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) of the United Nations Population Division/DESIPA and the
Population Reference Bureau, with funding from the Andrew W. Mellon
Foundation.
*************************************************************************
Population Today
Monthly newsletter of the Population Reference Bureau
November 1996, Vol 24, No. 11
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: ** UN Food Summit Tries to Focus World
Attention on Hunger ** Most U.S. Unwed Mothers Are Not
Teenagers ** A Demographic Comeback for American Indians? **
Spotlight on Nicaragua **
*****
UN Food Summit Tries to Focus World Attention on Hunger
By Paola Scommegna
The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) is hoping
to raise the stakes in the battle to end world hunger. The
agency has invited 200 world leaders to a World Food Summit in
Rome, November 13 to 17.
The Food Summit comes at a time when the FAO reports
that world grain stocks have dropped to low levels, export
prices for cereals have jumped, and the world fish harvest has
leveled off. It also is the latest in a string of UN summits
competing for media and policymakers' attention.
The FAO is gambling that U.S. President Clinton and
other world leaders will attend the conference. On the agenda
are questions of food security: how to ensure that all people
are able to grow or buy the food they need for a healthy,
productive life, and how to keep pace with the food needs of a
growing world population without causing environmental damage.
The heads of state or their representatives (Clinton may
send Vice President Gore) will work toward a consensus on a
plan of action to guide national and global food policies into
the next century.
The task is enormous. FAO estimates suggest that in
developing countries alone, 841 million people are chronically
undernourished, 200 million of them children. Contaminated
food and water, and micronutrient deficiencies_blindness from
lack of vitamin A, for example_afflict millions more.
Worldwide, agricultural production has managed to
surpass population growth over the past 50 years. But the FAO
classifies 88 countries as "low-income, food deficit." These
countries, including China, India, and most of sub-Saharan Africa,
do not grow enough food to feed their populations an adequate diet
and cannot afford to import all they need. In countries with
food surpluses, some people are too poor to buy food. In some
countries, the men and boys are often well fed, while the
women and girls are chronically undernourished.
The food-population equation may shift soon. By the
year 2050, the UN projects world population will increase by
about 70 percent. The world will need to raise food for an
additional 4 billion people with a limited supply of land and
uneven water resources.
To meet the needs of the projected 2050 population, the FAO
estimates that African countries will need to step up food
production by 300 percent, Latin America by 80 percent, Asia
by 69 percent, and North America by 30 percent.
Lester Brown, president of the Worldwatch Institute,
warns that the Earth is already reaching its food-producing
limits.
"The old formula of combining more and more fertilizer with
ever-higher yielding varieties that helped almost triple the
world grain harvest from 1950 to 1990 is no longer working
well and there is no new formula," according to Worldwatch.
Brown predicts growing food scarcity that "may force a
rethinking of population policy, of land use, water use
policy, even the definitions of security."
Women key to world food security, says UNFPA
The focus on the Earth's carrying capacity overlooks an
important aspect of food supply_in developing countries, women
grow most of the food they put on the table, says Alex
Marshall, a UN Population Fund (UNFPA) spokesperson.
Most of their work is in the "informal sector," which is
not recorded in official government food production
statistics. They tend "shrinking and fragmented farmsteads,
backyard gardens, even abandoned lots in the middle of
cities," reports the UNFPA.
"Unless women are placed at the center of efforts to
increase food production, vital opportunities to meet present
and future food needs will be missed," says the UNFPA's
report, Food for the Future: Women, Population and Food
Security, timed for the Summit.
"Providing poor women with access to credit, markets and
technical advice, as well as education and health care
(including reproductive health services), could both improve
the food supply of the world's poorest people and help them
escape poverty," the report argues.
NGOs find no magic in the food marketplace
Attention to the Earth's future carrying capacity often
neglects the fact that food and population are already out of
balance for a large share of humanity.
Most experts agree that the principal cause of hunger is
and will continue to be poverty, said Montague Yudelman,
former World Bank agriculture director.
"The biggest problem is not supply," he said. "Poverty
in poor countries prevents the bulk of the population from
purchasing the foods they need."
At a World Bank consultation with nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs) before the summit, Martin McLaughlin, a
long-time food policy analyst, challenged policymakers to
reframe the issues.
"Why does a global food system that produces enough food
every year to provide an adequate human diet for every person
on the planet leave one-seventh of these people to face
starvation daily?" he asked rhetorically.
The answer, according to McLaughlin, lies in the
inequitable structure of the global food system, with land and
capital concentrated in very few hands, and food trade
increasingly controlled by multinational corporations.
Over consumption is as serious a problem as
overpopulation, he said. "Affluent people in the
industrialized countries (and their emulative peers in the
developing world) out-eat the poor by a factor of about four
to one_just in quantity, leaving aside nutritional value."
The poorest countries need "food aid, debt relief and
sustainable development programs to level the playing field,"
according to InterAction, a coalition of U.S. NGOs that
includes several population agencies.
The coalition is critical of the U.S. government
position, which favors free market policies to help food-short
countries boost trade and increase their buying power.
Inter Action warns that these policies could push some poor
nations to grow more cash crops for export (cotton, bananas,
pineapples), "decreasing food security for their most
vulnerable citizens."
UN summit "lite"
Members of the U.S. Congress and others have questioned
whether the world needs or can afford another summit.
Detractors point out that at a similar FAO world food
conference in 1974, government leaders ambitiously pledged to
end hunger "within a decade."
The Food Summit will be less elaborate than the previous
UN meetings. To cut costs, existing FAO committees have
handled the preparations and they will use their own
conference facilities. Organizers have asked participants to
forego lavish receptions and formal dinners and donate the
funds to an FAO program for low-income, food-short countries.
The FAO acknowledges that food and hunger have been on
the agenda of other recent UN summits, but argues that "world
leaders at the highest level have not had the opportunity to
assess the state of global food security and focus their
attention specifically on securing the most basic of human
needs: food."
For more information, see:
PRB's forthcoming Population Bulletin, "Population,
Food, and Nutrition."
FAO web page: http://www.fao.org; includes a copy of the
plan of action and the text of in-depth technical papers
prepared for the Summit.
Food for the Future, Women, Population and Food
Security, UNFPA, 1996. To order, call (212) 297-5026.
Tough Choices: Facing the Challenge of Food Scarcity, by
Lester Brown, Worldwatch Institute, 1996. To order, call
(202) 452-1999.
*****
Most U.S. Unwed Mothers Are Not Teenagers
By Daphne Spain and Suzanne Bianchi
In October, the National Center for Health Statistics
reported that the out-of-wedlock birth rate declined slightly
in 1995 to 44.9 per 1,000, the first drop in nearly 20 years.
In August, concern over out-of-wedlock births led Congress to
appropriate $120 million to be awarded to states that show the
most dramatic decline in births among unmarried women.
Further reductions will require more than programs aimed at
teenagers, suggest the authors of Balancing Act: Motherhood,
Marriage and Employment Among American Women in the excerpt
below. Used with permission from the Russell Sage Foundation,
New York, copyright 1996. To order, call (800) 524-6401.
The link between motherhood and marriage has become
increasingly tenuous in the late 20th century. Over the past
three decades, the decline in marital births and the increase
in out-of-wedlock births together have resulted in a higher
proportion of all births occurring outside marriage. Almost 1
in 3 births took place outside of marriage in 1994, compared
with 1 in 5 in 1980 and 1 in 10 in 1970.
The birth rate for all unmarried women has risen
steadily since 1940, from 7.1 births per 1,000 women to 46.9
births per 1,000 women in 1994. This trend crosses every age
category, and the largest jumps occurred during the 1980s.
Women in their early 20s have the highest current nonmarital
birth rate, followed by women in their late 20s, and then by
teenagers (see table). The rising age at first marriage has
contributed to the number of women "at risk" of bearing a
child out of wedlock.
Racial differences
Although birth rates for unmarried white women are lower
than those for unmarried black women, they have risen much
more rapidly, doubling since 1980. The timing of nonmarital
births also varies for blacks and whites: unmarried white
mothers tend to be older than unmarried black mothers. Black
nonmarital births are most likely to occur to teens and women
in their early 20s, while out-of-wedlock birth rates are
highest for white women in their 20s.
The dramatic rise in the proportion of black children
born outside marriage is not the result of a sharp increase in
childbearing among unmarried black women. Between 1970 and
1994, the birth rate to teenage unmarried black women rose
only slightly. Rather, births among married black women fell
substantially during the 1960s and 1970s, and fewer black
women (especially teenagers) are marrying.
The most striking difference between the current
fertility patterns of blacks and whites is that a far higher
proportion of black children are born to unmarried teenage
mothers than are white children. In 1994, 1 in 5 black
children was born to an unmarried teenage mother compared with
1 in 13 white children; similar racial differences exist for
children born to unmarried women in their early 20s. In 1994,
when one-third of all births occurred to unmarried women, 70
percent of all black births occurred out of wedlock, compared
with one-quarter of all white births.
Teenage mothers
Although they are separate issues, teenage and out-of-
wedlock births are often confused in the public's mind. The
reality is that nonmarital births to women in their 20s and
30s exceed those to teenagers. It is true that births to
teenagers are more likely to occur outside marriage now than
in the past because contemporary teens are less likely than
their predecessors to marry in response to pregnancy. But in
1994, only 30 percent of all nonmarital births occurred to
teenagers, compared with 50 percent in 1970.
If women continue to bear children, but less often
within marriage, the question becomes: are marriages being
delayed, or eschewed all together, because women can afford to
live independently, or are marriages being postponed,
sometimes permanently, because men cannot afford to marry the
mothers of their children?
*****
A Demographic Comeback for American Indians?
By C. Matthew Snipp
In 1915, the Census Bureau predicted that so-called
"full-blooded" American Indians would eventually disappear
from the U.S. population. Famine, malnutrition, and disease
contributed to a low level of fertility among American Indians
in the early 1900s.
The Census Bureau may have been justified in its gloomy
prediction back then: the American Indian population had
dwindled from perhaps as many as 5 to 7 million to as few as a
quarter-million by 1890. However, as the century progressed, a
remarkable event took place. Instead of disappearing, the
American Indian population staged a surprising comeback.
The numbers are hard to pin down, in part because of
methodological problems such as changing census definitions
for urban areas, procedural changes in the census, and
compositional changes in the American Indian
population_including changes in the numbers of people
identifying themselves as American Indian. Because multiracial
persons have a variety of options about how they identify
themselves, population numbers may swell or decline depending
on how multiracial persons are inclined to affiliate with or
disassociate from a particular group. In recent decades, the
American Indian population has increased substantially because
large numbers of persons have chosen to "switch" the racial
background they report in the census (see table).
However, when the numbers are adjusted for these
factors, a trend becomes clear: throughout the first half of
this century, growth in the American Indian population
gathered momentum, starting slowly at first, and then
gradually increasing in numbers over the decades.
Despite the signs of renewed vigor in the American
Indian population, no one could have predicted the spectacular
growth in the American Indian population since 1950. In the
second half of the 20th century, the American Indian
population has increased fivefold to almost 2 million in 1990.
At least in the short term, there are few reasons to expect
this trend to reverse itself.
High birth and mortality rates
The American Indian population has a markedly higher
birth rate than either the black or the white population.
Throughout the 1980s, the crude birth rate for the white
population hovered around 15 per 1,000 population. For the
same period, the rate for blacks remained between 21 to 22 per
1,000 population. Even using conservative estimates, the
American Indian birth rate exceeded both these groups, ranging
from a low of 25.5 in 1981 to a high of 27.9 in 1992.
American Indian women begin their childbearing at a
relatively early age. About 45 percent have their first child
as teenagers. In contrast, only about 21 percent of white
women begin childbearing in their teens. In addition, the
fertility of American Indians residing on reservations was
noticeably higher than American Indian couples living in urban
areas. American Indian fertility now resembles the fertility
of other low-income groups.
The American Indian population also has a substantially
higher mortality rate than the white population. The American
Indian mortality rate ranged between 21.0 and 22.9 deaths per
1,000 population between 1980 and 1990, compared to an almost
steady rate of 9 white deaths per 1,000 for the same period.
American Indians have lived shorter lives than whites in
the past, but more recent numbers show this trend to be
equalizing. In the period 1972-1974, the life expectancy of
American Indians was 61 years, and for whites, 72 years_an 18
percent gap. In 1988, life expectancy for American Indians was
72 years, and 76 years for whites, a much narrower difference
of 6 percent.
Alcoholism continues to be a major cause of death in the
American Indian population. In the years 1989-1991, the
American Indian mortality rate from alcohol-related diseases
was 51.8 per 100,000 population, 630 percent higher than the
total U.S. rate of 7.1 per 100,000 population.
Suicide is also a significant cause of death compared to
other population groups. In 1989-1991, the suicide rate for
American Indians was 16.5 per 100,000 population, higher than
the rate of 11.5 per 100,000 population for the rest of the
United States.
American Indians under age 45 have staggering rates of
mortality compared to whites of the same age. American Indians
ages 15 to 24 have a death rate from all causes of 221 per
100,000 persons. This rate is 133 percent higher than the
death rate of whites of the same age. A majority of these
deaths (85 percent) were the result of accidents, suicide, and
homicide. Suicides are 172 percent higher for young American
Indian adults than for young whites, and homicides kill nearly
three times more American Indians than whites per capita.
However, accidents_especially car accidents_are the true
scourge of American Indians at this age.
The paradox of low infant deaths
High levels of socioeconomic distress are frequently
accompanied by high levels of infant mortality. Poor areas
have limited access to medical care, pre- and neonatal care,
and good maternal nutrition. But here, American Indians are an
anomaly. Although American Indians are among the poorest
groups in American society_32 percent have incomes below the
poverty threshold_they have relatively low infant mortality
rates. In 1984, infant mortality for American Indians was 11
deaths per 1,000 live births, somewhat higher than the white
rate of 8.5 per 1,000 live births, but far lower than the 18
per 1,000 rate for blacks. In relative terms, however,
American Indian infant mortality is still about 29 percent
higher than the rate for whites. Indeed, there is evidence
that all American Indian deaths, including infants, may be
under-reported.
The Indian Health Service provides essential services to
pregnant women and newborns. Without this care, it is likely
that American Indians would have much larger numbers of infant
deaths, and have infant mortality rates more closely
resembling those found in other impoverished groups.
Residence: reservation, urban, and rural
One-third of all American Indians live on reservations,
which are usually very small communities. Of the 279
recognized reservations, only 18 had populations of 5,000 or
more in 1990. The largest in area, the Navajo reservation, is
also the most populous with 143,000 residents in 1990. It is
nearly 13 times larger than the next largest reservation, Pine
Ridge Sioux in South Dakota, which had a 1990 population of
11,182.
These reservations have grown substantially in the past
two decades, more than doubling in population size. Yet in
relative terms, they represent a slowly declining share of the
total American Indian population.
The American Indian population has experienced rapid and
recent urbanization, but still is concentrated in rural areas.
About three-quarters of the American Indian population is
found in the West and in rural areas. Relatively few are in
New England or the Southeast. Nearly half of the population
was located outside of metropolitan areas in 1990.
Meeting the challenges of the next century
Once on the brink of extinction, the American Indian
population has rebounded in a dramatic way. At least
numerically, the existence of the American Indian population
is assured for the foreseeable future. Yet, American Indians'
future vitality will depend on more than growth alone. Tribal
leaders and others concerned with the future well-being of
American Indians must find innovative ways to provide for
their material needs and ensure their cultural survival. As
American Indians move into the next century, meeting the many
challenges of preserving cultural traditions and improving
economic well-being will, more than numbers alone, be the
foundation for sustaining the place of American Indians within
American society.
Excerpted from Changing Numbers, Changing Needs:
American Indian Demography and Public Health, edited by Gary
D. Sandefur, Ronald R. Rindfuss, and Barney Cohen (Sept. 1996;
328 pages; $37.00; ISBN 0-309-05548-2). To order, call (800)
624-6242. Issued by the Committee on Population of the
National Research Council.
C. Matthew Snipp is a professor in Stanford University's
Department of Sociology.
*****
Nicaragua
Population: 4.6 million
Land area: 45,850 square miles
Births: 33 per 1,000 population
Deaths: 6 per 1,000 population
Infant deaths: 49 per 1,000 live births
Natural increase: 2.7 percent per year
Total fertility: 4.6 births per woman
Life expectancy: 62(male)/68(female)
Capital: Managua
By Sara Adkins-Blanch
Nicaragua, the largest and least densely populated (100
population per square mile) of the Central American nations,
borders Honduras to the north, Costa Rica to the south, the
Pacific Ocean to the west, and the Caribbean Sea to the east.
The country is divided into three main regions: Pacific,
Central, and Atlantic, and is characterized by extensive
mountain ranges, numerous volcanoes, and large lakes. It has a
tropical climate (78oF average temperature and a rainy season
that runs from May to October). Nicaragua's population is
mixed, with 69 percent Mestizo, 17 percent Caucasian, 9
percent black, and 5 percent Indian.
In the 1980s, a lengthy civil war, an economic blockade,
and government mismanagement took a heavy toll on the already
weak Nicaraguan economy. In recent years, annual inflation has
fallen from remarkably high levels (in the thousands) in the
early 1990s to 12.4 percent in 1994. In 1994, the GDP grew by
3.2 percent, the first significant growth in a decade.
Nevertheless, GDP per capita remained at about $414, the
lowest in Central America, and one of the lowest in the
hemisphere.
While Nicaragua experienced moderate population growth
in the first half of this century, growth accelerated after
1940. The death rate decreased rapidly, in part because of
better health care and sanitary practices, while birth rates
remained high. Nicaragua has a young population structure (45
percent of Nicaragua's population is younger than 15 years),
reflecting the high population growth rate from earlier
decades.
Nicaragua's total fertility rate, or the number of
children born to a woman in her lifetime, is 4.6. Fertility is
even higher among women with no formal education, 6.9
children, and among rural women, 6.4 children. Fertility is
also very high among young Nicaraguans: by age 19, 53 percent
of women are pregnant or have at least one child. Also, 35
percent of the births in Nicaragua occur less than 2 years
after an earlier birth, a situation that puts maternal and
child health at risk.
Knowledge of contraception in Nicaragua is very high (97
percent of women 15-49 years old know at least one modern
method of contraception); however, only 49 percent of women in
union between 15 and 49 years old used a contraceptive method
during 1992-93. Rural women_particularly those at lower
educational levels_have the least experience with
contraceptives. Women in urban areas report higher
contraceptive use (63 percent), compared with women in rural
areas (33 percent).
Both infant (49 per 1,000) and child (72 per 1,000)
mortality rates have decreased in recent years. However, they
remain high compared to other Central American nations. The
main causes of infant mortality are trauma or asphyxia at the
time of birth, and the complications associated with premature
or low-weight births. The main causes of child mortality are
dehydration from diarrhea, acute respiratory infections,
meningitis, and illnesses preventable through vaccinations.
About 75 percent of children in Nicaragua are fully immunized;
however, they get immunized at later ages than the recommended
standard.
Nicaraguan political leaders are addressing the links
between population and socioeconomic development. The
Nicaraguan government approved its first explicit population
policy in 1996, which calls for health improvements as a
cornerstone of national development. Reducing the birth rate
and improving preventive health services to reduce maternal
and child mortality are at the top of the government's agenda.
*****
New NCHS reports: prenatal care, causes of death, infant
mortality
The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS)
provides statistical information on Americans' health. Recent
publications and findings include:
Prenatal Care in the United States, 1980-94
Prenatal care use in the United States did not improve
in the 1980s but has been improving since 1990, according to
this report. Very few groups of women have achieved the goal
of 90 percent initiating prenatal care in the first trimester
as set by the standards of Healthy People 2000. Gaps are wide
between mothers with easier access to prenatal care and those
who confront obstacles to care. Moreover, women who want to
become pregnant tend to try to learn about pregnancy and its
risks earlier than women who became pregnant unintentionally
or wanted to become pregnant at another time.
Medical and Life-Style Risk Factors Affecting Fetal
Mortality, 1989-90
Fetal mortality data by maternal medical and life-style
risk factors are detailed in this report. Data are compiled
from fetal death and birth records. The findings include:
* amniotic fluid levels and blood disorders were the maternal
medical conditions most strongly associated with fetal death
in 1989-90;
* tobacco and alcohol use during pregnancy increased fetal
mortality rates by 35 percent and 77 percent, respectively;
and
* the labor complication most strongly linked to fetal
mortality was abruptio placenta.
Leading Causes of Death by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic
Origin: United States, 1992
Among Hispanics and blacks ages 25 to 44, HIV infection
was the leading cause of death in 1992; among whites, it was
accidents. For the 25 to 29 age group, homicides and accidents
topped the list.
Produced in response to requests for race and ethnic
data in greater age detail than routinely available, this
report presents rankings of cause-of-death data for whites,
blacks, and Hispanics using three alternative age
classifications compared with the typical one-age
classification.
These reports can be downloaded at
http://www.cdc.gov/nchswww/currpubs.html.
The future of disease: NCDs
Worldwide deaths from noncommunicable diseases (NCDs)
such as cancer, heart illnesses, and stroke will jump to 73
percent of all deaths by 2020, up from 56 percent in 1990,
says a major assessment of global health trends.
The report points to aging and tobacco use as the causes
of the sharp increase. The proportion of the population age 45
and over is expected to increase worldwide by 200 percent
between 1990 and 2020. Tobacco-related deaths could nearly
triple to 8.4 million a year within 25 years, a higher death
toll than from any other single cause.
The rise in NCDs is expected to affect developing
countries disproportionally, where access to health treatment
is minimal and costs are prohibitive.
The findings are the result of an international study
convened by the World Health Organization. To order Investing
in Health Research and Development, contact Communication
Officer, Special Programme for Research and Training in
Tropical Diseases, 1211 Geneva, 27, Switzerland; fax 41-22-
791-4854.
New books
Citizenship, Nationality, and Migration in Europe. David
Cesarani and Mary Fulbrook, eds. London: Routledge, 1996. 225
pages. $18.95. ISBN: 0-415-13101-4.
Emerging World Cities in Pacific Asia. Fu-Chen Lo and
Yue-Man Yeung, eds. Tokyo: United Nations University Press,
1996. 528 pages. $35.00. ISBN: 92-808-0907-5.
Shrinking Fields: Cropland Loss in a World of Eight
Billion. Gary Gardener. Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute,
1996. 56 pages. $5.00. ISBN: 1-878071-33-5.
Urban Biophysical Environments. Howard Bridgman, Robin
Warner, and John Dodson. New York: Oxford University Press,
1995. 152 pages. $22.95. ISBN: 0-19-553611-8.
Ethnicity and Power in the Contemporary World. Kumar
Rupesinghe and Valery A. Tishkov. New York: UN University
Press, 1996. 298 pages. $35.00. ISBN: 92-808-0908-3.