IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jdevst/v57y2021i9p1454-1469.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Toxification of Population Discourse. A Genealogical Study

Author

Listed:
  • Diana Coole

Abstract

During the 1960s and 70s, reducing human numbers was embraced as integral to radical social transformation. Subsequently such neoMalthusian prescriptions became so toxic, they disappeared from the political agenda. Only recently has the issue resurfaced. This article suggests it is worthwhile revisiting the population question but recognises that the reasons for its becoming taboo need first to be understood and reassessed. This is the aim of the critical analysis undertaken here. It identifies 1974–1994 as the crucial period when hostility to population policies developed. It asks why progressive thinkers turned against policies for reducing fertility rates and how a goal of stabilising human numbers became internationally reviled. Its approach is genealogical; that is, it focuses on changing ideological and geopolitical contexts and on shifting power relations that determined whose voices and interests were heard or silenced. Specifically, the analysis examines paradigm changes associated with the three intergovernmental population and development conferences: at Bucharest (1974), Mexico City (1984) and Cairo (1994), paying particular attention to the rise of neoliberalism, the influence of the cold war, postcolonial tensions and the impact of the Women’s Movement. The article ends by asking whether the prevailing `Cairo consensus’ established in 1994 remains fit for purpose.

Suggested Citation

  • Diana Coole, 2021. "The Toxification of Population Discourse. A Genealogical Study," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 57(9), pages 1454-1469, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:jdevst:v:57:y:2021:i:9:p:1454-1469
    DOI: 10.1080/00220388.2021.1915479
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/00220388.2021.1915479
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/00220388.2021.1915479?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jdevst:v:57:y:2021:i:9:p:1454-1469. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/FJDS20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.