Determinants of Fertility Decline in India

An Analysis SWP-699K. C. Zachariah

Sulekha Patel

WORLD BANK STAFF WORKING PAPERSNumber 699

POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT SERIESNumber 24

SFCTOltAL LIDRARYrNTERNATIONAL BANX

RECONsTRUC-oN AND DEVELOPMENT

FEB 2 1 185

02. ( <)~~~~44- 01 i

HB1049.Z33 1 j451984

***HB1049.Z331984Determinants of fertility decline in India an analysis /

SLC024592

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

WORLD BANK STAFF WORKING PAPERSNumber 699

POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT SERIESNumber 24

Determinants of Fertility Decline in India

An Analysis

K. C. ZachariahSulekha Patel

The World BankWashington, D C., U.S.A.

Copyright () 1984The International Bank for Reconstructionand Development/THE WORLD BANK

1818 H Street, N.WWashington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A.

All rights reservedManufactured in the United States of AmericaFirst printing December 1984

This is a working document published informally by the World Bank. To presentthe results of research with the least possible delay, the typescript has not beenprepared in accordance with the procedures appropriate to formal printed texts, andthe World Bank accepts no responsibility for errors. The publication is supplied at atoken charge to defray part of the cost of manufacture and distribution

The World Bank does not accept responsibility for the views expressed herein, whichare those of the authors and should not be attributed to the World Bank or to itsaffiliated organizations. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions are the resultsof research supported by the Bank; they do not necessarily represent official policy ofthe Bank. The designations employed, the presentation of material, and any maps usedin this document are solely for the convenience of the reader and do not imply theexpression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the World Bank or its affiliatesconcerning the legal status of any country, territory, city, area, or of its authorities, orconcerning the delimitation of its boundaries, or national affiliation.

The full range of World Bank publications, both free and for sale, is described in theCatalog of Publications: the continuing research program is outihr.2d in Abstracts ofCurrent Studies. Both booklets are updated annually; the most recent edition of each isavailable without charge from the Publications Sales Unit, Department T, The WorldBank, 1818 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A, or from the EuropeanOffice of the Bank, 66 avenue d'16na, 75116 Paris, France.

K. C. Zachariah is senior demographer and Sulekha Patel a research assistant in thePopulation, Health, and Nutrition Department of the World Bank.

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Zachariah, K. C. (Kunniparampil Curien), 1924-Determinants of fertility decline in India.

(World Bank staff working papers ; no. 699.Population and development series ; no. 24)

Includes bibliographical references.1. Fertility, Human--India. 2. Birth control--India.

I. Patel, Sulekha. II. Title. III. Series: World Bankstaff working papers ; no. 699. IV. Series: World Bankstaff working papers. Population and development seriesno. 24.HB1049.Z33 1984 304.6'32'0954 84-25773ISBN 0-8213-0456-9 l+13

( V0%

V&r

FOREWORD

This paper is one in a special series of World Bank StaffWorking Papers on population change and development. Prepared asbackground papers for the World Development Report 1984, theyprovide more detailed treatment and documentation of the issuesdealt with in Part II of the Report. The papers cover a range oftopics, including the effects of population growth and change oneconomic development, the determinants of fertility and mortality,the links between population growth and internal and internationalmigration, and the management, financing, and effectiveness offamily planning programs. They include several country andregional studies of fertility change and population policy.

The background papers draw on a large number of publishedand unpublished studies of individual researchers, on Bank policyanalysis and research, and on reports of other organizationsworking on population and development programs and issues. Thepapers are the work of individuals and the views andinterpretations expressed in them do not necessarily coincide withthe views and interpretations of the Report itself.

I hope these detailed studies will supplement the WorldDevelopment Report 1984 in furthering understanding of populationand development issues among students and practitioners ofdevelopment.

Nancy BirdsallStaff Director

World Development Report 1984

Some of the Papers in the Population and Development Series

Ainsworth, Martha. Family Planning Programs: The Clients' Perspective. World BankStaff Working Paper no. 676.

Boulier, Bryan L. Evaluating Unmet Need for Contraception: Estimates for Thirty-six Developing Countries. World Bank Staff Working Paper no. 678.

Bulatao, Rodolfo A. Expenditures on Population Programs in Developing Regions:Current Levels and Future Requirements. World Bank Staff Working Paper no. 679.

Bulatao, Rodolfo A. Reducing Fertility in Developing Countries: A Review ofDeterminants and Policy Levers. World Bank Staff Working Paper no. 680.

Bulatao, Rodolfo A. and Anne Elwan. Fertility and Mortality Transition inDeveloping Countries: Patterns, Projections, and Interdependence. WorldBank Staff Working Paper no. 681.

Cain, Mead. Women's Status and Fertility in Developing Countries: SonPreference and Economic Security. World Bank Staff Working Paper no. 682.

Gwatkin, Davidson. Mortality Reduction, Fertility Decline, and PopulationGrowth: Toward a More Relevant Assessment of Relationships Among Them.World Bank Staff Working Paper no. 686.

Herz, Barbara. Official Development Assistance for Population Activities: AReview. World Bank Staff Working Paper no. 688.

McNicoll, Geoffrey. Consequences of Rapid Population Growth: An Overview.World Bank Staff Working Paper no. 691.

Merrick, Thomas W. Recent Fertility Declines in Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico.World Bank Staff Working Paper no. 692.

Muscat, Robert and others. Rapid Population Growth and Human Carrying Capacity:Two Perspectives. World Bank Staff Working Paper no. 690.

Sapir, Andre. Some Aspects of Population Growth, Trade, and Factor Mobility.World Bank Staff Working Paper no. 694.

Standing, Guy. Population Mobility and Productive Relations: Demographic Linksand Policy Evolution. World Bank Staff Working Paper no. 695.

Tan, Jee-Peng and Michael Haines. Schooling and Demand for Children: HistoricalPerspectives. World Bank Staff Working Paper no. 697.

Trussell, James and Anne R. Pebley. The Potential Impact of Changes in Fertility onInfant, Child, and Maternal Mortality. World Bank Staff Working Paper no. 698.

Zachariah, K.C. and Sulekha Patel. Determinants of Fertility Decline in India:An Analysis. World Bank Staff Working Paper no. 699.

Zachariah, K.C. The Anomoly of the Fertility Decline in India's Kerala State:A Field Investigation. World Bank Staff Working Paper no. 700.

Abstract

Indian fertility has declined by at least 25 percent in the lasttwenty years. The current total fertility rate is 4.8, which is lower thanthat in any other country at the same or a lower level of socioeconomicdevelopment, as measured by per capita income, infant mortality, femaleeducation, and the like. Since 1975, however, decline in the the birth ratehas shown a tendency to stall. This is partly due to an emerging unfavorableage structure (increase in the proportion of women of childbearing age) andpartly due to stagnation in the family planning acceptance rate.

Nearly 90 percent of the fertility decline in the period 1961-81can be accounted for by the increase in family planning practice, and thebalance by an increase in the age at marriage. Although family planningpractice can account for much of the fertility differences, family planninginput variables--manpower, budget, etc.--were much less important thansocioeconomic factors such as female education and children's health inexplaining the practice of family planning. About 60 percent of the inter-state variation in family planning practice (and hence fertility decline)can be attributed to socioeconomic differences, 10 percent to differencesin family planning inputs, and the remaining 30 percent to their interaction.

Our interpretation of the extent, pattern, and socioeconomiccorrelates of fertility decline in India is that, in the changing socio-economic situation, the increase in the cost of bringing up children createsa situation in which a smaller family size is becoming an economic necessityto an increasing number of couples. The family planning program served notonly this emerging demand for small families, but created additional demandfor contraception through information and incentives.

Condense

Au cours des vingt dernieres ann6es, la fecondite a baiss6 d'aumoins 25 % en Inde. Actuellement, le taux de fecondite totale est de 4,8,c'est-a-dire inferieur a celui de tout autre pays se situant au memeniveau que l'Inde ou a un niveau inferieur pour ce qui est dud6veloppement socioeconomique mesur6 d'apres le revenu par habitant, lamortalite infantile, l'6ducation des femmes, et autres criteres analogues.Toutefois, depuis 1975, ce flechissement du taux de natalit6 semblestoppe. Cela est da en partie a l'apparition d'une structure defavorablede la pyramide des ages (accroissement de la proportion des femmes en agede procreer) et en partie a la stagnation du taux d'acceptation duplanning familial.

Le declin de la fecondite qui s'observe au cours de la periode1961-81 peut etre attribu6 pour pres de 90 % au d6veloppement de lapratique du planning familial et, pour le reste, au fait que le mariageest contract6 a un age plus avanc6. Si la pratique du planning familialexplique en grande partie les differences de taux de f6condite, lesvariables du programme de planning familial - personnel, budget, etc. -ont contribu6 de facon beaucoup moins importante que les facteurssocioeconomiques tels que l'education des femmes et la sant6 des enfants acette pratique. Les diff6rences entre Etats dans la pratique du planningfamilial (et par cons6quent dans la baisse de la fecondite) peuvent etreattribuees pour environ 60 % aux differences socioeconomiques, pour 10 %aux differences dans les variables du planning familial et pour les 30 %restants a l'interaction entre les unes et les autres.

Notre interpretation de l'ampleur, des caracteristiques et descauses socioeconomiques du declin de la fecondite observ6 en Inde est que,dans une situation socioeconomique en 6volution, comme il devient de plusen plus coateux d'elever un enfant, un nombre croissant de couples sevoient obliges pour des raisons economiques de limiter la taille de leurfamille. Non seulement le programme de planning familial a permis derepondre a ce nouveau besoin de se contenter d'une petite famille, mais ila suscite, par le biais de l'information et des encouragements, un regainde la demande de contraception.

Extracto

La fecundidad en la India ha disminuido por lo menos en un 25%en los 6ltimos veinte anos. La tasa total de fecundidad es actualmente de4,8, mas baja que la de cualquier otro pais de igual o menor nivel dedesarrollo socioecon6mico, medido en funci6n del ingreso per capita, lamortalidad infantil, la educaci6n femenina y otros parametros similares.Sin embargo, desde 1975 la declinaci6n de la tasa de natalidad ha mostradotendencia a detenerse. Esto se debe en parte al surgimiento de una desfa-vorable estructura de la poblaci6n por edades (aumento de la proporcion demujeres en edad de procrear) y en parte al estancamiento de la tasa deaceptaci6n de la planificaci6n de la familia.

Cerca del 90% de la disminuci6n de la fecundidad en el periodode 1961-81 puede atribuirse al incremento en la practica de la planifica-ci6n de la familia y el resto a la elevaci6n de la edad para contraermatrimonio. Aunque a la planificaci6n familiar cabe achacar gran parte delas diferencias en cuanto a fecundidad, las variables de estos programasusadas como insumos --recursos humanos, presupuestos, etc.-- fueron muchomenos importantes que ciertos factores socioecon6micos, tales como la edu-caci6n de las mujeres y la salud infantil, para explicar la practica de laplanificaci6n de la familia. Alrededor del 60% de la variaci6n interesta-tal en dicha practica (y, por ende, en la disminuci6n de la fecundidad)puede atribuirse a diferencias socioecon6micas, el 10% a diferencias enlos insumos de planificaci6n de la familia y el 30% restante a la interac-ci6n de esos factores.

Nuestra interpretaci6n del alcance, la configuraci6n y lascaracteristicas socioecon6micas conexas de la disminuci6n de la fecundidaden la India es que, en las circunstancias socioecon6micas cambiantes, elaumento del costo de la crianza y la educaci6n de los hijos crea unasituaci6n en la que el tener una familia mas reducida esta volvi6ndose unanecesidad econ6mica para un numero cada vez mayor de parejas. El programade planificaci6n de la familia no solamente fue de utilidad para atenderesta naciente demanda de familias pequefias, sino que cre6 una demanda adi-cional de anticoncepci6n por medio de informaci6n e incentivos.

Table of Contents

Page

Summary and Conclusions. * ... * xii

I. Introduction . ....................................... 1

II. Determinants of Fertility Decline- A General Framework .................... ... .. .. . . ..... .... 2

III. Fertility Trend in India by States . ... ................... .4

IV. Proximate Determinants of Fertilityo . .12

V. Socio-Economic Factors Related toFertility Decline.oo .o.o. ........... o ....................... 25

Statistical Annex .................. .... .................... . . .. 35

List of Figures

Figure 1 Crude Birth Rate, India 1971-1980. 5

Figure 2 Demographic Transitions, c. 1960-1980,India and Indonesia .13

List of Maps

Map I Total Fertility Rate by States, 1978 .57

List of Tables

Page

Table 1 Decomposition of Birth Rate 1961-71and 1971-81 ..................... ........... * *... 4

Table 2 Birth Rates and Total Fertility Rates,India, 1941-51 to 1981 ...... ****................ 6

Table 3 Birth Rates by States ................... * ....... 7

Table 4 Total Fertility Rates by States1972, 1978 .*.....**....****........................ 8

Table 5 Mean Age at Marriage of Females .................... 15

Table 6 Proportion Married (Females) by Age, India ......... 16

Table 7 Effect of Nuptiality Changes on TFR,1961-81 ............. ............................... 16

Table 8 Fertility Impact of Changes in ProportionMarried, 1961-71 and 1971-81 ...................... 18

Table 9 Birth Rates According to SRS and EstimatedBirth Rates on the Basis of Births Averteddue to Family Planning Program 1971-72 to1982-83 *... ..... ........... *................. 19

Table 10 Percent of Couples Effectively Protected,India, 1970-71 to 1981-82 . ................... 19

Table 11 Cumulative Sterilization, IUD AcceptanceRate and Percent of Couples EffectivelyProtected .*..e*........... .............*...***.......... 20

Table 12 Decline in the Birth Rate, Actual, andEstimated on the Basis of Percent ofCouples Effectively Protected ...................... 21

Table 13 Fertility Impact of Official FamilyPlanning Program, 1961-71 and 1971-81 ............. 22

Table 14 Family Planning and Nuptiality Factorsin Fertility Decline ... ......... ..o. .. .... ...... 23

Table 15 Distribution of Family Planning Acceptorsby Age of Wife and Method, 1973-74 and1980-81 -*ooo .... o .... o- ... *.. o...-....... 24

List of Tables (cont'd)

Page

Table 16 Average Age and Average Number of LivingChildren of Family Planning Acceptors .......... . .... 25

Table 17 Regression Analysis, Program Variablesand Socio-economic Variables . ....................... 29

Table 18 Total Marital Fertility Rate byEducational Attainment of Mothers .... .............. 30

Table 19 Age Specific Marital Fertility byEducation, 1978 .................................... 30

Table 20 Age Specific Marital Fertility by Level ofEducation and Urban-Rural Residence, 1972 ........ .. 31

Summary and Conclusions

This paper is concerned with an analysis of the determinants offertility decline in India. Inasmuch as facts about the extent andpatterns of fertility trend in India are not well documented this paperalso attempts to present available information on fertility trend at thenational and state level.

The Indian birth rate is now around 34 per 1,000 population andthe total fertility rate (TFR) is about 4.8. Prior to 1950 the birth ratewas about 45 and the TFR about 6.5. Thus, India has definitely experienceda fairly significant fertility decline in recent years; a decline of atleast 25 percent in the last 20 years.

Much of the decline in the birth rate took place before 1976.Since then, the birth rate has shown a tendency to stall. The factorsunderlying this stalling have also been analysed in this paper.

All the Indian states have experienced some degree of fertilitydecline in recent years. The extent of the decline varied from as littleas 4 to 5 points in the birth rate in some of the northern states to 15 to18 points in some of the southern states. In 5 states, mostly in thesouth, with a combined population of 200 million, the birth rate hasalready declined below 30, but in 4 other states, mostly in the north, witha combined population of over 250 million, the rate is still onlymarginally below 40. Sustainable fertility decline of a significantmagnitude is yet to begin in some of these north Indian states.

Much of the fertility decline since 1960 could be accounted forby increase in contraceptive practice. The other proximate variables --nuptiality, abortion, and lactation -- played relatively minor roles. Theeffect of increase in age at marriage or decrease in proportion married atyounger ages, was partly offset by increase in age at widowhood or increasein proportion married at older ages. The effect of increase in thepractice of abortion was counterbalanced by the effect of decrease inbreast feeding or a decrease in the period of lactation infecundityperiod. Ignoring abortion and lactation for which needed data at thenational level are not available, a rough calculation indicates that 90percent of the fertility decline in India during 1971-81 was attributableto increase in contraceptive practice and the balance 10 percent to changesin nuptiality rates. The proportion of couples protected by the officialfamily planning program increased by about 12 points during 1961-71 and1971-81 and the TFR declined by 0.8 points in both the decades. Thenuptiality factor had slightly larger influence in 1971-81 than in 1961-71,but inspite of this increase, its relative contribution to fertilitydecline was only about 10 percent.

,ii -

- wiii -

Nearly all the state-wise variation in fertility rate (91percent) and in family planning practice rates (81 percent) can beexplained by a few socio-economic variables and family planning programinput variables. The socio-economic variables which had statisticallysignificant association with fertility rates were female literacy (whichaccounts for 64 percent of the explained variance) infant mortality rate(16 percent of the variance) female agricultural wages (9 percent) and percapita cropped area (7 percent). Those which had significant associationwith family planning practice were: literacy rate of the state (49 percentof the explained variance) and per capita domestic product (15 percent ofthe variance). Female wages did not show a statistically significantassociation with family planning practice rate.

On the whole, socio-economic variables have had a relativelylarger effect on family planning practice rate than family planning inputvariables. A rough breakdown is: socio-economic variables 60 percent,family planning variables 10 percent, and the interaction between them 30percent. The principal program variable was per capita expenditure onfamily welfare which accounted for about 24 percent of the explainedvariance of family planning practice rate.

The stalling of the birth rate since 1975 is related to twofactors. One is a demographic factor. Between 1961 and 1971 the changesin age-sex composition in India was conducive to a decline in the birthrate. However, between 1971 and 1981 this was no longer true. If theage-sex composition had remained unchanged, the decline in the birth ratewould have been higher by 19 percent during 1971-81. Since the reversaltook place between these decades, its effect would have to be much higherin the latter half of the decade (i.e., during 1976-81). Thus, the fulleffect of the decline in fertility rate is not translated into birth ratein this period.

A second factor involved in the stalled birth rate is thestalling of the contraceptive acceptance rate. Between 1971 and 1976 theproportion of couples effectively protected by the official programincreased by 13 points, but between 1976 and 1981 the proportion hardlychanged at all. The reasons behind the stalled contraceptive practice rateare likely to be both demand and supply related.

There is little that can be done to reverse the demographictrend. The proportion of women in the reproductive ages is likely toincrease for several more decades. However, the problem of stagnation infamily planning acceptance rate is amenable to policy interventions.

Our analysis has indicated that family planning is a feasibleoption to reduce fertility in the Indian setting. For about 200 millionpeople living in 5 separate states, the fertility has declined torelatively low levels and for these states the prospects of a replacementlevel fertility by the year 2000 is within easy reach. The analysis hasalso indicated that inspite of the dominant part played by the familyplanning program as a means of fertility reduction, socio-economic factorshave been much more important than program input variables in explaininginterstate variation in fertility rate and family planning use. Given the

- xi)V -

socio-economic conditions, the fertility level in India is relatively low,lower than that of the any other country in the world with the same orlower level of socio-economic development. Thus, it appears that a majorrequirement for a further increase in contraceptive prevalence rate inIndia is improvements in socio-economic conditions. This means principallyfurther reduction in infant mortality rates and increase in femaleeducation especially in states such as Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, Rajastanand Madhya Pradesh, where the IMR is above 100 and female literacy rate isbelow 20 percent.

The family planning program input variables examined in thisstudy were too few to give any definite conclusion regarding the exactcontribution of program variables in relation to that of socio-economicvariables. Our estimate is likely to be on the low side. Other studieshave indicated that family planning programs can be used and in fact usedto reduce the desired family size and strengthen the demand for familyplanning services. What is important is to develop the right informationand communication strategy.

Marital status composition was not a factor in the stalled birthrate, as its contribution to the decline in birth rate was marginallyhigher in 1971-81 than in 1961-71. However, barely 10 percent of thefertility decline in India in 1971-81 was contributed by increase in age atmarriage. At the present low average age at marriage of women in India,the potential for fertility reduction through increase in age at marriageis much larger. This is a means of fertility reduction which is very muchuntapped in most states of India and deserves as much attention andfinancial backing as the family planning program.

I. Introduction

The Indian birth rate is now around 34 per 1,000 population andthe TFR is about 4.8.1/ Prior to 1950 the birth rate was about 45 and theTFR was about 6.5. Thius India has definitely experienced a fairlysignificant fertility decline in recent years.

Recent data show that the decline in the birth rate is notcontinuing as fast as it did in the past; the rate has stalled somewhat ata level of about 34. Although such a stalling has been observed in a fewother developing countries in recent years, it was not expected on thebasis of historical experience of developed countries. In the past, at alevel of 34, a birth rate usually declined rapidly. For example,international data on birth rates for the 195U's and 1960's show that therewere few countries with birth rates in the. range of 30-34; most of thenational birth rates were either above 35 or below 25.2/ The Indian birthrate is in this range, and therefore, it should have b7een declining morerapidly. Yet the decline is slow; the rate appears to have stalled. Thereappear to be some basic differences between the factors which moderatedfertility in the 1950's and earlier, and those which seem to be operatingin India and in some of the other developing countries at present. Whatare the factors which caused the Indian fertility to decrease in recentyears? In what ways do the determinants of the recent fertility decline inIndia differ from those of other countries in earlier times? This paper isconcerned mainly with these questions.

The paper begins with a general framework for explaining fertil-ity trend in India. Inasmuch as this framework was developed largely onthe basis of the work done by the author on determinants of fertilitydecline in Kerala,3/ this section gives a brief description of the Keralaframework of fertiTity decline and its relevance in the Indian context.The paper later proceeds to a description of fertility levels and trends bystates in India, and relates the Indian experience in fertility declinewith the world experience. This is followed by an analysis of the role ofthe family planning program and increase in age at marriage in the declinein fertility. The last section takes up the interstate variation andsocio-economic differentials in fertility and family planning practices andexamines the factors related to their differences in a multivariatecontext.

1/ The official estimate of 4.5 for 1978 is biased because of the higherrepresentation of unmarried women in the sample.

2/ UN Population Bulletin No. 7, 1963. Table 1.2, p. 2

3/ K. C. Zachariah. The Anomaly of the Fertility Decline in Indian's KeralaState: A Field Investigation. WTorld Bank Staff Working Paper No. 700,October 1984.

- 2 -

II. Determinants of Fertility Decline - A General Framework

In a recent reappraisal of theories of fertility decline, Ronald

Freedman4/ has suggested that for less developed countries today,motivation for fertility decline can arise from fewer changes than thosethat characterized the West. Under modern conditions, ideas and aspirationfor a different way of life are also important in motivating lowerfertility. The concept and means of family limitation within marriageproduce an independent effect on fertility decline, once motivation ispresent.

The author's analysis of fertility decline in Kerala suggests thatthe concept and means of family planning have independent effects onfertility decline not only when motivation is present, but also when themotivation is weak or even absent. Official intervention in populationmatters is a relatively new phenomenon. This has altered somewhat thepattern of fertility decline and its relationship with socio-economicfactors. In evaluating the determinants of fertility decline in India, itis necessary to take into consideration not only the socio-economic factorswhich are involved in demographic transition, but also this new element ofofficial involvement and financial incentive for family planning practice.Emperical support for such a reappraisal of the demographic transitiontheory is given by the Kerala study.

Kerala Framework of Fertility Decline5/

Kerala has experienced an unexpectedly rapid decline in fertilityunder seemingly unfavorable circumstances--low per capita income, lowdegree of urbanization, industrialization, etc. At the same time, thepopulation is well-developed with respect to education and mortalitydecline, two very important factors in the classical transition theory.The theoretical framework assumed to explain fertility decline in Keralaincludes not only these elements from the transition theory but also thenew element of the influence of state policies and programs on fertility.The fertility decline in Kerala was assumed to be a result of historicaldevelopments as well as recent policy interventions.

Historical developments eroded the economic value of inheritedcharacteristics (caste, religion, etc.) and inherited wealth (land), andenhanced the economic value of personal characteristics (education andhealth). Fueled by inter-communal rivalry in developing human capital, theState experienced a sharp decline in mortality and an acceleratedimprovement in educational attainment. The low mortality conditions andhigh educational attainment provided the necessary milieu for a fertilitydecline. The low mortality enabled couples to attain their desired(surviving) family size with fewer children ever-born. The higheducational attainment enabled parents to make rational decisions about

4/ Ronald Freedman. "Theories of Fertility Decline: A Keappraisal",Social Forces, 58(1):1-17, 1979.

5/ For an elaboration of the Kerala framework of fertility decline, seeZachariah, op.cit., pp. 230-243.

- 3 -

family size, taking into consideration mortality risks and their givensocio-economic perspective; it enabled couples to utilize family planningservices effectively and limit or postpone births as and when they feeldesirable; it increased the cost of bringing up children as educationbecame a necessity for economic survival, it increased the opportunitycosts of women and reduced the economic benefits from children; and itincreased the risk of unemployment especially at critical younger ages.

While these long-term socio-economic changes produced thenecessary milieu and caused the age at marriage to increase, the sharpdecline in marital fertility was precipitated by more recent policyinterventions--land reforms, agrarian reforms, and the official familyplanning program in particular.

The land reforms and other redistributive policies operated onfertility in different ways. The economic realignment has caused somesocio-economic groups to suffer loss of land, status, income, etc., with nohope of immediate recovery, forcing them to make demographic adjustmentstoward later marriages and fewer children. The increase in wages decreasedthe income of land owners, even those who have not lost any land, forcingthem also to adopt fertility control. Wage increases boosted the cashincome of female daily wage earners, raising the opportunity cost of theirtime spent in bringing up children. The increase in wages also reducedemployment opportunities, forcing children out of the job market and makingthem economically less valuable. Even the hutment dwellers who undoubtedlygained by the land reforms and wage legislation began to feel the need forbirth control, as their children found it impossible to obtain a place fora hut of their own.

The official family planning program came at an opportune time toserve the manifest demand, strengthen the latent demand, and create newdemand for birth control, especially among the poor.

Applicability of Kerala Framework to other States of India

The socio-economic situation in the other states is somewhatdifferent from that in Kerala, and yet the fertility decline in these otherstates can also be explained in the same general framework, namely:

- increase in cost of bringing up children in relation to thebenefits from them; and

- family planning education and services.

In Kerala, the cost increase came about because of increase in theproportion of children surviving in a family, the economic necessity toinvest in children's education and health, and through a series of policiesrelated to land distribution, wages, etc. These changes are relevant inthe other states also, but the degree of change and their relativeimportance vary significantly from state to state. It is our hypothesisthat interstate variation in the extent of fertility change in recent yearscan be explained by the differences in the family planning program and inthe changes in the socio-economic factors which determines the cost ofbringing up children in these states. The principal among these

- 4 -

socio-economic factors are mortality, education, agricultural density,female wages, and land redistribution.

III. Fertility Trend in India by States

Fertility Trend in India. There is some uncertainty about the

fertility level and trend in India. Recent data are more reliable and they

indicate that the birth rate is about 34 and the total fertility rate is

about 4.8.

Working backwards on the basis of expected decline due to family

planning program and changes in proportion married, an estimate of 6.5 can

be taken as the TFR for India as a whole before 1960. These figuresindicate a fertility decline of 26 percent in recent years.

Substantial declines took place before and after 1971. Roughestimates are: a decline of 0.8 in TFR before 1971 (12%) and a decline of0.9 during 1971-81 (16%).

Since 1976 the decline in birth rate has slowed down. In fact,

birth rate seems to have stalled (Table 2 and Figure 1), although thefertility rate continues to decline, but at a slower rate.

An approximate decomposition of the decline in birth rate during1961-71 and 1971-81 is given Table 1:

Table 1: Decomposition of birth Rate 1961-71 and 1971-81

Factors 1961-71 1971-81 1961-81

1. Total decline: 4.0 (100)1/ 6.0 (100)1/ 10.0 (100)1/

2. Due to age-sex compositionalchange: 2.14 (54) - 1.13 (-19) 1.01 (10)

3. Due to changes in maritalstatus composition: 0.61 (15) 0.76 (+13) 1.37 (14)

4. (2) and (3) together: 2.75 (69) U 0.37 (-6) 2.38 (24)

5. Due to fertility reductionwithin marriage: 1.25 (31) 6.40 (106) 7.64 (76)

1/ 4 = 44 - 40; 6 = 40 - 34; 10 = 44 - 34.

It shows that during 1961-81, the birth rate declined by about 10points. Nearly three-fourths of this decline was due to declines in

marital fertility. The age-sex composition contributed 10 percent to the

decline and marital status composition 14 percent. Thus the three factors

reinforced each other.

- 5 -

Figure I: Crude Birth Rate, India 1971-1980

C B R

40

3 9 -_ _ - _ _ _ _

38

36

34,

32

r .7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Year 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80

- 6 -

Table 2. Birth Rates and Total Fertility Rates, India,1941-51 to 1981

Birth Rate TFRPeriod Reported Correcteda/ Keported Correctedb/

1941-51 39.9 43.01951-61 40.9 44.01961-71 41.1 41.1

1970 36.81971 3b.9 40.01972 36.9 38.6 5.17 5.751973 34.6 37.4 -1974 34.5 36.4 4.881975 35.2 35.5 -1976 34.4 34.9 4.681977 33.0 34.4 -1978 33.3 34.1 4.50 4.901979 33.7 34.1 -1980 33.7 34.11981 33.9 - 4.80c/

Sources: Reported: 1941-51 to 1961-71. Census of Indiaestimates (reproduced from Visaria p. 10); 1970-1978Sample Registration data (from Visaria p. 19 and1979-81 from Sample Registration Bulletin XVI, (2)December 1982, p. 34.

a/ SRS Bulletin, June 1983.

b/ "Preliminary Estimates of Fertility Decline in Indiaduring the 1970's," A.K. Jain and A.L. Adlakha.

c/ World Bank estimate.

This was however not the case in the most recent decade. In1971-81 changes in age-sex distribution was highly unfavorable to a declinein birth rate (i.e., the proportion of women in child bearing agesincreased). Had there been no change in marital status distribution andmarital fertility, the birth rate would have increased by 1.1 pointsbecause of the age-structure effect. On the other hand, in the earlierperiod, 1961-71, changes in age-sex composition were highly favorable to adecline in the birth rate. Had there been no change in the marital statusand marital fertility the birth rate would still have declined by 2.1points.

The shift in the direction between 1961-71 and 1971-81 is veryinstructive. It shows that 1971-81 could be the beginning of a longerperiod in which increasing proportion of women in child bearing ages wouldtend to dampen the decline in the birth rate or make it increase even whenfertility falls. The "age effect" has to be much stronger towards the endof the decade than in the beginning (evident from the change in the sign).This is one explanation of the stalling of the Indian birth rate since 1976

- 7 -

However, this is not the only explanation. Although changes in maritalstatus composition do not seem to have been a factor in the stalling,changes in the proportion of couples effectively protected by the officialfamily planning program was a major factor. Between 1970-71 and 1976-77the proportion of couples effectively protected increased by 13 points, butbetween 1976-77 and 1981-82 the proportion hardly changed at all (Table10). Family planning use from non-official sources could have increased,and it is likely that marital fertility continued to decrease slightly evenwhen the birth rate was stalling. Even otherwise, proportion marriedcontinued to decrease at younger ages and TFR experienced some decrease.Thus, increasing proportion of females in the prime fertile ages and thedecreasing demand for family planning services are the principal factorsunderlying the stalling of the Indian birth rate since 1976.

Fertility Trend by States

The States are very heterogeneous with respect to levels andtrends in the birth rate. Table 3 indicates that in five of the majorstates, the crude birth rate was below 30.1 These states are inhabited by190 million people, more than the population of Indonesia. Such asignificant decline among such a large population is worth noting whilecomparing the Indian family planning program with other countries in Asia.

Ten years ago there was no state in India with a birth rate below30, and twenty years ago there was none with a birth rate below 35.

In comparison to these relatively successful states are severalother states, six among the major ones, with a combined population of 314million and a birth rate above 35 even in 1982. These states have alsoexperienced some decline in the birth rate, but the effect of the familyplanning program was not large enough to make a major impact on the birthrate.

Table 4 gives the reported fertility rates by states in 1972 and1978 for urban and rural areas separately. These rates are not veryaccurate, but can be used for comparative purposes.6 / The heterogeneityshown by the birth rate is also evident in the fertility rate, both in theurban and rural areas.

There are a few other sources of fertility data for inter-statecomparison. These are from the 1971 and 1981 census. The principalindices are child-women ratio (children 5-9 years/women 20-49 years) andaverage number of children ever-born. On the basis of all these indicesan assessment of the relative ranks of the various states are made withrespect to (i) fertility level around 1980 (Column A below) and (ii)fertility decline during 1970-80 (Column B below).

6/ Some of these rates are clearly underestimates although the number ofbirths used in the calculations are fairly accurate. The total maritalfertility rates (TMFKs) are more reliable.

Table 3. Birth Rates by States

Crude blirth Rate per 1,U00 Population

States Census SKS1951-61 1961-71 1970-72 1979-81

Andra Pradesh 39.7 39.2 35.4 31.5

Assam 49.3 48.4 37.9 32.7Bihar 43.4 41.9 40.9a/ 38.4

Gujarat 45.7 41.6 40.4 35.1

Haryana 44.2a/ 44.5 39.6 36.8

Jammu and Kashmir 42.2a/ 41.5 32.5 31.3

Karnataka 41.6 39.9 32.0 28.2

Kerala 38.9 37.5 31.3 26.2

Madhya Pradesh 43.2 46.6 39.2 37.4

Maharashtra 41.2 41.0 32.0 28.3

Orissa 40.4 41.3 35.8 31.8

Punjab 44.7 36.9 34.2 29.6

Rajasthan 42.7 42.7 41.1 36.8

Tamil Nadu 34.9 36.8 31.3 28.2

Uttar Pradesh 41.5 42.5 44.5 39.5

West Bengal 42.9 44.3 36.6a/ 31.5

India 41.7 41.2 37.2 33.2

a/ Estimated by author.

Sources: 1951-61 and 1961-71: World Bank sources.

197U-72: Family Welfare Programme in India Yearbook,

1981-82, Government of India, New Delhi, Table B.5.

1979-81: Sample Registration Bulletin, Vol. XVI, No. 2,

Dec. 1982.

- 9 -

Table 4. Total Fertility Rates by States, 1972, 1978

Urban Rural CombinedStates* 1972 1978 1972 1978 1972 I97

Andra Pradesh 4.5 2.7 4.8 4.1 4.7 3.8Assam 3.7 2.8 5.3 4.0 5.2 3.9Bihar 3.9 3.4 5.1 4.2 5.0 4.1Gujarat 4.5 3.6 6.0 4.6 5.6 4.3Haryana 4.7 3.2 7.0 4.6 6.6 4.3Jammu and Kashmir 3.1 2.8 5.2 4.8 4.8 4.4Karnataka 3.5 3.0 4.5 3.7 4.3 3.5Keraia 3.6 2.3 4.2 2.8 4.1 2.7Madhya Pradesh 4.4 3.8 6.2 5.3 5.9 5.0Maharashtra 3.8 2.9 4.8 3.9 4.5 3.5Orissa 4.0 3.5 4.7 4.3 4.6 4.2Punjab 4.1 3.2 5.7 4.1 5.3 3.9Rajasthan 5.4 3.9 6.4 5.5 6.2 5.2Tamil Nadu 3.0 2.9 4.4 3.5 4.0 3.3Uttar Pradesh 4.8 4.1 6.9 5.9 6.6 5.6West Bengal 3.6a/ 2.5 4.5a/ 3.5 4.3a/ 3.2

* States with a population of 5 million or more in 1981.

a/ Estimated by the author.

Source: Vital Statistics Division, Office of the RegistrarGeneral. Levels, Trends and Differentials in Fertility,1979. Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, November1981.

- 10 -

Column A Column B

Fertility level from lowest Fertility Decline from highest

to the highest to lowest

1. Kerala 1. Kerala2. Tamil Nadu 2. Punjab3. Maharashtra 3. West Bengal4. Punjab 4. Gujarat

5. Andhra Pradesh 5. Maharashtra6. Karnataka 6. Karnataka7. West Bengal 7. Tamil Nadu

8. Gujarat 8. Andhra Pradesh9. Orissa 9. Orissa10. Bihar 10. Madhya Pradesh11. Madhya Pradesh 11. Rajastan12. Rajasthan 12. Bihar13. Uttar Pradesh 13. Uttar Pradesh

Geographic Patterns: Fertility rates and birth rates are lower

in the southern States of India than in the northern States. In the north,the central States have in general higher fertility rates than those in the

east or west (See Map 1).

Assuming that fertility rates were not very much different in thepast, the relatively lower rates in the south must imply a relatively morerapid fertility decline in these states. The path of fertility decline inIndia seems to follow the path of the south-west monsoon. The monsoon

reaches India first in Kerala and then spreads northwards. On the way, it

splits into two, covering northwest and northeast before reaching the north

central states, namely, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh andRajasthan. These states are yet to experience a good shower of fertility

decline.

Indian Fertility in the International Context

Is a birth rate of 34 or a TFR of 4.8 too high, too low, or justaverage for a population like India's? In one respect, this is a very low

level. When its development indicators are taken into consideration, there

is no other country in the world with a fertility rate lower than India's

(see Figures Al and A2 in the Annex). For example, at the level of incomeper capita in India, the expected TFR is 5.8, but the rate for India is

4.8. Similarly, for its literacy rate, the expected TFK is 6.6, and for

its IMR the expected TFR is 6.1. Thus, with respect to each one of these

socio-economic indicators, the Indian fertility rate is lower than expectedon the basis of international or less developed country experience.

- 11 -

Not only that, at these levels of development, no other countryhas a lower fertility rate. For example, there is no country with an IMRhigher than India's but fertility rate lower than India's. Similarly thereis no country with a female literacy rate lower than India's, but withlower TFK. Thus, the Indian fertility rate is relatively low when itsdevelopmental indicators are taken into consideration. But this is hardlycomforting for the Indian planners. The Indian population growth rate istoo high from the point of the country's developmental needs.

Fertility Trend in India and Indonesia

One interesting comparison of Indian fertility trend is with theIndonesian rates. As is shown in Figure II, demographic transitions inIndia and Indonesia are practically indistinguishable. Fertility andmortality decline in Indonesia are no higher than those in India during theperiod 1960-8U, yet the family planning program in Indonesia is consideredto be a "success" while that in India is referred to as a "failure". Inthis connection the following observation by McNicoll and Singarimbun7/ isworth quoting:

It is a curious reflection on the capriciousness (or shortattention span) of the international population community that,although Indonesia's demographic transition has roughlyparalleled India's over the last two decades (with East Java'spresent fertility on a par with Kerala's or Tamil Nadu's),Indonesia is hailed as a population policy success story whileIndia is typically portrayed as a failure. The demographicsimilarity may well extend to the bases for some of the regionalfertility differentials: the likelihood that most otherIndonesian provinces will soon reach East Java's presentfertility level may be no greater than that of the northernstates of India soon reaching Kerala's.

The fact that the Indian fertility is not too high when itssocio-economic development is taken into consideration, or that the Indianfertility decline has been as fast as that of Indonesia, which is hailed asa success story with respect to its family planning program, do notminimize the grave implications of the high fertility rate in India. Thefertility rate and the consequent rate of population growth are too highfrom the point of the country's developmental needs.

The Indian population is growing at an unprecedented 15 millionper year, higher than in any other country in the world, including China.The Indian rate of population growth has not declined a bit even after 30years of family planning: the growth rate in 1971-81 was the same as thatin 1961-71. The demographic targets set by the Indian planners have rarelybeen reached or even approached. The births in 1984 would be 6.3 millionmore than the target (based on an actual rate of 34 and a target of 25 setin 1973).

7/ Fertility Decline in Indonesia. Analyses and Interpretation Committeeon Population and Demography. Report No. 20. National Academy Press,Washington, D.C., 1983, p. 112.

- 12 -

The built-in momentum for population growth in India is such thateven if the impossible target of a replacement level fertility is reachedin 1984, the Indian population will grow Ly 80 percent. In reality, it isextremely difficult to contain the annual growth in India's population tounder 16 million per year through the remaining years of the century.

Thus, although the Indian fertility rate is not too high byinternational standards, and is lower than that in any other country ofcomparable socio-economic development, yet, because of the large basepopulation, high population density, and the need to develop fast from itslow level of development, the fertility rates in most states of India aremuch too high and the need to accelerate the decline in the birth rate isvery urgent. For this purpose, we need to know what factors have causedthe fertility to fall in India, what are the reasons why the birth rate hasbegun to stall, and what are the policy options at the disposal of theplanners to accelerate fertility decline. The remaining sections of thepaper are concerned with these questions.

IV. Proximate Determinants of Fertility

The principal proximate determinants of fertility are:

a. proportion married;b. proportion using contraception;c. rate of induced abortion; andd. length of lactation infecundity period.

Although all four are important, we will take up only two of them, namely,proportion married and proportion protected by contraception. Very littlereliable information is available at the national level on the trend ineither the number of induced abortions or the length of lactationammenorrhea. It is likely that the abortion rate would have increased andlactation ammenorrhea decreased. The former would have decreased thefertility rate and the latter would have increased it. Thus, their neteffect on fertility change is not likely to be very large.

Age at Marriage and Proportion Married

Age at marriage of females has been relatively very low in moststates of India and one of the reasons for the high fertility in thecountry is that by the time a woman becomes old enough to recognize theproblems of a large family, she already has too many children; there islittle she can do at that stage.

The mean age at marriage of females in 1961, 1971 and 1981 is givenin Table 5. The singulate mean age at marriage for females was 18.3 yearsin 1981 and 17.2 years in 1971, representing an increase of nearly one yearin the 10-year period. Similar increases took place in the previousdecade. Thus, the age at marriage in India is increasing, but slowly.

- ].3 -

Figure II

Demographic Transitions, c. 1960-1980India and Indonesia

25Death Rate 1960

India20

15 Indonesia 1980

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10Birth Rate

Source: Fertility Decline in Indonesia, Analysis and InterpretationCommittee on Population and Demography. Report No. 20,National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 1983. Figure 1, page 7.

- 14 -

Proportion Married

For fertility trend, what matters most is the proportion of womenmarried in each age group. These proportions change not only due to changein age at marriage, but also due to change in the age at which marriagesare dissolved.

Proportions married among females in 1961, 1971 and 1981 are givenin Table 6. They decrease at younger ages, 15-19 years and 20-24 years, asa result of the increase in age at marriage. At the 1972 fertility rates,these decreases in proportion married should result in a decrease in TFR by0.198 between 1961 and 1971, by 0.143 between 1971 and 1981 and by 0.341between 1961 and 1981. This decrease was partly compensated by increasesin proportion married at older ages which is a reflection of the increasein the age at marriage dissolution, especially through widowhood. Theeffect of this increase was an increase in the TFR by 0.119 during 1961-71,0.047 during 1971-81 and 0.166 during 1961-81. The net effect of changesin age at marriage formation and marriage dissolution was a decrease in TFRof 0.079 during 1961-71, a decrease of 0.097 during 1971-81 and 0.176during 1961-81 (Table 7). Thus, although increase in age at marriage hasbeen a factor in the fertility decline in India in recent years, part ofthe effect of increase in age at marriage was nullified by the simultaneousincrease in the age at widowhood leaving only a relatively small netdecrease in fertility due to marital factors.

Results of the calculations done at the state level is given inTable 8. The highest impact was in Punjab where the TFR had declined by0.295 during 1961-71 and 0.207 during 1971-81 due to marriage factoralone. On the other hand, there are a number of other states, where theeffect is very negligible. In 1971-81 Kerala shows the lowest effect.This can be explained in terms of the relatively very high average age atmarriage in Kerala in 1971.

Family Planning Program

The Indian Family Welfare Program has an excellent evaluationprogram which collects and publishes service statistics. They include:

i) family planning acceptors by methods;ii) cumulative acceptance of family planning by methods since the

inception of the program;iii) couples currently and effectively protected by the various

family planning methods; andiv) number of births averted.

These statistics (primary and derived) are found to be quite accurate asascertained by independent sample surveys in the various states by researchorganizations and by the Operations Research Group (ORG) at the nationallevel. Selected family planning statistics for India and for the statesare given in the Annex Tables Al to A7.

- 15 -

Table 5: Mean Age at Marriage of Females

States 1961 1971 19/1 lY81

India 17.2 18.3Andra Pradesh 15.4 16.4 16.2 17.3Assam 18.6 16.5 - -Bihar 14.7 15.5 15.3 16.5Gujarat 17.2 18.3 18.4 19.5Haryana 15.8b/ 17.5b/ 16.6 17.9Jammu and Kashmir 16.1 17.8 - -Karnataka 16.5 17.9 17.8 19.2Kerala 20.1 20.9 21.0 21.9Madhya Pradesh 14.3 15.2 15.0 16.5Maharashtra 15.9 17.5 17.5 18.8Orissa 16.5 17.2 17.3 19.0Punjab 17.6 18.8 20.2 21.0Rajasthan 14.6 15.4 15.1 16.1Tamil Nadu 18.4 19.6 19.6 20.2Uttar Pradesh 14.8 15.6 15.5 17.8West Bengal 16.1 17.8 17.9 19.3

a/ Singulate Mean Age at Marriageb/ For Himachal Pradesh

Sources: K.P. Goyal. "Shifts in Age at Marriage in Indiabetween 1961 and 1971", Demography India, Vol. 4 No. 2,Dec. 1975. SMAM, 1971 and 1981: Census of India, Paper2 of 1983, Table 8.

- 16 -

Table 6. Proportion Married (Females) by Age, India

Census Marital fertility

Age 1961 1971 1981 1972

15-19 69.6 55.4 43.5 213

20-24 91.8 88.8 88.4 313

25-29 94.2 95.0 94.3 299

30-34 91.4 94.1 94.8 239

35-39 87.0 91.3 93.2 161

40-44 77.7 84.2 87.8 86

45-49 69.7 78.0 82.9 29

Source: India Census Reports, 1961, 1971 and 1981.

1972: Vital Statistics Division, Office of the RegistrarGeneral. Levels, Trends and Differentials in Fertility,1979. Ministry ot Home Attairs, New Delhi, Nov. lY=1.

Table 7: Effect of Nuptiality Changes on TFR, 1961-81

Decrease at Increase at NetPeriod younger ages older ages Change

1961-71 0.198 0.119 - 0.079

1971-81 0.143 0.047 - 0.097

1961-81 0.341 0.166 - 0.176

Source: Calculated from Table 6.

- 17 -

Since the inception of the program, 36.2 million sterilizationswere performed (21.8 million vasectomies and 14.4 tubectomies); 9.5 millionIUD's were inserted and a large number of condoms and pills weredistributed. It is estimated that as a result of this program, 49.3million births were averted and currently 24% of the eligible couples areeffectively protected.

An analysis done by the Director of Evaluation (Government ofIndia) concluded that the births averted by the program could account forall the decline in the birth rates. If the pre-program birth rate wasabout 45.0, the estimated rate in 1981-82 on the basis of the birthsaverted by the program would be 34.9 (1981-82); if the pre-program rate wasonly 42.5, the 1982-83 rate would be 32.8. The SRS rate for that year was33.2. Thus, the program could account for almost the entire decline in thebirth rate (Table 9).

In 1971-72, the proportion of couples effectively protected was12.4 (Table 10). The fertility impact of such protection in terms of birthrate was a reduction to a level of about 38.4 (Table 9). The effect on TFRwas a reduction of 0.79 of a child per woman (Table 13). By 1981-82 theproportion of couples protected increased to 23.7. The additionalreduction in the birth rate during 1971-81 due to family planning programwas 3.5 points. The effect on TFR was 0.8 of a child per woman (Table 13).

We have seen that the fertility effect of increase in age atmarriage during 1971-81 was about 0.1. Thus, a rough estimate of therelative contribution of family planning in the fertility decline during1971-81 would be 89%; the other 11% can be attributable to changes inproportion married.

Interstate Variation

As could be expected from the interstate variation in fertilityrates, family planning performance varies considerbly from state to state(Table 11). By far the best performance was in Maharashtra where both thecumulative sterilization rate (492 per 1,000 married women aged 15-44) andpercent of couples protected were the highest (37%). At the other extremeis Uttar Pradesh with a cumulative sterilization rate of only 128 per 1,000married women aged 15-44 and a protection rate of 11%.

The state-wise impact of the program on birth rate and TFR wasnot readily available in published reports. An approximate estimate wasobtained using the regression relation between percent of couples protectedin a year (in India) and the corresponding expected program birth rate.The results are shown in Table 12. In some states the observed decline inthe birth rate was close to that estimated on the basis of couplesprotected (e.g. Kerala, Maharashtra) while in others they are very muchdifferent, (e.g., Assam). The disagreement between the two sets need notbe due to errors in estimated births averted or in percent of couplesprotected. It can as well arise from errors in the birth rate, especiallythe rate in the earlier of the two years. This is likely to be the mainreason for the large difference in Assam.

- 18 -

Table 8. Fertility Impact of Changes in Proportion Married.1961-71 and 1971-81

Expected Change in TFK1/ Percent Decline TFKStates 1961-71 1971-81 1961-71 1971-81

Andra Pradesh +.001 - .115 +0.02 - 1.98Assam -.012 - -0.22 -Bihar +.077 -.112 +1.28 - 2.00Gujarat -.166 - .187 -2.86 - 3.32Haryana - -

Jammu and Kashmir -.133 - -2.25 -Karnataka -.106 - .238 -1.87 - 4.29Kerala -.122 - .111 -2.56 - 2.39Madhya Pradesh +.031 - .182 +0.51 - 2.96Maharashtra -.105 - .190 -1.81 - 3.34

Orissa +.061 - .326 +1.06 - 5.60Punjab -.295* - .207 -5.21 - 3.86Rajasthan +.022 - .112 +0.36 - 1.81Tamil Nadu -.128 - .093 -2.39 - 1.78Uttar Pradesh -.029 - .121 -U.47 - 1.97West aengal -.191 - .229 -3.3b - 4.20

India -.080 - .098 -1.38 -1.71

1/ Keeping constant marital fertility and using observedproportion married.

* Adjusted for areal changes between 1961 and 1971.

The following fertility rates were used: 213, 313, 299, 239, 161,86, 29.

Source: World Bank Computations.

- 19 -

Table 9. Birth Rates According to SRS and Estimated BirthRates on the Basis of Births Averted due toFamily Planning Program 1971-72 to 1982-83

Estimated Birth RateYear SRS if the Rates before the

Program were:42.3 45.0

1971-72 36.9 36.1 38.41972-73 36.6 35.4 37.61973-74 34.6 34.6 36.81974-75 34.5 34.5 36.71975-76 35.2 34.4 36.61976-77 34.4 33.6 35.71977-78 33.0 32.2 34.31978-79 33.3 32.6 34.71979-80 33.1 32.7 34.8198U-81 33.3 32.8 34.91981-82 33.2 32.8 34.91982-83 - 32.5 34.6

Source: Family Welfare Program in India Year Book1981-82, Government of India, New Delhip. 8

Table 10. Percent of Couples Effectively Protected,India, 1970-71 to 1981-82

Year Sterilization IUD) CC Users Total

1970-71 8.1 1.4 1.1 10.61971-72 9.9 1.3 1.2 12.41972-73 12.3 1.1 1.2 14.71973-74 12.4 1.0 1.5 14.91974-75 12.8 1.0 1.2 15.01975-76 14.4 1.1 1.7 17.11976-77 20.9 1.1 1.8 23.71977-78 20.2 0.9 1.5 22.61978-79 19.9 0.9 1.6 22.41979-80 19.9 1.0 1.4 22.31980-81 20.0 1.0 1.7 22.71981-82 20.7 1.1 2.0 23.7

Source: Family Welfare Programme in India. Yearbook, 1981-82.Government of India, New Delhi, p. 107.

- 20 -

Table 11. Cumulative Sterilization, IUD Acceptance Rate.and Percent of Couples Effectively Protected

Cumulative Steriliza- Cumulative IUD In-tion Rate per 1,000 sertion per 1,000 % of Couples

State Married Women 15-44 in Married Women Effectively1981 (Up to March '81) 15-44 in 1981 Protected

Rate Rank Rate Rank Rate Rank

Andhra Pradesh 359.4 6 33.2 17 27.2 7Assam 239.1 13 67.5 1U 18.3 13Bihar 166.8 15 33.4 16 12.2 15Gujarat 407.8 3 75.6 9 34.9 2Haryana 311.7 8 283.1 2 28.6 4Himachal Pradesh 297.8 9 113.2 3 26.0 9Jammu and Kashmir 138.0 16 93.4 7 10.8 17Karnataka 289.6 11 86.1 8 24.7 10Kerala 414.0 2 109.7 4 32.0 3Madhya Pradesh 331.0 7 61.3 11 21.8 12Maharashtra 491.6 1 48.1 14 36.7 1Orissa 374.9 5 99.9 5 26.1 8Punjab 273.1 12 305.6 1 27.4 6Rajasthan 168.7 14 47.5 15 14.5 14Tamil Nadu 404.1 4 53.4 12 27.7 5Uttar Pradesh 128.0 17 97.8 6 11.3 16West Bengal 294.8 10 52.7 13 24.4 11

India 297.9 78.2 23.7

Source: Family Welfare Programme in India. Yearbook 1981-82. Governmentof India, New Delhi, pp. 84-85, 108. Some of the rates wererecalculated using 1981 census data on married women 15-44 years.

- 21 -

Table 12. Decline in the Birth Rate, Actual and Estimated on the'asis Percent of Couples Effectively Protected

Decline in Birth Rate Between1951-61 and 1979-81

States Expected from X Differenceof Couples Effec- (Actual-

Actual,/ tively Protected2/ Expected)

Andhra Pradesh 8.2 10.9 -z.7Assam 16.6 8.6 +b.0Bihar 5.0 7.0 -2.0Gujarat 10.6 12.9 -2.3Haryana 7.4 11.2 -3.8Jammu and Kashmir 10.9 6.6 +4.3Karnataka 13.4 10.2 +3.2Kerala 12.7 12.1 +0.6Madhya Pradesh 5.8 9.5 -3.7Maharashtra 12.9 13.3 -0.4Orissa 8.6 10.6 -2.UPunjab 15.1 10.9 +4.2Rajasthan 5.9 7.6 -1.7Tamil Nadu 6.7 11.0 -4.3Uttar Pradesh 2.0 6.7 -4.7West Bengal 11.4 10.1 +1.3

1/ From Table 2.

2/ Estimated using the regression 3.8 + 0.26 (percent effectivelyprotected in 1980).

The coefficients are estimated from the time-series for Indiaas a whole (Tables 9 and 10).

- 22 -

The effect of family planning program performance on TFR was

calculated using constant marital fertility by age group and decreasing the

number of married women in each age group by the number of women protected

by family planning methods. The results are given in Table 13.

Table 13. Fertility Impact of Official Family Planning

Program - 1961-71 and 1971-81

Decline in TFR Percent Decline TFR

States 1961-71 1971-81 1961-71 1971-81

Andhra Pradesh 0.867 0.946 14.9 19.1

Assam 0.368 0.767 6.7 15.1

Bihar 0.396 0.458 6.5 8.0

Gujarat 1.091 1.234 19.4 27.2

Haryana 1.272 0.862 21.0 17.7

Jammu and Kashmir 0.488 0.224 8.4 4.2

Karnataka 0.581 1.002 10.5 20.6

Kerala 0.981 0.882 21.1 24.1

Madhya Pradesh 0.671 0.847 10.9 15.5

Maharashtra 1.125 1.160 19.8 25.9

Orissa 1.013 0.719 17.4 14.9

Punjab 1.416 0.391 26.4 9.9

Rajasthan 0.387 0.650 6.3 11.2

Tamil Nadu 0.882 0.789 16.8 18.2

Uttar Pradesh 0.417 0.387 6.8 6.8

West Bengal 0.556 0.979 10.2 20.0

INDIA 0.79 U.80 13.8 16.2

Note: Using constant age specific martial fertility, 1971 proportion

married, 1971 and 1981 proportion of women protected, and 1981 age

distribution of the protected women.

Source: World Bank computations

- 23 -

In Gujarat, Maharashtra, and haryana the TFR decline by more thantwo children per woman during 1961-81. Next in order comes Kerala, AndhraPradesh, Punjab and Karnataka. Fertility decline due to family planningwas least in Uttar Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir and Bihar. On the wholefertility decline since 1971 was slightly higher tiian that before 1971.This was true in all states except Haryana, and Jammu and Kashmir.

Table 14 gives the combined effect of contraceptive practice andchanges in marital status distribution. It also gives the contribution offamily planning to the combined total. In 1971-81, the relativecontribution of family planning varied from 89 percent in Andra Pradesh andTamil Nadu to 65 percent in Punjab. Between the two periods 1961-71 and1971-81, the percent contributea by family planning has decline in moststates. This was not due to an absolute decline, but more due to arelatively larger increase in the contribution of the nuptiality factor.

Table 14. Family Planning and Nuptiality Factorsin Fertility Decline

1961-71 1971-81Fertility Decline Fertility Decline

States Total Due to F.P.(%) Total Due to F.P.(%)

Andhra Pradesh .866 100 1.061 89Assam .380 97 - -Bihar .319 124 .570 80Gajarat 1.257 87 1.421 87Jammu and Kashmir .621 79 - -Karnataka .687 85 1.240 81Kerala 1.103 89 .993 89Madhya Pradesh .640 105 1.029 82Maharashtra 1.230 91 1.370 86Orissa .952 106 1.045 69Punjab 1.711 83 .598 65Rajastan .365 106 .762 85Tamil Nadu 1.010 87 .882 89Uttar Pradesh .446 93 .508 76West Bengal .747 74 1.208 81

Source: World Bank computations.

- ?L -

Characteristics of Family Planning Acceptors

The effectiveness of family planning practice depends not only on

the number of persons who practice, but also on the characteristics of the

acceptors, especially their age distribution and parity.

The majority of the family planning acceptors are in their

thirties; nearly a third are in the age group 30-34 years. More than 80% of

the acceptors are in the age group 25-39 years. The average age of

acceptors was 31.6 in 1973-74 but decreased to 30.5 by 1980-81. Thus, over

the years, the average age has decreased somewhat, indicating that the

fertility impact of family planning acceptance has increased.

By the time an average Indian woman reaches 30 to 35 years, she

already has produced most of her children. The average number of living

children at the time of acceptance was more than 3.5 for acceptors of

sterilization. This is the average desired number of children as expressed

by women in most of the surveys conducted in India in recent years. Thus

when couples in India accept terminal methods of family planning they have

achieved or surpassed their desired family size.

Table 15. Distribution of Family Planning Acceptors by

Age of Wife and Method, 1973-74 and 1980-81

Age Vasectomy Tubectomy IUD All Combined

73-74 80-81 73-74 80-81 73-74 80-81 73-74 80-81

15-19 - 1.6 0.3 0.2 0.5 2.9 4.4 1.4 1.0

20-25 10.6 10.5 7.0 12.7 18.0 28.4 11.2 13.6

25-29 21.2 29.4 30.5 36.2 30.8 34.0 27.7 33.8

30-34 30.9 33.0 36.3 32.0 29.6 21.7 32.7 31.6

35-39 22.6 2U.1 20.7 15.4 14.5 9.3 19.5 15.9

40-44 11.8 6.4 5.1 3.2 3.6 2.2 6.7 3.8

45-49 1.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.6 0.0 .8 0.3

1100.0 00.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Avg. Age 32.7 31.6 31.4 30.4 29.4 28.0 31.6 30.5

Source: Family Welfare Programme in India. Yearbook, 1981-82 Government

of India, New Delhi, p. 119.

- 25 -

Table 16. Average Age and Average Number ot Living Childrenof Family Planning Acceptors

Avg. Age (Years) Avg. No. of Living ChildrenYear = _

Vasectomy Tubectomy IUD Vasectomy Tubectomy IUD

1973-74 32.7 31.4 29.474-75 32.8 31.8 29.875-76 32.8 31.8 29.376-77 33.1 31.2 28.877-78 32.5 30.1 28.1 3.1 3.5 2.678-79 32.4 30.4 28.3 3.4 3.7 2.879-80 31.9 30.4 28.2 3.5 3.7 2.780-81 31.6 30.4 28.0 3.5 3.7 2.6

Source: Family Welfare Programme in India. Yearbook, 1981-82.Government of India, New Delhi, pp. 119, 123

V. Socio-Economic Factors Related to Fertility Decline

The previous section has shown that much of the fertility declinein India in recent years (as much as 89% in 1971-81) was due to theincreased contraceptive practice. States which have shown a high accep-tance rate have experienced high fertility decline also. As a result, thefactors underlying fertilty decline in India are to a large extent thefactors which determine contraceptive practice. In this section, there-fore, we begin with an analysis of the factors related to the interstatedifferences in family planning practice.

Family Planning

Family planning acceptance rate varies considerably bysocio-economic factors. It is higher in the urban areas than in the ruralareas, higher among the Hindus than among the Muslims, etc.

Factors related to family planning use are analysed in amultivariate context using two measures of family planning performance.They are:

i. percent of couples effectively protected, 1981-82ii. cumulative equivalent sterilization up to 1982 per 10UU

population

- 26 -

A simple regression between percent of couples effectivelyprotected in 1981-82 and program variables indicated that expenditure onfamily welfare in 1981 can explain 32 percent of the variance. Other inputvariables are highly correlated with expenditure and did not add much tothe total variance explained.

Dependent variable: percent couples effectivelyprotected in 1981-82

Independent Variables B F Ratio R2

1. Expenditure on F.W. (1980-81)per capita +.636 6.4 32.1

2. Field workers (1981-82)per capita -. 418 0.4 2.0

TOTAL 34.1

When socio-economic variables alone were used in the regression,the total explained variance increased to 74.0 percent. The variableswhich had statistically significant association are:

- female literacy- per capita domestic product of the state- female agricultural wages

Additional variables added little to the total explained variance. Theresults of the regression are shown below:

Dependent variable: percent couples effectivelyprotected in 1981-82

Independent Variables b F Ratio K2

1. Female literacy rate 1971 +.67b 17.0 48.02. Per capita domestic product 1970-71 +.376 5.7 12.43. Female agricultural wages 74-75 -. 391 6.4 13.64. Per capita cropped area 197U-71 +.1409 0.5 0.0

TOTAL 74.0

Female literacy has the highest explanatory power. Theassociation is positive; that is, the higher the literacy rate in a statethe higher is its proportion of couples effectively protected. There is asimilar relationship with the per capita domestic product of the state.

In the conceptual framework, we put forth the hypothesis that oneof the reasons why women accept family planning is because their wages havegone up and therefore their opportunity cost has also increased. We shouldtherefore expect a positive association between wages and family planningacceptance. The data shows the opposite pattern; there is a negativerelationship between the proportion of couples effectively protected andfemale agricultural wages.

- 27 -

When family planning program variables and socio-economicvariables are both introduced in the regression, the total varianceexplained was 83.5. Taking all the three analyses together, we can drawthe following conclusions:

- Socio-economic variables have a relatively higher impact onthe use of family planning methods. The independent contributionof socio-economic variables was 59 percent of the explainedvariance of 83.5 percent.

- Family planning expenditure has a statistically significantindependent effect on family planning use. Their independentcontribution was 11 percent of the explained variance.

- The interaction between socio-economic variables and familyplanning variables was quite substantial, as much as 3) percentof the explained variance.

Cumulative Sterilization Rate

The cumulative sterilization rate is a fairly good index of theoverall effectiveness of the program from its very beginning. This rate isregressed against program and socio-economic variables (average for thedecade 1971-81). The conclusions are more or less the same.

Among the program variables, expenditure on family welfare (percapita) is the one which has the highest correlation. All the othervariables are highly correlated to the expenditure variable.

Among the socio-economic variables three showed statisticallysignificant association. They are the same (dates different) as thosewhich showed significant association with proportion of couples effectivelyprotected, namely:

- average literacy rate, 1971-81- average domestic product per capita, 1971-81- average female agricultural wages 1964-74

The results of the regression are shown in Table 17. This table also showsthat socio-economic variables played a more significant role than thefamily planning input variables. An approximate descomposition is:socio-economic variables 54 percent, family planning variables 15 percent,and interaction between socio-economic and family planning variables 31percent.

Fertility

Although much of the fertility trend and differentials could beaccounted for by the family planning program acceptance rate, since thelatter is highly associated with socio-economic conditions, we shouldexpect statistically significant relationships between fertility andsocio-economic variables. In the conceptual framework described earlier,the principal socio-economic variables enumerated are mortality, education,

- 28 -

agricultural density, female wages and land redistribution. We have no

useable data on land redistribution. We shall take up other factors one by

one and examine how they are related to fertility level and trend. We willbegin with a discussion of education.

Education

In general, educated women have fewer children than theilliterate. The lndian data support this negative relationship between

fertility and years of schooling as shown in Tables 18, 19 and 20. In1972, the difference in TFR between the least educated and themost-educated was 1.8 in urban areas and 1.9 in rural areas. By 1978,

these differences had decreased to U.92 in urban areas and 0.81 in rural

areas. Fertility decline in India during 1972-78 was stronger among the

illiterate women than among the matriculates.

Annex tables A.11 and A.12 give similar relationships at the

state level. In all the states both in rural and urban areas there is a

general negative relationship between years of schooling and the level of

fertility. There are, however, a tew breaks in the regularity of the

pattern. In a few instances, the marital fertility among the illiteratesis lower than that among the literates with less than primary education,

e.g., Assam, Bihar, Orissa, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka. Similarly, in a few

cases, women with primary education (less than matriculate) have higherfertility than women with less than primary education, e.g. Gujarat,

Punjab, Haryana, Karnataka and Kerala. On the whole, such irregularitiesare exceptions.

One reason for the observed higher fertility among women withless than primary education compared to the illiterate is the deficiency of

the data (illiterates under-reporting births more than the literates). But

this need not be the case always. The fertility rate of literates or those

with primary education could as well be higher than those of the

illiterates. Such patterns are observed in other studies in India and

elsewhere.

The negative relationship between fertility and education is not

evident in all age specific fertility rates, but is confined to ages above

30 years (Table 19 and 20) . At younger ages, the fertility of more

educated women is even higher, due evidently to their higher age at

marriage and shorter duration of marriage.

Regression Analyses

Macro-analysis of the relationship between educational attainment

and fertility at the state level using regression technique givesstatistically significant negative relationship. The 1978 TFR and literacy

rate of 1971 gives a zero-order correlation coefficient of -.759 which is

statistically significant. When controlled for other variables, the total

variance explained by the regression was 90.5 of which 57.5 (63%) was

explained by literacy. The other variables which showed significant

association were per capita female agricultural wages, infant mortality,

and agricultural density (per capita cropped area).

Table 17. Regression Analysis with Program Variablesand Socio-Economic Variables

Dependent variable: cumulative equivalent sterilizationrate up to 1982

Regression No.Independent Variables I II III

B R2 B K2 B RZ

1. Average per capita expendi-ture on family welfare .8673* 33.1 .582* 18.9

2. Average no. of servicepoints per capita -.314 3.7 -. 555 3.7

3. Average no. of worker infamily welfare program -.048 U.1 .219 1.6

4. Average literacy rate .566* 38.9 .534* 38.9

5. Average domestic productper capita .455* 17.5 .387* 12.3

6. Average femaleagricultural wages -. 354* 11.6 -. 370 4.8

TUTAL 36.9 b8.0 80.2

Note: * Statistically significant at 5% level.A blank space indicates that the variable was not included.

- 30 -

Table 18: Total Marital Fertility Rate by EducationalAttainment of Mothers

Educational Level Rural Urban Rural Urban

1972 1978Illiterates 6.9 6.3 5.5 4.9

Literates, below primary 7.1 5.0 5.0 4.5

Primary, below matriculate 7.1 5.0 4.9 4.2

Matriculates 5.0 4.5 4.7 4.0

Source: 1972: Vital Statistics Division. FertilityDifferentials in India, 1972, Ministry of home Affairs,

New Delhi, India, Table 7.

1978: Vital Statistics Division, Office of the Registrar

General. Levels, Trends and Differentials in Fertility1979, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, p. 7.

Table 19: Age Specific Marital Fertility by Education, 1978

&awal UrbanAge

illiterate literate Primary Maltriculate illiterate Literate Primary Matriculate

15-19 175 176 179 207 185 205 211 21820-24 268 277 294 262 276 269 297 27125-29 248 223 236 214 219 203 188 195

30-34 188 146 158 132 154 122 97 76

35-39 126 109 8U 54 98 67 37 3640-44 64 45 27 53 42 19 9 5

45-49 27 19 7 14 15 8 4 2

Source: Vital Statistics Division, Office of the Registrar General. levels Trends and Differentials inFertility, 1979. Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, p. 16.

- 31 -

Table 20. Age Specific Marital Fertility by Level ofEducation and Urban-Kural Residence. 197Z

Rural UrbanLiterate Metric Literate 1Metric

Age Illiterate Below or Illiterate but below orMetric Above Metric Above

15-19 214 228 128 218 227 21120-24 3U6 351 300 296 330 30224-29 303 315 445 254 286 23930-34 252 228 115 223 169 10235-39 173 146 25 150 94 3640-44 95 88 2 71 24 1045-49 32 65 0 81 10 0

TMFR 6.9 7.1 5.0. 6.3 5.0 4.5

Source: Vital Statistics Division, Fertility Differentials in India, 1972,Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, Table 8.

Literacy was also regressed against decline in TFK between 1972and 1978. The zero-order correlation was -0.279 which was notstatistically significant. When all the variables were included in theregression, the total variance explained was 63.1 of which only 0.08 wasexplained by literacy. None of the regression coefficients wassignificant.

Thus, although fertility level is closely associated withliteracy, recent change is not very much related to the literacy level ofthe state.

Dependent Variable

Total Fertility Rate, 1978

Independent Variables B F. Ratio R2

Female Literacy, 1971 -.439 10.1 .58Infant Mortality Kate 1971 .542 16.7 .15Female Agricultural Wages, 1974-75 .403 8.5 .10Per Capita Cropped Area 1970-71 .375 7.7 .06Per Capita Net Domestic Product

1970-71 -.230 1.8 .02Percent Urban, 1971 .094 0.3 .00

TOTAL 0.91

- 32 -

Mortality. Mortality decline, especially infant and childmortality decline, has a depressing effect on fertility in more ways thanone:

- through the biological effect on interval between births;and

- through behavioral effect prompted by increase in theproportion of children surviving and consequent pressure onhousehold resources.

Statewise data on IMR in 1978 indicates that states with higherIMR have, on the whole, a higher fertility rate also. Both in the ruraland urban areas, lower IMRs are associated with lower TFRs.

Average TFRIMK Rural Urban

<125 5.0 3.7100-125 4.0 3.0

>100 3.5 2.9

Regressions based on statewise data indicate a zero-ordercorrelation of +0.7U9, confirming the results from the cross-tabulation.When other variables were introduced, the regression coefficient became+0.542. IM accounted for 16% of the total explained variance.

As in the case of literacy, the association between IMR andfertility decline was weaker than that between IMR and fertility level.The zero-order correlation was +0.194 and the partial regression was-0.191. None of the regression coefficients was statistically significant.

IMR and literacy rate are highly correlated (-.491). When IMRand literacy are introduced in a step-wise regression, the regressioncoefficients of literacy and IMR remained statistically significant. Thetotal variance explained by these two variables was 72.3. Both thecoefficient and the F ratio of literacy were higher. While literacy hasboth a direct effect on fertility and an indirect effect through IMR, thelatter's influence on fertility through literacy cannot be that important.

A similar analysis conducted on change in fertility during theperiod 1972-78 indicated that neither literacy nor IMR is statisticallysignificant.

Female Wages.

In the conceptual framework described earlier, employment offemales and their wage rates are important factors which determinefertility through a woman's opportunity cost and her status in thehousehold. The higher the average female wages, the lower should be thefertility rate.

- 33 -

The zero-order correlation between the 1978 TFR and femaleagricultural wages was -0.085 and that between change in TFR (1972-78) andagricultural wages was -0.531. The relationship between TFR in 1978 andfemale agricultural wages was not statistically significant. However, whenother socio-economic variables were introduced the relationship becamesignificant with a B-coefficient of +0.4025 and an F ratio of 8.5.However, the sign was not in the expected direction. States with higherfemale wages tend to have higher fertility. A similar conclusion wasreached when the relation between female wages and family planning practicewas analysed.

As mentioned above, the zero-order correlation between fertilitydecline (1972-78) and female agricultural wages was -0.531 which wasstatistically significant. This again is contrary to our hypothesis of afaster decline in fertility where the agricultural wages are higher.However, when other variables are introduced the statistical significancedisappears.

Thus, the data do not support the hypothesis that increasedfemale agricultural wages have played a role in the recent fertilitydecline.

Other Variables

The zero-order correlation coefficient between per capita croppedarea and the 1978 TFR was positive (0.537) and statistically significant,and remains significant when other socio-economic variables are introducedin the equation. In the case of per capita net domestic product, neitherthe zero-order correlation nor the partial regression was statisticallysignificant.

Thus the empirical analysis supports only part of ourhypothesis. On the basis of our conceptual framework we were expecting astrong positive association between education and family planning use, astrong negative association between education and fertility rate. This issupported out by the state-wise data as well as other micro-studies inIndia. We were also expecting a strong negative association between infantmortality and fertility and strong negative relationship between mortalityand family planning use. The data support the negative association betweenfertility and IMR, but that with family planning is very weak. Thestate-wise data also support the hypothesis regarding a positiveassociation between agricultural density and fertility. Contrary to ourexpectation, female agricultural wages in a state were negatively relatedto family planning use.

Figure A.I. Total Fertility and Adult Literacy Rate, All LDCs

17 75 2 3 25 '28 75 34 25 39 75 45 25 50 75 56 25 6 1. 75 67 .25

7 004 I I + 7 00

6 GO60 6.60

6 20 +*II 6.20

I ~~~~~~~I 2

5 80+ I '5.80

- I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

r 5 40+ 5 40

2 5.00 I +5.00

LL 4.60 411+4.60

-----------------------------------------------------------

o 4 20 + II+ 4.20

3 80 +II 3.80

3.40 *Ij+3.40

3.00 +I 3.00

Figure A.2. Total Fertility and Infant Mortality Rate, All LDCs

78 75 86 25 93 75 101 25 108 75 116 25 123 75 131 25 138.75 146.254 - -+ - - +-- - -- - -+ f - -_ + - _ -- --- + --- -- _ -- --- + -- --- _ + ---- -- ---- -_ _+ ----- 7.00 4 *1 1 + 7.00I I 1 . ,

* II . I . I I I . ,1 * 2 1I I I I6 55 + I I + 6.55I I . .. I * I FI I . I I I . I I

6.10 4 * I * I * * * * .+ 6.10I .I I . * II I 1 2 1I I . I I

5 65 1 I + 5.65_ ~~I I IIir ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*

W I . I -I-F 1I 1. 1 I5 20 ,

1 , I + 5.20I . I I I

_ I ~~~ ~ ~~~~~I * I I4 75 + I I +n

LL zY ~I I I IW ~~I .I I IIL ~I I I I

4 30 t +4.30

4t I---- ------------------------ ------------------------------------__ ---- _______--- --- _____________-I

0 3.85 + I I + 3.85

3 40 + I I + 3.40

2.95 1 I + 2.95

I I I I .e2 50 + I I + 2.50

INW$F T M oftALI-" PAU. e8O.

- 36 -

Annex Table A.1. Family Planntng Acceptors by Methods - All India

(Since 1956)(In '000)

Equivalent

Year Sterilizations I.U.D. Insertlons Equlvalent User Total Acceptors Sterilizations

1 2 3 4 5 6

1956 7 - - 7 7

1957 14 - - 14 14

1958 25 - - 25 25

1959 42 - - 42 42

1960 64 - - 64 64

1961 105 - - 105 105

1962 158 - - 158 158

1963 170 (36.4) - 298 (63.0) 468 (100.0) 187

1964 270 (38.0) - 439 (62.0) 709 (100.0) 294

January 1965 to March 1966 671 (32.5) 813 (39.3) 582 (28.2) 2,066 (100.0) 974

1966-67 887 (39.2) 910 (40.2) 465 (20.6) 2,262 (100.0) 1,216

1967-68 1,840 (61.7) 669 (22.4) 475 (15.9) 2,984 (100.0) 2,089

1968-69 1,665 (53.60 479 (15.4) 961 (31.0) 3,105 (100.0) 1,378

1969-70 1,422 (41.9) 459 (13.5) 1,509 (44.6) 3,390 (100.0) 1,659

1970-71 1,330 (35.3) 476 (12.6) a/1,963 (52.1) 3,769 (100.0) 1,598

1971-72 2,187 (43.5) 488 (9.7) T/2 ,354 (46.8) 5,029 (100.0) 2,481

1972-73 3,122 (53.2) 355 (6.0) T/ 2 , 3 9 8 (40.8) 5,875 (100.0) 3,373

1973-74 942 (21.8) 372 (8.6) 7/3,010 (69.6) 4,324 (100.0) 1,233

1974-75 1,354 (31.4) 433 (10.1) T/ 2 , 5 2 1 (58.5) 4,308 (100.0) 1,638

1975-76 2,669 (39.2) 607 (8.9) Tr/3,5 28 (51.9)b/ 6,804 (100.0) 3,068

1976-77 8,261 (65.9) 581 (4.6) T/ 3,6 92 (29.5)T/ 12,534 (100.0) 8,663

1977-78 949 (21.0) 326 (7.2) T/3 ,2 53 (71.8)"/ 4,528 (100.0) 1,242

1978-79 1,484 (27.0) 552 (100) T/ 3,469 (63 .0')r/ 5,505 (100.0) 1,865

1979-80 1,778 (32.4) 635 (11.6) l/3,069 (56.06T/ 5,482 (100.0) 2,165

1980-81 2,053 (31.6) 628 (9.7) T/ 3 , 809 (5 8, 7 )Tr/ 6,490 (100.0) 2,479

1981-82c/ 2,792 (34.5) 750 (9.3) 8/4,553 (56.2)b/ 8,095 (100.0) 3,301

a/ Net of Nlrodh distributed free to Vasectomised cases )from 1970-71 onwards).

b/ Includes Equivalent Oral Pill Users also.

c/ Provislonal.

Note:l. EquIvalent SterilizatIons have been recalculated by revised formula by adding the number of

sterilization,1/3 the number of IUD Insertlons, 1/18 number of Equivalent C.C. Users and 1/9 the number of

Equivalent Oral Pul Users.

2. Figures In brackets Indicate percentage to total acceptors for each year.

Source: Family Welfare Programme In Indla. Yearbook 1981-82. Government of Indla, New Delhi. Table D.1.

Annex Table A-2: State-Wise Vasectomies, Tubectomies and Total Sterilization Done

During 1980-81, 1981-82 and Since Inception

Cumulative since Inception of the progrm

1980-81 1981-82* (upto March, 1982 _

% of % of % of

Tubectomny Tubectony Tubectomy Rate perState Vasectomy Tubectomy to total Vasectomy Tubectony to total Vasedtony Tubectomy Total to total 1000 popn.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 tO 11 12 13

1. Andhra Pradesh 54,574 189,005 77.6 40,579 249,855 86.0 1,933,124 1,845,445 3,778,569 48.8 69.4

2. Assm 15,134 8,789 36.7 21,414 12,702 37.2 605,588 128,989 734,577 17.6 35.9

3. Bihar 20,449 75,939 78.8 38,577 120,727 75.8 1,697,040 577,918 2,274,958 25.4 31.9

4. GuJarat 37,467 163,127 81.3 47,998 189,407 79.8 1,145,400 1,419,510 2,564,910 55.3 73.8

5. Haryana 5,547 26,980 82.9 6,591 37,854 85.2 451,838 245,358 697,196 35.2 53.0

6. Himachal Pradesh 6,011 8,961 59.9 8,581 14,018 62.0 148,595 92,653 241,248 38.4 55.7

7. Jammu & Kashmlr 4,825 5,705 54.2 2,871 7,590 72.6 92,797 57,327 150,124 38.2 24.5

8. Karnataka 4,785 138,111 96.7 2,498 186,322 98.7 717,598 1,212,248 1,929,846 62.8 50.9

9. Kerala 15,854 97,120 86.0 16,262 107,596 86.9 840,614 816,184 1,656,798 49.3 64.1 -a

10. Madhya Pradesh 40,961 88,988 68.5 33,578 179,792 84.3 2,105,055 824,366 2,929,421 28.1 55.0

11. Maharashtra 81,503 230,374 73.9 199,360 295,244 59.7 3,257,715 2,450,578 5,708,293 42.9 89.1

12. Manipur 1,605 528 24.8 1,814 432 19.2 16,930 4,027 20,957 19.2 14.2

13. Meghalaya 19 244 92.8 11 246 95.7 8,962 5,680 14,642 38.8 10.7

14. Nagaland 31 245 88.8 6 189 96.9 214 1,339 1,533 86.2 1.9

15. Orissa 15,715 77,274 83.1 15,631 94,499 85.8 1,091,384 646,760 1,738,144 37.2 65.0

16. PunJab 7,541 40,091 84.2 14,042 61,308 81.4 276,356 471,334 747,690 63.0 44.0

17. RaJasthan 6,748 93,793 93.3 6,159 135,899 95.7 695,348 450,732 1,146,080 39.3 32.7

18. Sikkim 134 166 55.3 179 231 56.3 848 907 1,755 51.7 5.3

19. Tamll Nadu 8,916 129,915 93.6 14,126 174,702 92.5 2,278,414 1,206,157 3,484,571 34.6 71.0

20. Tripura 344 326 48.7 918 430 31.9 38,322 3,381 41,703 8.1 19.721. Uttar Pradesh 11,977 66,461 84.7 14,639 143,980 90.8 1,937,424 653,372 2,590,796 25.2 22.9

22. West Bengal 81,255 128,685 61.3 66,148 151,181 69.6 1,928,520 866,970 2,795,490 31.0 50.3

All India 438,909 1,613,861 78.6 572,595 2,218,984 79.5 21,839,469 14,420,731 36,260,200 39.8 51.9

Source: Family Welfare Programme In India Yearbook, 1981-82. Governnant of India, New Delhi, Table D-9.

- 38 -

Annex Table A.3: State-Wlse Cu T Insertions Done Durlng 1980-81, 1981-82 and

Total IUD Insertions Slnce Inception of the Programne

Number of Cu.'T' Insertions Done

Cu.'T' (1980-81) Cu.'T' (1981-82)"/ Total IUD Insertions Done

Percentage of Percentage of Since Inception Rate per 1000

total total of the progranme population In

No. State Number IUD Insertions Number IUD Insertlons up to March, 1982 1981-82

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Andhra Pradesh 13,703 78.0 14,660 81.2 340,555 6.3

2. Assam 96 1.6 266 1.7 213,653 10.4

3. Bihar 6,299 29-0 6,827 24.2 454,249 6.4

4. GuJarat 18,387 44.9 33,956 74.4 477,006 13.7

5. Haryana 7,878 31.9 9,937 31.5 624,485 47.4

6. Himachal Pradesh 5,185 74.1 6,561 86.4 90,844 21.0

7. Jammu & Kashmir 2,653 34.7 2,954 63.8 99,103 16.1

8. Karnataka 22,449 41.1 30,446 54.9 573,101 15.1

9. Kerala 6,125 33.3 9,002 43.8 426,712 16.5

10. Madhya Pradesh 7,370 39.6 9,266 39.9 525,288 9.9

11. Maharashtra 21,822 57.6 27,759 68.2 550,592 8.612. Manipur 2,023 92.8 1,982 82.4 24,452 16.6

13. Meghalaya 242 85.2 364 94.8 7,807 5.7

14. Nagaland 6 7.0 26b/ 32.5 458 0.6

15. Orissa 13,740 79.6 18,389 87.2 454,749 17.0

16. PunJab 14,640 30.9 22,168 33.0 819,535 48.2

17. Rajasthan 14,350 79.2 14,940 80.7 300,864 8.6

18. Slkkim 507 62.3 105 18.2 3,465 10.5

19. Tamil Nadu 18,938 58.1 20,578 62.4 468,451 9.520. Tripura NA - 372 100.0 4,512 2.1

21. Uttar Pradesh 51,077 29.5 67,906 30.2 2,082,667 18.4

22. West Bengal 22,237 71.7 26,298 82.5 493,179 8.9

All India 284,273 45.3 363,995 48.5 9,528,678 13.6

a/ Figures provisional.

b/ Figures upto October, 1981 only.

N.A. - Not Available.

Source: Family Welfare Programme In India. Yearbook, 1981-82. Government of India, New Delhi, Table 0.10.

Annex Table A.4: State-Wise Distrlbution of Conventional Contraceptives (Free Distribution) During 1981-82 and 1980-81

No. of pieces distributed

198t-8 2a/ 1980-81

No. of Condoms No. of Condoms No. of Condoms No. of Condoms

Dlstributed Distributed distributed distributed

(Gross) (Net)b! JelIy/Cream Foam (Gross) (Net) ' Jelly/Cream FoamState (Fig. in 000's) Diaphragms Tubes Tablets (Fig. In 000's) Diaphragms Tubes Tablets

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1. Andhra Pradesh 4,068 3,200 - - - 3,921 3,001 - - -2. Assam 1,610 1,354 - 474 18 1,312 1,130 20 777 297

3. BIhar, 5,256 4,794 - 21,630 3,760 4,998 4,998 - 7,613 2,257

4. GuJarat 12,455 11,879 - - - 12,601 12,152 - - -5. Haryana 7,994 7,915 44 170 - 8,267 8,200 56 607 458

6. Himachal Pradesh 1,007 957 - - 50 1,180 1,180 70 - 159

7. Jammiu & Kashmir 607 573 - - - 494 436 - - -8. Karnataka 6,424 6,409 22 38 - 6,357 6,328 - 35 -

9. Kerala 1,455 1,259 - - - 1,372 1,182 - - -

10. Madhya Pradesh 6,845 6,554 8 1 720 7,034 6,757 12 - 225 to

11. Maharashtra 19,337 17,403 77 1,735 3,294 12,498 11,525 99 1,704 992

12. Manlpur 171 149 - 1,661 - 140 120 - 619 -

13. Meghalaya 18 17 9 66 610 27 27 2 329 1,203

14. Nagaland - - - - - - - - - -

15. Orissa 3,902 3,877 15 293 384 2,519 2,331 9 857 560

16. PunJab 8,995 8,900 39 61 - 7,830 7,793 29 272 -17. Rajasthan 5,016 4,942 149 208 6 6,667 6,586 35 282 594

18. Sikkim 1 1 - - - 1 1 - - -

19. Tamil Nadu 5,285 4,216 - - - 6,410 5,049 - - -

20. Tripura 147 136 - 131 - 72 68 - 37 39

21. Uttar Pradesh 30,967 30,792 135 6,849 - 22,436 22,359 187 8,182 2,016

22. West Bengal 8,605 7,811 - - - 7,158 6,569 - 51 -

Nil India 325,577 318,369 1,065 74,254 13,450 272,627 266,933 1,478 64,223 25,639

a/ Figures are provisional.

b/ Net figures of condoms have been obtained after deducting the number of pieces distributed to vasectomised cases tor extra protection.

Source: Family Welfare Programme In India. Yearbook. 1981-82 Government of India, New Delhi, Table 0.11

- 40 -

Annex Table A-5: State-Wise Number of O.P. Centres Functloning as of March 1982

and Distribution of O.P. Cycles during 1981-82 and 1980-81

No. of centres No. of Oral Pill ?

*-0 distributing Oral cycles distributed No. of Equivalent

Pills as of 3/82 a/ durlng Oral Pill Users

No. State Rural Urban 198 1- 82 a/ 1980-817a/ 1981- 82 a/ 1980-81a/

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Andhra Pradesh 3 13b, 220 b/ 83,752 55,814 6,443 4,293

2. Assaw1 146 37 17,030 4,763 1,310 366

3. Blhar 62b/ 31b/ 42,398 30,100 3,261 2,315

4. GuJarat 251 266t/ 208,394 199,742 16,030 15,365

5. Haryana 88 47 16,565 16,059 1,274 1,235

6. Himachal Pradesh 67 22 2,266 2,147 174 165

7. Jammu & Kashmir 62b/ lob/ 14,032 14,566 1,079 1,121

8. Karnataka 269 159 147,961 116,254 11,382 8,943

9. Kerala 5b/ 18b/ 15,208 9,625 1,170 740

10. Madhya Pradesh 465 101 21,350 20,865 1,642 1,605

11. Maharashtra 427 b/ 2 11b/ 331,831 129,461 25,526 9,959

12. Manipur 27 2 3,160 2,659 243 205

13. Meghalaya 19 5 4,299 1,902 331 146

14. Nagaland NA NA _ 2 - -

15. Orissa 314 47 39,630 31,865 3,048 2,451

16. PunJab 128 29 18,146 6,857 1,396 528

17. RaJasthan 222 134 23,814 29,228 1,832 2,248

18. Sikkim 39b/ lb/ 2,753 7,965 212 613

19. Tamil Nadu 391 380 2,816 52,542 3,294 4,042

20. Tripura 2b/c/ lOb/c/ 10,547 8,833 811 679

21. Uttar Pradesh 900 196 204,382 156,665 15,722 12,050

22. West Bengal 289 97 - 86,986 89,405 6,691 6,877

All India 4 ,7 19 c/ 2 ,49 3 c/ 1,553,957 1,186,412 119,535 91

a/ Figures provisional.

b/ No. of centres distrlbuting Oral Pills In respect of Andhra Pradesh are as of March, 1981, Bihar as of

February, 1981, Jammu & Kashmir as of March, 1980, Kerala as of May 1978, Maharashtra as of October,

1981, Sikkim as of March, 1981, Tripura as of June, 1979.

c/ Apart fran these centres, rural/urban break up of 25 centres In respect of Tripura has not been recelved.

d/ Includes 17 Private/Pubilc Sector organizations.

NA - Not Available.

- Nll

Source: Family Welfare Programme In India. Yearbook, 1981-82. Government of India, New Delhi, Table 0.12.

- 41 -

Annex Table A.6: State-Wise Medical Termination of Pregnancies PerformedDuring 1980-81 and 1981-82

,J.4 No. of Terminations No. of Institutions

Since approved for M.T.P.No. State 1980-81 1981-82a/ Inception to 31st March, 19821 2 3 4 5 6

1. Andhra Pradesh 14,195 15,126 89,279 982. Assam 8,055 9,426 57,471 313. Bihar 9,642 9,955 47,183 1044. GuJarat 21,349 21,990 140,480 4575. Haryana 5,287 6,596 33,310 1306. Hlmachal Pradesh 3,086 4,258 16,217 377. Jammu & Kashmir NA NA 1,666 NA8. Karnataka 16,895 16,726 98,696 2659. Kerala 36,215 35,033 220,677 15910. Madhya Pradesh 16,482 19,628 104,750 18211. Maharashtra 41,061 29,455 259,222 63512. Manipur 1,028 1,406 3,790 313. Meghalaya 3 - 2,784 114. Nagaland 712 706 3,810 415. Orissa 15,961 19,599 76,842 10816. Punjab 12,434 22,823 75,710 18317. Rajasthan 11,503 11,706 66,198 22318. Sikkim - 35 35 NA19. Tamil Nadu 37,475 42,364 254,393 19420. Tripura 281 233 3,448 321. Uttar Pradesh 85,331 92,606 484,377 35122. West Bengal 20,293 31,225 165,237 252

All India 388;405 426,551 2,400,556 3,908

a/ Flgures provisional

NA - Not Applicable.

-- Nil.

Source: Family Welfare Programme In India. Yearbook, 1981-82. Government of Indla, NewDelhi, Table D.15.

Annex Table A.7: State-WIse Number of Couples Currently and EffectIvely Protected hy Varlctjs Methods as on March 1982

SterIlizatIons l.U.D. Other Methods All Methods

Est.a/ No. Couplesof eligible currently Couples Percent Couples Percent Couples Percentcouples and effec- Percent Couples effec- effec- Couples effec- effec- Couples effec- effec-

SL March 1982 tively pro- pro- currently tively tively currently tlvely tively Currently tIvely tIVely

No. State (In '000) tected tected protected protected protected protected protected protected protected protected protected

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

I. Andhra Pradesh 9,807 2,604,429 26.6 35,763 33,975 0.3 50,893 28,668 0.3 2,691,085 2,667,072 27.2

2. Assam 3,010 519,524 17.3 21,962 20,864 0.7 20,176 10,743 0.3 561,662 551,131 18.3b

3. Blhar 13,332 1,540,907 11.6 49,273 46,809 0.3 72,980 38,121 0.3 1,163,160 1,625,837 12.24. GuJarat 5,700 1,811,930 31.8 84,934 80,687 1.4 181,018 98,524 1.7 2,077,882 1,591,141 34.95. Haryana 2,119 487,333 23.0 66,488 63,164 3.0 111,255 56,265 2.6 665,076 606,762 28.66. Mlmachal Pradesh 749 174,837 23.3 14,058 13,355 1.8 13,462 6,818 0.9 202,357 195,010 26.07. Jemmu l Kashmir 1,037 96,284 9.3 11,116 10,560 1.0 9,034 5,056 0.5 116,434 111,900 10.8S. Karnataka 6,214 1,382,673 22.2 102,852 97,709 1.6 100,407 55,895 0.9 1,585,932 1,536,277 24.79. Kerala 3,618 1,110,118 30.7 39,261 37,298 1.0 18,662 9,916 0.3 1,168,041 1,157,332 32.0 1

10. Madhya Pradesh 9,483 1,972,229 20.8 46,366 44,048 0.5 92,685 47,164 0.5 2,111,280 2,063,441 21.8 T

11. Maharashtra 10,950 3,805,785 34.8 70,613 67,082 0.6 267,572 146,549 1.3 4,143,970 4,019,416 36.7 l"

12. Manlpur 190 16,752 8.8 4,330 4,114 2.2 2,550 1,396 0.7 23,632 22,262 1 1 .7 b/ 1

13. Meghalaye 201 10,322 5.1 786 747 0.4 592 461 0.2 11,700 11,530 5.7z6/14. Nagaland 99 1,148 1.2 133 126 0.1 - - - 1,281 1,274 1.3F/

15. Orlssa 4,680 1,155,113 24.7 40,024 38,023 0.8 56,946 29,997 0.6 1,252,083 1,223,133 26.116. Punjab 2,432 501,839 20.6 107,497 102,122 4.2 125,039 63,218 2.6 734,375 667,179 27.4

17. Rajasthan 6,267 831,337 13.3 39,590 37,611 0.6 70,577 36,205 0.6 941,504 905,153 1 4 .5 b/

18. Slkklm 42 1,602 3.8 1,317 1,251 3.0 227 219 0.5 3,146 3,072 7.3lr/19. Tamil Nadu 8,294 2,197,460 26.5 68,792 65,352 0.8 61,848 32,571 0.4 2,328,100 2,295,383 27.7

20. Tripura 329 26,449 8.0 726 690 0.2 2,714 1,762 0.5 29,889 28,901 8.8b/21. Utter Prodesh 20,057 1,639,474 8.2 415,602 394,822 2.0 444,430 230,076 1.1 2,499,506 2,264,372 11.3r/22. West Bengal 8,450 1,946,591 23.0 55,310 52,544 0.6 115,180 60,936 0.7 2,117,081 2,000,001 24.4

All India 118,767 24,532,737 20.7 1,377,800 1,308,909 1.1 4, 5 5 2 ,6 48C/ 2 ,3 3 6 ,0 9 1 c/ 2.0 3 0 ,4 6 3 ,1 8 5 c/ 2 8 ,1 7 7 ,7 3 7C/ 23.7

a/ Estimates of couples wIth wIves In the age-group 15-44 years have been worked out on the basis of proportlon of currently rmrrled femeles to the total population as of

1971 census. Estimate of population as of 31st March 1982 were extrapolated.b/ Below all Indla measures.c/ Includes 12,184 oral pill users reported by Family Welfare Assoclatlon of India and C.M.A.I. Projects

Source: Family Welfare Progranme In India. Yearbook, 1981-82. Government of Indl, New Delhi, Table E.2

- 43 -

Annex Table A.8. Total Marital Fertility Rate 1972, 1978

Urban RuralStates* 1972 1978 1972 1978

1. Andhra Pradesh 4.92 3.7 5.60 4.8

2. Assam 5.37 5.2 7.42 6.0

3. Bihar 4.91 4.1 5.73 4.8

4. Gujarat 6.1 5.0 7.8 5.7

5. Haryana 6.45 4.54 8.15 5.38

6. Jammu and Kashmir 8.38 4.8 9.61 5.7

7. Karnataka 4.8 4.5 5.80 5.0

8. Kerala 6.81 4.7 6.87 4.8

9. Madhya Pradesh 6.47 5.1 7.81 5.9

10. Maharashtra 5.43 4.4 5.89 4.3

11. Orissa 5.47 5.1 5.90 5.6

12. Punjab 6.66 5.2 7.33 5.7

13. Rajasthan 6.22 4.6 7.75 6.0

14. Tamil Nadu 5.06 4.3 5.88 4.8

15. Uttar Pradesh 6.4 5.6 8.0 6.6

16. West Bengal 5.57 4.3 - 4.8

* States with a population of 5 million or more in 1981.

Source: 1972: Vital Statistics Division, Otfice of Registrar GeneralCensus Commissioner. Fertility Differentials in India, 1972.Ministry of Home Aftairs, New Delhi, Appendix I Table 15.

1978: Vital Statistics Division, Office of Registrar General.Levels, Trends and Ditterentials in Fertility 1979. Ministry ofHome Affairs, New Delhi, p. 5.

- 44 -

Annex Table A.9. Total Fertility Rate by EducationalAttainment, Rural, by States, 1978

Literate but Primary Metric AllStates* Illiterate below primary below metric & above literate

1. Andhra Pradesh 4.15 3.50 3.20 2.54 3.38

2. Assam 4.34 4.49 2.88 2.50 3.69

3. Bihar 4.21 4.30 3.88 4.65 4.23

4. Gujarat 4.95 3.40 3.19 1.67 3.23

5. Haryana 4.73 3.77 3.68 3.12 3.57

6. Jammu and Kashmir 4.92 4.01 2.96 2.68 3.01

7. Karnataka 3.91 3.25 3.06 1.48 3.07

8. Kerala 3.52 3.06 2.51 1.70 2.68

9. Madya Pradesh 5.22 5.27 4.59 3.52 4.96

10. Maharashtra 3.97 3.12 3.00 2.32 3.16

11. Orissa 4.24 4.92 4.70 2.33 4.28

12. Punjab 4.57 3.37 3.69 2.49 3.43

13. Rajasthan 5.63 4.30 4.22 2.55 4.12

14. Tamil Nadu 3.71 3.20 3.02 2.04 3.05

15. Uttar Pradesh 6.04 5.62 5.UU 4.37 5.22

16. West Bengal 3.94 3.11 2.04 1.84 2.66

17. India 4.74 3.85 3.61 2.48 3.56

* States with a population of 5 million or more in 1981.

Source: Vital Statistics Division, Office of the Registrar General. Levels, Trendsand Differentials in Fertility, 1979. Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.Compiled using State Tables.

- 45 -

Annex Table A.10. Total Fertility Rate by EducationalAttainment, Urban, by States, 1978

Literate but Primary Metric AllStates* Illiterate below primary below metric & above literate

1. Andhra Pradesh 2.96 2.69 2.74 1.80 2.51

2. Assam 3.82 3.91 2.83 1.30 2.82

3. Bihar 3.84 3.15 2.83 1.51 2.84

4. Gujarat 4.51 3.42 2.80 2.21 2.88

5. Haryana 2.92 2.99 2.98 2.52 2.78

6. Jammu and Kashmir 3.30 3.32 2.55 1.93 2.37

7. Karnataka 3.52 3.44 2.36 2.01

8. Kerala 3.41 2.71 2.43 1.64

9. Madya Pradesh 4.55 4.06 3.45 2.96 3.44

10. Maharashtra 3.84 3.35 2.42 1.83 2.46

11. Orissa 3.73 4.25 3.22 1.51 3.37

12. Punjab 4.32 3.51 3.41 2.36 2.72

13. Rajasthan 4.45 3.59 2.99 2.05 2.94

14. Tamil Nadu 3.37 2.91 2.68 1.66 2.50

15. Uttar Pradesh 5.25 4.08 3.42 1.95 3.14

16. West Bengal 4.14 3.05 1.68 1.23 2.66

17. India 4.00 3.27 2.61 1.88 2.58

* States with a population of 5 million or more in 1981.

Source: Vital Statistics Division, Office of the Registrar General. Levels, Trendsand Differentials in Fertility, 1979. Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.Compiled using State Tables.

- 46 -

Annex Table A.11. Total Marital Fertility Rate by EducationalAttainment Rural by States, 1978

Literate but Primary Metric All

States* Illiterate below primary below metric & above literate

1. Andhra Pradesh 4.88 4.53 4.47 4.19 4.58

2. Assam 5.80 6.60 5.94 5.62 6.36

3. Bihar 4.76 4.85 4.57 7.23 4.i7

4. Gujarat 5.94 4.38 4.48 2.85 4.38

5. Haryana 5.39 4.97 5.18 4.80 5.02

6. Jammu and Kashmir 5.67 4.74 5.1U 4.70 5.02

7. Karnataka 5.09 4.69 5.27 3.49 4.78

8. Kerala 5.13 4.79 4.50 4.46 4.87

9. Madya Pradesh 5.89 6.00 5.69 5.64 5.-

10. Maharashtra 4.38 3.76 3.97 4.57 4.87

11. Orissa 5.49 6.16 6.64 4.90 6.25

12. Punjab 5.76 4.85 5.58 4.44 5.25

13. Rajasthan 6.01 4.80 5.06 3.49 4.76

14. Tamil Nadu 4.82 4.66 4.96 4.74 4.38

15. Uttar Pradesh 6.65 6.68 5.78 6.02 6.40

16. West Bengal 5.05 4.29 3.72 3.87 4.13

* States with a population of 5 million or more in 1981.

Source: Vital Statistics Division, Office of the Registrar General. Levels, Trends

and Differentials in Fertility, 1979. Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.Compiled using State Tables.

- 47 -

Annex Table A.12. Total Marital Fertility Rate by EducationalAttainment, Urban by States, 1978

Literate but Primary Metric AllStates* Illiterate below primary below metric & above literate

1. Andhra Pradesh 3.62 3.56 3.99 3.66 3.78

2. Assam 5.26 5.61 5.49 3.85 5.22

3. Bihar 4.34 3.66 3.68 3.77 3.64

4. Gujarat 5.75 4.37 3.91 3.74 4.07

5. Haryana 4.73 4.01 4.24 4.47 4.34

6. Jammu and Kashmir 4.61 5.IU 4.70 5.02 4.85

7. Karnataka 4.53 5.04 3.25 4.30 4.53

8. Kerala 5.26 4.61 4.63 3.80 4.56

9. Madya Pradesh 5.30 4.96 4.67 6.08 4.90

10. Maharashtra 4.83 4.45 4.U8 3.92 4.13

11. Orissa 4.95 5.69 5.17 3.19 5.25

12. Punjab 5.58 5.60 5.21 4.15 4.89

13. Rajasthan 4.91 4.23 3.85 3.58 3.96

14. Tamil Nadu 4.53 4.18 4.2b 3.78 4.12

15. Uttar Pradesh 6.25 5.13 4.92 4.2b 4.81

16. West Bengal 5.39 4.35 3.75 2.57 3.78

* States with a population of 5 million or more in 1981.

Source: Vital Statistics Division, Office of the Registrar General. Levels, Trendsand Differentials in Fertility, 1979. Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.Compiled using State Tables.

- 48 -

Annex Table A.13. Total Marital Fertility, Rural, by Ageat Marriage, 1978

States* Below 18 18-20 21+

1. Andhra Pradesh 4.9 4.3 3.8

2. Assam 5.87 5.46 5.49

3. Bihar 4.66 4.38 3.95

4. Gujarat 5.7 5.5 4.8

5. Haryana 5.43 5.10 5.21

6. Jammu and Kashmir 5.66 5.31 4.69

7. Karnataka 5.11 4.40 4.40

8. Kerala 4.86 4.03 4.03

9. Madhya Pradesh 6.02 5.00 4.66

10. Maharashtra 4.21 4.10 4.23

11. Orissa 5.60 5.31 5.34

12. Punjab 5.53 5.15 5.77

13. Rajasthan 6.1 5.5 5.7

14. Tamil Nadu 4.81 4.36 4.38

15. Uttar Pradesh 6.7 6.2 5.7

16. West Bengal 4.9 4.2 3.7

17. India 5.41 5.03 4.67

* States with a population of 5 million or more in 1981.

Source: Vital Statistics Division, Office of the Registrar General.Levels, Trends and Differentials in Fertility, 1979, Ministry ofHome Affairs, New Delhi. Compiled using State Tables.

- 49 -

Annex Table A.14. Total Marital Fertility, Urban, by Ageat Marriage, 1978

States* Below 18 18-20 21+

1. Andhra Pradesh 3.6 3.5 3.7

2. Assam 5.00 4.77 4.00

3. Bihar 4.31 3.58 2.54

4. Gujarat 5.1 4.4 4.4

5. Haryana 4.25 4.31 4.57

6. Jammu and Kashmir 4.48 4.43 3.55

7. Karnataka 4.59 3.93 3.89

8. Kerala 4.52 4.01 3.62

9. Madhya Pradesh 5.16 5.02 3.96

10. Maharashtra 4.50 3.62 3.30

11. Orissa 5.19 4.55 4.50

12. Punjab 5.05 5.04 4.05

13. Rajasthan 4.7 4.3 4.2

14. Tamil Nadu 4.30 4.02 3.14

15. Uttar Pradesh 5.9 4.6 4.1

16. West Bengal 4.4 3.4 3.1

17. India 4.bl 4.06 3.53

* States with a population of 5 million or more in 1981.

Source: Vital Statistics Division, Office of the Registrar General.Levels, Trends and Differentials in Fertility, 1979, Ministry ofHome Affairs, New Deini. Compiled using State Tables.

- 50 -

Annex Table A.15. Total Marital Fertility, Rural, byPer Capital Monthly Expenditure, 1978

States* Below Rs 50 51-100 101+

1. Andhra Pradesh 6.1 4.3 3.2

2. Assam 6.84 5.42 4.43

3. Bihar 5.0 4.0 4.1

4. Gujarat 6.29 5.17 2.62

5. Haryana 6.88 5.20 4.32

6. Jammu and Kastmir 6.73 5.59 3.65

7. Karnataka 5.84 4.56 2.65

8. Kerala 5.89 4.16 3.1U

9. Madhya Pradesh 6.78 4.92 4.23

10. Maharashtra 4.61 3.86 3.04

11. Orissa 6.18 4.92 4.23

12. Punjab 6.61 5.67 3.33

13. Rajasthan 7.0 5.6 2.2

14. Tamil Nadu 5.52 3.78 1.99

15. Uttar Pradesh 6.22 5.09 3.84

16. West Bengal 5.5 4.4 4.4

17. India 6.05 4.78 3.49

* States with a population of 5 million or more in 1981.

Source: Vital Statistics Division, Office of the Kegistrar General.Levels, Trends and Differentials in Fertility, 1979, Ministry ofHome Affairs, New Delhi. Compiled using State Tables.

- 51 -

Annex Table A.16. Total Marital Fertility, Urban, by PerCapita Monthly Expenditure, 1978

States* Below Rs 50 51-100 1U1+

1. Andhra Pradesh 5.2 4.0 1.9

2. Assam 7.21 5.63 3.38

3. Bihar 4.71 3.88 2.4

4. Gujarat 6.36 5.15 3.24

5. Haryana 6.42 4.67 3.59

6. Jammu and Kashmir 6.14 5.22 2.52

7. Karnataka 5.66 4.76 2.64

8. Kerala 5.75 4.38 3.07

9. Madhya Pradesh 6.52 4.92 3.14

10. Maharashtra 6.25 4.40 2.94

11. Orissa 6.27 5.09 3.30

12. Punjab 7.75 5.22 4.15

13. Rajasthan 5.8 4.7 2.8

14. Tamil Nadu 5.89 4.05 2.72

15. Uttar Pradesh 6.83 5.32 3.96

16. West Bengal 4.5 4.0 2.5

17. India 5.72 4.62 2.97

* States with a population of 5 million or more in 1981.

Source: Vital Statistics Division, Office of the Registrar General.Levels, Trends and Uifferentials in Fertility, 1979, Ministry ofHome Affairs, New Delhi. Compiled using State Tables.

- 52 -

Annex Table A.17. Total Fertility Rate, Rural,

by Religion, 1978

Schedule Schedule

States* Hindu Muslim Christian Sikh Caste Tribe

1. Andhra Pradesh 3.99 4.99 4.27 - 3.94 2.57

2. Assam 3.86 4.70 - - 4.73 4.38

3. Bihar 4.23 4.30 - - 4.34 3.21

4. Gujarat 4.61 4.58 - - 4.61 4.5o

5. Haryana 4.61 4.65 - 4.05 5.36 -

6. Jammu and Kashmir 4.93 4.77 - - 5.68 -

7. Karnataka 3.70 3.83 - - 3.59 -

8. Kerala 2.49 4.15 2.43 - 2.74 -

9. Madhya Pradesh 5.Jb 5.45 - - 5.95 4.51

10. Maharashtra 3.62 4.74 - - 3.38 3.68

11. Orissa 4.30 6.34 - - 3.93 3.63

12. Punjab 4.39 - - 3.15 4.78 -

13. Rajasthan 5.50 5.92 - - 5.58 3.35

14. Tamil Nadu 3.43 3.64 3.82 - 3.70 -

15. Uttar Pradesh 5.82 6.39 - - 5.98 -

16. West Bengal 3.32 4.55 - - 3.98 2.96

17. India 4.48 5.01 3.34 3.97 4.78 4.07

* States with a population of 5 million or more in 1981.

Source: Vital Statistics Division, Office of the Kegistrar General.

Levels, Trends and Differentials in Fertility, 1979. Ministry of

Home Affairs, New Delhi. Compilea using State Tables.

- 53 -

Annex Table A.18. Total Fertility Rate, Urban,by Religion, 1978

Schedule ScheduleStates* Hindu Muslim Christian Sikh Caste Tribe

1. Andhra Pradesh 2.66 3.14 1.96 - 3.24 3.79

2. Assam 2.73 3.23 - - 3.46 -

3. Bihar 3.33 4.05 - - 2.96 1.66

4. Gujarat 3.64 3.84 - - 4.37 4.77

5. Haryana 3.20 3.24 - 3.33 4.15 -

6. Jammu and Kashmir 2.62 2.92 - - 4.07 -

7. Karnataka 2.94 3.69 - - 3.54 -

8. Kerala 1.92 3.63 1.83 - 2.18 -

9. Madhya Pradesh 3.77 4.09 - - 3.90 4.91

10. Maharashtra 2.64 3.81 - - 4.18 3.53

11. Orissa 3.47 4.12 - - 3.77 3.15

12. Punjab 3.18 - - 3.12 4.23 -

13. Rajasthan 3.77 6.11 - - 4.39 7.07

14. Tamil Nadu 2.67 3.24 3.24 - 2.94 -

15. Uttar Pradesh 3.21 3.88 - - 4.79 -

16. West Bengal 2.29 4.3u - - 4.49 2.30

17. India 2.97 3.98 2.31 3.03 3.88 3.62

* States with a population of 5 million or more in 1981.

Source: Vital Statistics Division, Office of the Registrar General.Levels, Trends and Differentials in Fertility, 1979. Ministry ofHome Affairs, New Delhi. Compiled usi g State Tables.

- 54 -

Annex Table A.19. Total Marital Fertility, Rural,

by Religion, 1978

Schedule Schedule

States* Hindu Muslim Christian Sikh Caste Tribe

1. Andhra Pradesh 4.78 5.93 5.68 - 4.86 5.38

2. Assam 5.99 6.08 - - 6.35 7.03

3. Bihar 4.78 4.91 - - 4.72 4.48

4. Gujarat 5.71 5.50 - - 6.52 6.11

5. Haryana 4.05 5.22 - 7.51 6.14 -

6. Jammu and Kashmir 5.86 5.55 - - 6.53 -

7. Karnataka 5.05 5.16 - - 4.65 -

8. Kerala 4.60 5.63 4.85 - 4.61 -

9. Madhya P a esh 5.92 6.24 - - 6.44 5.17

10. Maharashtra 4.22 5.51 - - 3.90 4.67

11. Orissa 5.58 8.58 - - 4.91 5.15

12. Punjab 5.72 - - 5.73 6.04 -

13. Rajasthan 5.98 6.80 - - 6.01 5.99

14. Tamil Na u 4.75 4.99 5.72 - 4.85 -

15. Uttar Pradesh 6.55 7.35 - - 6.60 -

16. West Bengal 4.62 5.73 - - 5.12 4.10

17. India 5.37 5.98 5.07 35.66 5.56 5.25

* States with a population of 5 million or more in 1981.

Source: Vital Statistics Division, Office of the Registrar General.

Levels, Trends and Differentials in Fertility, 1979. Ministry of

Home Affairs, New Delni. Compiled using State Tables.

- 55 -

Annex Table A.20. Total Marital Fertility, Urban,by Religion, 1978

Schedule ScheduleStates* Hindu Muslim Christian Sikh Caste Tribe

1. Andhra Pradesh 3.64 4.13 3.24 - 4.06 4.20

2. Assam 5.28 5.23 - - 6.06 -

3. Bihar 3.95 4.91 - - 3.25 2.52

4. Gujarat 4.82 5.80 - - 5.32 6.22

5. Haryana 4.53 4.28 - 4.72 5.04 -

6. Jammu and Kashmir 4.65 4.77 - - 5.18

7. Karnataka 4.30 5.90 - - 5.45

8. Kerala 4.50 5.23 3.77 - 4.53

9. Madhya Pradesh 5.Q6 5.43 - - 4.79 6.U8

10. Maharashtra 4.11 5.30 - - 5.61 4.64

11. Orissa 5.04 6.00 - - 4.27

12. Punjab 4.90 - - 5.95 5.62 -

13. Rajasthan 4.55 5.34 - - 5.03 8.23

14. Tamil Nadu 4.15 4.75 5.69 - 4.26 -

15. Uttar Pradesh 5.17 6.77 - - 5.53 -

16. West Bengal 4.06 5.95 -- 5.75 5.88

17. India 4.37 5.53 4.54 5.076 5.03 4.97

* States with a population of 5 million or more in 1981.

Source: Vital Statistics Division, Office of the Registrar General.Levels, Trends and Differentials in Fertility, 1979. Ministry ofHome Affairs, New Delhi. Compiled using State Tables.

W orid Bank value of these findings and provides Demographic Aspects ofvaluable insights into possibilities for Migration in West Africa-

Publications implementing mass programs for K C. Zachanah and othersneedy people in villages throughout

of Related the world Volume 1Staff Working Paper No 414. SeptemberIntereVst 1980 369 pages (including statistical an-Volume 1: Integrated Nutrition nexes, bibliography)

and Health Care Stock No WP 0414 $15Arnfried A. Kielmann and othersThis volume provides detailed data Volume 2suggesting that synergism between Staff Working Paper No 415 Septembermalnutrition and infection is probably 1980 391 pages (includtng statistical an-the greatest cause of mortality, mor- nexes, bibliography).

The African Trypanosomiases: bidity, and retarded growth and devel- Stock No WP 0415 $15Methods and Concepts of over a penod of four years, villagers (These Working Papers are backgroundControl and Eradication in received nutntion care, general health studies for Migration in West Afnca.Relation to Development care to control infections, or both Dra- Demographic Aspects, described in thisC. W Lee and J. M. Maurice matic improvements, including a 40%- section )Here is a practical cost-benefit ap- 50% decline in mortality, a 20% reduc- Economic Motivation versusproach to an age-old problem affecting creases in height and weight In addi- City Lights: Testinghumans and livestock alike, the Afn- hon, detailed information on costs is Hypotheses about Inter-can Trypanosomiases Descnbes new presented that permits the most com- Changwat Migration intechniques that offer tsetse control plete analysis of cost-effectiveness and Thailandwithout destroying game animals. program relevant costs and benefits Fred Arnold and Susan H.Also summarizes current research in ye grial n hskn o il egenetic control, the use of sraps and search. The study focuses directly oncranescreens, attractants, and pheromones. practcal program implications and Staff Working Paper No 416 SeptemberTechnical Paper No 4 1983 107 pages ways in which such integrated services 1980 41 pages (including footnotes, refer-ISBN 0-8213-0191-8 Stock No BK 0191 can be applied under field conditions. ences)$5 The Johns Hopkins University Press 1984 Stock No WP 0416 $3Analyzing the Impact of 288 pages. Experiments in FamilyHealth Services: Project LC 82-23915. ISBN 0-8018-3064-8 Stock Planning: Lessons from theExperiences from India, Developing WorldGhana, and Thailand Roberto Cuca and Catherine SRashid Faruqee PierceStaff Working Paper No 546 1982 44 Volume 1. Integrated Family A comprehensive review of experi-pages Planning and Health Care mental efforts in the developing worldISBN 0-8213-0117-9 Stock No WP 0546 Carl E. Taylor and others to determine more effective ways of$3 To village people, politicians, and in- providing family planning services

ternational health planners, health and The Johns Hopktns University Press, 1978family planning have always seemed 276 pages (including bibliography, index of

NEW to fit naturally together But in the experiments)early 1960s, when international aware- LC 77-16596 ISBN 0-8018-2013-8, Stock

Child and Maternal Health ness of the social and economic conse- No IH 2013, $19 50 hardcover, ISBN 0-quences of surging population growth 81-046 tc oI 04 89Services in India: The moved family planning into a position pS2erbackNarangwal Experiment of high priority, some international parWhat can pnmary health care and agencies began to advocate separation Family Planning Programs: Anfamily planning do for women and of family planning from health serv- Evaluation of Experiencechildren in the poor and depnved ices In international policy discussions Roberto Cucaareas of the world7 Some of the most the question continues to be impor-specific evidence available today to tant This volume analyzes this ques- Staff Working Paper No 345 19,9 146support the benefits of these services ton and provides arguments and evi- pages (including 2 annexes, reterenices)is contained in these two studies, dence to support integration of health Stock NVo WP 0345 55which represent the findings of re- care and family planning; it outlinessearch carned out during 1967-74 in the purposes underlying the research Fertility and Education: Whattwenty-six villages in Punjab, India in this area, and it proposes policy Do We Really Know?

questions regarding the effectiveness, Susan H CochraneMembers of the research staff, which efficiency, and equity of such an inte- Amdlietfigtemn hnstarted with 15 people and grew to grtion A model identifvig the manv chan-about 150 by the end of the project, gra nels through which education mightspent many years working with, and The Johns Hopkins University Press. 1984.shanng the lives of, villagers The 256 pagesdepth of understanding that came LC 83-23915 ISBN 0-8018-2830-9 Stock Prices subject to change without noticefrom this type of sharing enhances the No IH 2830 S22 50. and may vary by country.

act to determine fertility and a review Health Issues and Policies in Kenya: Population andof the evidence of the relation between the Developing Countries Developmenteducation and the intervening vana- Fredrick Golladay (See descnption under Countrybles In the model that affect fertilitvbles Hopkinsthe modelthat affet , fertiy Staff Working Paper No 412 1980 55 Studies listing.)The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979 pages188 pages (including bibliography, index) pag

LC 78-26070 ISBN 0-8018-2140-1, Stock Stock No WP 0412 $3No IH 2140. S6 95 paperback Health, Nutrition, and Family Migration in West Africa:

Planning in India: A Survey of Demographic AspectsExperiments and Special K C. Zachariah and Julien Conde

Fertility and Its Regulation in Projects The first study of the large-scale move-Fertility ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ment cf people in nine West African

Bangladesh Rashid Faruqee and Ethna Johnson countnes. Discusses the volume andR Amin and Rashid Faruqee Staff Working Paper No 507 1982 Z08 direchon of internal and external flowsStaff Working Paper No 383 1980 54 pages (including references) and the economic and social character-pages (including references) Stock No WP 0507 S5 istics of migrants.

Stock No WP 0383 53 A joint World Bank-OECD study. OxfordInfant and Child Mortality as a University Press, 1981 166 pages (includ-

Determinant of Fertility: The ing 22 maps, bibliography, index)Health Policy Implications LC 80-21352 ISBN 0-19-520186-8, StockFredrick Golladay, coordinating Susan Hill Cochrane and K. C. No OX 520186, $19 95 hardcover; ISBNauthor Zachariah 0-19-520187-6, Stock No OX 520187,Draws on expenence gained from An illustrative analysis that suggests $8 95 paperbackhealth components of seventv World intant mortality mav be an importantBank projects in fortv-four countnes component of a fertility reduction pro-between 1975 and 1978 Emphasizes gram in countries where mortality is P athe disproportionately high expendi- high and few couples are able to have Populanion and Famdlytures incurred on curative medicine, the number of surviving children they Planning in Bangladesh: Amaintenance of expensive hospitals, desire Study of the Researchand sophisticated training of medical World Bank Staff Working Paper No 556 Mohammad Alauddin and Rashidpersonnel at the cost of preventive 1983 44 pages Faruqeecare for the majonty of the peoplePoints out that low-cost health care ISBN 0-8213-0147-0 Stock No WP 0556 Reviews major studies on family plan-svstems are feasible and recommends 53 ning and on fertility trends, profiles,tsat the Bank begin regular and directnds.$. and determinants Evaluates results oflending for health, in addition to hav- Integrating Family Planning such studies and cntiquies their meth-

ing halthcompoentsas pat ofpro- with Health Services: Does It odology and application Underscoresing health components as part of pro need for continued studv and suggestsjects In other sectorsHelp. directions for future research to im-Sector Policy Paper 1980 90 pages (in- Rashid Faruqee prove the Bangladesh populationcluding 8 annexes, 4 figures, map) Staff Working Paper No 515 1982 47 problem

Stock Nos BK 9066 (Arabic), BK 9067 pages World Bank Staff Working Paper No 557(English), BK 9068 (FrencIh). BK 9069 ISBN 0-8213-0003-2 Stock No WP 0515 1983 176 pages(Spanish) 55 - 3 ISBN 0-8213-0150-0 Stock No WP 0557

$5

I I I I I \ \ I Visit the World BankKStreet Bookstore Population and Poverty in the

K Street whn you am ci Developing World7 W I n Washington, AC. Nancy Birdsalll I I l l l l I Staff Working Paper No 404 1980 96

i i I Street pages (including 2 appendixes, bibliog-I4 a C:X g I I X [L C1 raphy)

A cn ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Stock No WP 0404 $3

H Steet

HStreet S7 [ Lafyette Square Population Policy and FamilyL _ _ _ Planning Programs: Trends in

7/)a Avenue Policy and AdministrationKandiah Kanagaratnam and

G Street The White House Cathenne S. Pierce_St t .he I CStaff Working Paper No 447 1981 80U1I pages (including bibliography, appendixes)

World Bank Bookstore Stock No WP 0447 $3

NEW published as World Population Projec- falling mortality, and urbanization-tions Short- and Long-term Projections by factors that tend to lower fertlity else-

hort-termn Population Age and Sex for All Countries, with Re- where. Calls for a viable population'rojection, 1980-2020 and Long- lated Demographic Statistics policy and programs appropnate to

erm Projection, 2000 to 1983 391 pages the culture.

itationary Stage by Age and ISBN 0-8213-0355-4. $30 paperback. Staff Working Paper No 559 1983 116

iex for All Countries of the pages

Vorld NEW ISBN 0-8213-0152-7 Stock Nos. WP'4y T Vu, under the supervision Rapid Population Growth inf K C. Zachariah R L G inhis report gives detailed population Sub-Saharan Africa: Issues and Regional Aspects of Familyrojections by age and sex for each PoliciesPlnigadFrltyBhvoDuntry at five-year intervals from 1980 Rashid Faruqee and Ravi Gulhati ilanning and Fertilit Behavior) 2020 and at twenty-five year inter- No other country has higher fertility Dov Chernichovsky and Oey Astraals from 2000 to the year in which than Kenya and its neighbonng coun- ov kopulation becomes stationary in each tnes in Sub-Saharan Afnca. This Meesook:untry The implied fertility and mor- Working Paper examines the reasons Staff Working Paper No 462 1981 62

ility measures are also given Revised for fertility rates staying high, even pages (including appendix, references)

nnually The 1984 edition will be rising in the face of greater education, Stock No. WP 0462 $3

The World BankPublications. Order Form

SEND TO: YOUR LOCAL DISTRIBUTOR OR TO WORLD BANK PUBLICATIONS(See the other side of thts form.) P.O. BOX 37525

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20013 U.S.A.

Date

Name Ship to: (Enter if different from purchaser)

Title Name

Firm Title

Address Firm

City State_ Postal Code Address

Country ITelephone l_) City State_ Postal Code_

Purchaser Reference No. Country Tilephone

Check your method of payment.Enclosed is my O Check O International Money Order O Unesco Coupons O International Postal Coupon.Make payable to World Bank Publications for U. S. dollars unless you are ordering from your local distributor.

Charge my O VISA E MasterCard 7 American Express E Choice. (Credit cards accepted only for orders addressed

to World Bank Publications.)

Credit Card Account Number Expiration Date Signature

2 Invoice me and please reference my Purchase Order No.

Please ship me the items listed below.

Customer Internal

Stock Number Autbor/ Title Routing Code Quantity Unit Price Total Amount S

All prices subject to change. Prices may vary by country. Allow 6-8 weeks for delivery.

Subtotal Cost S_

Thtal copies _ Air mail surcharge if desired (S2.00 eachl S5

Postage and handling for more than two complimentary items (S2.00 each) $

Total S

ISRD.0053 Thank you for your order.

Distributors of World Attn Mr.iancarlo Bigazzi rAttn Mr.1'M. HemandezBank Publications 50121 Madrid

ARGENTINA Florence SRI LANKA AND THE MALDIVESCarlos Hirsch, SRL, APAN Lake House BookshopAttn. Ms. Monica Bustos Eastern Book,Service Attn: Mr. Victor WalataraFlorida 16; 4° piso Attn: Mr. Terumasa Hirano 41 Wad Ramanavake MawathaGaleria Guemes 37-3, Hongo 3-Chome, Bunkvo-ku 113 Colombo 2Buenos Aires 1307 Tokyo SWEDENAUSTRALIA, PAPUA NEW GUINEA, KENYA ABCE Fritzes Kungl. Hov,bokhandelFIJI, SOLOMON ISLANDS, Africa Book Services (E.A.) Ltd Attn: Mr, Eide SegerbackWESTERN SAMOA, AND Attn Mr. M.B. Dar Regeringsgatan 12, Box 16356VANUATU P O Box 45245 5-103 27 StockholmThe Australian Financial Review Nairobi SWITZERLANDInformation Sernice (AFRIS) KOREA, REPUBLIC OF Libraine PayotAttn Mr David Jamieson Pan Korea Book Corporation Attn Mr Henn de Perrot235-243 Jones Street Attn Mr. Yoon-Sun Kim 6, rue GrenusBroadwav P 0. Box 101, Kwanghwamun 1211 GenevaSvdnev, NSW 20001 Seoul TANZANIABELGIUM MALAYSIA Oxford University PressPublications des Nations Unies University ot Malaya Cooperative Attn Mr Anthcnv TheoboldAttn Mr Jean de Lannov Bookshop Ltd Maktaba Road, P 0 Box 5299av du Roi 202 Attn Mr Mohammed Fahim Htl Dar es Salaam1060 Brussels Yacob THAILANDCANADA P 0 Box 1127, Jalan Pantat Baru Central Department Store, Head OfficeLe Diffuseur Kuala Lumpur Attn: Mrs RatanaAttn: Mrs. Suzanne Vermette MEXICO 306 Silom RoadC.P. 85. Boucherville J4B 5E6 INFOTEC BangkokQuebec Attn. Mr. Jorge Cepeda Thailand Management Association

San Lorenzo 153-11. Col. del Valle, Attn: Mrs. SunanCOSTA RICA Deleg, Benito Juarez 308 Silom RoadLibrerta Trelus 010Mexc,DF agoAttn: Mr. Hugo Chamberlain 0310v Mexico, D.F. BangkokCalle 11-13, Av. Fernandez Guell MIDDLE EAST TUNISIASan Jose Middle East Marketing Research Societ Tunisienne de DiffusionDENMARK Hurt-au Attn: Mir. Slaheddine Ben HamidaSanfundslitteratur Atn: Mr. George Vassilou A Avenue de CarthageAttn: Mr. Wilfned Roloff M'itss Il An TuRKbRosenderns Alle 11 NckLisill TURKEYDK-1970 Copenhagen V. Csprux Haset Kita pevi A.SEGYFPT, Arab Republic of (Iranch offices in Bahrain, Greece Attn: Mr. Izzet IzerelAl Ahram Morocco, Kuwait, United Arab 469, Istiklal CaddesiAl Galaa Street Emirates, Jordan) Bevoglu-lstanbulCairo NETHERLANDS UNITED KINGDOM AND

MBE BV NORTHERN IRELANDFINLAND Attn Mr Gerhard van Bussell -Microinto LtdAkateeminen Kirl.kauppa Noorderwal 38. Attn Mr Rov SelwvnAttn. Mr. Kari Litmanen 7241 BL Lochem Newman Lane, P.0 Box 3Keskuskatu 1, SF-00100 NORWAY Alton, Hampshire GU34 2PGHelsinki 10 Johan Grundt Tanum A 5 EnglandFRANCE Attn Ms Randi Mikkelborg UNITED STATESWorld Bank Publications 0 o Box 11;7 Sentrum The World Bank Book Store

66, avenue d'Idna ~~Oslo 1 600 19th Street,NW75116 Paris PANAMA Washington, D C 20433GERMANY, Federal Republic of EdiLiones Libreria Cultural l'anainena (Postal address P 0 Box 37525UNO-Verlag Attn Mr Luis Fernandez Fraguela R Wabhington, D C 20013, U S AAttn Mr Joachim Krause Av . Espana.16 Baker and Tavlor CompanvSimrockstrasse 23 Panama Lone 1 501 South Gladiola AvenueD-5300 Bonn I PHILIPPINES Nlumence, llinois, t0954HONG KONG, MACAU \ational Book Store 380 Edison Wav..Asia 2000 Ltd Attn Mrs Socorro C Ramos Rent), Nevada, 89564Attn Ms Gretchen Wearing Smith 701 RizalAvenue 30K-vAvenue6 Fl . 146 Prince Edward Road Mandi Somerville, New lersev, 08876Kowloon PORTUGAL Commerce, Georgia 30599INDIA Ii~ r,iria Portugal ComreGogi309

UBS Publisers' Distrbutors Ltd\ttni Mr Antonio AI'eb Martins Berninr Associates UtBtS PNu1blisDhers'oD0stributors Ltd -74 9730-E George Palmer Hi ,h,'Attn Mvr D P Veer RLM LLanCam. Marv7and If207* Ansari Road, Post Box 7015 1aBLanhwml North A riaINev Delhi 110002 1 I'l'on Blackwell Nurth Amenca Inc(BranLh otticeb in Bombav, Bangflore, SALDI ARABIA Ita01 Fcis N ill RoadKanpur. Calcutta, and MNadras) lirtr Book Store Black%sovd, New lerev 08012INDONESIA Attn Mr Akram Al-Agil Sidnek Kramer Books --Pt Indira Limited P 0 Box 3196 1722 fH Street. N WAttn Mr Bambang Wahvudi Ri%adh Wa,hington, D C 2000t)JI, Dr Sam Ratulangi No 37 SINGAPORE, TAIWAN, BURMA United Nations BookxhopJakarta Pusat Information Publications Private, Ltd United Nations PlazaIRELAND Attn Ms Janet David New 'rork, N Y 10017TDC Publishers 02 0t Ist Floor. Pei-Fu IndustrialAttn Mr James Booth Building VENEZUELA12 North Frederick Street 24 New Industrial Road Libreria del EsteDublin I Singapore Attn Mr Juan PericasAvda Francisco de M.iranda. no ;ITALY SPAIN Edificto Galian Aptdo 60 337Licosa Commissiunaria Sansoni SPA Mundi-Prensa Libros. S A Caracas 1 J-A

70- / LAePPOfoxC¢onoltrool ,, 1 80- 90 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~IBRD 18715

AFGH/AAN/5AN 50

>- ', )! @Srmagor ) ~~~~~~~INDIA, l J~~~ASHMI§MR d oTOTAL FERTILITY RATE BY STATES

r -'% .' '--'.,,<\ ~~~~~~~~~~19 78

J';) ( \,~~~~~~~PRADESH a ooFrfltRt Stateand Un,on Terf.tory Capack6 / ~~~~~~~~~~~~)> -I3, C9\+/t Below 4 O 0 Not,onal Coptlfl3.

30~~~~~~~~~~ PUoNJABts o Between 4 O ond 5 0 -- State Bou,,doresPA f/S 7AN A/ F - Aoe5 * Internao.aonl Boundo,,es

?-H+ARYANA('st

> RAJASTHAN .4 h @~~~~~~&.uckn-w ~ ASSAM /NAGALAND

5 < x r > fvl~~~~~~E( ALAYA MA gNIPUR

< K-/ t.$ ><@ 5 rf _,4 ;y J 7 ~~~~BIHAR NGDSH n j

9 ( WEST 9 ~~~TRIPL 6A¢ MIZO)RAMS sondhirwogor@ >e @6hoool u u BENGAL I ua

< , Z ~~~~~~~~~MADHYA PRADESH ygnota,, BUM

20- 2 vS \ ) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Bh.b onewrj l 20--

q t , ORISSA ,MAHARASHTRA' , fs

B-. rs Hdeoo

t Z i ,1 ANDHRA >|l

ponilm@ < C-5 PRADESH GOA? /)(N

ARNATAKA -

Arablan Sea J ANDAMAN

\ >n / ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~AND\ 9TAMIL NADU Sto eg/ONCBRl.

10- _KE ALAI ISLANDS

SRI KILOMETERS °', ° 0 0 0 0 0 A A MILE5So 100 2&o 360 40

DECEMBER 1984

The World Bank

Headquarters European Office Tokyo Office1818 H Street, N W. 66, avenue d'1ena Kokusai BuildingWashington, DC 20433, U S A 75116 Paris, France 1-1 Marunouchi 3-chome

Telephone (202) 477-1234 Telephone (1) 723-54 21 Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100, JapanTelex WUI 64145 WORLDBANK Telex 842-620628 Telephone (03) 214-5001

RCA 248423 WORLDBK Telex 781-26838Cable Address INTBAFRAD

WASHINGTONDC

'SSN O I'3-- 15/[S3iN O L2? 3-O5b 9