Class Notes (839,195)
Canada (511,223)
SOCI 254 (101)
Uli Locher (67)
Lecture

Population, Health and Development

9 Pages
93 Views

Department
Sociology (Arts)
Course Code
SOCI 254
Professor
Uli Locher

This preview shows pages 1,2 and half of page 3. Sign up to view the full 9 pages of the document.
Description
Population, Health and Development The Demographic Transition - Empirical generalization: - Death rates + birth rates tend to be high, then fall in sequence to eventually stabilize @low levels - Theory: transition of nat economy fr/agricultural to industrial phases causes the death rates + birth rates to decline in sequence Population pyramids typical of the four stages of transition - Indusz greatly improved output (inclu agricul output) - Ploughs, chem fertilizers that make you produce more, expansion on planted surface - Later base for population expansion - Despite jobs in indus cities in 18/19 cities were dangerous jobs (short life expectancy) - Only 1 small part of population - Demographic transition: phase 6? - Negative natural increase - Rebound of fertility to reach TFR: 2.0 - @low + medium levels, devel (in HDI terms) promotes fertility decline - @high HDI levels, devel promotes fertility increase, up to a certain level - Analysis is speculative: sig exceptions such as Germany Japan remain unexplained - The Demographic Transition Model: is it true? - The descriptive generalization holds (“The Model”) - No country has ever conformed completely to the model - Data problems remain significant for many countries + historical events - This is the most widely accepted generalization in all of social science - Who are the women who produce children?  Econ level of hh is imp in determ fertility level of wife of head of household  Other women in hh freq of fertility level doesn’t conform  Econ interest of boss in hh (normally male) = have many unpaid workers  Once take this away + make fertility independent of head of hh, this is when TFL down  Who is truly disadvantaged wormen in hh? daughter-in-law - Indusz as principle causal factor = contested - Assumed isolation of population is not a useful restriction - Migrations are ignored, such as slave trade/Eur emigration - S/major influences on population growth (culture, wars, epidemics) have independent impacts - Extending the model to phases 5 + 6 aloows for analytical refinement Malthus - Population increasing, resources also increasing but not at same rate  Population will grow exponentially, while resources geometrically - Most societies (@time Malthus), had pop @/beyond agricul limits - After WWII, great pop explosion - According to Malthus, point of crisis should have been reached - Malthusian Trap - Great Divergence: resource levels must be expanding (indeed, they are)  Green Revolution th - Malthus in the 20 century - Exponential population growth (if unchecked), ex by constant factor of 1.02 - Arithmetic growth of food supply (or energy harnessing/natural resource discovery) - Malthusian catastrophe is inevitable - Paul Ehrlich: The Population Bomb - Since 1930, world population doubled, then doubled again - 2006: 36M deaths caused by hunger + malnutrition-related diseases - Ehrlich’s Critics - Many of Ehrlich’s specific predictions turned out to be wrong (ex: mass starvation 70s/80s) - “India couldn’t possibly feed 200M more ppl by 1980”, India has become food exporter - World food production has grown exponentially at rate much higher than population growth - In support of Ehrlich’s response - Effects of green revolution have been short lived - Ever increasing rate of land becoming unusable for crop production - Last decade has been only decade on record where more food was consumed than produced - 2009: net gain of 75M ppl occurred, w/# ppl starving going fr/0.8B in 2008 to 1.01B 2010 - Human Impact - Human impact = enorm, in past: all energy used = renewable, based on wood  Today using vastly new energy comes fr/non-renewable resources - What we think are renewable resources in fact, not actually renewable  Dams in QC claim produce energy forever (doubtful + effects on environ esp for indig ppl) - Global Population Growth - UN: high/med/low growth projection, only low sustainable (med what’s actually happening) - Malthusian POV: collapse lies ahead  Impact of Green Rev bought us time so more ppl can survive for longer, but future = bleak  Apocalypse: Indus, deforestation, desertification, salination, consumption - The Optimists (Anti-Neo Malthusians) are (Mostly) Winning: - MDGs are not being totally reached, but have made fantastic improvements - Food production increases - Energy production increases - Innovation in e/field, inclu agricul - Famines = poli events - Devel catastrophes = lim geographically, historically, politically - Food Production Index - Green line: food production has progressed over last 50 years - Red line: collapse of food produc in Afr b/c colonial instits collapsed (s/improvements, not sig) - Agricultural Innovations - Irrigation: today, absolute must (highly-productive agricul reqs irrig) - Industrial production - Mechanization - Chemical inputs - Green Revolution - Genetically Modified Crops  Moving into new phase more reasonable kinds of crops produced, less reliant chem inputs - Famines - Conventional definitions:  Widespread food shortage, sudden drop in food supply  Sudden collapse food consumption  High mortality + threat to food intake, set of condits resulting in widespread malnutrition - Conventional remedy: increase food supply - Amartya Sen: not food production H: access to food = prob  Poli inequality + lack of freedoms lead to econ inequality + lack of buying power  Remedy: create freedom + buying power - “Development catastrophes are limited geographically, historically, and politically” - True for geography: worst cases generally civil war zones, mostly in Afr - True for history: most cases = well described + understood  Nothing comparable to Mao’s Great Leap has happened in decades - True for politics: Amartya Sen’s analysis is definitive + convincing - Conclusion - Empirical ev on quality of life so far doesn’t supp Neo-Malthusians - Empirical ev on shrinking resource base does suggest that serious trouble lies ahead - Arguments both sides essentially based on extrapolations of well-est trends (not same ones) Migration and Development - Internal/International Migration and Development - Migrants respond to factors that attract (pull)/push them out of an area - Push factors inducing rural out-migration:  High fertility rates, high population density = pop/ha arable land  Resource degradation + declining yields (food insecurity)  Lim on-farm/off-farm emp options  Natural/manmade/poli crises (earthquakes, floods, cvil war, persecution) = refugees - Pull factors inducing rural-rural/rural-urban migration  Town/city/free trade zone jobs in growth indus/tradit jobs (ex: domestic help)  Labour demand in commercial, plantation agricul + timber  Colonization (directed/spontaneous) to frontier lands for subsis agricul/ranching  Other pull factors: city services, edu, opportunity - Imp: on most migrants, simult push + pull factors operate (rare for single motivation) - Do we really have rural exodus? - 2000: 800M migrants, many fr/rural to urban areas  does this constit rural exodus? - Exodus: sig majority moves away, but what’s actually happening in rural to urban migration today is that 1 part of rural pop transfers to urban areas  Rural areas cont grow, just that a part of rural pop moves to cities - Net migration worldwide - All rich areas seem to be gaining, all poor areas seem to be losing - Classical approaches: - Ernest Ravenstein  Vocab borrowed fr/physics  concern w/(quasi-physical) laws of migrations  Emphasis on individs: looks at where ppl born, where they were actually living  Poli realities freq downplayed (early attempt @ migration w/out poli)  No activist orientation - Everett Lee’s ‘Theory of Migration’  Area of origin w/push + pull facts + in destination also have push + pull  Migrants move fr/origin to destination + there are intervening obstacles  Migrants responding plus factors (pull factors) @destination tend to be positively selected  Migrants responding minus factors (push factors) @origin tend to be negatively selected - Migration definition: - Relatively permanent moving away of collativist fr/1 geographical location to another, preceded by decision-making on the part of migrants on basis of hierarchically ordered set of values/valued ends + resulting in changes in interactional sys of the migrants - Emph decision making + what values will impact decis that ppl will take + changes fr/migration - Relevant questions: - Who are migrants? Selectivity - Why did they migrate? Motivation (always complex reasons) - Where did they migrate? Geographic + social destinations - What are consequences of migrations? Individ + collectively @origin + destination - Examples of internal migration (w/in nat state) - Ethiopia 1994: rural migration most prominent, urban to rural also prominent (surprisingly)  As well as rural to urban and urban to urban - Ghana 1991-1998: rural to rural migration most prominent - Urban to rural prominent, urban to urban also - Rural to urban = least prominent - Functionalist Analysis: - Have donor sys + recipient sys + have migrants that move b/w - Behavioural options for migrants (integration alternatives) - Live in 2 worlds, maintain permanent attachment @both origin + destination - Intro own kind of social organization  Ex: Italians in Mtl: instit complete ethnic grp, have own churches, restaurants, courts  S/ethnic grps can live completely w/in own origin (instits built) - Plan 2 migration elsewhere  Many claim retire in their origin, most cases: will not be the case - Return to area of origin - Total assimilation @destination  Most migrants: original lang maintained for only 1 generation - Theories of migration - Historical / Structural / Globalist / Critical - Remittances as Development Tools - Volume of remittances - Destinations - Remittances as share of GDP - Economic crisis + remittance decline - Uses of remittances: not just leaving terrible sit, but then to send home $ to finance survival - Remittance flows to devel’g nats: strong increases over the years  2006: 228, 2007: 285, 2008: 385 - Huge chunk of GDP in form of remittances (2006: 20%, 2008: 31% in low income nats)  Amount of $ that flows into middle-income nats much larger, but much less imp that remittances are for low-income nats - Destination of migrants fr/devel’g nats  High-income OECD + about ½ all migration fr/poor nats is to other poor nats - Econ crisis + remittances decline  Have less $ send back home in face of econ crisis  Volume of remittances expresses econ forces of migrants @desintaiton - Saudi Arabia employs lots of migrants for crude oil  Remittance outflows fr/Saudi Arabia not tied to n
More Less
Unlock Document

Only pages 1,2 and half of page 3 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit