Limiting Family Size Through the Sufficient Provision of Basic Necessities and Social Services: The Case of Pasay, Eastern Samar, and Agusan Del Sur

The socio-economic quandaries of rapid population growth and poverty have always been coupled. It is evident that the poorest households are those who have larger family size. Consequently, these households have to support more people with fewer resources, making the family live a life of inherited poverty. With this, the state has been on the pursuit of looking for solutions such as the Reproductive Heath (RH) Bill to address rapid population growth and eventually poverty. However, the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) condemns the RH Bill because it is contradictory to Catholic principles. For this reason, we will explore other possibilities to limit family size by highlighting whether the availability of water, electricity, decent housing, sustainable income, employment, and other welfare enhancing programs limits family size. By showing whether the provision of these basic sustenance affects family size via the Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) procedure, it is then possible to propose an alternative solution other than the use of contraceptives. Likewise, the government can improve on its socio-economic policies that will address the problem of overpopulation. Results have shown that Pasay, Eastern Samar, and Agusan Del Sur responded differently to various stimuli such as living conditions, educational attainment, employment status, as well as government-funded programs among others insofar as population dynamics is concerned. This suggests a need to peer into the distinction of each region’s socioeconomic context and underlying psyche. The milieu within which an individual resides may greatly influence his rational calculus and decision-making process. Also, beyond tailoring-fitting population control programs, there is also a need to calibrate policies based on relevant socioeconomic, political, and cultural nuances each region may possess