[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Education and population: spurious relationship



---------------------------------------------------------------------
[Topics under debate]: GOOD GOVERNANCE
___Help make this manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!___
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr Michael Vlassoff,

I am interested in your assertion that 'poor people in
India (and elsewhere) have children because of the economic benefits
they get from them (more children, more helping hands). The literature
(and my own research in India) doesn't bear this out, but it is still
widely believed -- sadly by many policy makers in influential positions.'

I would like to hear more on this subject.
Would you please elaborate on your comments? Which pieces of 
literature/research are you refering to? What are your opinions on the 
reason for high fertility rates in developing countries like India?

Thank you in advance,

Mr Richard Parr

>From: "Michael Vlassoff" <michael.vlassoff@unfpa.org.in>
>Reply-To: debate@indiapolicy.org
>To: debate@indiapolicy.org
>Subject: Education and population: spurious relationship
>Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 12:24:41 -0700 (PDT)
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>[Topics under debate]: GOOD GOVERNANCE
>___Help make this manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!___
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>I'm glad that the fact that this relationship may indeed be spurious -- or
>at least partly spurious -- has received attention in the debate. I have
>actually studied this relationship quite widely, using data sets from over
>40 World Fertility Surveys (done in the 1970s and 1980s). The fact is that
>you find every kind of relation: positive, negative, U-shaped and
>completely flat (no relationship).
>
>Hence, the mantra that the population problem will be solved by educating
>women (heard much in World Bank policy circles inter alia) is, simply, not
>true. Educating women won't hurt of course, and is commendable as a policy
>in its own right, but it certainly isn't the most cost-effective way of
>trying to lower fertility. Actually supplying reproductive-health
>information and quality services to women in India would, in my opinion,
>be the most cost-effective approach.
>
>If you want another spurious relationship, here's one: poor people in
>India (and elsewhere) have children because of the economic benefits
>they get from them (more children, more helping hands). The literature
>(and my own research in India) doesn't bear this out, but it is still
>widely believed -- sadly by many policy makers in influential positions.
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
>Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------