Arttinatal Policies Sociology Help

Arttinatal Policies

Governments may try to limit population worth by (1) providing facilities for contraception, abortion, and sterilization and encouraging their use; and (2) providing penalties for large families, and, less frequently,rewards for small families. Some would consider  that economic development, female emancipation, and reduced economic inequality. are ant fatalist. These developments probably encourage a ‘preference for smaller ‘ families aexcepted by the United Nations and by most of the world’s countries as a proper governmental concern [Salas, 1976). Birth control clinics were usually initiated on a tentative, timid basis with a heavy medical emphasis and with little realistic effort to reach the less educated portions of the
population. Often they did not provide sterilization or abortion, and sometimes their contraceptive services were limited as well. Usually they quickly reached the better-educated people but had difficulty in communicating effectively with the uneducated. The development of “the pill” was a boon to these agencies, since it was both simpler and more
effective than most other contraceptive methods. With experience, the agencies became more effective both in communication and in their understanding ‘of contraceptive methods BIRTHCONTROLPOLICIES. It soon became apparent that it was not enough to provide people with the means to limit the size of their families. Just as crucial is the matter of
motivation. If people desire large families, then no method of birth control will have much appeal. Further, even skillful propaganda may be ineffective against’ the traditional  belief that many children are a proof oJ. masculinity or femininity, a cheap family labor force, and insurance’ against poverty and isolation in old age. Presumably,’ these attitudes would change as countries became. more industrialized (the demographic transition), but by that time the population might have grown to catastrophic proportions. Conseqently, some governments have begun to
establish peo alties and rewards to motivate .the acceptan t of smaller families. India. for several years paid me to accept a vasectomy [Bird, 1976]. Districts in Taiwan have offered savings accounts as a reward for limiting family size [Yen er a1., 1973]. The Phillppines, where the a~age woman has seven children, allows income tax deductions for only ‘four
children [ConCepcion,’ICJ73j.Singapore, which has been hi~hJy successful in reducing ·the birthrate, has ~ inatiort of incentives. These include delivery fees rising with consecutive children, income tax deductions for
only the first three children, ‘paid maternity leave for only two confinements, and highest priority for subsidized housing to those with
two children or less [Kee and Lee,.1973]. There are critics who regard such incentives’ as a form of coercion. In 1977 the U.S. Congress forbade the use of foreign aid money for birth control incentives. India is the only country thus far where alleged coercion has been a domestic issue. When Mrs. Gandhi was prime minister, she greatly expanded existing birth control programs and introduced an energetic program of male sterilization which many people regarded as coercive [Bird, 1976J. This was given as one of
the reasons her party lost the next  election,and her successor modified the population program, removing any elements which might regarded as coercive [Borders, 1977]. As stated earlier, the Peoples’ Republic of China has established the world’s most vigorous population control program. The Chinese program had practically every measure tried an y. ‘here else” as well as a few items unique to China. All contraceptive methods are made available, as well as sterilization and abortion. The one-child family is the official ideal, and the recommended ;. minimum age  marriage is 28 for males -\ and 25 for females [Kessen, 1975,·p. 21].

Posted on September 4, 2014 in POPULATION CHANGE

Share the Story

About the Author

Back to Top
Share This