World Development Report 1984
World Development Report 1984
World Development Report 1984
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
6 Slowing population growth<br />
Experience has shown that as development pro- fertility declines of the 1960s, which were largely<br />
gresses fertility falls. Yet, because current rates of confined to the industrializing economies of Korea,<br />
population growth are so much greater in the Singapore, and Hong Kong. But fertility declines<br />
developing world than they were at comparable beginning in other developing countries in the late<br />
income levels in today's developed countries, 1960s, and spreading to more in the 1970s, have<br />
many developing countries cannot afford to wait been related to a different kind of development:<br />
for fertility to decline spontaneously. This message education, health, and the alleviation of poverty.<br />
is not without hope, however, because some Birth rate declines have been much more closely<br />
developing countries have already shown that fer- associated with adult literacy and life expectancy<br />
tility can be brought down significantly. This chap- than with GNP per capita. Despite high average<br />
ter examines the forces behind their success and incomes, rapid industrialization, and fast ecoconsiders<br />
the role of public policy in strengthening nomic growth, birth rates fell less in Brazil and<br />
such forces. Venezuela between 1965 and 1975 than in Sri<br />
It was once assumed that reducing fertility in Lanka, Thailand, and Turkey, where income gains<br />
developing countries would require a typical and social services have been more evenly<br />
sequence of economic advance: urbanization, distributed.<br />
industrialization, a shift from production in the This association is not surprising. When their<br />
household to factory production, and incomes ris- children have a better chance of surviving and of<br />
ing to levels enjoyed by today's developed coun- enjoying a wider range of opportunities, parents<br />
tries. This view seemed to be confirmed by the are willing to devote more money and time to edu-<br />
FIGURE 6.1<br />
How government decisions influence family decisions<br />
Famil$ decisions<br />
l_ Govemment<br />
decisions j Socioeconormic O i.m. .r<br />
enviromnen.t 5 N,rr.tvr ,, ! rhjr,e.<br />
Polm, and-, TSending<br />
Lxprogr.rn1<br />
11<br />
.<br />
1~~l z *:hddfrr. hdlfrn<br />
i,<br />
e^3-,<br />
.d<br />
I<br />
cU trT3rr.ae iSt 0 Educatlio,n o F3mLIs a.s, 3Inc, Ci Educabtinal D<br />
c oRr~e3fEdin: o Pnrnar. helth C C tIr 0 U;cr ,r Fei, l.. r<br />
c- .i,n-n 'rulu ri Famrd% planninr Iarer ianPi*es a Availability ot<br />
Oi Children 0 in,entEi es !or ~laatdI h servic*e§<br />
-du, shc.n ard3 ':..rk ien:,'zrv ,ontrr1 0.<br />
.duC A .hon t:d 1,ar0mon) tvomnen's<br />
nhat<br />
status evcsPomt<br />
ci 01Id .at e v arl! . D Fjnanciaf and<br />
T<br />
.rk in-,e hp<br />
h.I.<br />
_<br />
Proximate<br />
delerminanis<br />
of fertilih,<br />
i ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~labr-rniarke<br />
s~<br />
106<br />
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c 5 .. rdrri., .se<br />
. ,, . Ln~~~~~ B1erlireedirns<br />
_ . O~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c<br />
C :.n rrcpi)D -. _<br />
Fertility