AbstractTable 2: Beliefs Underlying the Influential Schools of Thought, and Subjects Not IncludedSchools of Thought:An Analysis of Interest Groups Influential in Population PolicyMartha Madison CampbellAbstractThis analysis, written in 1993, explores the relationships among competing schools of thought inthe international population policy arena. It offers the following observations: (1) Five interestgroups are influential: the population-concerned community, a market-oriented group, peoplefocusing on equitable distribution of resources, women's advocates, and the Vatican; (2) Only oneof the five groups wants to draw attention to population growth; the other four all have otherpriorities and prefer to reduce attention to demography, seeing attention to population growth asinterfering with their priorities; (3) Any attempt to base policy on identified common ground inthis situation would result in asymmetry, turning policy attention away from population growth.Editor's note (1998): This paper was written in 1993, in the months following the Earth Summitin Rio de Janeiro, as the Cairo conference was being defined and its preparatory meetings werebeginning. The paper identifies five competing schools of thought that were then shapingpopulation policy on an international level. It suggested that of the five influential groups, orschools, only one of them wanted to draw attention to population growth, and the other fourschools all exhibited some discomfort with this subject, seeing it as interfering with theirpriorities. Because so much has happened in the population field since this was written,particularly related to the Cairo conference and its influences on policies around the world, this1993 paper is being published now as an historical piece. The reader is invited to judge whetheror not its observations still represent accurately the configuration, or core positions, of the mainschools of thought on population today..Publication:Population and Environment: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, Volume 19, No. 6, July 1998Human Sciences Press, Inc. Correspondence: Dr. M. Campbell: CEIHD, School of PublicHealth, 140 Warren Hall #7360, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-7360;[email protected]: This research on the population issues during the two year UNCED process and at the EarthSummit was supported by grants from the Compton Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation.THE POPULATION POLICY ARENAContemporary policy debates reveal conflicting interests and beliefs about population. Whilesome people seek to increase attention to population growth, which they perceive as harmful tothe environment or hindering development, four other influential groups, communities, or schoolsof thought, attempt to reduce attention to population growth. The debate is an important one: itsets policy, it influences budgets, and ultimately it may determine the future of the planet.1Population is a contentious policy subject. There are persistent disagreements about both theeffects of population growth and the causes of fertility decline. Population is a sensitive subjectbecause it is about life and death, cultural values, religion, political power, distribution of wealth,and sex. There is much confusion in population discussions (Campbell, 1992). People commonlymix the questions, "Is population growth a problem?" and "What reduces fertility?" Further,people confuse the concepts "necessary" and "sufficient." For example, some groups believe thatthe population-concerned community thinks reducing fertility is sufficient to save theenvironment or improve social systems, rather than necessary but not sufficient, which is actuallythe case.To add complexity, at least four basic ethical questions are central but usually unexamined. Theyare about (1) responsibility to present versus future generations, (2) individual versus communityrights and benefits, (3) average versus total quality of life, and (4) the distribution of resourcesand opportunity. For example, the much debated concept of carrying capacity depends onspecifying what level of consumption is required for an "adequate" life, and that issue involves allof these ethical questions.Many people have difficulty in seeing population as an important concern. This is partly becauseit is hard to demonstrate causality in a complex system. For any given change in the environmentor human conditions, plausible explanations are likely to overlap, and there is plenty of evidenceto back up everyone's claims. For example, it is difficult to connect population growth and forestdepletion when someone has persuasive evidence that land use policies and practices are more toblame than the number of people on the land.A clear view of causal connections is important to policymakers, who are responsible forallocating common resources. Lawrence Summers (1991), speaking as chief economist of theWorld Bank, noted the difficulties of planning in this area when the causal relationshipsconcerning population growth and environmental degradation, causes of migration, links betweenpopulation growth and inequality in the wage structure, and the fiscal implications of populationgrowth are all unclear. Peter Haas (1992) points out that in these situations of uncertainty,policymakers turn to experts for advice. In the case of population policy, given the differingperspectives on the subject, at least five groups claiming relevant expertise are providing advice.Each has a different set of answers.To help understand this situation, this paper uses negotiation analysis, which is a practical tool inconflict resolution. It can be applied to many situations ranging from international relations tolabor disputes. It seeks to provide a clearer understanding of disputes by clarifying competinggroups' positions, including their shared beliefs and policy projects. It focuses on the zone ofpossible agreement, with sensitivity to changes in this zone during negotiations, and it promotesawareness of attempts to change the rules of the game in order to alter this zone (Sebenius, 1992a;b).This negotiation analysis starts by setting out the primary interests of each school, the issues foreach school with regard to the