This preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: doi: 10.1098/rstb.2009.0174 , 3101-3113 364 2009 Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B Martha Campbell and Kathleen Bedford development The theoretical and political framing of the population factor in References http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1532/3101.full.html#ref-list-1 This article cites 43 articles, 4 of which can be accessed free Rapid response http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/letters/submit/royptb;364/1532/3101 Respond to this article Subject collections (174 articles) health and disease and epidemiology (1318 articles) evolution (1097 articles) ecology (972 articles) behaviour Articles on similar topics can be found in the following collections Email alerting service here right-hand corner of the article or click Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article - sign up in the box at the top http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/subscriptions go to: Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B To subscribe to This journal is © 2009 The Royal Society on January 8, 2010 rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org Downloaded from The theoretical and political framing of the population factor in development Martha Campbell * and Kathleen Bedford School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-7360, USA The silence about population growth in recent decades has hindered the ability of those concerned with ecological change, resource scarcity, health and educational systems, national security, and other global challenges to look with maximum objectivity at the problems they confront. Two cen- tral questions about population—(i) is population growth a problem? and (2) what causes fertility decline?—are often intertwined; if people think the second question implies possible coercion, or fear of upsetting cultures, they can be reluctant to talk about the first. The classic and economic theories explaining the demographic transition assume that couples want many children and they make decisions to have a smaller family when some socio-economic change occurs. However, there are numerous anomalies to this explanation. This paper suggests that the societal changes are neither necessary nor sufficient for family size to fall. Many barriers of non-evidence-based restrictive medical rules, cost, misinformation and social traditions exist between women and the fertility regulation methods and correct information they need to manage their family size. When these barriers are reduced, birth rates tend to decline. Many of the barriers reflect a patriarchal desire to control women, which can be largely explained by evolutionary biology. The theoretical explanations of fertility should (i) attach more weight to the many barriers to voluntary fertility regu- lation, (ii) recognize that a latent desire to control fertility may be far more prevalent among women than previously understood, and (iii) appreciate that women implicitly and rationally make benefit– cost analyses based on the information they have, wanting modern family planning only after they...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 02/03/2011 for the course EEP 153 taught by Professor Marsh during the Spring '11 term at University of California, Berkeley.
- Spring '11
- The Bible