Aug 20 2007
IB: Economic development and fertility rates in India
How the World Works: Who Invented Calculus? – Salon.com
IB students, here’s a blog post you’ll want to read closely once we start studying economic development later this semester. Andrew Leonard at Salon.com refers to a study titled “Does Economic Growth Reduce Fertility? Rural India 1971-1999″.
Interesting stuff. Leonard points out a peculiar paradox of growth in India:
India’s Green Revolution has been criticized by those who wonder if an agricultural model reliant on large inputs of fertilizers and pesticides is environmentally sustainable over the long run. But if in the short run these spikes in agricultural productivity contribute to population stabilization, then we have a nifty paradox: a (possibly) unsustainable agricultural model contributing to (possibly) sustainable population levels.
This article and the study it refers to might make for an interesting commentary for your internal assessment, or as a source for an extended essay on growth and development. Any opinions on the supposed correlation between economic growth and decreased fertility?
Powered by ScribeFire.
Related posts:
- Dr. Irene Forichi on Agricultural Productivity and Economic Development in Southern Africa
- Does economic growth = economic development? Not for China’s rural poor…
- Models of Economic Growth and Development
- Mali’s Weed: Is this an economic development, economic growth, supply or demand issue??
- Art, Design and Economic Development






so fit ing
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Such a correlation may very well exist in a LEDC, in which the majority of the population is impoverished–and among those, a great deal are below the poverty line. I cannot exactly remember where I read this…I think it was in Freaknomoics…but I do remember reading about a correlation between poverty and the propensity to reproduce. Now I am not saying that poor people enjoy procreation more than rich people–having children may actually burden the poor family even more. However, poor people often are not able or do not consider "worth it" to purchase condoms; since sexual drive is not readily suppressed, that leads to..tadaaa children. Having said that, there also is a tendency for poor people to have multiple children for economic reasons–some believe that with more "pillars" in a family, it can be better off economically in the future.
In a nation where population growth is rampant, what can stop this unhindered procreation more effectively than sterilization, brought on by pollution of unsustaiable economic growth methods?
However, when it comes to MEDCs, this correlation becomes more questionable. First off, rich people can buy condoms, and lots of them too (how many types do durex produce anyways??). Secondly, unlike a poor family, a rich family does not expect their child to grow and work in the agricultural or industrial sector (where sheer number of manpower is the key to success). Instead, they expect their children to enter a career demanding more intellectual prowess–an economist, scientist, businessmen…you know. In order to ensure a child's success in such career, it's all about investing in him/her–thus rich families tend to have a limited number of children, to whom the parents devote and concentrate their resources.
In such MEDCs, population is ALREADY increasing very slowly, or even decreasing, such as in the case of Japan or numerous European countries. In such a case, unsustainable economic growth practiced by other LEDCs (pollution cant be contained!) will further decrease the number of children born, leading to a destabilization of population.
Like or Dislike:
0
0