UN Population Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs,
with support from the UN Population Fund (UNFPA)
|
| UN Population Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, with support from the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) |
|
**********************************************************************
This newsletter is being made available by the Population Information
Network (POPIN) Gopher/Web site of the United Nations Population
Division, Department for Economic and Social Information and Policy
Analysis, in collaboration with the Population Reference Bureau, and with
funding from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.
**********************************************************************
Population Today
Monthly newsletter of the Population Reference Bureau
January 1996, Vol 24, No. 1
Please note: The graphics that appeared in the printed copy of
Population Today have not been included here. For a complete
copy of Population Today, send $2.00 to Population Reference
Bureau,1875 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 520, Washington, D.C.
20009.
In this issue: ** U.S. Ponders Retooling Its Race and Ethnic
Categories for 2000 Census ** Family Planning Choice Still
Lags in Vietnam ** How Many People Can the Earth Support? **
Spotlight on Kenya**
U.S. Ponders Retooling Its Race and Ethnic Categories for 2000
Census
By Susan Kalish
The O.J. Simpson trial, the Million Man March, and Colin
Powell's almost- candidacy for president have kept race in the
media spotlight. Less well publicized are the research and
analysis that several U.S. government agencies have been doing
since 1993 to fine-tune current race/ethnic categories_in
place since 1977_to reflect the country's increasing
demographic diversity.
Last August, the Office of Management and Budget
published in the Federal Register suggestions based on public
comment for changing race/ethnic categories. These
alternatives will be tested in the Race and Ethnic Targeted
Test (RAETT) in June 1996. Decisions about the treatment of
race/ethnic categories in the 2000 Census will be made by
mid-1997.
Several approaches are being researched and tested,
including a "multiracial or biracial" category; a "check more
than one category" as a way to report multiracial identity; a
combined race, Hispanic-origin, and ancestry question; a
combined "Indian (American) or Alaska Native" category; a
"Native Hawaiian" category; and finally, rearranging the order
in which race and Hispanic-origin questions are asked on the
questionnaire.
Recent research by the Census Bureau using cognitive
interviews, and the results of a special race/ethnic
supplement to the May 1995 Current Population Survey (CPS) by
the Bureau of Labor Statistics, testify to the complexity of
these issues. Census Bureau interviews confirmed what many
observers have suspected for many years: much of the public
tends to blur the distinctions between "race," "ethnicity,"
and "ancestry."
The word "ethnicity" seemed particularly baffling to
respondents, but "ancestry and ethnic origin" was a more
respondent-friendly substitute, according to Nampeo McKenney,
the Census Bureau's assistant division chief for Special
Population Statistics.
"Little things in a question make a difference in how
people respond," said McKenney. For example, researchers found
that more people noticed a multiracial option when it was
placed last on the list.
U.S. statistical forms traditionally have instructed
people to choose only one racial category, but this policy has
been criticized. Some interracial couples objected that_in
completing public school forms_choosing only one race forces
the family to deny part of a child's heritage.
It was somewhat surprising, then, that in interviews,
some people with parents of different races did not identify
themselves as multiracial, even when offered a way to do so.
When asked why, they said, "Well, my mother is black and I was
raised by her family," or "I grew up as white." Moreover,
others who had parents of different races simply overlooked
the unfamiliar instruction to "mark one or more boxes."
Naming diversity
The May 1995 CPS supplement, which surveyed almost
60,000 households by telephone or in person, addressed three
issues: the effect of having a "multiracial" category among
the list of races, the effect of adding "Hispanic" to the list
of racial categories, and the preferences for alternative
terms for racial and ethnic categories.
The federal statistical system conceptualizes Hispanic
ethnicity and race as distinct concepts_that is, Hispanics may
be of any race. Many people, however_including Hispanics_tend
to find this practice confusing. In 1990, 10 million people
reported themselves as "other race." Over 95 percent of these
were Hispanics, most of whom statisticians would categorize as
"white."
Results from the CPS test show how difficult it is to
measure these concepts. A substantial proportion of Hispanics
told interviewers they preferred to have "Hispanic origin"
included among the racial categories. The proportion in favor
ranged from 61 to 74 percent among the four panels testing
different versions of the CPS supplement.
But the way Hispanic ethnicity is ascertained had an
important effect. A higher percentage of people identified
themselves as Hispanic when they were asked a separate
question rather than when "Hispanic" was included as a racial
category, according to Clyde Tucker, director of the
Behavioral Science Research Center at the Bureau of Labor
Statistics. Among those who initially identified themselves as
Hispanic in the CPS, over 90 percent again selected "Hispanic"
when separate questions on race and Hispanic origin were
tested in the supplement. When a combined question on
race/Hispanic origin was tested, the proportion dropped to
around 80 percent. Introducing a multiracial category had only
a small effect on these overall percentages (see figure).
Cuban Americans tended to respond differently to these
choices than did Mexican Americans and other Hispanic groups.
When presented with separate race and Hispanic-origin
questions, 60 to 65 percent of Mexicans, but almost 95 percent
of Cubans, identified themselves as white. When presented with
a combined race and Hispanic-origin question, half of the
Cubans, but only 11 percent of the Mexicans, identified
themselves as white. The combined race/ethnic question
resulted in less than half of Cubans (46 percent), but 84
percent of Mexicans, identifying themselves as Hispanic.
The differential response of Cubans_who have a
relatively low poverty rate_suggests that adopting a combined
race and Hispanic-origin question might affect the statistical
socioeconomic picture of U.S. Hispanics. It not only could
reduce the proportion of people identifying themselves as
Hispanic, but also increase the proportion of poor people
within the Hispanic group.
There was not overwhelming agreement on which racial or
ethnic terms to use in collecting data. Of blacks, 44 percent
preferred the term "black," but 28 percent favored African
American and 12 percent the closely related term
"Afro-American." About 50 percent of American Indians
preferred that term, while 37 percent would rather identify
themselves as "Native American." About 58 percent of
Hispanic-origin respondents identified with the term
"Hispanic," but about 12 percent each favored "Latino" or "of
Spanish origin."
Other suggestions being considered are adding a "Middle
Eastern" category to the list of ethnic designations and
moving Native Hawaiians from the "Asian or Pacific Islander"
to the "Indian (American)" category.
*****
Family Planning Choice Still Lags in Vietnam
By Jeanne Noble
Research conducted by University of Michigan sociologist
John Knodel_in conjunction with Vietnamese researchers Phan
Thuc Anh, Truong Viet Dung, and Dao Xuan Vinh_is shedding new
light on the reasons behind the low prevalence of oral
contraceptive use among Vietnamese women. Only 2 percent of
currently married women use the pill, according to data from
the 1994 Vietnam Inter-Censal Demographic Survey.
Knodel's findings suggest that family planning providers
in Vietnam discourage pill use. For example, government
programs use cash payments and other incentives to increase
acceptors of sterilization and the IUD, but not of the pill.
Local family planning supervisors pressure health workers to
reach target numbers of sterilizations and IUD insertions, but
do not set targets for increasing the number of pill users.
In addition, the majority of providers surveyed believed
certain myths about the pill that might discourage its use.
Only one-third of providers knew that it was not beneficial
for users to take a 1- to 2-month break from the pill every
year, and only 45 percent of providers disagreed with the
scientifically disproved notion that a woman who misses a
single pill runs a high risk of pregnancy. More than 60
percent of providers believed that rural women would not be
able to remember to take the pill daily. However, only 19
percent of Vietnamese women who had ever used the pill
reported such difficulties.
Contraceptive use up; fertility down
Fertility in Vietnam is declining as contraceptive use
increases. Vietnam's first nationally representative
Demographic and Health Survey (DHS), conducted in 1988, found
that 53 percent of married women of reproductive age were
using some form of contraception, more than 60 percent of whom
relied on the IUD. When modern methods are considered
separately, IUD use accounted for close to 90 percent of all
contraceptive practice. Less than 3 percent of those surveyed
relied on female sterilization and less than 2 percent on male
methods (condoms or vasectomy). Most surprising was the
discovery that oral contraceptives accounted for less than 1
percent of all contraceptive use, contrasting sharply with
countries such as Thailand and Indonesia, where approximately
30 percent of those practicing family planning use the pill.
Results from the 1994 Vietnam Inter-Censal Demographic
Survey indicate that fertility has continued to decline since
the late 1980s (the total fertility rate, or average number of
children per woman, fell from 4.0 in 1988 to 3.1 in 1994),
accompanied by increased knowledge and use of contraception.
As many as 65 percent of married women of reproductive age now
practice family planning. IUD use is still high, accounting
for half of all contraceptive use, while 33 percent of users
rely on less effective traditional methods, such as periodic
abstinence and withdrawal.
Women's status
Improvement in women's status is often viewed as
contributing to fertility decline. The status of Vietnamese
women compares favorably with that of women in neighboring
countries. According to the 1995 Human Development Report, 89
percent of Vietnamese women are literate, compared with 76
percent of women in Indonesia and 70 percent in China.
Vietnamese women also hold 18 percent of the seats in the
national legislature, compared with 12 percent in Indonesia
and 4 percent in Thailand.
Free market reforms may increase gender inequality,
however. Declining subsidies and higher school fees have led
to lower enrollment rates for primary and secondary
school-age children. If parents are forced to choose between
educating their sons or their daughters, observers fear that
many will opt for educating sons, who are expected to provide
financial support to aging parents. Rising health care costs
may also mean that women and girls will be less likely to
receive needed medical treatment than in the past.
Government's role
The government of Vietnam has supported family planning
activities since the early 1960s. Initially, the family
planning program focused primarily on the health needs of
mothers and infants. Over the past decade, however, the
government's concern with slowing population growth has become
more explicit. In 1988, the government issued a directive
requesting couples to have a maximum of "one or two children."
The same year, it also emphasized individuals' right to use
the family planning method of their choice.
To date, Vietnam's family planning program has been
based on targets. But if recent government pronouncements on
family planning policy become standard practice, the
Vietnamese program may evolve into one that offers
higher-quality services, including a wider range of
contraceptive options designed to help women meet their
reproductive needs.
*****
How Many People Can the Earth Support?
By Joel E. Cohen
How many people can the Earth support? This question
crosses the boundaries of academic disciplines in which
experts are trained. The longer we examine it, the more
complicated it becomes. Answers turn on human choices as well
as natural constraints. Markets, laws, social institutions,
technology, war, politics, trade agreements, changes in values
and customs, and natural ecological and geophysical
constraints all play a role in determining the Earth's human
carrying capacity.
Unfortunately, it is often difficult for people in
different disciplines to talk about global population issues.
Some environmentalists and natural scientists bring a sense of
hard upper limits to discussions of human carrying capacity.
Most demographers and economists do not talk much about
questions of scale_such as factors that determine whether a
population is large or small, and the consequences of large or
small population size. The scale of the human population,
though little treated in conventional demography, is basic to
the questions posed in this article.
Wanted: A balanced view
Any population question must be considered from four
angles: population dynamics, economics, the natural
environment, and culture (including politics). Many
discussions of population and development leave out
environmental and cultural factors. Many discussions of the
impact of population on the environment leave out economic and
cultural factors.
The famine in Sudan in 1993 provides a good case study.
First, there was a crop failure, in part as a result of
natural events (in this case, drought), but also in part due
to economic factors (inadequate capital investments to supply
water for irrigation and inadequate markets and transportation
to supply food from other regions). In addition, there was an
important political factor: civil war. The Sudanese government
refused to admit international relief workers, with food
supplies, into the rebel area. Thousands of people starved to
death because of a combination of environmental, economic,
political, and cultural forces. The famine was no proof that
the region had exceeded its carrying capacity in some
biological or environmental sense, because economic and
political factors also played important roles.
How many people?
Rapid population growth is a modern phenomenon. Before
the industrial revolution, world population doubled at the
rate of once in about 1,650 years. The most recent doubling
occurred in just 40 years. World population has tripled since
1920_during the lifetime of some readers of this article.
Given this unprecedented growth, some people fear that
the number of Earth's inhabitants will reach or surpass a
ceiling on human numbers. But what is the carrying capacity of
the Earth? As many as 65 estimates have been published over
the past 350 years. These are graphed along a timeline and on
a logarithmic scale of population size (see Speaking
Graphically, page 6). Also shown are three projections,
prepared by the United Nations, of world population growth
through 2150. Population has entered, and is rapidly moving
deeper into, the zone where the majority of these 65 estimates
of "ceilings" fall.
One striking feature of the graph is that there has been
no clear increasing or decreasing trend in the upper bounds of
the various estimated "ceilings." Antoni van Leeuwenhoek's
1679 estimate of 13.4 billion is not strikingly different from
the estimates of 7.7 billion by Donella Meadows and her
colleagues in 1992, or the 12 to 14 billion estimate by
Gerhard K. Heilig in 1993. Recent estimates seem to be
diverging, not converging, however. In 1994 alone, five
published estimates ranged from less than 3 billion to more
than 44 billion. If there is a right answer to the question,
"How many people can the Earth support?" then not all of these
answers can be right. In fact, the wide range of estimates
shows the diversity of assumptions that can be made in trying
to answer the question. Here is a sample of some of these
estimates.
On April 25, 1679, in Delft, Holland, Leeuwenhoek recorded
what may be the first estimate of the maximum number of people
the Earth can support. In a letter to the Royal Society of
London, Leeuwenhoek, who invented the microscope, set out to
show that the 150 billion "little animals in the milt of a
cod" greatly exceeded the maximum possible number of people on
the Earth. He estimated the Earth's habitable land area and
assumed that the population density of Holland at that time
was the maximum possible. He came up with a potential total of
13.4 billion human beings on Earth.
Two centuries later, in 1891, E.G. Ravenstein presented
an estimate before the British Association for the Advancement
of Science in Leeds. Leaving aside the sparsely settled polar
regions, Ravenstein estimated the proportions of each
continent that were "fertile," "steppes," and "desert" and
then applied various maximal population densities to the
different types of land. He came up with a total possible
population of just under 6 billion_a bit higher than world
population is today.
An estimate by Albrecht Penck, published in the 1924
proceedings of the Prussian Academy of Sciences, set the
highest conceivable number of inhabitants of the Earth at 15.9
billion.
In 1967, near the high-water mark of the world's
population growth rate, C.T. De Wit calculated how many people
could be fed if photosynthesis_and nothing else_were the
limiting process. De Wit, from the Institute for Biological
and Chemical Research on Field Crops and Herbage in
Wageningen, the Netherlands, concluded that 1,000 billion
people could be supported by the Earth (although not
necessarily live on the planet) if photosynthesis were the
sole constraint.
Three years later, in 1970, as world population passed
3.6 billion, H.R. Hulett of the Department of Genetics of the
Stanford University Medical School estimated that optimal
world population must be less than 1 billion. He took the
production of food, forest products, and certain nonrenewable
resources as fixed and estimated how many people could consume
those resources at the current American consumption level.
This difference of more than 1,000-fold between Hulett's
and De Wit's guesstimates testifies to the radically different
approaches and assumptions they used.
Also in 1967, the Australian economist Colin Clark estimated
the Earth could feed 157 billion people. Clark based his
estimate on climate_making no deductions for poor soils,
mountains, or swamps. His estimates of consumption were based
on two lifestyles, which he characterized as "American" and
"Japanese"_the "Japanese" having lower requirements for meat
and timber.
In 1974 and 1976, the eminent oceanographer Roger
Revelle published two widely read estimates of how many people
the Earth could feed: one of 38 to 48 billion people and
another of 40 billion people. Revelle's optimism assumed
increases in cereal yields and massive new investments in
irrigation in the developing world. These investments have not
materialized as he anticipated.
In 1983, the United Nations Fund for Population
Activities (UNFPA) asked the Food and Agricultural
Organization (FAO) and the International Institute for Applied
Systems Analysis (IIASA) to examine the "potential
population-supporting capacities of different regions." The
estimates included many factors but emphasized soil types,
length of growing seasons, and production systems. Researchers
made different estimates for high and low inputs of
technology, power sources, capital, and infrastructure. They
concluded that, in the year 2000, in the developing regions
excluding China, 5.6 billion people could be fed with low
inputs and 33.4 billion with high inputs.
Refining the question
These various estimates, with their differing
assumptions, illustrate how a seemingly straightforward
question becomes many smaller questions of definition. When we
ask "how many people can the Earth support?" we need to
define:
How many at what average level of well-being? What type
of diet, transportation, and health infrastructure do we
provide?
How many with what distribution of material well-being?
It may be easier to support a vast number of poor people and a
few rich than the same number with the same statistical
average of income.
How many with what technology? The way people grow food,
manufacture goods, and provide services affects the Earth's
carrying capacity.
How many with what kinds of domestic and international
political institutions? The way countries resolve conflicts_at
home and internationally_makes a huge difference. Organized
violence is wasteful of human life and resources.
How many with what domestic and international economic
arrangements? Trade enables regions to benefit from
complementary resources in other regions.
How many with what domestic and international
demographic arrangements? How much do people want fertility to
go up or down? What will be an average family size? What
structures and supports will be provided for children and
elderly?
How many with what physical, chemical, and biological
environments? Do people want to live in a world populated by
just humans and wheat (or rice)? How much clean air and water
and wilderness do we want?
How many with what risk or robustness? How many people
the Earth can support depends on how much risk of natural or
human disaster people want to accept. If you settle in a flood
plain, you must accept a higher risk of catastrophe.
How many for how long? How fast oil stocks are consumed
matters little if one cares only about the next five years. In
the very long-term, technology can change the definition of
resources, or convert what was once free goods, such as air
and water, into valuable or scarce commodities.
How many with what values, tastes, and fashions? Do we
eat a vegetarian or meat diet? Wear cotton or polyester
shirts? Commute to work by car, mass transit, or bicycle?
Spend tax money on elementary schools or nursing homes? Values
determine whether we judge our economic well-being by the
average level or the minimum.
Three basic approaches have been advocated to ease
future tradeoffs among population, economic well-being,
environmental quality, and cultural values. The "bigger pie"
school says: develop more technology. The "fewer forks" school
says: slow, stop, or reverse population growth. The "better
manners" school says: improve the terms under which people
interact (for example, by removing economic irrationalities
and improving governance).
How many people the Earth can support will be determined
not only by natural constraints but also by human choices. The
choices we and our children have made and will make_about
everything from food and the environment to liberty, styles of
life, and other dearly held values_will in turn influence
which natural constraints will matter.
Joel E. Cohen is head of the Laboratory of Populations
at Rockefeller University. This article is based on his new
book, How Many People Can the Earth Support? published by W.W.
Norton & Company. Price: $30.00.
*****
Kenya
Population: 28.3 million
Land area: 219,960 square miles
Births: 45 per 1,000
Deaths: 12 per 1,000
Natural increase: 3.3 percent
Total fertility: 5.7 births per woman
Infant deaths: 69 per 1,000 live births
Life expectancy: 54(male)/57(female)
Capital: Nairobi
By Marion Carter
Kenya, a country four-fifths the size of Texas, is set
in eastern Africa. The population is composed of 43
ethno-linguistic groups. Kiswahili is the official language,
but English is widely understood and spoken.
Once a British colony, Kenya gained independence in 1963
and became a republic in 1964. The current president, Daniel
Arap Moi, has held that position since 1978.
After independence, the Kenyan economy grew rapidly. However,
the 1980s ushered in recession and debt problems, accompanied
by years of drought, that slowed economic growth. Because of
Kenya's natural beauty and abundant wildlife, tourism is a
major element of the economy and remains the leading source of
foreign exchange.
Unemployment is a serious problem in Kenya, where rates
approach 40 percent. About 500,000 people join the work force
each year. The future promises continued strain on employment,
as people under age 15, who make up 49 percent of the
population, start seeking jobs. The estimated GNP per capita
is very low at about $270 in 1993, compared with the
sub-Saharan average of $560 and the world average of $4,500.
Kenya is a destination for many refugees from
neighboring Ethiopia and Somalia. The UN High Commissioner for
Refugees estimates that 330,000 refugees have arrived in Kenya
since 1990.
Kenya established the first government-sponsored
population program in sub-Saharan Africa in 1967. Efforts to
make family planning accessible to the entire population,
coupled with improvements in economic development, are
credited with bringing fertility down 30 percent over the past
25 years, from about 8.0 to 5.7 children per woman on average.
This drop in fertility is impressive, given that Kenya once
had the world's highest fertility.
The contraceptive prevalence rate among married women of
childbearing age rose from about 17 to 33 percent between 1984
and 1993. Significantly, the prevalence rate of modern methods
nearly tripled from 10 to 27 percent in this period.
Kenya's health care system compares well with other east
African countries. Almost all 1-year-old children are
immunized against tuberculosis, and more than 75 percent are
immunized against DPT, polio, and measles. These rates are
substantially higher than rates for the rest of the region.
Kenya averages one doctor per 20,000 people, which is also
somewhat higher than the rest of the region. Over half of all
births are attended by a doctor, nurse, or midwife.
AIDS poses a major threat to Kenya's people and economy.
An estimated 1 million Kenyans are infected with HIV, and some
researchers estimate that one of every seven residents of
Nairobi is infected. The effect of AIDS on the Kenyan
population and economy is predicted to be large. According to
an article in International Family Planning Perspectives (June
1995), labor costs in the sugar industry may rise by as much
as 65 percent by the year 2005 due to productivity losses
caused by AIDS-related illnesses. The UN projects that from
1995 to 2005, 171,000 Kenyans will die of AIDS. Life
expectancy is projected at 10 years lower than it would have
been without AIDS (55.2 versus 65.9 years).
Literacy rates are relatively high in Kenya. About 80
percent of males and 59 percent of females are literate.
Primary school enrollment tops 90 percent for both sexes.
Mortality rates for children under the age of five have
dropped by over 50 percent since 1960, but still are high.
Almost 1 in 10 children in Kenya die before their fifth
birthday, compared with roughly 1 in 5 in Tanzania.
*****
News and Resources
TV sells in China
Television is the most important advertising medium in
China, accounting for more than 80 percent of advertising
dollars, according to Market: Asia Pacific. Nationally, 81
percent of households own a TV, but that number is over 95
percent in urban areas. In Beijing in 1993, ownership of color
TV sets was more than one per household (107 for every 100
households). Cable TV is also growing, with more than 600
cable systems licensed by the state. Marlboro, Panasonic TV,
Motorola Pager, and Sharp Viewcan are among the top 10
advertisers in China. [For more information, see "Television
takes the lion's share of advertising dollars in China,"
Market: Asia Pacific, vol. 4, no. 10, Oct. 1995; 607-277-
0934; fax: 607-277-0935.]
Increase access, says AGI
A woman must use some form of effective contraception
for at least 20 years of her life if she wants to limit her
family size to two children, says a new report by the Alan
Guttmacher Institute (AGI). Women spend one-half to
three-quarters of their childbearing years trying to avoid
pregnancy, according to the report_which also covers the
initiation of sexual relationships, the influence of mass
media, and women's family size aspirations. [Hopes and
Realities Closing the Gap Between Women's Aspirations and
Their Reproductive Experiences. Contact AGI: 212-248-1111.]
Call for abstracts
The American Academy of Natural Family Planning seeks
abstracts for presentation at its annual meeting, to be held
July 17-20, 1996, in Denver, Colorado. Abstracts must be
received by January 8, 1996. For instructions, contact Joseph
B. Stanford, Chair, AANFP Science and Research Committee,
Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of
Utah, 50 North Medical Drive, Salt Lake City, UT 84132,
801-581- 7234, ext. 342; fax: 801-581-2759.
PRB fellowship and internships
PRB is accepting applications for three programs for the
1996-97 academic year. The application deadline is February
29, 1996. Decisions will be made by mid-April and notification
given by mail.
International Programs Fellowship. Starting June or July
1996, these 12-month fellowships are part of PRB's Cooperative
Agreement with the U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID). The fellows will work at PRB or USAID on population
materials for policymakers in developing countries.
Academic Year (Nine-Month) Internship. Beginning August
or September 1996, this intern will assist PRB staff on
various projects concerning population-related issues and
public policies.
Summer (Three-Month) Internship. Starting May or June
1996, this intern will aid PRB staff on domestic and/or
international projects.
For more information, contact: Internship Program,
Population Reference Bureau, 1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW,
Suite 520, Washington, DC 20009- 5728, 202-483-1100; fax:
202-328-3937; e-mail: popref@igc.apc.org.
AIDS prevention software
RiskAdvisor, a new interactive software program
developed by PATH for HIV counselors and clients, helps people
assess and change patterns of behavior that could lead to HIV
infection. The program simulates experiences so users can
explore strategies and develop goals for behavior change.
Contact: Andrea Spuck, PATH, 4 Nickerson Street, Seattle, WA
98109, 206-285- 3500; fax: 206-285- 6619; e-mail: aspuck@path.
org.
New books
Threatened Peoples, Threatened Boarders: World Migration
and U.S. Policy. Michael S. Teitelbaum and Myron Weiner, eds.
New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1995. 336 pages. $20.00
cloth. ISBN: 0-393- 03777-0.
An Introduction to Population. 2nd ed. Helen G.
Daugherty and C.W. Kammeyer. New York: The Guilford Press,
1995. 343 pages. $40.00 cloth. ISBN: 0-89862-616-1.
The Survey Kit. Arlene Fink, ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, 1995. Nine volumes. $79.95. ISBN:
0-8039-7388-8.
Nutrition and Evolution. Michael Crawford and David
Marsh. New Canaan, CT: Keats Publishing, Inc. 298 pages.
$15.95 paper. ISBN: 0-87983-657-1.