Dear Anne
I think the research into this question shows that its not just monetary
'wealth' but women's education levels and their opportunity to make choices
about their lives. Which is why there are differences in birth rates within
countries as well as between countries. The common denominator tends to be
women's education levels ... educating men doesn't seem to make too much of
a difference ... . ( I will try and find some references for you ... I can't
find any right at this moment ... my desk and files are an utter mess).
But from what I remember the higher women's education levels and the more
opportunities women have to make their own choices about their life (and I
also include access to affordable and safe contraceptives and abortions
within that) the less children they are likely to have ... and the higher
their age at the birth of their first child is likely to be.
At 11:41 22/7/97 -0400, you wrote:
>>The known, proven solution to high birth rates is affluence.
>
>Neil (or anyone else who can answer this question) -
>
>Are you saying that the higher people's income, the less likely they are
>to have children? This seems plausible to me, based on anecdotal
>evidence, but why is it so? Any sociologists out there?
>
>Also, are you proposing that all of earth's inhabitants should be made
>rich (my interpretation of the word "affluent")? Wouldn't a more sound
>plan be to see that everyone has what they need and that the world has no
>use for terms like "rich" and "poor"?
>
> -- Anne
>
>
Amanda Elliot
Social Policy Research Centre
University of New South Wales
Kensington, NSW
2052
ph: 385 3845
fax: 385 1049
e-mail: a.elliot@unsw.edu.au
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:29 PDT