Anomaly of the fertility decline in India's Kerala state : a field investigation

 TABLE OF COWLENTS CHAPTER 5: Determinants of Recent F e r t i l i t y Declines i n Kerala Page Number A Preface .............................................. ix I n t r o d u c t i o n ............................................. 1 S p e c i a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Kerala's Recent Socio-Economic Evolution ............................................ 5 A g r a r i a n Reform ....................................... 5 P o l i t i c a l Awareness ................................... 8 E d u c a t i o n ............................................. 9 Family P l a n n i n g i n K e r a l a ............................. 11 Conceptual Framework and Hyyotheses ...................... 14 Determinants of Age a t K a r r i a g e a ....................... 1 6 Determinants of H a r i t a l F e r t i l i t y ..................... 19 E m p i r i c a l Evidence from t h e Survey Regarding F e r t i l i t y Deteninants .......................................... 26 Age a t M a r r i a g e ....................................... 28 M a r i t a l F e r t i l i t y ..................................... 32 Community-Level A n a l y s i s ........................... 33 S t a t e - L e v e l Trends ...... ; '.i .......................... 35 - L e v e l s ................................... L Fertility 35 * R e c u r s i v e Models: Path ~ n a B s i s...................... 43 O f f i c i a l Family P l a n n i n g (FP) Program and F e r t i l i t y Decline ............................................ 52 T a b l e of C o n t e n t s , Continued P a g e Number F e r t i l i t y D e c l i n e Among Women i n Small-Landholding Households ( L e s s t h a n 1 0 C e n t s of Land). ......... F a m i l y P l a n n i n g and Socio-Economic Change ........... Some P o l i c y C o n c l u s i o n s : L e s s o n s from t h e K e r a l a Experience .......................................... S t a t i s t i c a l Annex.. .................................... Bibliography ........................................... L i s t o f P o p u l a t i o n and Human R e s o u r c e s D i v i s i o n Discussion Papers ...................................  LIST OF W S Am FIGURES Page Number Map 1. .ia: Kerala. F e r t i l i t y Survey Districts.... x Figure Determinants of Age a t Marriage ( I n d i v i - dual-Level) ............................... 20 Figure Determinants of F e r t i l i t y Rate ( C h i l d r e n Ever Born) ................................ 27 Figure Crude B i r t h R a t e o f t h e 3 D i s t r i c t s of Kerale, 1 960-79........................... 36 Figure P a t h Diagram Summarizing a R e c u r s i v e Model i n Which Age a t H a r r i a g e , B i r t h s b e f o r e 1970, F e r t i l i t y R e g u l a t i o n , and B i r t h s i n t h e 1970's re T r e a t e d a s Endogenous V a r i a b l e s : Women Married b e f o r e 1970.... . 46 Figure P a t h Diagran Summarizing a R e c u r s i v e Model i n Which Age a t M a r r i a g e , B i r t h s b e f o r e 1970, S t e r i l i z a t i o n , and B i r t h s i n t h e 1 9 7 0 ' s Are T r e a t e d as Endogenous V a r i a b l e s : Women Married b e f o r e 1970................. 47 Figure P a t h Diagram Summarizing a R e c u r s i v e Model i n Which Age a t Marriage, F e r t i l i t y R e g u l a t i o n , and B i r t h s Are T r e a t e d a s Endogenous V a r i a b l e s : Women Who F i r s t Married i n t h e 1 9 7 0 ' s ...................., 48 Figure P a t h Diagram Summarizing a Recursive Model i n Which Age a t X a r r i a g e , S t e r l i z a t i o n , and B i r t h s Are T r e a t e d a s Endogenous V a r i a b l e s : Women Who F i r s t Married i n ' ,r me A IYIU -a I - .~................................ , 4r Figure P a t h Diagram Summarizing a ~ % u r s i v eModel i n Which Age a t N a r r i a g - e ,- F e r t i l i t y ~e~ulation i B i r t h s i n t h e 1 9 7 0 ~ ' sA r e and -.. - ' ~ r e a t e da s ~ n d o n e n o u sV a r i a b l e s : Women ISno F i r s t ~ a r r i e di n t h e 1970's.. ......... 50  LIST OF TABLES Page Number Table R e g r e s s i o n of Age a t M a r r i a g e on S e l e c t e d Socio-Economic V a r i a b l e s . . . . . . . . .............. 29 Table S t a n d a r d i z e d Average Age a t M a r r i a g e by Caste: M u l t i p l e C l a s s i f i c a t i o n A n a l y s i s ...... 31 Table R e g r e s s i o n of F e r t i l i t y Measure on Socio- Economic V a r i a b l e s . . . . . . ...................... 37 Table Summary Results o f R e g r e s s i o n of F e r t i l i t y Measures on Demographic and Socio-Economic Variables. .................................... 40 Table S t a n d a r d i z e d Average Number o f C h i l d r e n Ever Born and Average B i r t h s p e r Woman d u r i n g 1975-80: A M u l t i p l e C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Analysis.. 42 Table Standardized Regression Coefficients i n Equations C o n s t i t u t i n g S e l e c t e d Recursive Models: Women X a r r i e d b e f o r e 1970; Age a t Marriage, F e r t i l i t y C o n t r o l , B i r t h s b e f o r e 1970, and B i r t h s i n t h e 1 9 7 0 ' s T r e a t e d as Endogenous V a r i a b l e s ............... 44 Table S t a ~ d a r d i z e dR e g r e s s i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s Pn Equations C o n s t i t u t i n g S e l e c t e d R e c u r s i v e Models: Women M a r r i e d i n t h e 1 9 7 0 ' s ; Age a t Marriage, F e r t i l i t y C o n t r o l , and B i r t h s i n t h e 1 3 7 0 ' s T r e a t e d a s Endo- genous V a r i a b l e s .............................. 53 1 Table E s t i m a t e of Excess S t e r i l i z a t i o n R a t e i n Kerala ..................................... 58 Table D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Eveg-Married Women by U s e of Family Planni$g Methods and Caste.......... 61 L Table D i s t r i b u t i o n of Ever-Married Wonen by U s e of Family Plannimg Methods and P e r C a p i t a Household Expendiltures ........................ 62 Table F e r t i l i t y Trend Among k'omen i n Households w i t h 1 0 Cents of Land o r L e s s by S t e r i l i z a t i o n Status ........................................ 64 L i s t of T a b l e s , continued Page Number T a b l e 12. C o n t r i b u t i o n o f Education and Household Expenditures t o t h e Explained Variance ....................... i n S e l e c t e d Regressions 75  Preface T h i s r e p o r t was p r e p a r e d by K.C. Z a c h a r i a h on t h e b a s i s of tabu- .----- "- !at i o n s from s e l e c t e d v a r i a b l e s (30 nrtp n f + c -u+-L 1 a I -c U A =-r o r n.. 2nfi ~ ~ dvul -- .tne Kerala F e r t i l i t y Survey, 1980. The K e r a l a situdy i s p a r t o f a l a r g e r World Bank r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t -- ----- . n ~ ~ ~ iln ~S - i "Determinants of Fertflirv r i a~ ' a n k aand South I n d i a " -- Y..b*A.,LC (World Bank Research P r o j e c t No. ~ j l - 7 " \ LU-sponsored by t h e World Bank, t h e United ~ a t i o n s 'Fund f o r Populatii-. nn ... - ments of I n d i a and S r i Lanka.- T ---- he s- --t. ,t I tAyr - . . A - t i v i t i e s (Uh'FPX), and t h e Govern-. - -'?-rala w a s c a r r i e d o u t by t h e iureau (~f Economics an d S t a t i s t i c s , Goverri a , - t of K e r a l a , T r i v a n d r u q under t h e .irectic . >n of D r s . P.A N a i r and R.S. Karup. M r . P.S. Gopinathan Nair ,as t h e o f f i c e r - i n - c h a r g e . ' Data f o r t h e s t u d y ~ e r e c o = l lLec-s~ ~& -r~u m a c--- - ranaom -- sample of 3,000 households from 150 v i l l a g e s s e l e c t e d a t random from 3 s e l e c t e d d i s t r i c t s : P a l g h a t , Ernakulam andAlleppey. The id-&- : i ~ l Avw7un A - ,l ~ w , -- c --a- . a-r-r l e a o u t d u r i n g January-June, 1980. The s t u d y used 1 0 s c h e d u l e s t o c o l l e c t d a t a . These are l i s t e d below: I. H o u s ~ h o l dSchedule 11. Ever-married women, m a r r i a g e h i s t o r y 111. Ever-married women, m a t e r n i t y h i s t o r y IV. Ever-married women, c o n t r a c e p t i v e knowledge V. Ever-married women, f e r t i l i t y r e g u l a t i o n VI. . Ever-married women, work h i s t o r y * VII. Ever-married women, h u s b a n d ' s background - - VIII. Never-married men 20-39 y e a r s '2 IX. Never-married women 18-34 y e a r s E X. C u r r e n t l y m a r r i e d men 20-39 y e a r s T h i s r e p o r t i s based on o n l y a v e r y s m a l l p a r t of t tie d - a t a . Its main f o c u s i s t o u r r z v e l t h e c a u s e s of t h e r e c e n t f e r t i l i t y d e c l i n e i n K e r a l a . A. Elwan, S. P a t e 1 and 5. O j e l a d e provided t e c h n i c a l a s s i s t a n c e f o r . t h e p r e p a r a t i o n of t h i s r e D o-r- t-- -ix-  F e r t i l i t y d e c l i n e s a f s u c h magnitudes a r e n o t unprecedented i n other societies. I n f a c t , more r a p i d f e r t i l i t y d e c l i n e s have been observed i n r e c e n t y e a r s i n o t h e r Asian p o p u l a t i o n s . S i n g a p o r e , Hong Kong, Taiwan, and South Koraz a r e w e l l known examples i n t h i s r e g i o n . Fertility ;:clines i n t h e s e s o c i e t i e s have been a s s o c i a t e d w i t h h i g h a v e r a g e n a t i o n a l . incomes p e r c a p i t a , r a p i d economic growth, h i g h p r o p o r t i o n s of t h e l a b o r f o r c e i n n o n - a g r i c u l t ! - c . 1 o c c u p a t i o n s , h i g h f e m a l e l i t e r a c y and employment, h i g h n u t r i t i o n a l l e v e l s , low m o r t a l i t y , h i g h n a t i o n a l expenditures; f o r f a m i l y planning programs, e t c . K e r a l a does n o t conform t o t h i s socio-economic developme!nt p a t t e r n . The c o n d i t i o n s i n K e r a l a a r e n o t g e n e r a l l y t h c u g h t t o f a v o r a r a p i d f e r t 5 l i t y decline. I t i s one o f t h e p o o r e r s t a t e s of I n d i a , w i t h a p e r c a p i t a income l e s s t h a n t h a t of I n d i a . K e r a l a comparesvery u n f a v o r a b l y w i t h t h e .Asian z o u n t r i e s mentioned above-- w i t h i t s p e r c a p l c a i n c o p e l e s s t h a n $200 conpared w i t h $3,300 i n S i n g a p o r e , $3,000 i n Hong Kong, $1,400 i n Taiwan, and $1,200 i n South Korea. I n 1971, a b o u t 55 p e r c e n t of t h e l a b o r f o r c e i n K e r a l a were employed i n t h e a g r i c u l t u r a l s e c t o r c ~ . . : l a r e dwi,th 2 p e r c e n t * i n S i n g a p o r e , 3 p e r c e n t i n Hong Kong, 37 p e r c e n t i n Taiwan, and 41 p e r c e n t i n South Korea. Regarding n u t r i t i o n , t h e rank cLf K e r a l a anlong t h e I n d i a n '5 -s t a t e s is uncertain. - Sample Survey According t o t h e I n d i a n ~ g t i o n a l * (NNS), . # t h e p e r c a p i t a c a l o r i e consumption i n K e r a l a w a e-o n l y 1 , 5 7 1 i n 1973-74, or 70 p e r c e n t of t h e r e q u i r e m e n t , two-thirds of t h e a v e r a g e consumption i n I n d i a , 50 p e r c e n t t h a t of S i n g a p o r e , 53 p e r c e n t t h a t of Hong Kong, and 55 p e r c e n t t h a t of Taiwan and South Korea ( s e e P a n i k a r , 1980; and World Bank, 1980, Table 2 2 ) . With r e s p e c t t o female l i t e r a c y and t o t a l a v e r a g e l i f e expectancy, K e r a l a compares v e r y f a v o r a b l y w i t h o t h e r p a r t s of I n d i a . Female l i t e r a c y was 65 p e r c e n t i n K e r a l a a s ~ p p o s e dt o 25 p e r c e n t i n I n d i a i n 1981; l i f e expectancy was 65 y e a r s i n K e r a l a compared w i t h 54 y e a r s i n I n d i a i n 1978. The South .Asian "success1' c o u n t r i e s and K e r a l a a r e f a i r l y s i m i l a r i n a v e r a g e f e m a l e l i t e r a c y and t o t a l l i f e expectancy.2/ K e r a l a spends comparably less p e r c a p i t a on f a m i l y p l a n n i n g , however. I n 1975-76, K e r a l a s p e n t a b o u t Rs. 39,600,000 on f a m j l y p l a n n i n g (Government o f K e r a l a , 1978, ~ p p e n d i xE , T a b l e 1 ) . T h i s p e r c a p i t a e x p e n d i t u r e was less t h a n 9 US cents per year. S i n g a p o r e , by comparison, s p e n t 30 c e n t s ; Hong Kong, 1 0 c e n t s ; Tatwan, 11 c e n t s ; South Korea, 1 6 c e n t s ; and Malaysia, 20 c e n t s (Nortmann and H o f s t a t t e r , 1978, T a b l e 9 ) . Thus, many c o n d i t i o n s i n K e r a l a a r e d i f f e r e n t from t h o s e i n o t h e r c o u n t r i e s which h a v e e x p e r i e n c e d r a p i d d e c l i n e s i n f e r t i l i t y , and i t does n o t conform t o t h e s t e r e o t y p e of o t h e r s u c c e s s s t o r i e s i n South Asia. If h i g h p e r c a p i t a income and r a p i d economic growth a r e n e c e s s a r y c o n d i t i o n s f o r a r a p i d f e r t i l i t y d e c r e a s e , t h e n K e r a l a ' s f e r t i l i t y would n o t have declined so rapidly. I f u r b a n i z a t i ~ nand r a p i d i c d u s t r i a l i z a t i a n a r e I essential pre?equisites, t h e n K e r a l a would have t o w a i t more y e a r s t o experience a rapid f e r t i - i t y decline. I f a high l e v e l n u t r i t i o n a l i n t a k e i s n e c e s s a r y , K e r a l a would n o t b e a p l a c e where a r a p i d f e r t i l i t y d e c l i n e has taken place. Y e t , f e r t i l i t y has i n d e i d f a l l e n i n Kerala. 1 . 2/ - E x ~ e c t a t i o nof l i f e a t b i r t h i n 1978 was 63 i n Korea, 72 i n Taiwan I anu Hong Kong , and 70 i n S i n g a p o r e (World Bank, 1980, T a b l e 21). Female l i t e r a c y among t h o s e aged 6 y e a r s and o v e r reached 84 p e r c e n t i Korea i n 1970, 63 p e r c e n t i n Y o n g Xong i n 1 9 7 1 , 81 p e r c e n t i n Taiwan iq 1975, .--.A - - - and -. 1 Y 16, Table 3 ) . 67 p e r c e n t i n Tingapore i n 1976 (Nortmann and H o f s t a t t e r , I b e g i n t o c u l t i v a t e f r u i t t r e e s and v e g e t a b l e s i n t h e l a n d around t h e i r houses. They have a l s o b e n e f i t t e d by t h e minimum wage a c t and o t h e r a g r a r i a n reforms which f i x e d wages and c o n d i t i o n s o f work f o r a l l a g r i c u l t u r a l . operations. The g a i n s from h i g h e r wages ( p e r day) have been p a r t l y o f f - s e t , however, by t h e l o s s e s due t o a r e d u c t i o n i n t h e number of daj7s a wage e a r n e r can f i n d work and a r e d u c t i o n i n employment o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r o t h e r f a m i l y members, e s p e c i a l l y grown-up c h i l d r e n . It.. . i t i s o n l y i n Kuttanad (Allepey ~ i s t r i c t )t h a t I have h e a r d workers t a l k about time s p e n t h a r v e s t i n g i n terms of 45 minutes o r 1 . 5 h o u r s ( r a t h e r than i n terms of days o r a t l e a s t h a l f days a s they do e l s e w h e r e ) " (Mencher, 1980, p. 1787). I t i s t h e r e f o r e d o u b t f u l t h a t t h e i n c r e a s e i n t h e minimum wag& i s f u l l y household income of an a g r i c u l t u r a l l a b o r e r . r e f l e c t e d by t h e a v e r a g e a n ~ u a l One consequence o f h i g h e r minimum wages and d e c r e a s + s i n employ- ment o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r c h i l d r e n h a s been t h a t a g r i c u l t u r a l l a q o r e r s have begun t o s e e l a r g e f a m i l i e s a s a n economic l i a b i l i t y and t h e f a m i l y p l a n n i n g program a s a mezns of d e c r e a s i n g t h i s l i a b i l i t y . P o l i t i c a l Awareness Every a s p e c t of l i f e i n < e r a l a i s p o l i t i c i z e d . Newspaper r e a d i n g and d i s c u s s i o n s of p o l i t i c a l news a r e p r i n c i p a l p a s t i m e s of t h e common p e r s o n P r o t e s t marches, i n d e f i n i t e s t r i k e s , hunger s t r i k e s , e t c . , a r e a s much a d a i l y o c c u r r e n c e i n K e r a l a a s t h e monsoon r a i n i n J u l y . For s o p e p e o p l e , p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n p r o c e s s i o n s and p r o t e s t m e e t i n g s a r e a f u l l t i 3 job f o r which they g e t t h e minimum d a i l y wage p l u s t r a n s p o r t a t i o n costrs. In fact, t h e h u t s b u i l t and r e s e r v e d f o r hunger s t r i k e r s around t h e government s e c r e t a r i a t i n Trivandrum a r e booked months ahead f o r t h e v a r i o u s planned hunger s t r i k e s .  I n a r e c e n t a r t i c l e on "The Lessons and Non-Lessons of Kerala", J o a n Mencher (1980) h a s a d i f f e r e n t poi-nt of view. "... t h e d e c l i n e i n f e r t i l i t y among a g r i c u l t u r a l l a b o r e r s need n o t b e s e e n a s a n i n d i c a t i o n of any improvement i n t h e i r q u a l i t y of l i f e . I n t h e K e r a l a c o n t e x t , i t can e q u a l l y w e l l b e s e e n a s a s i g n of g r e a t e r poverty" (Mencher, 1980, p. 1787). IGt h i s s t u d y , we g i v e c o n s i d e r a b l e importance tcl p o l i t i c a l changes, and t h e socio-economic and m o r t a l i t y changes which preceded and f o l l o w e d them, a s c a u s e s of f e r t i l i t y d e c l i n e s i n K e r a l a . W e do n o t g i v e much importance t o t h e income chailges among t h e poor. Income h a s n o t i n c r e a s e d g r e a t l y among souie o f t h e poor ?,nd where i t h a s , i t s e f f e c t on f e r t i l i t y would have been p o s i t i v e ( a n i n c r e a s e ,Ln f e r t i l i t y ) j,f " o t h e r f a c t o r s " had remained unchanged. However, o t h e r f a c t o r s have n o t remained unchanged and one of t h e s e " o t h e r f a c t o r s " i s t h e o f f i c i a l FP program w i t h i t s economic i n c e n t i v e s . We h y p o t h e s i z e t h a t much of t h e f e r t i l i t y d e c l i n e among t h e poor would n o t have t a k e n p l a c e w i t h o u t t h e o f f i c i a l FP program, and we w i l l t a k e up t h e s e p o i n t s more s y s t e m a t i c a l l y below. W e begin with t h e f a c t o r s r e l a t e d t o age a t marriage. Determinants of Age a t M a r r i a g e L * I n K e r a l a , m a r r i a g e s a r e niore economic and s o c i a l c o n t r a c t s between two f a m i l i e s t h a n p e r s o n a l agreements between a boy and g i r l . Iin t h e s e c o n t r a c t s , s o c i a l s t a t u s and l i f e t i m e income of t h e boy and g i r l (and tllc.:r I f a m i l i e s ) , p a r t i c u l a r l y o f t h e boy, have been and sQll a r e very i m p o r t a n t . considerations. E a r l i e r , i t was e a s i e r t o e s t i m a t e s t a t u s and iincome when t h e boy and g i r l were v e r y young, a s t h e y depended on a s c r i b e d s t a t u s and i n h e r i t e d w e a l t h , particularly land. Theref o r e , m a r r i a g e s could  e c o n t r a c t e d a t v e r y young a g e s . Land is no l o n g e r t h e p r i n c i p a l s o u r c e f s t a t u s and income. Nowadays, judgements are b a s e d e s s e n t i a l l y on a c q u i r e d t a t u s , t h r o u g h o n e ' s e d u c a t i o n and c a r e e r . Thus, t h e economic v a l u e of a p e r s o n can b e r e a l i s t i c a l l y a s s e s s e d o n l y a f t e r h e ( o r s h e ) h a s completed h i s ( o r h e r ) s t u d i e s and t a k e s up a job. This r e s u l t s i n marriage b e i n g d e l a y e d u n t i l t h e boy h a s f i n i s h e d s c h o o l and been employed. I n a period of i n c r e a s i n g y e a r s of s c h o o l i n g and a n i n c r e a s i n g l a g between completion of e d u c a t i o n and t h e s e c u r i n g of a j o b , t h e zge' a t m a r r i a g e i s l i k e l y t o i n c re a s e . - e o p l e a r e i n s c h o o l a t a g e s 1 5 o r 1 6 ; many have completed Not a l l p m t h e i r formal e dluca t i o n b e f o r e a t age t h e i r number 17! ' y e a r s i n s c h o o l need n o t n e c e s s a r i l y a f f e c t t h e i r age a t marriage. Even f o r t h e s e p e r s o n s , though, t h e r e have been o t h e r economic ons f o r d e l i n g ma r r i a g e more rec years One such f a c t o r i s t h e dowry system. T h i s p r a c t i c e is v e r y common i n most s o c i a l g r o u p s i n K e r a l a and t h e amount p a i d a s dowry h a s i n c r e a s e d c o n s i d e r a b l y i n r e l a t i o n t o household a s s e t s . I n t h e , p a s t , much of t h e dowry came from i n h e r i t e d w e a l t h ; t c d a y , however, t h e sum u s u a l l y comes from s a d i n g s and/ o r borrowings, and consequlrntly m a r r i a g e s a r e d e l a y e d u n t i l t h e g i r l ' s p a r e n t s ? can amass s u f f i c i e n t f u n d s o r c r e d i t - w o r t h i n e s s t o s a t i s f v t h e b,rideeroom1s family. For a boy, h i s cl -&ce . of r e c e i v i n g a good dowry i s m u c h b r i g h t e r when h i s economic worth i s f u l l y m a n i f e s t ; t h a t i s , when h e compketes h i s e d u c a t i o n and a c q u i r e s a s u i t a b l e job. Young c o u p l e s ' views on housing a r r a n s e m e n t s a f t e r m a r r i a g e a r e changing r a p i d l y . Newlyweds u s e d t o s t a y w i t h e i t h e r of t h e p a r e n t s , b u t many a r e becoming unhappy w i t h t h i s arraagement. More of them are working  Fi~ur1 . etenninante of Age At Marriage 'TI -L EDUCATION \' I YEARS S P E N T I N EDUCATION 9 -s EMPLOYNENT RATE LAG BETWEEN COM- TRADITIONAL VS. NON- TRADITIONAL OCCUPATION NARRIACE LAG nETWEIlN EFIPLOY- fi MENT AND D E C I S I O N - t - INIIERITED VS. ACQUIRED WEALTIi TO PlARRY k , LENGTIl O F MARRIAGE r U f NEGOTIATION JLj DOWRY r I- b  I n t h e changed economic p e r s p e c t i v e , c h i l d r e n of h i g h e r qua1it:y have become n o t merely a d e s i r a b l e t h i n g t o have, b u t a l s o a n e c e s s i t y f o r economic s u r v i v a l of t h e family-- n o t o n l y f o r t h e r i c h and t h e well.- to-do, b u t a.lso f o r t h e poor and t h e d a i l y wage e a r n e r s . Good h e a l t h and a b e t t e r e d u c a t i o n h a v e become c r i t i c a l f a c t o r s i n d e t e r m i n i n g c h i l d r e n ' s l i f e t i m e income and t h e i r ( c h i l d r e n a s w e l l a s p a r e n t ' s ) economic s u n r i v a l . E a r l i e r , i f c h i l d r e n were n o t e d u c a t e d , t h e y could f a l l back on t h e f a m i l y w e a l t h (among t h e well-to-do) and make a d e c e n t l i v i n g . 8 1 There was n o t much d i f f e r e n t i a l i n t h e economic s t a t u s o f t h e educated and uneducated i n t h e same f a m i l y . Things have changed v e r y much i n r e c e n t y e a r s . Xow i t i s n o t e a s y t o make a l i v i n g from l a n d a l o n e and, i n any c a s e , l a n d reforms have made i t i m p o s s i b l e t o hold on t o more t h a n 5 a c r e s of l a n d p e r p e r s o n ( r u b b e r , t e a , and c o f f e e p l a n t a t i o n s a r e exempted). For t h e poor, i n e a r l i e r t i m e s , a good e d u c a t i o n was beyond t h e r e a c h of most and t h e y had l i t t l e hope of g e t t i n g o u t of t h e c i r c l e of i l l i t e r a c y , poor h e a l t h , and p o v e r t y . Now, w i t h t h e p o l i t i c a l changes, and w i t h t h e s o c i a l and economic reforms f a v o r i n g them, t h e y see a chance o f g e t t i n g o u t of t h e v i c i o u s c i r c 1 e . l They have r e a l i z e d , n o t 'only by t h e examples of t h e r i c h b u t a l s o from t h o s e among t h e i r own r a n k s , t h a t t h e key t o s u c h upward . m o b i l i t y i s e d u c a t i o n . Education h a s become cheaper rL because h i g h s c h o o l s and * even c o l l e g e s a r e w i t h i n commuting d i s t a n c e s f o r 81 - I n t h e 1 9 3 0 ' s I have h e a r d p e o p l e d i s c u s s i n g why so-and-so was w a s t i n g h i s money on a c o l l e g e e d u c a t i o n f o r h i s c h i l d r e n when h e could g e t a h i g h e r and more a s s u r e d r e t u r n by i n v e s t i n g t h a t money i n l a n d . I n t h e s h o r t - t e r m economic p e r s p e c t i v e , l a n d was a b e t t e r a l t e r n a t i v e t c ? education at t h a t t i n e .  -22- most. With t h e h i g h l y s u b s i d i z e d and w i d e l y a v a i l a b l e t r a n s p o r t system, most c h i l d r e n could p u r s u e a h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n l i v i n g i n t h e i r homes. Even though e d u c a t i o n h a s become c h e a p e r , t h e poor and t h e lower c l a s s a r e s p e n d i n g more on e d u c a t i o n t h a n p r e v i o u s l y . T h i s seems p a r a d o x i c a l , b u t t h e r e a s o n i s simple. I n t h e p a s t , e d u c a t i o n was e x p e n s i v e and few of: t h e poor o r lower c l a s s s e n t t h e i r c h i l d r e n beyond primary s c h o o l , which h a s alwzys been f r e e . Now, t h e c o s t h a s become l o w e r ; b u t s i n c e many o f t h e lower c l a s s a r e u t i l i z i n g t h e h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s open t o them, t h e i r expenditures f o r e d ~ ~ c a t i o n have increased. Thus, f o r t h e r i c h and poor a l i k e , h i g h e r q u a l i t y c h i l d r e n have become n o t merely something d e s i r a b l e b u t a n e c e s s i t y t o keep up w i t h t h e s t a t u s quo. T h i s n e c e s s i t a t e s t h a t p a r e n t s spenddmore money on c h i l d r e n ' s e d u c a t i c n , food, c l o t h e s , and medical s e r v i c e s . C h i l d r e n have become more expensive f o r a l l s e c t i o n s of t h e s o c i e t y . What i s the. change i n t h e o t h e r s i d e of t h e e q u a t i o n , t h e b e n e f i t s side? --/ Short-term b e n e f i t s seem t o have d e c r e a s e d f o r a number of r e a s o n s . 9 F i r s t , a s more and more c h i l d r e n spend l o n g e r and l o n g e r p e r i o d s i n s c h o o l , L L t h e i r economic c o n t r i b u t i o n t o t h e f a m i l y h a s d e c r e a s e d . Second, even when - c h i l d r e n f i n i s h t h e i r s c h o o l i n g , because of t h e t i g h t employment problem, t h e y have l e s s chance now t h a n p r e v i o u s l y t o f i n d a job o u t d i d e t h e home and - contrl'bute t o t h e f a m i l y income. . 8 T h i r d , a woman is mo'e ?- likely i t o work when - 9/ The long-term b e n e f i t s may be i n c r e a s i n g .  -30- I n regression 11 a n a d d i t i o n a l v a r i a b l e , y e a r of m a r r i a g e ( t i m e ) , i s included. T h i s i s a s u b s t i t u t e f o r a number of unmeasured v a . r i a b l e s which have i n c r e a s e d o v e r t i m e , such a s unemployment, s h i f t t o n ~ o n - t r a ? ,t i o n a l o c c u p a t i o n s , dowry, t h e housing problem, e t c . Consequently, the! m u l t i p l e c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t i n c r e a s e d t o 0.59 and t h e p e r c e n t a g e of v a r i a n c e e x p l a i n e d t o 35. I n t h i s s p e c i f i c a t i o n , y e a r of marriage, caste!, education, and p e r c a p i t a expenses have a l l s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s , w i t h "time" ( y e a r o f m a r r i a g e ) a c c o u n t i n g f o r 8 3 p e r c e n t of t h e e x p l a i n e d variance. The e d u c a t i o n v a r i a b l e e x p l a i n s o n l y 0.8 p e r c e n t of t h e v a r i a n c e ( 2 . 2 p e r c e n t o f t h e e x p l a i n e d v a r i a n c e ) , a c o n s i d e r a b l e d e c r e a s e from t h e l e v e l when "time" i s n o t i n c l u d e d . Land h a s no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p a t a l l J-n either specification. P e r c a p i t a household e x p e n d i t u r e s was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t i n regression I but highly s i g n i f i c a n t (negative) i n 11. Thcs, Che h i g h e r t h e economic s t a t u s of a h o u s e h o l d , t h e lower t h e a g e a t m a r r i a g e of women i n t h a t household. I t may b e assunnzd t h a t h i g h e r e x p e n d i t u r e c l a s s h o u s e h o l d s h a v e l e s s problems i n accumulating dowry o r f i n d i n g housing. 1 Thus, t h e L n e g a t i v e r e L a t i o n s h i p between p e r c a p i t a huusehold e x p e n d i t u r e s and a g e a t m a r r i a g e i s i n ger.eral agreement w i t h z t h e c o n c e p t u a l framework. However, '3 - t h e l a c k o f any s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p i w i t h l a n d owned by t h e h o u s e h c l d - i s somewhat s u r p r i s i n g . - The c o e f f i c i e n t w s n e g a t i v e a s e x p e c t e d , b u t non- significant i n both the regressions. The c a s t e v a r i a b l e u s e d i n t h e e q u a t i o n i s a dummy v a r i a b l e w i t h 1 f o r N a l r s and S y r i a n C h r i s t i a n s and 0 f o r a l l o t h e r s . This i s not a v e r y e f f i c i e n t u s e of t h e c a s t e v a r i a b l e a s t h e procedure c a n n o t b r i n g o u t t h e f u l l e f f e c t of c a s t e on a g e a t m a r r i a g e . Table 2 g i v e s a m u l t i p l e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n a n a l y s i s i n which s t a n d a r d i z e d a g e a t m a r r i a g e i s o b t a i n e d f o r e a c h c a s t e group. The u n s z a c d a r d i z e d a v e r a g e s r a n g e from 16.7 y e a r s for 20.2 f o r L a t i n C h r i s t i. a m . The s t a n d a r d i z e d a v e r a g e s ( s t a n d a r d i z e d f o r 311. t h e v a r i a b l e s i n r e g r e s s i o n 11) r a n g e from 1 6 . 8 f o r Muslims t o 19.9 f ~ Lrz t i n C h r i s t i a n s . The d i f f e r e n c e i s 3 . 1 y e a r s o r e q u a l t o t h e e f f e c t oL a diifez'enc.. o f 8.4 y e a r s of s c h o o l i n g . The s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n by y e a r o f m a r r i a g e , y e a r s of s c h o o l i n g , p e r c a p i t a houseilold e x p e n d i t u r e s , and l a n d ovmed by t h e household does n o t remove t h e s i g n i f i c a n t c a s t e d i f f e r e n c e between M u s l i m a t t h e lower l e v e l ; s c h e d u l e d c a s t e s , t r i b e s and Exawas a t t h e m i d d l e l e v e l ; and C h r i s t i a n s and > ? a i r sc:. the highest level. There a r e s e v e r a l t a n.t f a c t o r s which may d e t.ermine a g e a t m a r r i a g e among t h e popu- l a t i o n of K e r a l a which a r e n o t c o n s i d e r e d h e r e . 1 T a b l e 2. STANDARDIZED AVERAGE AGE A T MARKIAGE BY CASTE: ItULTIPLE CLASSIFICATIJN ANALYSIS Variable Scheduled Scheduled Syrian Latin controiled castes tribes Nairs Ezawas Christians Christians Muslims None 17 -98 Year of marriage (x) 18.0 Plus e d u c a t i o n ( x ) 18.22 P l u s houae- hold expendi- t u r s s (x) 18.28 Plus land owned ( x ) 18.28 (x) a d j u s t e d f o r indepeildents + covariates Figure:; 4 and 5 , u s i n g arrows t o i n d i c a t e "cause-to-ef f e c t " flows. F i g u r e 5 c o r r e s p o n d s t o F i g e r e I+ e x c e p t t h a t F i g u r e 5 , and t.he e q u e : i o n s u n d e r l y i n g i t , i g n o r e c o r l v e n t i o n a l f a m i l y p l a n n i n g methods i n - v e r u s e o f b i r t h c o n t r o l methods. The c l o s e s i m i l a r i t y between t h e p a t t e r n s s e e n i n F i g u r e s 4 and 5 is n a t s u q r i s i n g i n view o f t h e emphasis g i v e n by t h e o f f i c i a l F? program i n K e r a l n t o s t e r i l i z a t i o n . The p o s i t i v e v a l u e of t h e p a t h c o ? < f i c i e n t from a g e a t m a r r i a g e t o b i r t h s i n t h e 1 9 7 0 ' s i s somewhat s u r p r i s i n g . The s i g n s of t h e o t h e r p a t h s are a l l i n t h e e x p e c t e d direcc'.on, t h e only e x c e p t i o n perhaps b e i n g t h e p a t h from a g e a t m a r r i a g e t o f e r t i l i t y r e g u l a t i o n . This last pattern c a n b e i n t e r p r e t e d i n tezins of who g e t s m a r r i e d a t o l d e r a g e s ; p e r h a p s i t i s t h o s e who a r e h i g h l y m o t i v a t e d t o contrcil. t h e i r f a m i l y s i z e who a l s o g e t married l a t e . Turning t o wcmen whose f i r s t m a r r i a g e began i n t h e 1 9 7 0 f s , a n i m p o r t a n t q u e s t i o n t h a t must b e z e s o l v e d b e f o r e s p e c i f y i n g any r e c u r s i v e model i n v o l v i n g a g e a t m a r r i a g e , f e r t i l i t y c o n t r o l , and b i r t h s , i s w h e t h e r t h e "cause-to-ef f e c t " f l o w g o e s from b i r t h c o n t r o l t o b i r t h s o r from t h e latter t o t h e fonner. 1.t may, i n r e a l i t y , r u n , b o t h ways-- those with large r f ? n i l i n s a d o p t i n g b i r t h c o n t r o l , and t h o s e a d o p t i n g b i r t h c o n t r o l p r o d u c i n g fewer c h i l d r e n . I+ i s n o t p o s s i b l e t o s e p a r a t e t h e two u s i n g t h e a v a i l a b l e '2 - L data. T h e r e f o r e , w e p r e s e n t o n e model i g n o r i n g t h e e f f e c t of b i r t h s o n * b i r t h c o n t r o l (see F i g u r e s 6 and-) . ,and a n o t h e r i g n o r f n g t h e r e v e r s e e f f e c t ( s e e F i g u r e s 8 and 9 ) , It s2eins l i k e l y t h a t i n Kerala, t h e p o s i t i v e e f f e c t of b i r t h s on b i r t h c o n t r o l i s s t r o n g e r t h a n t h e d e p r e s s i p - g e f f e c t o f b i r t h c o n t r o l on b i r t h s . The r e s u l t s shown i n F i g u r e s 6 t o 9 ( b a s e d o n  Age at zarriage Caste t Year married + -.264 '\ .\. irths before 1970 .lo6 Per capita exp. - Land owned + Year born - Toilet facilities - I ,224 , ' , \ -- --- Sterilization Education + -. 095 Caste - Land owned - - -. - . - . .--- - Per cap. exp. - Year born + Land awned + Figure 5. Path diagram summarizing a recursive mcdel in which age at marriage, births before 1970, sterilization, and births in the 1970's Are treated as endogenous variables: Women sarried before 1970 L ' (Refer equations 1, 3 , 4 , and 6 in Table 6.)  -1 Age at marriage i Educarion + Per cap. exp. i Year married + - . '. -.735 sterilization) Education + I .I94 -- 1 Births in the 1970's - Per cap. sxp. - i Year born - Toilet fac. - Figure 6 . Path diagram summarizing a recursive model in which age at marriage, fertility regulation (including sterilization), and births (in the 1970's) are treated as endogenaus variables: Women who first married in the 1970's (Refer Equations 1, 3, and 7 in Table 7.)  Age at marriage ! Education + Caste + Per cap. exp. + ' Year married i - i /' -.lo9 /' '.-,788 \ .-- .288 Sterilization Z t h s in the 1970's : I Year born - Education + i I Per cap. exp, - I Year born - i Figure 9. Path diagram sumarizing a recursive model in which age at marriage, sterilization, and births in the 1970's are treated as endogenous variables: Women vho first married in the 1970's (Refer Equations 1,5, and 6 in Table 7 -1  T a b l e s 6 and 7) a r e c c n c o r d a n t w i t h t h i s view. One o t h e r p o i n t worth making i s t h a t F i g u r e s 8 and 9 c o r r e s p o n d t o t h e l e f t h a l v e s o f F i g u r e s 4 and 5 , a l t h o u g h t h e s i m u l t a n e i t y of b i r t h s and b i r t h c o n t r o l i s much more s e r i o u s i n t h e s i t u a t i o n d e p i c t e d i n F i g u r e s 8 and 9 t h a n i n F i g u r e s 4 and 5. It s h o u l d b e emphasized t h a t t h e models d i s c u s s e d s o f a r a r e r a t h e r s i m p l e ones. I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e problems w i t h t h e e q u a t i o n f o r a g e a t m a r r i a g e , t o which r e f e r e n c e h a s a l r e a d y been made, o n e wonders whether - n o n - l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p s a r e i n v o l v e d , whether some of t h e v a r i a b l e s t r e a t e d a s exogenous d e s e r v e t o b e t r e a t e d a s endogenous, and w h e t h e r a more r e a l i s t i c model would b e one which i n t r o d u c e s c o n c e p t u a l (unmeasured) v a r i a b l e s such a s socio-economic s t a t u s and f e r t i l i t y c o n t r o l . z / O f f i c i a l Family P l a n n i n g (FP) Program and F e r t i l i t y D e c l i n e What i s t h e r o l e of t h e o f f i c i a l FP program i n t h e r e c e n t f e r t i l f - t y d e c l i n e i n Kerala? S e v e r a l a n a l y s t s h a v e d i f f e r i n g views on t h i s m a t t e r . Gopinathan Nair (1974) concluded t h a t f e r t i l i t y d e c l i n e s i n K e r a l a began i n t h e e a r l y 1960's p r i o r t o t h e i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of t h e f a m i l y p l a n n i n g I program. He thought t h a t e d u c a t i o n and m o r t a l i t y d e c l i n e s had played a - major p a r t i n t h e i n i t i a l f e r t i l i t y d e c l i n e . T. N. Krishnan (1976) I I attrib;Eed - t h e d e c l i n e i n f e r t i l i t y i n K e r a l a t o changes i n n u p t i a l i t y - . I w I * - - 13/ These i s s u e s w i l l b e examined i n t h e n e x t r e v i s i o n o f t h i s r e p o r t when more socio-economic v a r i a b l e s are expected t o L e added.  T a b l e 7. Standardized Regression C o e f f i c i e n t s i n Equations C o n s t i t u t i n g S e l e c t e d R e c u r s i v e Models; Women Married i n t h e 1 9 7 0 ' s ; Age a t M a r r i a g e , F e r t i l i t y C o n t r o l , and B i r t h s i n t h e 1 9 7 0 ' s t r e a t e d 'as Endogenous V a r i a b l e s . --------_ __ --I-- -_.,- ---- b - -- - ------ - Equations f o r Age a t Fertility Sterilizatjon Birrlrs i n c l w 1 9 7 0 ' s marr i a g c - regulation -- -d- Ycar born -li T o i Let f a c i l i t i e s -.065 -.081 -.O!i5 Age a r m a r r i a g e -.209 -. 315 - .1.09 -. 788 -.735 -. 134 FcrLility regulation I k fr k .134 k2 .099 .I89 ,152 .122 ,156 .504 .5 3 0 ,526 Sol!rce .lbqQex ,Tables) : T a b l e 16 T a b l c 20 T a b l e 21 Table 1 9 Table 1 8 Table 22 'I'able 23 'I'ablc 24 Nor i n c l u d e d i n ~ 1 1 e q u a t i o n  T a b l e 8. ESTIMATE OF EXCESS STERILIZATION RATE I N KERALA - Kerala N a r i t a l S t e r i l i z a t i o n R a t e (%) F e r t i l i t y Rate, (5) X (4) Age Kerala S r i Lanka Difference S t e r i l -i z -e d , '70-'75 100 45-49 21.5 5.5 16.0 24 3.8 - Total 27.9 8.9 19.0 0.9175 Notes: 0.9175 = (1.2 + 21.8 + ... ) x 5/1,000. - S t e r i l i z a t i o n r a t e s f o r S r i Lanka from S r f Laaka, Department o f Census end S t a t i s t i c s , 1978. World F e r t i l i t y Survrey, S r i --7 Lanka 1975, F i r s t Report, T a b l e 4.3.1, p. 485. d e c l i n e could b e d i r e c t l y a t t r i b u t a b l e t o t h e o f f i c i a l FP program and t 48 p e r c e n t of t h e d e c l i d k would h a v e t a k e n p l a c e eveh i f t h e Government had not t a k e n any i n i t i a t i v e i n b i r t h c o n t r o l . - - Data from o u r s u r v e y i n d i c a t e t h a t a b o u t 30 pegcent of t h e f e r t i l i t y d e c l i n e d u r i n g 1968-75 was due t o a d e c r e a s e i n t h e n u p t f a l i t ] r r a t e ( s e e I Annex T a b l e 3 ) . T h i s h a s n o t h i n g t o do w i t h t h e ~ o v e r n m & t' s f a m i l y p l a n q i n g program; i t i s a r e s p o n s e t o socio-economic changes. Combining t h e s e two, w e may conclude t h a t about 36 p e r c e n t o f t h e d e c l i n e i n +he TFR (70% x 52%) was due t o t h 2 o f f i c i a l FP program and t h e b a l a n c e of 64 p e r c e n t (30% + (48% x 70::j) would have t a k e n p l a c e b e c a u s e of t h e socio-economic changes, i r r e s p e c t i v e of t h e o f f i c i a l prcgran. A second p i e c e of evidence s u p p o r t i n g t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n of t h e o f f i c i a l r'rsiily p l a n n i n g p r o g r m t o K e r a l a ' s f e r t i l . : t g d e c l i n e i s t h e socio-eci.r.omic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e f a m i l y plann-ng a r d s t e r i l i z a t f o n accepA.ors. I n a p o p u l a t i o n undergoing demographic t r a n s i t i o n withoat: government i n p u t tt?-.cjugh f a m l l y p l a n n i n g s e r v i c e s (par::icularly financial incentives), w e would expect b i r t h c o n t r o l prac.'cict -,b e , on t h e whole, p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d t o economic and s o c i a l s t e t u s . Tkat i s , t h e b e t t e r e d - ~ c a t e d ,t h e r i c h e r , t h o s e w i t h n o n - a g r i c u l t u r a l c c c u p a t i o n s , e t c . , would t e n d t o c o n t r o l t h e i r b i r t l i s nor.? chan t h e i l l i t e r a t e , t::o p o o r e r , zhe farmers, e t c . I n Ker~1.a. we d i d n o t s e e t h i s p a t t e r n . Our d a t a i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e grevalen-e r a t e of s t e r i l i z a t i o n was h i g h e s t mong t h o s e w i t h I-'; y z a r s G? sc.h001C:~g, n o t among t h o s e wizh more t h a n 1 0 y e a r s of s c h o o l i n g ( F i g u r e 121 ; an )nc, Ezawa and s cla s t e c ~ m m u n i t f i ~ c..~d~ler ~ , .au;ong. t&e -- .. nc'i Nairs (TaSle 3 ) ; and avong women from households w i t h a p e r c a p i 2 a mcnthly e x p e n d i t u r e of i 3 s 50-59, . n o t among t h o s e w i t h x n n t h l y e x p e n d i t u r e s above R s 120 (Table 1.0). W e a t t r i b u t e t h i s h i g h e r s t e r i l i z a t i o n r n t e among t h e lower s t r a t a of s o c i e t y t o i n e o f f i c i a l FP program, e s p e c i a l l y w i t h i t s ecoacmic i n c n n t i v e s . l j / - - 15; l a a study made Ly :-f,e Demographic Research C e n t r e , Trivandrum, i n i l g h a t D i s t r i c t , j.t was r e p o r t e d t h a t "of t h e t o t a l a c c e p t o r s 512 p r ~ f e r r e dmass vaszctomy (.amp for g r e a t e r monetar, remuneration, 30% f o r t h e s e r v i c e s of exper: d o c t o r s , . . . I 1 ( K e r a l z S t a t e , Bureau of Economics and S t a t i s t i c s 2nd Demographic Research Centre, 1977, p. 1 5 ) .  - Figure 1 2 . P a r t i a l Regression -Between-Yaars.-of- Schooling -. - Pnd Birth Control- Practice, . - .-. - -- Kerala, .- 1980 -. . . Percent ............... --a . . . . . .. . . . . -- . - . . - . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . --- . . - .. - --- .- . . . . .. . . . .. . . -- . . . -.-- I . -.-----.- . -- . -- . . ..-- -- . . . - . . . . . .. . . . . ; - ~. . , . . . , . ....... . .. i . . . . . .~ . . . . . . . . 1 . . . ... : . . . . . . . . 1 1..... .- 8 ,-. .- -- -.; i . +.--: . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Table 9 : DISTRIBUTION OF EVER-blARRIED \:OMEN BY USE OF FAMILY PUNNING METHODS AND CASTE Cur- Conventional F.P. Methods rently Using or Current- Used i n Ever Steri- Steri- Never . Caste ly using the past Used lized lized Used Total ScheduAed 30 35 65 94 124 165 324 Nair 92 76 168 91 183 117 376 E ,awa 86 82 168 188 274 22 5 58 1 Syrian xians 134 98 23 2 139 273 47 41 8 Latin xians 41 . 22 63 34 75 30 127 Muslims 37 40 77 71 108 207 35 5 Others 75 54 12 9 120 195 23 9 4 88 All 495 40 7 902 73 7 1232 1030 2669 ~chedu led Nair E zawa Syrian Latin Muslims Other All  Table 1 0 : DISTRIBUTION OF EVER-MARRIED WOPE I N BY USE GF F-UiILY - PLANNING METHODS AW PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES Cur- Conventional F . P . Methods rently Per c a p i t a Using Household or Expendi- Current- Used i n Ever Steri- Steri- Never tures l y using the past Used lized lized Used Total < Rs. 30 14 14 28 6 '- 60 141 21 5 30-44 109 89 198 -14 32 3 381 793 50-54 55 46 101 111 166 128 340 60-7 9 82 95 177 160 24 2 171 508 80-119 124 80 2 04 137 261 115 45 6 120+ 105 78 183 57 162 74 314 6 5 . 11 12 18 26 43 Unknown A1 1 495 407 90 2 73 7 1232 1030 2669 All 18.5  A t h i r d p i e c e of e m p i r i c a l e v i d e n c e i n s u p p o r t of a s u b s t a n t i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n by t h e o f f i c i a l f a m i l y p l a n n i n g t o K e r a l a ' s f e r t i l i t y d e c l i n e i s t h e h i g h a s s o c i a t + - n between o f f i c i a l FP o u t p u t ( s t e r i l i z a t i o n and con- v e n t i o n a l family planning acceptors) i n a given period i n a given d i s t r i c t w i t h t h e f e r t i l i t y l e v e l ( a s e s t i m a t e d by t h e s u r v e y ) i n t h a t p e r i o d i n t h a t district. W e have d a t a f o r 3 f i v e - y e a r p e r i o d s (1965-70, 1970-75, and 1975-80) and t h r e e d i s t r i c t s ( P a l g h a t , Ernakulam, and A l l e p p e y ) . The c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t ( r a n k c o r r e l a t i o n ) i s -0.7 which i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t f o r t h e n i n e o b s e r v a t i o n s a t t h e 95 p e r c e n t l e v e l . F e r t i l i t y D e c l i n e Among Women i n Small- Landholding Households (Less t h a n 1 0 Cents of Land) Most o f t h e household t h a t g a i n e d house s i t e s through l a n d reforms have 1 0 c e n t s o r less of l a n d . The f e r t i l i t y t r e n d of t h i s group i s of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t , g i v e n t h e c o n c e p t u a l frsmework proposed i n t h i s study. According t o o u r h y p o t h e s e s , women i n such households would h a v e a fewer number o f r e a s o n s t o reduce t h e i r f e r t i l i t y t h a n o t h e r s who were a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d by t h e economic changes.%/ But, t h e f e r t i l i t y d e c l i n e t h e s u r v e y noted among them w a s s l i g h t l y n i g h e r t h a n t h a t a f a l l t h e o t h e r l a n d ownership groups ( s e e Annnx T a b l e 4 ) . The d e c l i n e i n t h i s group i s analyzed f u r t h e r i n Table 11 a c c o r d i n g t o t h e s t e r i l i z a t i o n s t a t u s of t h e woman. I n 1965-70, t h e " s t e r i l i z e d women': had a TMFR' of 7.135 compared # I 161 T h e i r r e a s o n s f o r r e d u c t i o n would b e d e c r e a s e s i n employment - o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r c h i l $ r ~ n(hence l o s s of income from c h i l d l a b o r ) , and i n c r e a s e s i n t h e o p p o r t u n i t y c o s t s of mothers.  T a b l e 11. FERTILITY TREhD AYONG WOMEN I N HOUSEHOLDS WITH 1 0 CENTS OF LAND OR LESS BY STERILIZATIOY STATUS TMFR Age Year Sterilized Nonsterilized Age 20-29 y e a r s 1975-80 3.145 3.110 1970-75 3.290 3 .OX5 1965-70 3.820 3.420 Age 30-44 y e a r s Age 20-44 years w i t h 6.230 f o r t h o s e who were n o t s u b s e q u e n t l y s t e r i l i z e d . By 1975-80, the s t e r i l i z e d group had reduced t h e i r f e r t i l i t y by 35 p e r c e n t t o 4.620, w h i l e the non-sterilized - group had reduced t h e i r f e r t i l i t y by 20 p e r c e n t t o 5.000.171 Much of t h i s e x c e s s r e d u c t i o n among t h e s t e r i l i z e d t o o k p l a c e d u r i n g 1968-73; .C t h a t i s , a t t h e t i m e o f t h e mass vasectomy' camps. It i s d i f f i c u l t n o t t o - F e r t i l i t y d e c l i n e among t h e n o n - s t e r i l i z e d c a n b e e x p l a i n e d by t h e i n c r e a s e i n a g e a t m a r r i a g e . The f e r t i l i t y measure used i n t h i s s t u d y - * (TmR) i s n o t c o n t r o l l e d f o r d i f f e r e n c e i n a g e a t m a r r i a g e . When TNFR i s measured f o r 1965-70 and 1975-80, t h e f e r t i l i t y e x p e r i e n c e u s e b i s a * n o t f o r t h e same group o f women. The l a t t e r would i n c l u d e a l a r g e r p--oportion of younger women who were m a r r i e d more r e c e n t l y and h e n c e a t r e l a t i v e l y o l d e r a g e s . Thus t h e d e c r e a s e i n f e r t i l i t y levels between 1965-70 and 1975-80 as measured h e r e i s caused n o t o n l y by b i r t h c o n t r o l a f t e r m a r r i a g e b u t a l s o by postponement of m a r r i a g e . w e i n c l u d e d Karnataka, I n d i a , t o h e l p i s o l a t e t h e e f f e c t of socio-economic factors. Compared w i t h K e r a l a , m o r t a l i t y i s h i g h e r i n Karnataka, l i t e r a c y i s l o w e r , t h e p r o p o r t i o n of t h e l a b o r f o r c e depending o n a g r i c u l t u r e i s h i g h e r , and t h e a v e r a g e d a i l y wage i s lower. The f a m i l y p l a n n i n g s e t - u p i s s i m i l a r , however; t h a t i s , t h e Government of I n d i a p a t t e r n . The o u t p u t of t h e i n Karnataka h a s been v e r y much d i f f e r e n t from t h a t i n K e r a l a , according t o our survey ( t h e percent s t e r i l i z e d i s i n Karnataka compared with i n K e r a l a ; t h e p e r c e n t u s i n g a c o n v e n t i o n a l f a m i l y p l a n n i n g method is i n Karnataka compared w i t h i n Kerala) . The d e c l i n e i n m a r i t a l f e r t i l i t y (TFlFR) was o n l y i n Karnataka ( i n 1968-78) compared w i t h 1.77 i n Kerala. The d i f f e r e n c e i s n o t e n t i r e l y due t o d i f f e r e n c e s i n m o r t a l i t y and socio-economic c o n d i t i o n s ; t h e r e may w e l l b e o t h e r f a c t o r s such a s p o l i t i c a l c o n s c i o u s n e s s , f o r example. The s i z e of t h e d i f f e r e n c e due t o socio-economic d i f f e r e n c e s , however, may b e c o n s i d e r a b l e . - l8/ A second approach i s a comparison o f t h e f a m i l y p l a n n i n g a c c e p t a n c e r a t e of t h e l o w e s t socio-economic group w i t h t h e n e x t h i g h e r group. It was mentioned t h a t t h e e x p e c t e d p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n between socio-economic , * I s t a t u s and f a m i l y p l a n n i n g usage is n o t always e v i d e n t i n K e r a l a , and t h a t t h e u s e r r a t e i s h i g h e r f o r t h e last-bur-one socio-economic c l a s s . What i s re 5 'r5 - - h e r e i s t h a t t h e bottom c l a s s h a s lower u s e r r a t e s t h a n t h e n e x t _ h i g h e r - 18/ The s u r v e y r e s u l t s from Karnataka w i l l b e made a v a i l a b l e i n t h e n e x t r e v i s i o n of t h i s p a p e r . who a s a r e s u l t prolonged t h e i r s t u d i e s i n s c h o o l and became more of an economic l i a b i l i t y ( f c o d , c l o t h e s , and s c h o o l expenses) t h a n a s o u r c e o f income (wages from c h i l d l a b o r ) . High wages a l s o i n c r e a s e d t h e o p p o r t u n i t y c o s t s o f t h - mothers. B a s i c t o most socio-eccnomic change i n K e r a l a (whether i t i s h i g h minimum wages, b e t t e r working c o n d i t i o n s f o r t h e a g r i c u l t u r a l l a b o r e r s , larid r e f o m , expansion of cheap e d u c a t i o n , h e a l t h t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , f a m i l y p l a n n i n g s e r v i c e s , e t c ) , i s t h e p o l i t i c a l f a c t o r ; namely, t h e g r a d u a l s h i f t i n p o l i t i c a l power from t h e r i c h t o t h e poor. While t h e s e p o l i t i c a l changes were n o t n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e socio-economic changes t o t a k e p l a c e , i t a p p e a r s t h a t i n t h e K e r a l a c o n t e x t , t h e y were s u f f i c i e n t . Second, t h e o f f i c i a l f a m i l y p l a n n i n g program h a s played a s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e i n the f e r t i l i t y reduction i n Kerala. About 40 p e r c e n t of t h e f e r t i l i t y d e c l i n e can b e a t t r i b u t e d d i r e c t l y t o t h e o f f i c i a l FP program. Among lok7- income g r o u p s , t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n of t h e o f f i c i a l f a m i l y p l a n n i n g program a p p e a r s even h i g h e r . 1 What i s t h e i m p l i c a t i o n of t h i s r e s u - l t f o r t h e o t h e r s t a t e s i n India? Can t h e i r f a m i l y p l a n n i n g program b e geared up t o reduce f e r t i l i t y - - a s much a s i n K e r a l a ? I t depends on why t h e program s u c c e e d r d ' s n K e r a l a and why i t i s n o t doing s o w e l l i n o t h e r s t a t e s . - - 8 * The average p e r c a p i t a b u d g e t f o r f a m i l y p l a n n i n g i n ?he o t h e r s t a t e s of I n d i a i s s l i g h t l y h i g h e r t h a n t h a t i n K e r a l a (by 7 p e r c e n t i n 1976-77). I n a number of s t a t e s ( e . g . , X a h a r a s h t r a and P u n j a b ) , t h e f a m i l y p l a n n i n g ~ r o g r a ~ performance ls h a s b e e n b e t t e r than eral la's example ( Z a c h a r i a h and E c e v i t , 1979). F e r t i l i t y d e c l i n e , howevsr, e v e n i n s t a t e s where t h e program performance h a s been b e t t e r is lower. T h e r e f o r e , what i s d i f f e r e n t i n K e r a l a may n o t b e t h e f a m i l y p l a n n i n g i n p u t , b u t e i t h e r a more e f f i c i e n t d e l i v e r y of s e r v i c e s and/or a h i g h e r spin-off effect; t h a t is, higher inter- a c t i o n between f a m i l y p l a n n i n g s e r v i c e s and socio-economic f a c t o r s . The same amount of f a m i l y planning s e r v i c e was more e f f e c t i v e i n K e r a l a t h a n i n o t h e r s t a t e s b e c a u s e of t h e d i f f e r e n t socio-economic c o n d i t i o n s , d e s i r e d f a m i l y s i z e , and demand f o r f a m i l y p l a n n i n g services. Our r e s e a r c h d i d n o t i n c l u d e a comparative s t u d y between t h e f a m i l y p l a n n i n g d e l i v e r y system i n K e r a l a and t h e o t h e r s t a t e s of I n d i a . ';herafore, i t c m - ~ sheh;rtuc\ ~ t light on ~ n i s matter. Our comment on h e. . t- \ p o l i t i c e l awareness i n K e r a l a , however, i s v e r ] p e r t i n e n t h e r e . The p o l i t i c i z a - t i o n of a l l p u b l i c i s s u e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y i s s u e s r e l a t e d t o t h e d e l i v e r y of p u b l i c s e r v i c e s has had t h e e f f e c t o f making t h e s e services ( i n c l u d i n g family planning) much more r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e t o t h e p e o p l e o f K e r a l a i n comparison t o o t h e r s t a t e s . T h i r d ; K e r a l a women do n o t h a v e a very s t r o n g desi;e for a specific number of c h i l d r e n . Even when t h e i r e x p r e s s e d d e s i r e d f a m i l y s i z e e x c e e c s t h e i r a c t u a l f a m i l y s i z e , they do n o t always adopt measures t o p r e v e n t them from becoming p r e g n a n t a g a i n . When such'wcmen f a i l t o adopt b i r t h t c o n t r o l methods, i t i s n o t b t c a u s e t h e y a r e G o s t i l e t o t h e i r a d o p t i o n , b u t mostly because of t h e i r ambivalent n a t u r e toward d e s i r e d f a m i l y s i z e . The views o f K e r a l a ' s women on t h e i r d e s i r e d number of c h i l d r e n a r e v e r y n e b u l o u s ; t h e n ~ m b e ri s determined mostly by t h e number of c h i l d r e n  t h e y a l r e a d y have. P a r i t y e x p l a i n s n e a r l y 90 p e r c e n t of t h e e x p l a ~ i n e d - v a r i a n c e o f t h e d e s i r e d number o f c h i l d r e n . Although socio-economic v a r i - a b l e s such a s e d u c a t i o n , l a n d a s s e t s , e t c . , h a v e s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h t h e d e s i r e d number of c h i l d r e n , t h e i r c o n t r i b u t i o n t o t h e t o t a l vzriance e x p l a i ~ e dwas ~ e l a t i v z i ys m a l l once t h e e f f e c t of ~ a r i t y was e l f a i r l a t e d . High e d m a t i o n , o r l a r g e r a s s e t s , e t c . , do n o t e n s u r e t h a t a woman h a s a s t r o n g d e s i r e f o r a small f a m i l y s i z e . Even when women f i n d t h a t t h e y have r e a c h e d o r a c h i e v e d t h e number o f c h i l d r e n t h e y would l i k e t o have ( a s r e p o r t e d by them), n o t a l l o f them t a k e s t e p s t o p r e v e n t :heir becoming p r s g n a n t a g a i n . According t o t h e survey (pro-rated f i g u r e s ) , o u t of a t o t a l of 4.30 m i l l i o n ever-marrie.! women i n K e r a l a ( i n 1 9 8 0 ) , 2.96 m i l l i o n had e q u a l t o v: more t h a n t h e c h i l d r e n they desired. them, o n l y 1 . 7 0 m i l l i o n wera c o n t r a c e p t i n q o r s t e r i l i z e d h ~ n g i l and t h e b a l a n c e of 1 . 2 6 m i l l i o n w e r e u n p r o t e c t e d . It i s p o s s i b l e t h a t some I I of them were n o t i n need o f b i r t h c o n t r o l a t a i l , as t n e y were n o t exposed t o pregnancy; 'but e v s n g i v i n g allowance' fc.: widowhood and a l l o t h e r f ~ c - t o r s , t h e number of women w i t h u m c t demand f o r b i r t h c o n c r o l i n K e r a l a ( a c c o r d i n g I - - 1 .,to t h e i r own s t a t e m e n t ) , s h o u l d b e a t l e a s t 854,000 o r a f i f c n o f t h e I i =ever-married women. - * - Women who do n o t a d o p t b i r t h c o n t r o l even when they a c h i e v e o r I s L r p a s s their f e r t i l i t y a s p i r a t i o n s a r e n o t n e c e s s a r i l y h o s t i l e t o t h e  v a r i o u s methods. T h e i r "denand" i s r ~ o ts t r o n g enough t o make then! go t o a c l i n i c and a v a i l themselves c f i t s s e r v i c s s . They would acce;,: t h e methods i f t h e y w e r e o f f e r z d S.n a manner n o r e p a l a t a b l e t o t h a ~ . \ie b a s e t h i s c o n c l c s i o n on n;o p i e c e s of informatioil. The f i r s t i s t h a t even some of t h e tjcrn?n (300,090 i n 1930) who were a c t u a l l y s h o r t o f t h e i r d e s i r c d f a m i l y s l z e were p r a c t i c l n g b i r t h c o n t i o l : 250,000 o f them wseci one o r o t h e r t f t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l f m i l y p l a n i n g methods ( p i - e s m a b l y f o r s p a c i n g ) and 50,000 were s t e r i l i z z d ( r e a s o n u n c l e a r , p c s s i t l y p r e s s u r e from spouse o r o f f i c i a l s ) ; The s e c o r ~ di s t h a i r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e s t h a t e x c e s s C e r t i l i t y i s p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d t o :cnowledge or' family p l a n n i n g , ¶ M e of c o n v e n t i c n a l f a i l 7 planning, and s t e r i l i z a t i o n . Excess f e r t i l i ~ yaccount.^ f 3 r a v e r y ?ligh p r o p o r t ' - - of t h e t o t a l -zr:'anto of f a m i l y plannir,g u s e (43 p e r c e n t f o r sterilization and 36 p e r c e n t f o r cony-entional f a m i i y p l a n n i n g ) . Thus, even i n Kera.!a 72:-th i t s s t r o n g famil:. b l a m i n g program I i n c i r ~ d i n ge c o n a ~ i ci r , c e n t i v e s , vasectomy camps, :.ad s o b i a i s c c .:,,tance of t h e ?rogrm., t h e r e is a h i g h d e g r e e of unmct ( l a t e n t ) demand f o r f m i l y plaaninf, s e d - c & s . If t h e f a m i l y p l a m i n g program . , were a b l e 3, r e e c h a u t a and s h t i s f y t h i s un+let l a t e n t denand, t h e u s e r r a c e would i n c r a a s e t o 67 p t A S c e n t , t h e b i r z h r a t e would d e c r e a s e by an a d L i i t i o n a l 8 p o i n t s (30 - .9 2 e r c e n t d e c l i n e ) , a d t h e TFR we1~3.d r e a c h atnu - . i ::--- iqhich i s n o t vcrry 'ar I . from t h e replace;: a t l z v e l ( i . 3 & I !*at sre t h e i n ~ l i c a t i o n sof t h e s e r e s u l t . ; f o r the o t h e r s t a t e s i n I n d i ~ ? How d i f f e r e r , t a r e t h e o t h e r s t a t e s fron: Kerali?. i n t h i s r e s p e c t ? It may w e l l b e t h a t t h e r e i s a c o n s i d e r a b l e d e g r e e of ambivalence a b o u t t h e d e s i r e d number o f c h i l d r e n i n o t h e r s t a t e s , and some urn-et demand f o r f a n i l y planning s e r v i c e s . I f s o , a w e l l - s e r v i c e d f a m i l y plannirig program w i t h a n e f f e c t i v a i n f o r m a t i o n a n 3 e d u c a t i o n proorzm and t h r~ight financial i n c e n t i v e s would make a s i g n i f i c a n t impact on t h e f e r t i l i t y r a t e s i n t h e s e states. A d d i t i o n a l s u p p o r t f o r t h i s c o n c l u s i o n i s g i v e n by t h e f o l l o w i n g r e s u l t s from t h e K e r a l a s t u d y . Fourth, t h e K e r a l a s t u d y shows t h a t i n a p o p u l a t i o n l i k e K e r a l a t s w i t h low i n f a n t m o r t a l i t y , h i g h income and economic s t a t u s i s n e i t h e r a n e c e s s a r y n o r s u f f i c i e n t c o n d i t i o n f o r a c c e p t a n c e of b i r t h c o n t r o l methods and s u b s t a n t i a l f e r t i l i t y d e c l i n e . A s t r o I g f a m i l y p l a n n i n g program l i k e eral la's (with economic i n c e n t i v e s and emphasis on s t e r i l i z a t i o n ) , c a n a l t e r t h e normal r e l a t i o n s h i p between f e r t i l i t y d e c l i n e and socio-economic status. I n f a c t , one may a r g u e t h a t economic i n c e n t . i v z s a r e more v a l u e d by t h e poor and, h e n c e , t h e famj-ly p l a n n i n g a c c s p t a n c e r a t e (from t h e o f f i c i a l program) and f e r t i l i z y d e c l i n e c o u l d b e h i g h e r among them. I n Kerala, they M e r e indeed h i g h e r E -- - --- .- -. , T h i s r e s u l t g i v e s a much g r e a t a r chance o f s u c c e s s t o f a m i l y p l a n n i n g o p e r a t i o n s i n t h e o t h e r s t a t e s , t h a n a s i t u a t i o n where f e r t i l t t y d e c l i n e i s 'r d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o socio-economic s t a t u s , e s p e c i a l l y female $ d u c a t i o n . - F i f t h , a l t h o u g h much o f t h e f e r t i l i t y d e c l i n e i n Xe-la * could + m b e a t t r i b u t e d , i n o n e Tray o r a n o t h e r , t o t h e socio-economic changes which  have taken p l a c e i n t h e s t a t e i n t h e p a s t s e v e r a l decades, a t t h e p r e s e n t s t a g e of development, t h e s h o r t - t e r m c o n = r i S u t i o n of t h e s e f a c t o r s - - education, household e x p e n d i t u r e s , l a n d ownership, etc.-- i s r e l a t i v e l y small. This i s e v i d e n t f r o n t h e i r smal.1 r e l a t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o t h e e x p l a i n e d v a r i a n c e i n multiple regressions. These a r e reproduced i n T a b l e 12 f o r two cf t h e v a r i a b l e s , e d u c a t i o n and household e x p e n d i t u r e s . Table 12. CONTRIBUTION OF EDUCATICN AND EOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURES TO THE EXPLAINED VARIANCE 111 SELECTED REGRESSIONS Dependent V a r i a b l e Education Household Expenditures Parity .00763 1.5 .OOOOO 0.0 x . B i r t h s 1970-80 .00283 0.9 .COO63 0.2 x B i r t h s 1975-80 .00174 0.6 .00326 5.1 x Open b i r t h i n t e r v a l .00412 0.9 . .OOOO 0.0 x Desired f a m i l y s i z e .00362 0.8 .00012 0.0 x Age a t marriage .00828 , 2.4 .00922 2.6 Knowledge of family planning .05162 62.1 .00187 2.2 - - .* L - Use of family placning .08939 54.8 .00109 6.7 x - Sterilization x S t a t i s t i c a l l y i n s i g n i f i c a n t a t 95 p e r c e n t l e v e l .  Except f o r e d u c a t i o n ' s e x p l a n a t i o n of v a r i a n c e r e g a r d i n g knowledge and use of c o n v e n t i o n a l f a m i l y p l a n n i n g methods, none of t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n s is large. I t must b e n o t e d , however, t h a t 88 p e r c e n t o f t h e women a l r e a d y knew about f a m i l y p l a n n i n g methods. Socio-economic v a r i a b l e s make o n l y a v e r y s m a l l c o n t r i b u t i o n ( i n t h e s h o r t run) t o changes i n a g e a t m a r r i a g e , . d e s i r e d family s i z e , o r f e r t i l i t y . On t h e o t h o r hand, f a m i l y p l a n n i n g c a n make a d e n o n s t r a b l e s h o r t - term and long-term d i f f e r e n c e i n f e r t i l i t y b e h a v i o r . A s explained earlier a h i g h socio-economic a t t a i n m e n t i s n o t a n e c e s s a r y c o n d i t i o n f o r a h i g h a c c e p t a n c e r a t e of b i r t h c o n t r o l p r a c t i c e s , e s p e c i a l l y i f a f a m i l y p l a n n i n g program emphasizes s t e r i l i z a t i o n ( a s t h e I n d i a n program d o e s ) , and i f i t i s made a t t r a c t i v e t o low-income groups by o f f e r i n g ecorromic i n c e n t i v e s . S t e r i l i z a t i o n i n t h e form o f tcbectomy is i n c r e a s i n g l y a c c e p t a b l e among K e r a l a women from a l l economic backgrounds. I n t h e p a s t , vasectomy was t h e main form o f s t e r i l i z a t ! . o n offered. T h i s was done i n camps and h o s p i t a - - s mainly among low-income men. The r i c h and e d u c a t e d were r e l u c t a n t t o go t o t h e camps o r o t h e r f a m i l y p l a n n i n g f a c i l i t i e s b e c a u s e i t r e q u i r e d a L P special effort. Tubectomy can b e done a l o n g w i t h a d e l i v e r y and, t h e r e f o r e , i s g a i n i n g g r e a t e r a c c e p t a n c e among t h e well-to-do women. -- This does not b + i t t l e t h e importance of socio-economic f a c t o r s . k'e a r e s p e a k i n g a b o u t a p o & l a t i o n i n which t h e l i f e expectancy h a s a l r e a d y I , * r i s e n t o 65 y e a r s , and i l l r r e r a c y h a s been p r a c t i c a l l y e l i m i n a t e d among men and women i n t h e c h i l d b e a r i n g a g e s . The e f f e c t o f t h e f a m i l y p l a n n i n g program would l i k e l y b e d i f f e r e n t i f t h e sucio-economic c o n d i t i o n s w e r e different. The K e r a l a s t u d y p r o v i d e s s e v e r a l ; a s u l t s which g i v e hope f o r t h e s u c c e s s of w e l l - o r g a n i z e d f a m i l y p l a n n i n g programs i n t h e o t h e r s t a t e s of I n d i a t o r e d u c e f e r t i l i t y ; b u t t h e a n a l y s i s g i v e n h e r e d o e s n o t g u a r a n t e e s u c c e s s i f t h e r e is n o t concordant p r o g r e s s w i t h r e s p e c t t o i n £ a n t m o r t a l i t y and female e d u c a t i o n .  STATISTICAL ANNEX L i s t of T a b l e s Page Number Annex T a b l e 1. N a r i t a l F e r t i l i t y R a t e s by Sterilization Status .................... 82 ., Annex Table 2 . Age-Specific Marital F e r t i l i t y Rates, T h r e e D i s t r i c t s Combined ......... 8 3 Annex Table 3. A n a l y s i s bf F e r t i l i t y Change Due t o M a r r i a g e F a c t o r , 1965-70 t o 1975-80 ................................. 84 Annex T a b l e 4 . Marital F e r t i l i t y Rates by Ownership of Land ....................... 85 Annex T a b l e 5. P a t h s Leading t o Age a t Marriage: Women Married b e f o r e 1970 ( w i t h . Year Married) ........................... 86 Annex T a b l e 6 . P a t h s Leading t o Age a t Marriage: Women Married b e f o r e 1970 ( w i t h Year Born Among t h e Causes) ............ 87 Annex T a b l e 7. P a t h s Leading t o S t e r i l i z a t i o n : Women Married b e f o r e 1970 ( w i t h Year Born, b u t n o t B i r t h s i n t h e * 1 9 7 0 ' s Among tl. Zauses) ................ 88 Annex T a b l e 8. P a t h s Leading t o S t e r i l i z a t i o n : Women M . ~ r r i e d b e f o r e 1970 ( w i t h Year B o x and B i r t h s b e f o r e 1970 Among t h e Causes) .................. 89 Annex T a b l e 9. P a t h s Leading t o ~ e r & l i t ~ Con- t r o l ( S t e r i l i z a t i o n o r 0t h e r C o n t r a c e p t i o n ) : Women Married b e f o r e 1970 ( w i t h Year Born, bu: n o t B i r t h s i n t h e 1 9 7 0 ' s Among t h e Causes) ....................... 90 - 76-  L i s t of T a b l e s , ' c o n t i n u e d Page Number Annex T a b l e 10. P a t h s Leading t o F e r t i l i t y C o n t r o l : Women M a r r i e d b e f o r e 1970 ( w i t h Year Born and B i r t h s b e f o r e 1970 Among t h e Causes)........... 91 Annex T a b l e 11. P a t h s Leading t o B i r t h s b e f o r e 1970: Women Married b e f o r e 1970 ( w i t h Year Born Among t h e Causes) ................................. 92 Annex T a b l e 1 2 . P a t h s Leading t o B i r t h s b e f o r e 1970: Women Married b e f o r e 1970 ( w i t h Year Born and S t e r i l i z a t i o n Among t h e Causes) ...................... 93 Annex Table 13. P a t h s Leading t o B i r t h s b e f o r e 1970 : Women Married b e f o r e 1970 ( w i t h Year Born and F e r t i l i t y C o n t r o l Among t h e Causes) .............. 94 Annex Table 1 4 . P a t h s Leading t o B i r t h s d u r i n g 1970-80: Women Married b e f o r e 1970 ( w i t h Year Born and S t e r i l i z a t i o n Among t h e Causes)......... 95 Annex T a b l e 1 5 . P a t h s Leading t o B i r t h s d u r i n g 1970-80: Women Married b e f o r e 1970 ( w i t h Year Born and F e r t i l i - t y C o n t r o l Among t h e Causes) ........... 96 Annex T a b l e 16. P a t h s Leading t o Age a t Marriage: ' Women Married 1970-80 ( w i t h Year Married) ............................... 97 -.Annex T a b l e 17. P a t h s Leading t o Age a t Marriage: Women Married b e f o r e 1970 ( w i t h 'i Year Born) ............................. 98 - - . % - &Annex T a b l e 18. P a t h s Leading t o S t e r i l i z a t i o n : Women Married d u r i n g 1970-80 ( w i t h Number o f C h i l d r e n Born . i n t h e 1 9 7 0 ' s Among t h e c a u s e s ) ........ 99 Annex T a b l e 1 9 . P a t h s Leading t o S t e r i l i z a t i c n : Women Married d u r i n g 1970-80 ( w i t h Year Born) ........................ 100  L i s t of T a b l e s , c o n t i n u e d Page Number Annex T a b l e 20. P a t h s Leading t o F e r t i l i t y C o n t r o l : Women H a r r i e d d u r i n g 1970-80 ( w i t h Number of B i r t h s i n t h e 1 9 7 0 ' s Among t h e Causes) ......... 1 0 1 Annex T a b l e 21. P a t h s Leading t o F e r t i l i t y C o n t r o l : Women Married d u r i n g 1970-80 ( w i t h Year B o r n ) - - - . - - - - * - - - - . - - - 102 * Annex T a b l e 22. P a t h s Leading t o Number of C h i l d r e n Born i n t h e 1 9 7 0 ' s : Women Married d u r i n g 1970-80 ( w i t h Year Born Among t h e Causes, b u t n o t S t e r i l i z a t i o n o r F e r t i l i t y Control) ..................- 103 Annex T a b l e 23. P a t h s Leading t o Number of C h i l d r e n Born i n t h e 1 9 7 0 ' s : Women Married i n t h e 1 9 7 0 ' s ( w i t h Year Born and F e r t i l i t y C o n t r o l Among t h e Causes) ---~~-- - ~ - - - . ~ -104 Annex T a b l e 24. P a t h s Leading t o Number of C h i l d r e n Born i n t h e 1 9 7 0 ' s : Women Married During 1970-80 ( w i t h Year Born and S t e r i l i - z a t i o n b o n g t h e Causes) -----. - . . - . ~ . ~ - . 105 Annex Table 25. R e g r e s s i o n of C h i l d r e n Ever- Born on Socio-Economic Variab l e s . .............................. I 106 h Annex T a b l e 26. R e g r e s s i o n of S u r v i v i n g C h i l d r e n on Socio-Economic V a r i a b l e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 - , Annex T a b l e 27. R e g r e s s i o n .if Number of B i r t h s i n 1965-75 6n Socio-Economic V a r i a b l e s . . z.. ........................... 108 , * Annex T a b l e 28. Regression af Number of B i r t h s i n 1970-1980 on Socio-Economic Variables...... ......................... 109 Annex T a b l e 29. R e g r e s s i o n of Number of B i r t h s i n 1965-70 on Socio--Economic Variables. ............................... 110 Annex T a b l e 30. R e g r e s s i o n of Number of B i r t h s 1970-75 on Socio-Economic Variables.. .............................. 111 L i s t of Tables, continued Page Number Annex Table 31. Regression of Number of B i r t h s 1975-80 on Socio-Economic Variables.......,........... ............ 112 Annex Table 32. Regression of B i r t h s Since January, 1979, on Socio- Economic V a r i a b l e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Annex Table 33. Regression of Open B i r t h I n t e r v a l on Socio-Economic Variables............................... 114 Annex Table 34. Regression of Desired Number of Children on S e l e c t e d Demo- g r a p h i c and Socio-Economic Variables............................... 115 Annex Table 35. Regression of Desired Number of Children on S e l e c t e d Demographic and Socio-Economic Variables.............. ................. 116 Annex Table 36. Regression c,P Excess F e r t i l i t y Women by Se.lected Demographic and Socio-Economic Variables............ 117 Annex Table 37. Regression of Excess F e r t i l i t y Among Excess F e r t i l i t y Women by S e l e c t e d Demographic and Socio-Economic V a r i a b l e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 II Annex Table 38. Fegression of Excess F e r t i l i t y Among Excess and Par F e r t i l i t y Women by S e l e c t e d Demographic and Socio-Economic V a r i a b l e s - ..........d 119 L Annex ;able 39. Regression of Excess F e r t i l i t y - . Among Excess And P a r F e r t i l i t y Women by S e l e c t e d Demographic - h And Socio-Economic V a r i a b l e s . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Annex Table 40. Regression of Excess N e t F e r t i l i t y Among Excess Net F e r t i l i t y and Par F e r t i l i t y Women by S e l e c t e d Demographic and Socio-Economic V a r i a b l e s . ........... 121 Ancex Table 4 1 . Regression of Excess F e r t i l i t y Among Excess Net F e r t i l i t y and Par F e r t i l i t y Women by Selected  L i s t of T a b l e s , c o n t i n u e d Page Number Annex T a b l e 42. R e g r e s s i o n of Conventional Family P l a n n i n g Use Among N o n - S t e r i l i z e d Excess and P a r F e r t i l i t y Women, on S e l e c t e d Demographic and Socio-Economic V a r i a b l e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Annex T a b l e 43. R e g r e s s i o n of C o n v e n t i o n a l Family P l a n n i n g U s e Among Non-Sterilized Excess and - P a r N e t F e r t i l i t y Women on S e l e c t e d Socio-Ecnnomic Variables............................... 124 Annex T a b l e 44. Regression of S t e r i l i z a t i o n a Among Excess and P a r F e r t i l i t y Women on S e l e c t e d Demographic and Socio-Economic Variables............ 125 Annex T a b l e 45. R e g r e s s i o n of S t e r i l f z a t i o n Among Excess and P a r Net F e r t i l i t y Women on S e l e c t e d Demographic and Sccio-Economic Pariab!?~............................... 126 Annex T a b l e 46. R e g r e s s i o n of C o n v e n t i o n a l Family P l a n n i n g o r S t e r i l i z a - t i o n Among Excess o r P a r Net - F e r t i l i t y Woman on S e l e c t e d Demographic and Socio-Economic I Variables ...........................&.... 127 Annex T a b l e 47. R e g r e s s i o n of C o n v e n t i o n a l Family P l a n n i n g o r S t e r i l i z a - t i o n Among Excess o r P a r F e r t i l i t y Women on S e l e c t e d Demographic and Socfo-Economic I Variables...........'.. .................. 128 8 Annex T a b l e 48. Regression of E a r l y lor L a t e I Marriage on S e l e c t e d Socio- Economic V a r i a b l e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 , Annex T a b l e 49. Regressio;, of Age a t M a r r i a g e on S e l e c t e d Socio-Economic , Varial.les... ............................ 130 Annex Table 50. R e g r e s s i o n of Age a t X a r r i a g e on S e l e c t e d Socio-Economic V a r i a b l e s ( A l l women w i t h y )........... 131  L i s t of Tables, continued Page Number Annex Table 51. R e g r e s s ~ o nof Age a t Marriage on S e l e c t e d Socio-Economic V a r i a b l e s (Women 2% y e a r s y 2m) ......... 132 Annex Table 52. Regression of Age a t Marriage on S e l e c t e d Socio-Economic V a r i a b l e s (Women 2% y e a r s y ). m ......... 133 Annex Table 53. Regression of Age a t Narriage on S e l e c t e d Socio-Economic V a r i a b l e s (Age a t marriage less t h a n 25 y e a r s ) ..................... 134 Annex Table 54. Regression of Age a t marriage on S e l e c t e d Socio-Economic V a r i a b l e s (marriages i n t h e 1970's a t ages below 25 y e a r s ) .......... 135 Annex Table 55. Regression of Knowledge of Family Planning Methods on S e l e c t e d Socio-Economic Variables.... ........................... 136 Annex Table 56. Regression of Number of B i r t h C o n t r o l Methods Known on S e l e c t e d Socio-Economic Vari- ables. .................................. 138 Annex Table 57. Regression of Current U s e of Conventional Family Planning I - Methods Among Non-Sterilized -- C u r r e n t l y Yarried women, on --- I S e l e c t e d Socio-Economic Variables. .............................. 140 . - Annex Table 58. Regrassion of S t e r i l i z a t i o n .3 - .s S t a t u s on S e l e c t e d Socio- Economic V a r i a b l e s ...................... 142 - * I f Annex Table 59. Regression of U s e of Conven- t i o n a l Family Plznning o r S t e r i l i z a t i o n on S e l e c t e d Socio-Economic V a r i a b i e s ................ 144 Annex Table 2 . AGE S E C I F I C M.ARIT.4 FERTILITY RATES, THREE DISTTZICTS COIIBIhZD ( p e r 1000 p c ~ v l a t i o n ) Percent &e 1965-70 1970-75 197 5-83 Decline --TMFR 7.480 6.320 5.710 24  -- Annex Table 3 . ANALYSIS OF FERTILIn C U =..23DUE TO MARRIAGE FACTOR, 1965-70 t o 1975-80 Expected Change Change -- r a t e s ir' dueto ciueto e .%g Actual f e r t i l i t y r a t e s Declinr marriage r a t e s marriage frrtiliry 1965-70 1970-75 alone changed factor Eai.tor ---. TFR 5.91 4.59 -1,32 5.63 -0.28 -1.04 - --- TFR 4.59 3.69 -C. 93 4.23 -0.36 -0.54 .* 6 Annex T a b l e 4 . IIARITAL FERTILITY RATES 3 Y OWNERSHIP OF W N D Age Cents Cents Cents Cents 1975-80 -- TMFK ' 4.630 4.550 4.585 ',.795 TMFR ' 5.260 5.281 4.630 TMFR ' 6,740 6.470 6 '450 Y Percent Declirie  ALL PATHS AODEL: HODEL01 SS E 1337,148 ? RATIO 84-42 DPZ 1724 PSOB> P 0,0001 D E P VAB: Y1 MS E 0,775608 8-SQ U A R E 0- 2 2 7 1 PARAflETER STANDARC VABIAaLE DP STIMATE ERROR T RATIO P R O B > J TI INTERCLPT 1 0 0,021 1 6 8 X9 1 0- 0 3 8 8 4 5 0-027890 1,3928 0, 1 6 3 g 8 X3 1 0,110364 0,0234 18 4,7127 0,000t X4 1 0,940878 0.025595 5,50U2 0, 000 1 X5 1 -G0023U7b 0.022034 -1,065U 0,28680 X6 1 0,426314 0-022371 19,0563 0~0001 . X 10 1 0,033056 0,025 1 5 1 1 - 3 143 0,1889 S I G N I F I C A N T PATHS ONLY . -- - nODEL: HOD E L U 1 SS E 1340,198 F RATIO 167-43 DPE 1727 PBOB>P 0,0001 D E P VAR: Y1 HS E 0,776027 R-SQUARE 0,2253 PARAnETER STANDAEI: V ABIABLE DF ESTIMATE ERROR T RATIO PROD>IT I INTERCEPT 1 X3 1 X4 1 K6 1 I Annex T a b l e 5. PATHS LEADING TO P-Gx AT HARRIAGE: WOHEN FtIRRIED BEFORE 1 9 7 0 (WITH I YEAR MARRIED)  -.--.- -- tlODEL: HODELOl SSE 1561,934 P RATIO 30.92 DFE 172U PROD>P 0,000 1 DEi? V A R : Y1 tlSE 0,90599~ R-SUUARE 0,0971 PARAHETER STAaDABC V A H 1 ABLE DP ESTIHATE . ERRGa T RATIO FRClB>lT1 PATHS ONLY SIGA~IFICANT SSE 1562,J92 P RATIO 37.01 DFE 1725 PBOB>P O.Od01 fltit' 0.905735 8-SQUARE 0. 0 9 6 9 PARAilETXR STAIDARD V AilIABLE DP ESTIMA'CE ERROR T ~ATIO eaoa> I T I ; ?I;'I:HCEPT 1 0 0,022675 : j 1 1 0-2 6 7 7 5 9 0.02U2d 1 9,4679 O.OllO1 AJ 1 0,05b455 0.925378 2,2245 0.0262 Xt, 1 -0- 0 5 3 7 6 4 0-02.3663 -2.272 1 0-0.232 xtl 1 -0,193217 0,023419 -8, 2 5 3 3 x 10 0.000 1 1 0. d5d7.32 0.025905 2,2672 0.0235 A n n e x T a b l e 6. PATHS LEADIilG TO AGE A T AHARRIAGE: WOMEN HARRIED BEFORE 1970 (WITH YEAR BORN AMONG T H E CAUSES)  ALL PATHS -------_ . NODEL: HUDEL07 SSE 1656,955 P RATIO 0 ,1000.0 8 51 DPE 1723 PROB>P O E l ) VAh: Y3 tlSE C-961669 R-SQUARE 0-04 22 P A B A n E T ER STANCAEI: V AGIABLE DF EST In ATE ERROR T RATIO FROB>] T I INTERCEPT 1 0 0,023570 SIGdIFICAqT PATHS ONLY PIODEL: flODEL07 SSE 1659,448 F RATIO 14-67 DPE 1725 PROB>F 0.0001 D E P VAR: Y3 nSE a-361999 R-SQUAEIE 0.0403 PAllAflETER STANDARD V AMIABLE il P ESTIhATE ERROR T RATIO paowl T I L'N l'E!!CEPT 1 0 0.023574 X1 1 3-11 1647 0-02807 1 3.3773 0- U 3 d 1 A4 1 -0.062439 0.02744 1 XS -2.2743 0,023 1 1 -0.053 11 0 0-024435 -2,1735 Y. 8 1 0.0299 9- 141J54 0-024967 5,6617 3.0001 Y1 1 0,046236 0-025740 1,3676 0.0623 Annex Table 7. PATHS LEADING TO STERILIZATION: WOMEN MARRIED BEFORE 1970 (WITH YEAR BORX, BUT NOT BIRTHS IN THE 1970's MlONG THE CAUSES)  ALL PATHS .. HODEL: flODEL03 SSE. 1619.13 P RATIO llr.74 DFE 1722 PROB>F 0,3,01 DEP VAB: Y3 MSE C,940261 h-SQUAEE 0,964 1 PARAHETEH STASCARC VARIABLE DP ESTIMATE ERi.aF T RhTfC FBCB>lT] INTERCEPT 0 0,023306 X1 0, 1 0 8 4 4 9 , C-030784 X3 -0,004 5 2 2 0 5 0,025939 XU -0,042708 0-028927 X5 -0,068221 0,024360 Xt3 0,293595 0,034481 XI0 -3,033449 0-02775e Y1 0,103500 0,025997 Y5 0 - 2142b4 0,033782 I S IGNIFICANT PATHS ONLY F BAT10 23.0 1 iIEP VAB: Y3 PBOB>F c,oO01 R-SQUARE 0,0625 PARAMETER STANDARC I VARIABLE DP ESTlPIATE ERROL T RATIO PEiOtl>lTI INTERCEPT X1 X5 XH Y 1 '15 A n n e x T a b l e 8 . PA&S LEADING TO STERILIZATION: WOMEN WRIED B E ~ O R E1970 (WITH YEAR BORB AND BIRTHS BEFORE 1 9 7 0 &ONG THE CAUSES)  ALL PATHS HODEL: HODEL08 SSE 15b0,744 F RATIO GEE 1723 PROB>P DEP VAR: Y4 HSE 6-905930 E-SG'i A R E PARAMETER STAliDAliC V ABXABLE Dl? ESTIMATE EZliCi; INTERCEPT 1 0 - 0.022876 X1 1 3,214119 0,030198 x3 1 0,062700 0.025444 X4 1 -0,038573 0,027940 x5 1 -3.09 1 9 2 6 0,92382C X8 1 0 , 121d95 0,024372 XI0 1 -0,051,736 0,05720 1 Y1 1 0,072557 C.Q24flE2 SIGNIFICANT PATHS ONLY SS E 1562,471 P RATIO 30.81 DFE 1724 EROB>P 0,000~ BSE 0,906306 R-SQflARE 0,0968 PABAHETER STANDARC VirfiLAuLE DP ESTIHATE EHROR T RATIO PBOB>lT1 I LNTEHCEPT 1 0 0.322882 Y 1 1 3- 2025.32 0.OL9015 6,9802 0,0001 h 1 0.06 1 0 4 1 0.Q25423 2.401rl 0.3165 X '3 1 -0.395228 C.023706 -4.0171 3,000 1 Xd 1 0.1LY545 0,023884 5 - 3 8 19 0,0001 X 10 1 -0.1)45459 0,025952 -1.751b 3,0890 Y1 -- 1 Q.iI719di3 0,024OES 2-98-30 9- 1 0 2 3 ~ Annex Table 9. PATHS LEADING TO FERTILITY CONTROL (STERILIZATION OR OTHER CONTRACEPTION) : WOMEN *HARRIED BEFORB 1 9 7 0 (WITH Y E A R BORN, BUT XOT BIRTHS I N THE 1970's AMONG THE CAUSES)  ALL PATHS nODEL: PIODELO4 SSE 1;27, 208 P RATIO 28.58 DFE 1729 PROB>P 0, $90 1 DEP VAa: Y4 d:;E 0,88588C R-SQ U A R 9 0,1172 FABAilETER SIANCAEL VARIABLE DP ESTIMATE ERbtOF T KATIO - FROB> 1T 1 INTERCEPT X1 X3 X4 x5 X8 XI0 Y1 Y5 SIGliIFICANT PATHS ONLY HODEL: MOD EL09 SSE 1530.003 F RATIO DFE 1724 PROB>P L22 VAR: Y4 HSE 0,867473 R-SQUARE PABAH E Z EH STANDABC ESTIilATE I EKROR INTERCEPT 1 II 1 x3 1 X5 1 X8 I Y1 1 Y5 1 Annex Table 10. - - PATHS LEADING TO F E R T I L I T Y CONTROL (STERILIZATION OR OTHER CONTRACEPTION): WOMEN MARRIED BEFORE 1 9 7 0 ( WITH YEAR BORN J 'L - AND BIRTHS BEFORE 1970 AMONG THE CAUSES) -  ALL PATHS HODEL: HODEL02 SSE 823,925378 F BATIG 270.6a DP E 1723 PROB>F OoOOO1 DEY VA8: YS lYSE C.478 1 9 2 8-SQUARX 0, 5 2 3 7 PAEAnETEK STANDARC VARIABLE DF SSTIHATE ER60h T RATIO PROB>lTI I Y 'IERCEPT X1 x3 x4 x5 X8 XI0 Y1 SIGNIFICANT PATHS ONLY MUDEL: AODELO2 SSE 326,853070 P RATIO 376.83 1 UY E 1725 PROB>P 0,0001 , 3E2 VBB: YS HSE 0,479335 R-SQUARE 0,522 1 PARAHETES STANDA B D DP ESTIMATE EBEOR T RATIO P R O B > l TI A n n e x Table 11. PATHS LEADING TO BIRTHS BEFORE 1970: WOMEN HARRIED BEFORE 1970 L (WITH YEAR BORN AMONG THE CAU'SES)  ALL PATHS - --- . SSE F RATIO 2U7,27 DPE PROB>P O.OlC? DEP VAB: Y5 HSE R-SQUARE 0, 5ai6 PAaAflETER VARIABLE ESTIHATE T RATIO FRCE?l'rl INTERCEPT 0 X1 - 0 - 0 4 1567 x3 -0,025848 XU - 0 , 1 4 4 196 xs 0, Ob8029 X8 -0.723330 XI0 -0,042105 Y1 -0,259651 Y3 0, 1 0 6 5 4 3 - --- . - S I G ~ I F I C A N TPATHS OiaY RODEL: HODEL09 SSE 809,027372 P RATIO 327-09 DPE 1724 PROB>F 0,:jOOl DEP VAR: 15 HSE 0.46 9273 R-SQ U A R E 3,5324 PARA2lEZER STANDARI; DP ESTIHATE ERROR T RATIO PHOi3) ( TI Annex Table 1 2 . PATHS LEADING TO BIRTHS BEFORE 1 9 7 0 : WOMEN W R I E D BEFORE 1 9 7 0 (WITH YFAR BORN AND STERLIZATION AMONG THE CAUSES)  ALL PATHS SSE . 806,221210 P RATIO 2U6-64 DEE 1722 PROB>P 0,0001 Dee vA8: 15 HSE 0,468189 R - s ~Au RE 0 ~ 5 3 ~ 0 PAi3AlrE'IIER STANDAEC Y ARIABLE DF ESTIMATE ERiiOii T RATIO PROB>ITI INTERCEPT X1 x3 X4 x5 X8 XI0 Y1 YU SIGNIFICANT PATHS ONLY - . - ------- AODEL: HODEL10 SSE 807,797346 P RATIO 281-00 DFE 1723 PROB>F 0. O C O 1 DEP YAR: Y5 HSE 0,4613832 B-SJUABE 0,5331 PARAdETER STANDABC VARIAbLE ESTIYATE EBROB T RATIO LNTEHCEPT 0,016457 X1 0,OZOS 59 X4 0,02008f3 X5 0.017159 X8 0,017557 X 10 0,019586 Y1 0.017351 Y4 0,017301 nnex T a b l e 13. PATHS LEADING TO BIRTHS BEFORE 1970: WOMEN U I E D BEFORE 1970 (WITH YEAR BORN AND FERTILITY CONTROL AMONG THE CAUSES)  ALL PATHS -- . MODEL: IYODEL12 SSE 1129,521 C RATIO 101,66 UP E 172 1 PROB>P 0-0001 D E P VAE: Y6 ASE 0,656317 R-SGUARE 0,347 1 PARAflETfiR STANDAEC VARIABLE DP ZSTIFl ATE EiIR C R T RATIO FROE> I T ( INTERCEPT X1 x3 XU X5 X8 XI0 Y1 Y3 Y5 S IGdIFICANT PATHS O i L Y I jDEL: HODEL12 SSE 1131,U32 P RATIO DPE 1724 PBOB>F 3EP V AR: Y6 HS E 0,656283 B-SQUARE PARAHEI'ER STANDABC 'J ARIABLE DV ZSTIYATE EGEOR T RATIO Annex Table 14. - PATHS LEADING TO BIRTHS DURING 1970-1980: WOMEN NARRIEO BEFORE 1970 (WITH YEAR BORN AND STERILIZATION AMONG THE CAUSES )  -9K- ALL PATHS -- - HODEL: HODEL1 1 - SSE 1142,324 P BAT10 98-38 DPE 1721 PROB>P 0,0001 D E P VAB: Y6 HSE 0,663756 R-SQUARE 0,3397 PbRA?lE?ER STANCARC V ABIABLE DF SSTINATE ESROR T RATIO ERCi?> J T I 0 0,019582 -0,010068 0,026270 -0,05436U C-02 1 8 4 0 -0, 186'350 0,02U305 0 - 0 6 1240 C,OL0503 0,553 7 b 5 0,029492 -0,019€!87 0,0233U3 0.11 3 4 6 6 0-02 1995 -0,045452 0,020848 0,0~7537 0.Q~8593 SIGNIFICANT PATHS ONLY - SSE 1 143,499 P RATIO 147-37 DPE 1724 PRG9>F OmOOC)l 3EP VAR: Yo MSE 0,6632d3 R-SdUARE 0,1330 PARAdETER STANDABC VARIABLE DP ESTIHATE ERROR T RATIO PROB> J T 1 INTERCEPT 1 0,019575 X3 1 0,020700 XU 1 C,020Y 3 0 XS 1 0,020260 X8 1 C.020395 Y1 1 0-02d272 Y4 1 0,020213 Annex T a b l e 15. PATHS LEADING TO BIRTHS DURING.19.- -awv.nuA-+r 1970 (WITH YEAR BORN AND FERTILITI - C O W u n T * - OTHER CONTRACEPTION-- AMONG THE CAUSES)  ALL PATHS 9ODEL: -. nCDELO1- - .- SSE 865.526381 P r(ATL0 - - - 17.56 DFE 955---' - - FRCB>P 0.0031 DEP YAB: I ? XSE 0.906310 R-SQUARE 0.0993 . -- - -. -- PARAHETER -.- - --- - S'KA Y D A ED V A R I ABLE D? ESTIHAT E EEEOB T RATIO PROB> JTI SIGNIFICANT PATHS ONLY VCOEL: I4ODEL81 SS E 865.662609 e RATIO 26.35 DFE 947 PROB>F 0.0001 O F P VAR: Y1 - MSE 0.904559 R-SQUAR4 0.0992 PARAMETER ST ANOARD V A R I ABLE OF ESTIMATE ERROR T R ~ T [ O PRae,jrl INTERCEPT X1 x3 x4 X6 . - Annex Table 16. PATHS L W I V G TO AGE AT W ? A . G E : WOMEN MARRIED 1970-1980 (WITH YEAR MARRIED)  - - - - MODEL: HOD EL0 1 SSE 435,345623 P aATIO 19 2 DF E 955 PROB>P 0.0. DEP VAB: Y1 HSE 0,455859 B-SQUARE 0451 PAaAdEIER STANOABI: V ARIABLZ DP ESTIHATS ERROR T RATIO FROB> INTERCEPT 1 - 0 0 - 0 2 1768 X1 I 0 - 152Ei3.3 0,02758b 5,5402 0.01 X3 1 0~005723056 0,023836 0- 2 4 0 0 0-8 X4 1 O-Ori3390 0,027465 2-3083 0-0 X5 1 0,001 8477 0,023222 0,0796 0-9 X8 1 -3,697583 i1.022320 -31,2538 0.0 X 10 1 0,356022 0.02b638 2,1782 0-0 SIGNIFICANT PATHS ONLY SSE 435.375079 F RATIO 28d, DFE 957 PROB>F 0.01 DEP V A B : Y1 HSE 0.454937 6-SQ IJASiE 0-51 PABAtlETER STANDARD DP ESTIHATE ERROR T RATIO PROB>, Annex T a b l e 1 7 . PATHS LEADING TO AGE AT MARRIAGE: WOMEN MARRIED BEFORE 1 9 7 0 {WITH YEAR BORN)  ALL PATHS HODEL: llODEL07 SSE t304.8~3054 1 P BATIC LEE 953 PHOb>Y 0,0001 D E P VAB: Y3 HSE 0,644576 R-SQUARE 0. It25 - PAaAHLTER STANDAEC V ABIABLE DP ESTIIIATE 29808 T RATTO INTERCEPT SIGNIFICANT PATHS ONLY - -. -.-... MODEL: fiODEL07 SSE 811.212238 P R A I T ~ CPE DEP VAR: Y3 IYLE L-- .-,, , PARAtJETEH STAIIGA~~I! V ARIABLB DF ESTIMAIE EilROR T RATIO ~acu.. I TI L L ~nnexTable 18. PATHS LEADING TO STERILIZATION, W - .-----.. ~MFN M A U W ...YU\,. nrmr\m T ~ ~ f i - ~ (WITH NUMBER OF CHI1LDREN BORN IN THE 1970's  -I no- ALL PJTHS -... -- - --- n032L: AODEL02 SSE 839,183475 P RATIO 19.7e DPE 954 PBO~>P o,ilr)r>l D E 2 VAB: Y3 ?lSE 0-979647 a-SGUARE 0.1268 PABAHETER STANDAFC Y ABIABLE DP ESdPIflATE ERROR T RATIO 1 0 0.03C239 I 0,04UC27 0,038931 1 0,01d331 0,033 1 1 1 ' 1 -0,128923 0.03d~sa 1 -0,d43729 0,032258 1 -0,4d lo34 0.OU~4C37 1 -1),03 5605 0,037095 1 -0.i23388 O,OUq95 1 SIGdIFICANT PATHS ONLY .- SSE 043.359164 P RATIO PROB>P fi-SgUAEIE PARA STER STANDARC \' A R f ABLE DP EST-AATE ERBOE nnex Table 19- ?ATHS L W I N G TO STERILIZATION: WOMEN M A R R I D DURING 1970-1980 (WITH YEAR BORii)  ALL PATHS MODEL: MODEL08 SSE 769,090977 P RATIO DF9 953 PSOa>P DEP VAR: YU ~ S E 0,007029 G-SQUARE PABAtl E T E R STANDARC DP ESTIHATE ER2Oa T RATIO INTEBCEPT X1 X3 XU _ X5 xe XI0 Y1 Y6 -. - ..-. SIGNIFICANT PATHS ONLY -. -. MODEL: HODEL08 SSZ 779,553916 P RATIO CFE 958 , PROB>P DEP VAB; Y4 ~ S E 0.81373 1 3-SQUAR3 PARAMETER STANDABC DP ESTIMATE ERR08 T RATIO Annex Table 20. PATHS LEADING TO FPERILITY CONTROL (STERILIWTION OR OTHER nmtons): worn m r m DURING 1970-1980 ( W I ~ I WdBER OF B I ~ T H SIN TIfE 1970's AMONG THE CAUSES)  ALL PATHS .- -.- - - - HODEL: MODEL03 SSE 813,U90863 P RATIO 24-71 DFE 954 ?BOB>F 0,000 1 DEP VAE: YU XSE 0,852716 3-SQUARE 0,1535 PAR A l l ET BH STANDARC VARIABLB DP ESTLHATE ERROR T RATIO P R O U > 1 TI SIGlIIFICANT PATHS ONLY HODEL: YODEL03 SSE 814,937066 P RATIO 34-27 DEE . 956 PROB>F 0, 0 0 0 1 -JEP VAH: Yic MSE 0,852445 R-SQUARE 0,1520 PBRBtiETEB . STANDARD 'J ARIABLE DF ESTIfl A T E ERROR T RATIO 2RG6> 1 T 1 INTERCEPT X 1 XI( X8 XI0 Y1 nnex Table 21. PATHS LWING TO FERTILITY CONTROL (STERLIZA~IONOR OTHER METHODS): WOMEN MARRIED DURING 1 9 7 0 - 1 9 8 0 (WITH YEAR BORN)  ALL PATHS - --- -- --. . - - HODEL: HODEL06 SSE 474.126164 P RATIO 139-95 CFZ 954 PROD>F 0,000 1 3 E P VAR: Y6 tlSE C-496988 R-SQUARE 0,5066 PARALIIiIER STANDARD VARIABLE ESTIMATE ERROR T RATIO INTERCEPT X1 x3 XU X5 X8 X10 Y1 S I G N I F I C A N T PATHS ONLY SSE P RATIO CPE PROil>F D E P VA8: Y6 nSE 6-SQUAa3 PABAtiETER VARIABLE DF ESTIAATE T RATIO INTERCEPT 1 0 X1 1 0,105836 fr, 1 -0,177 192 X8 1 -0- 998562 Y1 1 -0,7Yt3213 # 4 Annex T a b l e 22. PATHS LEADING TO NlMBER O F CHILDREN BORN I N THE 1 9 7 0 ' s : WOMEN MARRIED DURING 1 9 7 0 - 1 9 8 0 (WITH YEAR BORN AMONG THE CAUSES, BUT - - NOT S T E R I L I Z A T I O N OR F E R T I L I T Y CONTROL) '9 f  ALL PATHS - SSE 948,253280 P RATIO 136, 26 OPE 953 PROB>P 0,0001 HSE 0,470360 R-SQUARE 0,5336 PALlAHETEa STANDARC V AHIAHLE DP XSTI~ATE ERROR T RATIO PROB> J T1 S I G N I F I C A N T PATHS ONLY - SSE 451,800922 P RATIO 269-65 DPE 9 57 PAC'B>P 0,0901 DEP VAE: YG HS E 0,472101 R-SQ U A R E 0,5291 I PARAHETER S'IXNDARD I 1 - VAHIARLL DP ESTIHAT E €8908 T RATIO PROB> 1 rI L 1 Annex Table 23. PATHS LEADING TO NUMBER O F CHILDREN BORN I N THE 1 9 7 0 ' s : NDMEN W I E D I N T H E 1970's (WITH YEAR BORN AND F E R T I L I T Y CONTROL - AMONG T H E CAUSES) -% 9 'L  -105- ALL PATHS --- -. dODEL: HODELOU SSE 454,745517 P 2ATIO 132.62 CPE 953 PROB>P 0.00G1 DEP V A B : Y6 YSE 6,477173 If-SQUARE 0- 5268 STANDABC VABIAULE ERRCS . .-A .--.- SIGNIFICANT PATHS ONLY liODEL: HODEL04 SSE 455,345531 F BATIO 176.75 DFE 955 PHOD>F 0,0001 DEP V A B : Y6 HSE 0,476902 ti-SdUARE 3-5~6.! P A R A n E T EH STANDARC DF ESTI3ATE ERBOB T RATIO PROB> 1 T ( IN'IZRCEPT 1 0 0,022263 X1 1 3 . 0 d 1132 0.027515 . 2.9486 XU 1 -0. 178 119 0-30 J 3 0,027846 -6.3965 0,Gi)C 1 X8 1 -0,91 9503 0,034293 -26.8 133 0,3at? t XI0 1 -0.0551~3 0, 027277 -2.0216 0.3U i5 Y1 1 -0,734 153 C-OJ3978 -21,6070 0-6 0 8 1 Y3 1 0. 151283 0 , 0 2 3 8 12 6,3531 0.330 1 ----- - Annex Table 24. PATHS LEADING TO NUMBER OF CHILDREN BORN I N THE 1 9 7 0 ' s : WOXEN MARRIED DURING 1 9 7 0 - 1 9 8 0 (WITH YEAR BORN AND STERILIZATION AMONG THE CAUSES)