c - usaid
c - usaid c - usaid
.36 desirable. However, it is usefuL to note that negative values of R represent a shift from an inverted U-shaped distribution of CPR's in tho b %s a year towards a uniform distribution in the target year. W hen R = 0, the u* t I values represent anothar U-shaped curve, paralLel to the one depicting base year vaLuus. uc t)I The case of t he other ext rame vaLue R = --- 1 has already bean referred to above, since (4.13) than becomes identicaL with (4.12). In this case, each value of CPR in the target year is obtained by muLtiplying the corresponding ba rQ year vatue by tha some number [1+R! . Such a procedure can become unrealistic in the Long run. For example, the highest age-speci fic CPR vatue in 1901 was 0.2740 (after adjustment) which would go up to nearly 0.74 in the year 2001 by this formula. Such a concentration of effort in any particu Lar age-group calls for a mere weighty justification, based on a recent avaLuatian and not sirm ply because CPR in that age-group was high in thu base year. The upshot of the above reasoning is that if the agespecific CPR vaLuos, projected by formulas 4.12) or (4.131 fai l to achieve simultaneous consistency with TFR and CBR, then the direction as wa tt as the content of the entire family planning program should be scientifically evaluated. Such an evaLuation may be necessary for other reasons as well, but it should, among other things, help in identifying a strategy for bringing about a desired reduction in CBR. On theoretical considerations, we can say that the moot effective way of reducing CBR through contraception in to
concentrate attention on those age-groups where ferti lity Is the highest. Although we cannot know in advance thii values of ASFR's in the targot year, we sti lL hove on option based on age-apecific natural ferti li ty rates (ASNFR 's] , since these have been estimated by us for the target year, in block 3 step 2 above. According to tho ;t&nda rd Co ale-Truasell pattern which we have used (with as wull as without modi ficati on] , the ASNFR's are the highEst in the aga-groups 20-24 and 25-29. As compared to this, the age-spaci fic CPR-va luos in the base year 1981 wore the highest for the age-groups 30-34 and 25-29. This helps us understand why the ui (t) values derived from formula [4.12) or (4.13] may not be up to tho mark. A pro-rata intensification of effort guided by base year CPu values alone would not attach as much importance to age-groups 20-24 and 25-29 as would be justified by the highest fe rti lity levels in these a ge-groupe. In order to rectify the si tuati ion, we need to introduce a "program reallocati on factor" which can make u (ti a function of ASINFRi (t] in such a way that ui (t) can ba particularly increased for those ago-groups in which the estimated ASNFR I t] are the highest. This may appoar to complicate further the formula forr u (t) , but there is ample thtuoretical Justification for this. We have devised a "program real Location factor" (P[F], an unadjusted form for which is given by the equation 35 ASNFR (t]-TNFR(t) PRF (t) = ii exp(K x [----------------------- (.... 4.15] 10 w heare K( c an t a ke v a Lues beat wee n 0 e nd 1I We h a ve toa cLa r if y wh y
- Page 2 and 3: ~Ty~AD!DhkI Re fe rffc ce LibL1 t-,
- Page 4 and 5: 1. INTRODUCTION A dynamic rcLations
- Page 6 and 7: 5 rate, and there is no possibi Lit
- Page 8 and 9: 5 course, the inputs have to be sui
- Page 10 and 11: 7 Age-group 15-29 20-24 25-29 30
- Page 12 and 13: 9 Si mi larly, C varies From one ag
- Page 14 and 15: 11 This formula enables us to estim
- Page 16 and 17: n tura LLy temptes t0 fIx a low CBR
- Page 18 and 19: 15 mathematical space, then alL vaL
- Page 20 and 21: F iq]u.- r-e .3 1: -FFi . . a,-, -I
- Page 22 and 23: 18 possib le, and theoretically pre
- Page 24 and 25: 20 Extensive studies made by Coole,
- Page 26 and 27: 22 f3 Re lative values of age-speci
- Page 28 and 29: 24 Step-1 Use CPS-1901 to derive
- Page 30 and 31: 0.84, va Lues for ago-groups be Ir.
- Page 32 and 33: aving taken 1981 as tho bae year, w
- Page 34 and 35: 30 1 C (0) C (0) C [0) C (0] TFR(t)
- Page 36 and 37: 32 As regards the inputs () , the o
- Page 38 and 39: 34 would not be fulfi lLed. We can
- Page 42 and 43: 38 we hnve chosen a function of thi
- Page 44 and 45: 40 At thi s stago, a graphical desc
- Page 46 and 47: 141 which correspond to the ranges
- Page 48 and 49: 43 5. APPLICATIO1t TO BANGLADESH AN
- Page 50 and 51: 45 Corresponding to each pattern of
- Page 52 and 53: 47 for which the relevant formula i
- Page 54 and 55: J49 (f] Usa-effectiveness of cont r
- Page 56 and 57: 51 At this st ago it would be conve
- Page 58 and 59: 53 1986 1991 1996 2001 Total natura
- Page 60 and 61: 55 that a fulfi Lmant of the TFR ta
- Page 62 and 63: 57 Four patterns of natural fertili
- Page 64 and 65: 59 parameter K ha been introducod w
- Page 66 and 67: 61 roach 0.9. (vi) Age-specific con
- Page 68 and 69: 65 The main conclusions that we can
- Page 70 and 71: -r/\rps t- E
- Page 72 and 73: +4 Table A.2 Inputs(Natural fertili
- Page 74 and 75: Table A.4 Inputs(Natural fertility
- Page 76 and 77: Table A.6 Inputs(Natural fertility
- Page 78 and 79: Table A.8 Inputs(Natural fertility
- Page 80 and 81: Table A.10 Inputs(Natural fertility
- Page 82 and 83: Table A.12 lnputs(Natural fertility
- Page 84 and 85: Table A.14 Inputs(Natural {ertility
- Page 86 and 87: Table A.16 ]nputs(Natural fertility
- Page 88 and 89: Table A.18 Inputs(Natural fertility
concentrate attention on those age-groups where ferti lity Is the<br />
highest. Although we cannot know in advance thii values of ASFR's<br />
in the targot year, we sti lL hove on option based on age-apecific<br />
natural ferti li ty rates (ASNFR 's] , since these have been estimated<br />
by us for the target year, in block 3 step 2 above.<br />
According to tho ;t&nda rd Co ale-Truasell pattern which we<br />
have used (with as wull as without modi ficati on] , the ASNFR's are<br />
the highEst in the aga-groups 20-24 and 25-29. As compared to<br />
this, the age-spaci fic CPR-va luos in the base year 1981 wore the<br />
highest for the age-groups 30-34 and 25-29. This helps us<br />
understand why the ui (t) values derived from formula [4.12) or<br />
(4.13] may not be up to tho mark. A pro-rata intensification of<br />
effort guided by base year CPu values alone would not attach as<br />
much importance to age-groups 20-24 and 25-29 as would be<br />
justified by the highest fe rti lity levels in these a ge-groupe.<br />
In order to rectify the si tuati ion, we need to introduce a<br />
"program reallocati on factor" which can make u (ti a function of<br />
ASINFRi (t] in such a way that ui (t) can ba particularly increased<br />
for those ago-groups in which the estimated ASNFR I t] are the<br />
highest. This may appoar to complicate further the formula forr<br />
u (t) ,<br />
but there is ample thtuoretical Justification for this.<br />
We have devised a "program real Location factor" (P[F], an<br />
unadjusted<br />
form for which is given by the equation<br />
35 ASNFR (t]-TNFR(t)<br />
PRF (t) = ii exp(K x [----------------------- (.... 4.15]<br />
10<br />
w heare K( c an t a ke v a Lues beat wee n 0 e nd 1I We h a ve toa cLa r if y wh y
Change language