>From behan@osiris.Colorado.EDU Sat Aug 20 18:12:31 1994 Return-Path: behan@osiris.Colorado.EDU Received: from taweret.colorado.edu (taweret.Colorado.EDU [128.138.151.21]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with ESMTP id SAA03666 for ; Sat, 20 Aug 1994 18:12:31 -0600 Received: (from behan@localhost) by taweret.colorado.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9/UnixOps) id SAA14056; Sat, 20 Aug 1994 18:11:48 -0600 Date: Sat, 20 Aug 1994 18:11:46 -0600 (MDT) From: Behan Pamela Sender: Behan Pamela Reply-To: Behan Pamela Subject: Re: fertility/pop. growth To: PPN List In-Reply-To: <9407220957.ZM21292@towel.wpd.sgi.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII I've been traveling, etc., for the past several weeks. Since no one else has answered Joe's message from 7/22, I will. I do encourage others to jump in, however - this isn't a private conversation! Joe wrote: I suggest that there may be other statistical relationships (cultural, religious, geographical) which are just as potent in determining fertility. This may not be a relationship with a single-modal cause (income). (Then again, I may be wrong. Admittedly, I'm not a demographer.) My response: I don't follow your reasoning, Joe. If a general correlation exists between income and fertility, how can it be explained by cultural, religious or geographical effects on fertility? If these were the dominant determinants, the relationship between income and fertility would not hold true across cultural groups, religious groups, and geographical regions. The only logical explanation for a general correlation is either that fertility determines income, or that income determines fertility (directly or indirectly). This correlation could certainly be affected (exaggerated, partially neutralized, neutralized or occasionally reversed) by other factors - such as culture, religion or geography - but cannot logically be explained by them. Joe wrote: > My point is, in the rush to explain every ill in > the world as caused by a lack of money, we > threaten to run roughshod over other, more sub- > tle, causes. The "Ugly American" syndrome. > > Viewing a higher-than-acceptable rate of birth > (whatever that is) as solely income-linked can > make those who try to reduce these birth rates > ignore other causative factors -- such as cul- > ture. My response: What did I say to make you think I was arguing that fertility is SOLELY determined by income? Of course it's multi-causal! (Even culture and economics are intertwined - for instance, you can't develop a predominantly agricultural state into a modern industrialized country without producing changes in traditional values as well.) A general correlation between income and fertility, however, has lots of implications worth looking at and generally ignored - such as the ones I suggested a few weeks ago: that we're not going to solve the "population problem" without improving the prosperity of and social equity within the Third World, improving the opportunities/education/status of women world-wide, and acknowledging that these changes are not only in the interests of the Third World, and therefore not only "their" problem. (To the extent that the First World desires a comfortable and peaceful future, it is "our" problem, not something we dabble with out of charity or benevolence.) Joe also raises the question of an "objective" Muslim view of women's status. I would argue that we must differentiate between cultural facts with real consequences, such as those that Joe is raising here, and measures of material independence for women, such as education and employment. Perhaps we don't yet have the right words for differentiating these two measures of "status." It is quite true that cultural and religious practices can keep women from being educated, or from using their education to obtain employment and financial independence from husbands and families. It is also true that, where women's opportunities increase, fertility decreases. And it is fertility we are trying to explain. The connection between income and fertility exists in Muslim cultures as it does elsewhere - apparently because of the better education and opportunities for upper-class Muslim women. (That is, a more "liberal" application of cultural and religious strictures by upper-class, educated Muslim men.) Lastly, Joe answers my question: > > I repeat, what are our usual prescriptions for reducing fertility, > > and how would the above considerations affect them? with the observation that the usual U.S. prescription for reducing fertility is abortion, contraception, social stigma, etc. Very true. The usual Western thinking goes something like this: 1) Overpopulation is a problem, as is too many children for poor families. 2) Provide the means to prevent too many births, without having to do without sex, and the poor will have less children. 3) If they're too ignorant to see the problem, educate them. 4) If they're too stubborn to change, provide incentives. However, the connection between poverty and the need for children (fertility and income) suggests that: 1) Overpopulation isn't a problem for poor people - survival is. Too many children also aren't a problem for poor people - too few children are. 2) Contraception and abortion won't be used where real self-interest requires large families to survive and thrive. 3) Educate people into real new opportunities, not just new values or the use of birth control, if you want your program to make a real difference in fertility rates. 4) Your "incentives" can either take advantage of momentary desperation, provoking long-term regret and distrust (as with India's program of cash for vasectomies), or help people build more secure lives, in which case they won't need so many children. Well, enough from me! Does anyone out there have a different opinion, or a different topic they'd like to raise? PPN can handle several at once - or, if we're boring you, you can say so and change the subject.... Pamela Behan Univ. of Colorado - Boulder