http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2002/WPP2002_VOL_3.pdf

This is a huge file, and definitely only for the population freaks. Now Poland has a statistical population decline rate of -0.14% per annum between now and 2025, and then a rate of -0.49% per annum 2025 – 2050 according to the medium variant. To get an idea of this, Portugal which is one of the rapid agers in WE has a rate of -0.07, and -0.34 for the comparative periods.

Poland comes in tenth place of countries set to lose population in the next 50 years. Russia is first, Ukraine second, Bulgaria third and Italy fourth.

Having said all this, I want to make clear I am only trying to analyse what is happening, and possibly challenge some misleading information, it is certainly not my intention to be critical of Poland, or its citizens. I am worried for them, but I wish them well.

No, I concede defeat. I just found the tables. Anyone else foolish enough to get interested in this should go here:

http://www.stat.gov.pl/english/dane_spol-gosp/ludnosc/ludnosc/index.htm

the relevant bits are the first two tables. Actually the one thing they don’t give is a breakdown of 0-35. Very canny. But making some rough numbers from what they do publish: I accept and retract.

Now the interesting thing is the second table:

Size of population, vital statistics and migration in 1946-2003.

Look in the live births column. From 1950 to 1967 this is faling. Then from 1967 to 1983 it rise in absolute terms (not as a proportion) then after 1983 it crashes. So the correct interpretation would be that Poland is one of Europe’s youngest, but most rapidly ageing societies. I’ll buy that description, but they only put the first half in the ad.

And remember, we got into all of this because I wanted to suggest that Poland was short of children, and would need immigrants, but from where? I still stand by that.

Interesting, the things you learn by blogging .

Yes, except that the bulge generation is up at the top, in the 50-60 range, the pyramid has inverted in Poland. Fertility 1.3. Of course there are mini bulges, but still.

30% of the population was under 18 in 1991. That is 14 years ago. So we know that now 30% is between 14 and 32. We also know that 0-15 now is 17.5%. So that does give us a little under 47.5% under 32 (there is a one year overlap). Hmm, it is just possible I suppose. But this means a very peculiar and irregular ‘pyramid’. I mean the change between the numbers under 15 in 1991 and 2005 is startling. Interesting.

I suppose the lesson here is that instead of doing all these fancy calculations it would be better just to locate the appropriate table .

You may well be correct. It isn’t just the newspapers, the following statement is made by the Polish government’s Information and Foreign Investment Agency –

{{{- Poles are one of Europe?s youngest societies (half of the nation is below the age of 35). The country also holds the second place in Europe in terms of the number of students. – }}}
From Invest in Poland @ Paiz.gov.pl

also from the same source @ Invest in Poland – People

{{ – 50% of the Polish society is under the age of 34 years and 35% is under 25 years of age. – }}

They claim to have 7 million aged 15 or under but …. the best is to come …… “The high unemployment rate, which reached 20% at the end of 2003, has a positive impact on the availability of labour for foreign companies and makes it easy for investors to find the right employees.”

Well I suppose that’s one way of looking at it.

Now, the distribution could be uneven in either direction, of course. But the country studies page you linked to says that in 1991, 30% of the population was under 18, so – just going by those two sources – the 50% under 35 figure does not seem unlikely.

Well this seems to be false I’m afraid. Detailed info are available eg at the UN, but this rough and ready Yahoo listing will do our present purposes:

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/factbook/pl/popula.html

Population:
38,622,660 (July 2003)

Age structure:
0-14 years: 17.5% (male:3,458,844; female:3,284,995)
15-64 years: 69.8% (male:13,407,012; female:13,547,728)
65 years and over: 12.7% (male:1,879,445; female:3,044,636)

Population growth rate:
0 % (2003 est.)

Now what the zero means is that since people are living longer, and the fertility rate (same page) is 1.3, the population is ageing and not replacing itself, with dwindling of the pyramid at the bottom.

Now lets do some back of the envelope arithmetic.

15- 64 (thats 50 years) 69.8%. Assuming even distribution that is 1.396% a year. Times 20 (15 -35) that is 27.92%. Plus 0-15 17.5% gives a grand total of 45.42%.

Now if we go to this page:

http://countrystudies.us/poland/27.htm

We will see that the boom cohort born during the postwar upswing ranged in age from thirty-five to forty-four in 1990, or 50 -59 in 2005. So this mean there is a much bigger weighting in the upper part of the working age population, which you would expect given the demographic profile.

Bottom line: under thirty five is a maximum of 40% and it just goes to prove you shouldn’t believe everything you read in the papers .

Chalets in Bulgaria

“The question is as to whether this is a sound strategy.”

I really don’t know. It will depend on the relative currency and price movements.

Interestingly there have been significant capital outflows from Ireland in recent years. These have however mostly been in the form of property investment abroad. In part this represents Irish people taking a bet that CEECs will replicate Irelands performance in the EU and consequently will reap the dividend through capital appreciation (and enhanced rental values). The question is as to whether this is a sound strategy.

Ireland lost Cohesion fund money from the EU from 2004 onwards (about 60 million a year) because they are now too rich to qualify