which simply outlaws such practices certainly requires engaging with local community opinion and would be considerably strengthened by ensuring effective support structures exist for young people (social protection, decent work) which can open up better life-chances.
Third, adolescence can be seen as a second window of opportunity, and public investments made during this age ought to support and protect the gains which need to be made during early childhood. So a creative youth policy needs to start with the early years. What is additional and different to the early period of life, however, is how ‘future-facing’ decisions taken within households by and about young people are. In Andhra Pradesh, for example, young women tend to leave school earlier than young men, but in a context where women do not have the same opportunities as men in the labour market. And so while it is education discrimination that young women experience, it is hardly surprising that hard-pressed households are influenced by the likely future household benefits of investments in different children’s education.
Improving life-chances for young people can be supported both by looking back to early childhood, and looking forward to the opportunities available to them as adults.