What are the Indirect Anti-Natalist Policies of Population Control?

Anti-natalist policies can sometimes be indirect, that is, they may not be directly aimed at reducing fertility as in the case of contraception, abortion and a higher age at marriage, but may act indirectly by influencing the acceptance of contraception and/or abortion and by bringing about a rise in the age at marriage.

Some of these approaches, called “Beyond Family Planning” by Berna Berelson, are discussed in the sections that follow, not necessarily in their order of importance.

Rogers has defined incentives as “direct or indirect payments in cash or in kind that are given to an individual, couple, or group in order to encourage some overt behavioural change,”in this context, the adoption of an innovation like a family planning method.

Several types of incentives are possible in family planning programmes, which may be offered either to the adopter himself, or to the person who persuades the adopter, or to both. These incentives may be offered to individuals or to groups or to both.

They may be paid in cash or in kind. They may be paid immediately or deferred to a later date, as in the case of a vasectomised man, who is paid his incentive when he comes for the removal of his stitches, ensuring at least one follow-up action.

Some incentives, by their very nature, have to be delayed, as in the case of any no-birth bonus scheme or the provision of free education for the children of couples with small families.

Incentives may also be either uniform or graduated, as and when those with a smaller number of children are given higher incentives for adopting a family planning method.

It has generally been found that when incentives are provided to adopters and promoters or diffusers, the rate of adoption increases and the family planning programme is successful in covering those individuals who normally would not have adopted it or got involved in it. It may, however, be pointed out that the quality of such adoption may be relatively low and may lead to undesirable consequences.

The main criticism against incentives is that they are “unethical” and may lead to “exploitation of poverty.” The payment of such incentives also provides ample scope for possible cheating and fraud. Heavy dependence on incentives may result in a neglect of the motivational and information aspects of the programme.

In the opinion of Rogers, though there are valid reasons for this criticism, “each of them can be overcome.” Group incentives have sometimes yielded good acceptance.

For instance, in Maharashtra, awards were instituted for outstanding achievements in the family planning programme from the district to village level, with Zilla Parishads as well as Gram Panchayats becoming eligible for such awards.