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) |
|
*****************************************************************
The electronic version of this newsletter is being made available
by the Population Information Network (POPIN) Gopher 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
March 1995
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.
First-Ever Social Summit Struggles with Toughest Issues
By Alex de Sherbinin and Susan Kalish
This month, in Copenhagen, heads of state are convening for
the first World Summit on Social Development. On the agenda are
some of the most important issues the world faces today: poverty,
employment, and what conference organizers are calling social
integration--that is, achieving the full participation of all
groups in society.
"The whole summit comes about because of the insecurity of
people after the Cold War," Juan Somavia, Chile's ambassador to
the UN and chair of the conference, said in a New York Times
interview. "We have less insecurity in the military sphere and
more insecurity in the personal and community spheres There is no
society that is saying, we don't have the problem of poverty,
unemployment, or social integration." More than 1 billion people
in the world live in extreme poverty, over 120 million are
officially unemployed, and the gap between rich and poor is
increasing, conference leaders point out. Despite the importance
of these issues, the Social Summit has captured scant media
attention and has been dubbed "the secret summit."
Early in its preparations, the Social Summit struggled with
its own untested newness, a daunting mandate, and "conference
fatigue." The Copenhagen summit will be the seventh of ten global
conferences organized by the United Nations in this decade,
falling between last September's International Conference on
Population and Development (ICPD) in Cairo, and this
September's Women's Conference in Beijing. And, after the U.S.
Congressional elections in November, enthusiasm for a conference
on global social issues was clouded by the sense that the United
States, traditionally a major engine in international development,
may be turning inward.
Overcoming a painfully slow start, the final two-week
preparatory meeting at the United Nations in late January
("Prepcom 3") ended with 90 percent of the specifics in the Draft
Declaration and Program of Action agreed to. The change of mood
between the beginning and end of the third prepcom was dramatic.
"The meeting ended on a much more optimistic note than existed at
the beginning," commented Alene Gelbard, director of International
Programs at PRB. "As a U.S. delegate, I was heartened by the
willingness that I saw to come to agreement by using language from
earlier conferences to resolve differences."
By early February, 102 heads of state had committed to
attending the Social Summit--almost as many as the 106 who
attended the Earth Summit in 1992. As of this writing, it had not
yet been decided at what level the U.S. will participate, although
many U.S. NGOs and delegates are still hoping President Clinton
will attend.
The Draft Declaration specifies nine "commitments" that
countries will, in some form, assent to in Copenhagen. These
commitments express social goals--such as achieving full equity
and equality between women and men, promoting the social
development of the least developed countries, reforming structural
adjustment programs, and increasing the share of the world's
resources devoted to social development. A tenth commitment,
assuring universal access to education and basic health services,
proposed at Prepcom 3, remains "bracketed" for decision in
Copenhagen. (Wording that has been proposed but not yet adopted by
consensus is printed in brackets.)
The January meeting ironed out most of the differences on
employment. Countries agreed that economic growth and employment
must go hand in hand, that lifelong education and training is
needed to adjust to changes in the labor market and technology,
and that some groups--such as women, youth, and people with
disabilities--need special attention. Also, after considerable
debate, the document draws distinctions between the rights of
documented and undocumented international migrant workers--an issue
that tends to be viewed differently by sending countries and
receiving countries. Some hot-button issues remain, however,
including international standards for workers rights and how unpaid
work--volunteer and housework--might be measured and even reported
as part of the GDP.
How can the called-for reforms be financed? As the Social
Summit begins, still-bracketed text calls for cancellation of debt
"in the poorest countries" and the "20-20 proposal." The latter
calls on developing countries to devote 20 percent of GDP to
social spending and asks developed countries to earmark 20 percent
of aid funds for social development. Already agreed-upon language
states that belt-tightening structural adjustment programs imposed
on debtor countries by multinational banks must be designed to
avoid "disproportionately" hurting the poor, particularly women
and children. Hammering out agreement on that contentious issue
may turn out to be one of the summit's major accomplishments.
Floor debate over the use of the term "reproductive health"
instead of "maternal health" and the phrasing "the family in its
many forms" brought a sense of deja vu to those who participated
in ICPD in Cairo last September. "In part, disagreement over these
terms stemmed from confusion," commented Gelbard. "This is a new
audience and new players." On the whole, says Gelbard, "One of the
things that contributed enormously to the success of this prepcom
was being able to draw on language adopted at ICPD, the Earth
Summit, and other conferences."
Sidebar:
The Demographic Dimension
The World Summit on Social Development dramatizes the
unprecedented demographic changes that have occurred in the past
50 years. For example, since World War II:
* World population expanded more rapidly than at any time in human
history--more than doubling to its current 5.7 billion.
* Infant mortality has declined by nearly two-thirds.
* In developing countries, the average number of children per
woman declined by nearly one-half--from an average of 6.0 to 3.6.
* Average world life expectancy shot up from 46 to 65 years, while
in the more developed regions, the proportion of people age 65 or
older grew from 7.5 percent to 13 percent.
* The distribution of population between developed and developing
regions changed from about 2:1 to almost 4:1 today.
* The proportion of world population living in urban areas went
from about one-fourth to over one-third (43 percent).
Late 20th century rapid population growth is the result of
human triumphs over hunger, disease, and poor sanitation. Now,
however, population growth has quickened the pace of change and
shortened the time span in which policy decisions must be made.
The Social Summit agenda--perhaps more than any other global
forum--focuses on the interconnections among the social areas of
need that these demographic changes have thrust forward.
For more information see: "The Demographic Face of Social
Development," 13 fact sheets addressing topics such as aging,
employment, the informal economic sector, militarization,
structural adjustment, and income distribution. Price: $10;
contact Donna Clifton at PRB (202-483-1100).
*****
When We Use Condoms and Why We Stop
By Leighton Ku, Freya L. Sonenstein, and Joseph H. Pleck
One common belief about condoms is that their use is a yes-
or no proposition--that individuals either always use them or
never do so. Another belief is that condom use is completely
indeterminant--a sort of Russian roulette phenomenon. But a recent
follow-up of the 1988 National Survey of Adolescent Men (NSAM)
disputes these ideas, suggesting fairly regular patterns of condom
use...and disuse. The 1991-1992 follow-up survey collected data on
1,676 respondents--young men who also participated in the first
survey round in 1988, when they were 15 to 19 years old.
More than half--59 percent--of the young men at ages 17 to
18 used condoms the first time they had sex with a new partner. As
a relationship went on, condom use was likely to remain almost as
high: 55 percent report using a condom at the most recent
intercourse. But by the time the young men had reached ages 21 to
22, less than half--45 percent--used condoms at first intercourse,
and only about one-third--35 percent--reported using a condom at
the most recent intercourse. Why does condom use go down over the
course of a relationship and as young men grow older? And what
implications does this have for AIDS prevention strategies?
Overall, study findings suggest that condom use does not go
down because men "get tired" or "lose the habit" of using condoms
as time goes on. Rather, the characteristics of partners and the
nature of relationships tend to change as men get older. Men spend
more time in longer, more committed relationships, in which condom
use is more likely to be perceived as unnecessary for disease
prevention and more likely to be replaced by the pill for
pregnancy prevention. Highlights from the analysis include:
* Men who begin using condoms in adolescence are more likely to
continue to use them as young adults. The consistency of condom
use reported in the 1988 round of the survey strongly predicted
condom use in the 1991-1992 round.
* The older men were the first time they ever had sex, the more
likely they were to use a condom at first intercourse with a new
partner and throughout the relationship.
* The pill tends to compete with condom use. If his partner is
taking birth control pills at first intercourse, a young man is
less likely to use a condom.
* Men were more likely to use condoms with a partner they thought
had never had intercourse. This finding is in line with the idea
that men use condoms primarily for pregnancy prevention--given the
extremely low disease risk posed by such a partner.
* Condom use at first intercourse was less likely with a partner
whom men later married, became engaged to, or lived with.
* Surprisingly, men were less likely to report condom use with
partners perceived to be at high risk for HIV/AIDS.
* When asked the main reason for using a condom the last time they
had intercourse, 83 percent of the men in the follow-up survey who
had used a condom in the previous two years said they did so to
prevent pregnancy. Only 12 percent did so to prevent diseases, 2
percent for both reasons, and 3 percent to defer to a partner's
insistence.
* A key finding is that men seem most receptive to using condoms
at the beginning of a new relationship. Thus health education
efforts could work on trying to promote the concepts of "Use
condoms with new partners," as well as "Keep on using condoms"
until disease risk is objectively assessed.
Leighton Ku is a senior research associate with the Health
Policy Center and Freya L. Sonenstein is director of the
Population Studies Center, both at the Urban Institute. Joseph H.
Pleck is research associate at the Wellesley Center for Research
on Women. This work was supported by a grant from the National
Institute for Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). Full
study results are reported in Family Planning Perspectives,
26:246-251, 1994.
*****
Race/Ethnicity and Child Poverty: A CLoser Look
By William P. O'Hare
Poverty rates vary among small nationality and ethnic
groups--such as Dominican and Chilean among Hispanics, or Japanese
and Cambodian among Asians. But these differences tend to become
blurred in the broad standard racial and ethnic categories
commonly used in poverty studies. For many of these small ethnic
groups, immigrant status makes a difference as well. Foreign-born
children of almost every ethnic group are more likely to be poor
than their native-born counterparts. Only the decennial census
includes a sufficiently large number of households to look at
these smaller subgroups. This article examines the picture that
the 1990 Census provides on the risk of child poverty for 19
Hispanic, 19 Asian, and 3 Native American subgroups.
Minorities at greater risk
In general, minority children have higher-than-average
poverty rates. The census found that almost one in five U.S.
children (18 percent) lived in poverty, but this is a result of a
somewhat lower poverty rate for nonminority children (non-Hispanic
whites) and substantially higher rates for minorities. Nonminority
children, who make up two-thirds of all U.S. children, have a
poverty rate of about 11 percent. For African-American and
American-Indian children, poverty rates are more than three times
that of nonminority children. The poverty rate for Hispanics is 2.5
times that of nonminorities.
Of the 11.2 million U.S. children living in poverty in
1990, about 4.7 million were non-Hispanic whites. About 3.7 million
were African American, about 2.4 million were Hispanic, about
337,000 were Asian or Pacific Islander, and about 254,000 were
Native American.
About two in five African-American children (40 percent)
are poor. Black children, who make up 15 percent of U.S. children,
account for 42 percent of poor children. Among Native American
groups, 39 percent of Indian children, 29 percent of Eskimo
children, and 19 percent of Aleut children are poor. Almost one in
three Hispanic children (32 percent) live in poverty.
The risk of poverty is elevated even among Asians and
Pacific Islanders, where the average family income is higher than
that of nonminority children.1 The poverty rate among Asian and
Pacific Islander children is 38 percent higher than that of
non-Hispanic whites.
Hispanic and Asian subgroups
Among the 19 Hispanic groups examined, child poverty rates
ranged from below 10 percent for children of Paraguayan,
Uruguayan, or Chilean ancestry to higher than 40 percent for
Puerto Ricans and Dominicans (see table). Despite the generally
higher incidence of poverty among Hispanic children, about half
the subgroups had poverty rates below the U.S. average, but only
three groups had poverty rates below those of non- Hispanic
whites.
For the Asian subgroups, child poverty rates ranged from
below 10 percent for children of Japanese, Filipino, and Indian
ancestry to above 40 percent for those of Laotian, Cambodian, and
Hmong ancestry. Despite the popular image of Asian-Americans as
the "model minority," only seven Asian subgroups had below-average
poverty rates and only four had child poverty rates lower than
that of nonminorities. In general, children from Southeast Asian
countries, such as Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam, have higher
poverty rates than other Asian-American groups.
Higher poverty rates for foreign born
The well-being of children in Hispanic and Asian ethnic
groups is linked to the immigration history of the groups. Over
the past few decades, immigration has had a major influence on the
Hispanic and Asian population in the United States.2 During the
1980s, immigration accounted for about half of the total
population growth among Hispanics and nearly three-quarters of the
growth among Asian Americans.3 The 1990 Census found that 13
percent of Hispanic children and 29 percent of Asian- American
children were born outside the United States. However, many native-
born Hispanic and Asian American children were born to immigrant
parents.
Historically, immigrants have lower income and higher
poverty rates than nonimmigrants. The difference is very marked for
Asian and Pacific Islander children in the United States (see
table). For Asian-American children as a group, the poverty rate
for the foreign born (27 percent) is more than twice as high as the
poverty rate for those born in the United States (13 percent). In
every subgroup except one-- Pakistani--the poverty rates for
children born outside the United States are higher than those for
native-born children. In some cases, the difference is striking:
the poverty rate for Indonesian children born overseas (41
percent) is more than three times as high as the poverty rate for
children of Indonesian extraction born in the United States (11
percent).
A very high percentage of children in some Asian subgroups
were born outside of the United States. Over half of all Cambodian
(57 percent) and Laotian (56 percent) children were foreign born.
Over 40 percent of Hmong (44 percent), Vietnamese (45 percent),
Indonesian (41 percent), and Melanesian (40 percent) children were
foreign born. The large share of children born abroad increases
the overall child poverty rates for these subgroups.
For Hispanics, the gap in poverty rates between native- and
foreign-born children is not nearly as large. This is not because
the poverty rates for foreign-born Hispanics are lower, but rather
because of the relatively high poverty rate among native-born
Hispanic children. For Hispanic children as a group, the poverty
rate for the foreign born is 39 percent, which is somewhat higher
than the 31 percent poverty rate for their native-born
counterparts. In all Hispanic subgroups except Dominican and
Ecuadorian, the poverty rate for foreign-born children is higher
than for native-born children.
Minority children are more likely than non-Hispanic white
children to be poor, but the child poverty picture is diverse.
Also, immigrant status adds an important dimension to poverty
risk. Since Asian and Hispanic populations are growing much more
rapidly than non-Hispanic whites, it is important to pay special
attention to child poverty in these groups.
1.William P. O'Hare, "America's Minorities: The Demographics of
Diversity," Population Bulletin 49, no. 2, Population Reference
Bureau, 1992.
2.Philip Martin and Elizabeth Midgley, "Immigration to the United
States: Journey to an Uncertain Destination," Population Bulletin
49, no. 2, Population Reference Bureau, 1994.
3.O'Hare, op. cit.
William P. O'Hare is Kids Count Coordinator at the Annie E. Casey
Foundation.
*****
Children in Poverty: Hispanic, Asian, and Native American
Subgroups, 1990
Poverty rate
Number of Number
in Native Foreign
Group* children** poverty All born born
All Hispanic 7,411,310 2,356,825 32 31 39
Mexican 4,934,858 1,577,800 32 30 43
Puerto Rican 917,968 382,665 42 42 47
Cuban 187,917 31,898 17 15 28
Dominican 160,013 69,984 44 44 43
Central American 358,189 96,939 27 23 33
Costa Rican 14,514 2,648 18 14 30
Guatemalan 69,451 19,851 29 24 35
Honduran 35,376 10,784 31 26 38
Nicaraguan 59,823 16,248 27 19 35
Panamanian 21,532 3,994 19 16 27
Salvadoran 155,518 42,703 28 25 31
South American 247,432 41,283 17 14 22
Argentinian 19,561 2,407 12 10 17
Bolivian 9,663 1,273 13 9 19
Chilean 16,946 1,512 9 7 14
Colombian 92,868 15,800 17 15 22
Ecuadorian 45,270 9,873 22 30 26
Paraguayan 1,751 99 6 3 16
Peruvian 42,691 6,725 16 12 23
Uruguayan 4,091 302 7 5 11
Venezuelan 12,758 2,891 23 17 30
All Asian/Pacific Islander 2,015,646 337,128 17 13
27
Asian 1,892,101 310,567 16 12 27
Chinese*** 379,496 51,838 14 9 24
Filipino 380,453 23,999 6 6 8
Japanese 154,977 7,701 5 4 9
Indian 230,828 20,755 9 6 15
Korean 242,834 25,435 11 8 18
Vietnamese 192,637 62,893 33 26 41
Cambodians 66,903 34,065 51 46 55
Laotian 65,123 27,855 43 41 44
Hmong 56,658 38,477 68 65 72
Pakistani 25,492 3,741 15 35 22
Thai 22,089 2,108 10 7 21
Indonesian 5,623 1,349 24 11 41
Pacific Islander 123,545 26,561 22 21 34
Polynesian 102,238 22,553 22 22 34
Hawaiian 69,618 13,062 19 19 43
Samoan 24,023 7,412 31 31 36
Micronesian 17,785 3,312 19 17 45
Tongan 7,388 1,837 25 23 30
Guamanian 15,501 2,757 18 17 39
Melanesian 2,210 298 14 12 16
All Native American 664,454 254,431 38 -- --
Indian 636,723 247,092 39 -- --
Eskimo 20,867 6,002 29 -- --
Aleut 6,864 1,337 19 -- --
African American 9,284,053 3,671,536 40 40
36
All U.S. Children 62,278,655 11,161,836 18 18
28
Notes: *Totals include people in groups not shown separately.
** Includes children under age 18. Excludes a small number of
people under age 18 who live in their own house or with people to
whom they are not related.
*** Includes Taiwanese.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census.
*****
Denmark
Population: 5.2 million
Land area: 16,360 sq. miles
Births: 13 per 1,000
Deaths: 12 per 1,000
Infant deaths: 6.6 per 1,000 live births
Natural increase: 0.1 percent
Total fertility: 1.8 births per woman
Life expectancy: 73(male)/78(female)
Capital city: Copenhagen
By Jessica Teisch
Located in Northwestern Europe, the Kingdom of Denmark
borders the North Sea on a peninsula north of Germany. Its
territory is roughly twice the size of Massachusetts, encompassing
the peninsula of Jutland, the islands of Zealand, Funen, Lolland,
Falster, and Bornholdm and 401 smaller islands. Although Danes are
a fairly homogeneous society--most Danes are Scandanavian and nine
of ten belong to the Evangelical Lutheran Church--the country
includes small ethnic groups such as Eskimos, Faeroes, and
Germans.
Denmark has cold, humid winters and cool summers. Its low,
flat terrain and gently rolling plains boast arable land, meadows,
and forests. After large-scale water pollution in the late 1980s
resulted in the destruction of major lobster harvests, Denmark
adopted legislation that set the world's most rigorous
environmental standards. However, industrial runoff still pollutes
waters and harms the marine economy, especially in the North and
Baltic seas.
Since 1849, a unicameral parliament known as the Folketing
led by the Prime Minister (currently Prime Minister Poul Nyrup
Rasmussen) and a figurehead monarch (presently Queen Margrethe II,
the first queen to rule in more than 600 years) have shared power
in Denmark's government of constitutional monarchy. Under this
system it is difficult for a single party to gain a majority--in
the past the Social Democratic, Conservative, Liberal, and
Socialist People's parties have gained the most seats in the
Folketing. A series of coalition governments that have led the
country through economic problems. Denmark has shown international
political leadership by becoming a founding member of NATO in 1949
and joining the EEC in 1973.
Denmark, known for its social welfare system, is hosting
the UN World Summit for Social Development on March 1112, 1995, a
conference designed to find global solutions to social inequality,
poverty, and unemployment. Denmark's statefunded social services
cover unemployment, sickness, old age, and disability. In 1989, 32
percent of the budget was allocated to social services.
Denmark's economy--which yields one of the highest GNP per
capita figures in Europe, $26,510--is based primarily on
agriculture and manufacturing. In 1992, manufacturing accounted
for 67 percent of exports. The country exports about twothirds of
its total agricultural production and is the world's largest pork
exporter. Denmark is dependent on petroleum for most energy needs.
Danes are concerned about high unemployment (11.4 percent
in 1992) and inflation (11.5 percent in 1992). Because Denmark
experienced a post-World War II "baby boom" from the early 1950s
until the late 1960s, approximately 30 percent of the population
lies between the ages of 20 and 39 years, suggesting continued
squeeze in the work force.
Denmark's population, currently 5.2 million, is growing at a very
slow rate of .1 percent per year. Between 1984 and 1992, Denmark's
annual net migration increased from 4,000 to 11,500. In 1993, the
net migration rate was 1.24 migrants per 1,000 people. Immigration
continues, mostly by asylum seekers from the Middle East and
Eastern Europe.
In 1993, the average age for marriage was 26.8 years for
women, about 4.1 years later than in the mid1960s. The increase
of women entering the labor force--in 1991, 1.2 million women were
employed--is one reason for the pattern of later childbearing.
Nonmarital unions have increased about sixfold since the 1960s. In
1960, 6,000 births outside marriage (about 8 percent) were
recorded. Today, extramarital births constitute almost half--about
46 percent--of all births.
*****
News and Resources
World women's conference in September
The UN Fourth World Conference on Women: Action for
Equality, Development and Peace in Beijing, China, September 415,
1995, will promote the advancement of women in a followup to the
1985 Women's Conference in Nairobi. In regional UN and NGO
preparatory conferences and documents, women and men have taken an
active stand in designing policy to empower the world's women. Key
concerns include the burden of poverty on women; unequal access to
education, health, and other services; unequal participation in
economic policy and decisionmaking; and violence against women.
The registration deadline for all interested individuals
and NGOs wishing to attend the NGO Forum on Women, August 30 to
September 8, 1995, is April 30, 1995. Contact the Fourth World
Conference on Women Secretariat, 2 UN Plaza, Room 1204, New York,
NY 10017, USA; tel: 212-963-3104; fax: 212-963-3463.
To receive Women on the Move, a monthly publication from
the UN Secretariat, contact Secretariat of the WCW, Division for
the Advancement of Women, DC21234, 2 UN Plaza, New York, NY 10017.
To receive InterAction's NGO Forum on Women `95 Bulletin,
contact Kari Hamerschlag, InterAction, 1717 Massachusetts Ave. NW,
8th floor, Washington, DC 20036; tel: 202-667-8227; fax: 202-667-
8236; e-mail: karih@igc.apc.org.
Philippine fertility down, remains high in Yemen
Fertility continues to drop in the Philippines, according
to new DHS reports. The TFR (average births per woman) in the
Philippines was 4.1 in 1993, down from 6.0 just 20 years ago. With
68.7 million inhabitants, the Philippines is the 14th most
populous country in the world.
Yemen, with a population of 12.9 million, has one of the
highest fertility rates in the world--a TFR of 7.7 children. If
unwanted births could be avoided, the TFR would drop to six
births. As in most other countries, the childbearing patterns of
Yemeni women vary with levels of education: the TFR is 8.1 for
women with no schooling, 5.7 for women with primary schooling, and
3.5 for women with more than a primary education.
Source: Philippines National Demographic Survey 1993 and
Yemen Demographic and Maternal and Child Health Survey 1991/92.
Contact: Dara Carr, MACRO International, Inc., 11785 Beltsville
Drive, Calverton, MD 20705; 301-572-0200.
Texas gains #2 spot
Texas passed New York to become the nation's second-largest
state behind California, according to new 1994 population
estimates from the Census Bureau.
Texas' population grew by 356 million between 1993 and
1994, to reach 18.4 million. Natural increase--with 188,000 more
births than deaths--largely drove the growth. Migration from other
states added 86,000 and international immigration added 75,000
Texas residents. (Most of the residual is accounted for by the
movements of military personnel.)
The last time Texas changed population rank was in 1973,
when it outgrew Pennsylvania to become the third-largest state.
California was by far the most populous state, with an estimated
1994 population of 31.4 million. New York dropped to third at 18.2
million.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, CB94-204.
New books and resources
A New Agenda for Women's Health and Nutrition. Washington,
DC: World Bank, 1994. 96 pages. $6.95. ISBN 0-8213-3009-8.
Migration and the International Labor Market, 1850-1939.
Timothy J. Hatton and Jeffrey G. Williamson, eds. New York:
Routledge, 1994. 294 pages. $24.94. ISBN 0-415-10769-5.
Missing Links: Technology and Environmental Improvement in
the Industrializing World. George R. Heaton, Jr., R. Darryl Banks,
and Daryl W. Ditz. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute,
1994. 52 pages. $12.95. ISBN 0-915825-80-5.
Indigenous People and Poverty in Latin America: An
Empirical Analysis. George Psacharopoulos and Harry A. Patrinos,
eds. Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 1994. 232 pages. $13.95. ISBN 0-
8213-2958-8.
Population Complications: Understanding the Population
Debate. Michael C. Brower. Cambridge, MA: Union of Concerned
Scientists, 1994. 22 pages. $4.80.