Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-07T21:30:41.028Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reproductive efficiency in the developing world

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 February 2020

John Ross Open the ORCID record for John Ross [Opens in a new window]  and
Anrudh K Jain
John Ross*
Affiliation:
Independent Demographic Consultant, New Paltz, NY, USA
Anrudh K Jain
Affiliation:
Independent Researcher, Hastings on Hudson, NY, USA
*
*Corresponding author. Email: RossHome8@Frontiernet.net
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study proposes a measure of reproductive losses starting from conception to age 15 as an assessment of childbearing ‘efficiency’. It is suggested that losses are due to miscarriages, abortions, stillbirths and deaths to age 15. Data were drawn from various sources for seven regions embracing 129 developing countries. Mortality is an important loss in severely disadvantaged regions, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, but the abortion rates are lower there. This is reversed in the more advanced regions, where mortality is low but abortion rates are higher. Total losses numerically depend upon the rates in combination with the numbers of conceptions. The general ‘efficiency’ in moving from conception to a surviving child aged 15 was estimated. The abortion component of wastage has apparently not improved over time, but the mortality component has done so. Abortion rates are found to drive reproductive efficiency downwards; but efficiency is positively correlated with contraceptive use once abortion is controlled for. This implies that as efficiency is improved more couples gain confidence to turn to contraceptive use to avoid unplanned pregnancies and births.

Keywords

BirthsAbortionsChild Mortality
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Biosocial Science , Volume 52 , Issue 5 , September 2020 , pp. 776 - 784
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Darroch, J (2017) Adding It Up: Investing in Contraception and Maternal and Newborn Health, 2017: Estimation Methodology. Table 46. Guttmacher Institute, New York.Google Scholar
Davis, K (1945) The World Demographic Transition. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 237, 1–11 (cited in Sills DL and Merton RK (eds) Macmillan Book of Social Science Quotations. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, 1991, p. 48).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, K (1963) The Theory of Change and Response in Modern Demographic History. Population Index 29(4), 345–366. Office of Population Research, Princeton, New Jersey. URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2732014Google Scholar
Marston, C and Cleland, J (2003) Relationships between contraception and abortion: a review of the evidence. International Family Planning Perspectives 29(1), 6–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sedgh, G, Bearak, J, Singh, S, Bankole, A, Popinchalk, A, Ganatra, Bet al. (2016) Abortion incidence between 1990 and 2014: global, regional, and subregional levels and trends. The Lancet 388, 258–267.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Serbanescu, F, Egnatashvili, V, Ruiz, A, Suchdev, D and Goodwin, M (2011) Reproductive Health Survey Georgia, 2010: Summary Report. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Atlanta, Tbilisi, Georgia, and UN Population Fund. URL: https://georgia.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/GERHS_2010_%20Report%20%20ENGL_0.pdfGoogle Scholar
UN Population Division (2017) World Population Prospects: 2017 Revision. United Nations, New York,Google Scholar
Westoff, CF (2008) A new approach to estimating abortion rates. DHS Analytical Studies No. 13.Google Scholar