c - usaid
c - usaid c - usaid
65 The main conclusions that we can draw from the abovementinonad sets of estimates are tho following: (a) TFR estimates for tha years 1986 to 2001, which are currantly used, appear to bo reaonab oL; (b) CBR estimatas for 1286 and 1991, whIch are currently used, saum to be under-estimtes, particularly for 1991 ' (c] CBR estimates for 1996 and 2001, which era currently used, appear to ba reasonable. The conclusion (b) cells for further comment. If C$R estimate for 1986 is revised and put in the range "39.2 to 40.0", and the corresponding estimate for 1991 is also revised and put in the range "36. 2 to 36.9", than the population projections themselves may need to be re-examined. From the methodological point of view, our model opena up new poasvbi Li ties for research, for example, (i) The enti re exercisu can be repeated by taking 1985 or 1986 as the base year if the CPS-1985/86 provides detailed data significantly different from the trend revealed by CPS-1981 and CPS-1903. (i i Additional patterns of natural ferti Li ty can alse be tested for validity in relation to Bang ladesh data; [ i-Ai I Greater attention can be devoted to test the validity of commonly accepted values of use-effectiveness of different methods of cant racepti on, and of the sterility correction factors, ago-specific as wel l as overall. [fiv)]-We could examine in greeter detail as to how the results
obtained from different patterne are linked not onLy to the ago of eLigible women but aLso to thei r parity, and sonpreference, a nd whether they are spacers or imi tars; (v) We could also examina whether different types of contiatency checks based or unwighted or weighted avarager of agespecific contraceptive preva Lance rates yield aimi Lar or different results; (vi) A regression equation between CBR and CPR can be derived, which may be more cui tab le for Bang lodesh than the one given for deveLoping count ries in general, by Nortman (1980] or HauLdi n and Soga L f1986) We plan to pursue some of these and other possibi litieo in our next monograph.
- 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 40 and 41: .36 desirable. However, it is usefu
- 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 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
- Page 90 and 91: Table A.20 Inputs(Natural fertility
- Page 92 and 93: ,A,.-:, FF7R . qe I:1..' Pafi. 'rr,
- Page 94 and 95: 4.5. - I tr-t. :_- -, rl '-: ':1i
- Page 96: 10. Join, A. K. and J. B ongaarts,
65<br />
The main conclusions that we can draw from the abovementinonad<br />
sets of estimates are tho following:<br />
(a) TFR estimates for tha years 1986 to 2001, which are<br />
currantly used, appear to bo reaonab oL;<br />
(b) CBR estimatas for 1286 and 1991, whIch are currently used,<br />
saum to be under-estimtes, particularly for 1991 '<br />
(c] CBR estimates for 1996 and 2001, which era currently used,<br />
appear to ba reasonable.<br />
The conclusion (b) cells for further comment. If C$R<br />
estimate for 1986 is revised and put in the range "39.2 to 40.0",<br />
and the corresponding estimate for 1991 is also revised and put in<br />
the range "36. 2 to 36.9", than the population projections<br />
themselves may need to be re-examined.<br />
From the methodological point of view, our model opena up new<br />
poasvbi Li ties for research, for example,<br />
(i) The enti re exercisu can be repeated by taking 1985 or 1986<br />
as the base year if the CPS-1985/86 provides detailed data<br />
significantly different from the trend revealed by CPS-1981<br />
and CPS-1903.<br />
(i i Additional patterns of natural ferti Li ty can alse be tested<br />
for validity in relation to Bang ladesh data;<br />
[ i-Ai I Greater attention can be devoted to test the validity of<br />
commonly accepted values of use-effectiveness of different<br />
methods of cant racepti on, and of the sterility correction<br />
factors, ago-specific as wel l as overall.<br />
[fiv)]-We could examine in greeter detail as to how the results
Change language