13

Dev2 (Subject) / Chapter 5 (Lesson)

This lesson was created by Dessinha.

Learn lesson

This lesson is not released for learning.

back  |  next 1 / 1

• 1.)Concern that world population is too large for earth's carrying capacity. Particularly link between ..... and ..... 2.) How to calculate ppl-growth? 3.) Compare Mali to Germany 1.)environmental degradation and population growth 2.) Birth rate: how many new borns per 1000 , Death rate: how many die each year for 1000 in the population. Ppl-growth: Birthrate- Death rate (percentage, e.g. 17 per 1000, 1.7%) 3.) Mali: +3.2 %// Germany: -0.27%
• 1.) Demographic transition: 3 Phases ... 2.) Malthus 18th century 3.) Young (2004) applying Malthus to South Africa... 1.)First phase: Both high birth and death rates     Second phase: death rates drop, birth rates stay high (lag behind).     Third phase: death rates low, birth rates come down as well !      (Most countries in 2 or 3) 2.)With finite resources (land), population growth will make everyone poorer 3.)HIV/AIDS will decrease fertility (both directly and because women enter labour force) which in turn will make every South African 5.6% richer  
• 1.) Population control policies as consequences of negative views on population growth : 2.) Supporter of population control policies 3.) Enogenoues growth models: positive attitudes about growth (Jones '92/ Kremer '93) 1.) China 1-child policy (sterelized/ abortions) // India Emergency period 1975-1977 (target of 8.25 million sterelization in one year) 2.)Ofte developed countries. In 1966, US made aid to developing countries conditional on country having adopted some form of population control/family planning.World Bank congratulated India on 'moving eectively' on the problem of population growth. 3.) Jones: growth rate of technological change (which is growth rate of economy) is proportional to population growth rate. Higher population --> higher people in research --> higher technology growth rate. Kremer: combining endogenous growth model and Malthusian assumption (each additional person same chance to be an inventer and population can't grow faster than technology): Implies that the growth rate of population is proportional to level of population (which determines the rate of growth of economy)! (Shows empirically: higher initial population , mean higher growth of population and technology)
• 1.) Evidence for Malthus (Kremer): 2.) Evidence (Today) 3.) Jeffrey Sachs 1.)Technology gets us out of Malthusian trap (the more people the higher the growth rate)   2.)Variants of Malthusian argument linked to environmental quality, greenhouse gas emissions, clean water, food security etc 3.)"Stabilizing the world's population is crucial to ensuring peace and prosperity on this already crowded planet. If we ignore this issue we risk a massive and unsettling youth bulge, unbearable environmental pressures and unchecked global migration."
• 1.) Family size and population growth: (Becker/ Tommes 1976) 2.) How to estimate causal effect of larger families on "quality" children (i.e. investment in education/health) 1.)The more children there are, the fewer resources they receive per head. Hence there is a quantity/quality trade-o. If quality is a normal good, then parents with less income may have more children but invest less in their quality. 2.) We need exogenous variation in family size : e.g. birth of twins ,sex composition of children, preference for boys (compare girl first child, having brother, with girl first child having sister)
• 1.) Angrist, Lavy, Schlosser (2005): What did they do? 2.) What did they find? 3.) Why do we need an IV? 1.)Link Israeli Census data with information on the demographic structure of families drawn from population registry 2.)Exploit exogenous variation in family size due to twin births and preferences for mixed sibling-sex composition. 3.)Want to observe: Outcome (depend) based on family size (independent). We're worried that there is an unobserved variable family preferences, which is driving both family size and the outcome of interest, meaning that 1 is not the causal effect of family size. In this scenario, we have to instrument.
• 1.) What are conditions for IV? 2.) Why twin births a valid instrument? [Same for mixed sibling preferences] 1.) Zi must be correlated with causal variable of interest Xi! Zi only affects Yi through Xi and not directly. This means that Cov(uiZi ) = 0 2.)Twin births affect desired fertility. In other words, there are families whose target level was 2 children, who now have three because of an exogenous shock.  Conditional on the number of children, having twins does not affect the outcome of interest (i.e. education, etc.) independently. i.e. it is the same having two children as having twins.  [same for mixed-sibling preferences]
• 1.) Angrist 1st stage results (twins and mixed sibling preferences) 1.)Twin births: Increases fertility in the sample by half a child. Effect is < 1, because the instrument only works for those for whom twin births increased family size beyond desired family size. There are families who would've had larger families anyway. Mixed-sibling: Having two children of same sex increases subsequent fertility by 0.074 % .Small effect, indicating that sex composition of siblings does not change fertility decisions very much. 
• 1.) 2nd stage result Angrist 1.)coefficient on family size: measures average causal response of the first born to the birth of an additional child. That is the effect of increasing family size by one unit for those parents whose fertility decisions were affected by the instrument. OLS estimates indicate negative association between family size and outcomes. 2SLS show zero and even positive effects.
• 1.) Evidence of tradeoff between quality and quantity? 2.) So who bears the cost? 1.) Evidence so far shows that there is no trade-o between quantity an quality. 2.) Women: In Colombia e.g. women who had access to contraceptives as teenagers, have more schooling/better job
• Advertisement
• 1.) Access to family planning services _ Bangladesh (Matlab): 2.) Interpretation of results 1.)Randomly selected 70 treatment and 79 control villages in 1977. Treatment villages received extensive family planning programme. Contraceptive use in villages went from 7% to 33% in 18 months. Fertility rate in treatment village declined to 2/3 of control village. [women who have access to family planning in Matlab programme heavier, taller and earned more than those who did not] 2.)High fertility was due to lack of supply of contraceptives.There was some demand to reduce fertility and family planning programme made reducing fertility socially acceptable <--> By 1998, fertility rates in treatment and control villages almost equal
• 1.) Fertility and missing markets: incentives for large families 2.) Formula for number of children: 3.) Banerjee, Qian and Meng (Savings behaviour - China one child policy) 1.) Children substitute for social security (because old age security absent in developing countries). High child mortality  2.)Summarize probability that child grows up to look after parent by p. Let q be minimum probability with which parents receive old age support. Assuming that having at least one child look after you is enough, you should have  : 1 - (1 - p)^n > q   3.) Examine savings behaviour following introduction of China's one child policy in 1972. Family size on average one child less after 1972. Savings rates of families who had first child after 1972 is 10% higher.
• 1.) Conclusion (Important summary of whole chapter!!!) 1.)Large increases in population, globally no evidence of a Malthusian trap, but some countries may indeed be the case. Little evidence for quantity-quality trade o for children. But mothers seem to bear a large cost. Is high fertility a problem of lack in contraceptive supply? Unlikely!! Instead fertility likely driven by missing markets

back  |  next 1 / 1