Starting from the year 1881, regular decadal census has been undertaken in India. However, after independence only the 1961 census gives information on landholding size and various other indicators



Download 200.81 Kb.
Date19.02.2017
Size200.81 Kb.
#12164
APPENDIX I

Starting from the year 1881, regular decadal census has been undertaken in India. However, after independence only the 1961 census gives information on landholding size and various other indicators. Studies have already attempted to analyse the data on landholding and family size relationship available in 1961 census (Rosenweig and Evenson 1977).

The available census data after 1961 gives information on the work status of the population. From this data it is possible to make a dichotomous variable on landless and land owners. This classification is based on the assumption that agricultural labourers are mainly landless and that cultivators are the land owners in India. The estimated Total fertility rate and Total marital fertility rate for these two categories using 1981 census data indicate that agricultural labourers have a lower fertility level compared to cultivators (Census of India 1981).

APPENDIX II

The National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) conducts regular survey on landholding and related matters with the objective of generating basic quantitative information on the agrarian structure of the country. The first survey on landholding was taken up in its eighth round (July 1954-April 1955). A similar survey was also conducted again in the sixteenth round (July 1960-August 1961) and seventieth round (September 1961- July 1962) as part of the Agricultural Census Programme of 1960. Since then, the NSSO has been regularly conducting landholding Survey every 10 years. They are (1) Twenty Sixth round (July 1971-June 1972), (2) Thirty seventh round (January -December 1982) and (3) forty-eight round (January- December 1992). This survey gives information on the size of operational holdings, size distribution, incidence of tenancy, type of crop cultivated and so on.

The various surveys conducted by NSSO clearly indicate a positive association between size of landholding and household size in various parts of the country. The size of landholding and average household size recorded in the Forty eighth round of (January- December 1992) is given in Table II.1.

Table II.1 Average Size of Household by Size of Landholding in India, 1992

Size Class Household Size


(in hectors)

Nil 3.9


<0.002 4.2

0.002-0.20 4.7

0.21-0.50 5.1

0.51-1.0 5.3

1.01-2.0 5.9

2.01-4.0 6.4

4.01-10.0 7.3

10+ 8.6


All 5.3

------------------------------

Source: NSSO (1995)
Similar data are also available from the Rural Labour Enquiry conducted by the Ministry of Labour. This survey is now conducted by integrating it with the NSSO data collection. Analysis of data collected by Rural Labour Enquiry for 1964-65 and 1974-75 are given in the section on empirical studies (Krishnaji 1989).

The NSSO also collects information on household expenditure. The relationship between household expenditure and household size also noted a positive association when analysis has been carried out using data from the 27th round of NSS (1972-73) (Visaria 1980). However, an inverse relationship is also noted between percapita household expenditure and household size in the same study.

APPENDIX III
Table III.1 Mean Desired Family Size by landholding (All Sample) in three surveyed district of Karnataka, 1979-80

Landholding Desired Family


(acres) Size

0 3.7


0.1-1.99 3.4

2-4.99 3.5

5+ 3.6

----------------------------------------------------



Source: Baskara Rao et al. (1986)


Table III.2 Singular Mean age at marriage for Females by land ownership in three surveyed district of Karnataka, 1979-80

Dharwad Dakshina

Land Ownership Kannada Mandya

(acres)


< 1.99 18.19 23.06 18.95

2.00-4.99 18.03 23.18 17.73

5.00 18.72 22.20 17.60

----------------------------------------------------



Source: Baskara Rao et al. (1986)


Table III.3 Percent Current Users among Exposed Women by landholding in three surveyed District of Karnataka, 1979-80 (Standardized for Number of Living Children)

Dharwad Dakshina

Land Ownership Kannada Mandya

(acres)


0 26.9 28.0 44.9

.01-1.99 - 18.9 45.2

2-4.99 24.2 28.3 36.2

5+ 26.4 - 37.0

----------------------------------------------------

Source: Baskara Rao et al. (1986)
Table III.4Infant and Child Mortality by landholding (All Sample)in three

urveyed districts of Karnataka, 1979-80
Deaths Before 1 year/ Deaths Before

Land owned 1000 Live Births 5 years/1000

(acres) Live births

--------------------- -------------

65-69 70-74 75-78 65-69 70-74

<2 110 87 54 156 130

2-5 89 97 82 147 139

5+ 89 76 71 161 151

-----------------------------------------------------------



Source: Baskara Rao et al. (1986)


Table III.5 Standardised Regression Coefficients: Regression forCurrently Married Women, Karnataka, 1979-80
Independent Dependent Variables

Variables --------------------------------------------------


Desired Ever Use Children


Age at Family of Contr- Ever

marriage Size aception Born

Educational level .20 -.07 .10 -

Dominant Caste .11 -.07 .06 -

Scheduled Caste - - - -

Religion Muslims -.08 .09 -.04 .05

Worked Before Marriage .09 - - -

Ever-worked -.06 - - -

HH Agricultural Worker -.06 - - -

Household Manual Work - - -.07 -

Household Income -.04 - - -

Landholding - .06 - -

family Type- Nuclear - - .07 -

Dharwad - .18 -.11 .07

Dakshina Kannada .55 .30 -.08 .08

Age .04 .19 .18 .70

Age at marriage * -.15 -.10 -.30

Desired Family Size * * * *

Ever-use of Contraception * * * .09

R-square .437 .148 .088 .564

Number of Women 2189 1967 2189 2189

-------------------------------------------------------------



Note: HH means Household.

- means not significant.

  • means not used in the equation.


APPENDIX IV


Table IV.1 Regression results for Children Even Born on landholding, intermediate, and background variables among surveyed households in Periyar district of Tamil Nadu,

1991-92

(n =360)

Dependent Variables: Children Ever Born

-----------------------------------------

Regression t- Value

Independent coefficient

Variable (metric)

Land 0.0077* 1.700

INC 0.0027 1.501

CHL -0.0595 -0.452

FCL 0.0058 0.417

EOAS -0.1348 -1.475

DIV -0.1800* -1.871

CONS -0.0291 -1.079

DM 0.0345*** 5.929

EDH 0.0018 0.111

EDW -0.0035 -0.209

Constant 1.4358 -

--------------------------------------------------------------

R-square 0.14

--------------------------------------------------------------



Notes : *** Significant at the 1 percent level

** Significant at the 5 percent level

* Significant at the 10 percent level

LAND= Land holdings in acres.

INC = Farm income from crops, livestock, wages and land rent

(in thousand rupees).

CHL = Expected labour support from children; 1= help expected

and 0= otherwise.

FCL = Imputed monetary value of wife's labour contribution to

agricultural activities (in rupees per day).

EOAS= Expected old age support of respondent from land/saving;

1=support expected and 0=otherwise.

DIV = Fear about division of landholding; 1=respondent

mentioned division of landholding as one of the reasons

for disadvantage of large family size and 0=otherwise.

CONS= Number of consumer durables owned by households.

DM = Marital duration of couples in years.

EDH = Completed years of education of husband.

EDW = Completed years of education of wife.
Table IV.2 Regression results for different fertility measures on size of irrigated land owned and other intermediate variable among surveyed households in Periyar district of Tamil Nadu, 1991-92, n =360

Dependent Variable

---------------------

CEB DFS

Independent Variable


LIRR 0.0350** 0.0176**

(2.306) (1.940)

INC 0.0016 0.0017

(0.866) (1.539)

CHL -0.0468 0.0407

(-0.357) (0.519)

FLC 0.0054 -0.0004

(0.389) (-0.045)

EOAS -0.1445 -0.1132**

(-1.583) (-2.070)

DIV -0.1906** -0.0770

(-1.986) (-1.339)

CONS -0.0358 -0.0124

(-1.316) (-0.762)

DM 0.0337*** 0.0054

(5.791) (1.552)

EDH 0.0002 0.0102

(0.010) (1.067)

EDW -0.0061 -0.0037

(-0.362) (-0.372)

Constant 1.4746 1.5524

-----------------------------------------------------

R-square 0.15 0.05

-----------------------------------------------------



Note: Same as in Table IV.1.

LIRR= Amount of irrigated land owned.

CEB=Children Ever Born.

DFS= Desired Family Size.
Table IV.3 Regression results for Desired Family size on landholding, intermediate, and background variables among surveyed households in Periyar district of Tamil Nadu, 1991-92

(n =360)

Dependent Variables: Desired Family Size

---------------------------------------

Regression t Value

Independent coefficient

Variable (metric)

Land 0.0020 0.741

INC 0.0024** 2.210

CHL 0.0351 0.445

FCL 0.0000 0.001

EOAS -0.1040** -1.896

DIV -0.0721 -1.249

CONS -0.0070 -0.431

DM 0.0062* 1.767

EDH 0.0116 1.213

EDW -0.0022 -0.219

Constant 1.5274 -

-----------------------------------------------------

R-square 0.04

-----------------------------------------------------



Notes: Same as in Table IV.1.


Table IV.4 Logistic regression results for contraceptive practice on landholding, intermediate, and background variables among surveyed households in Periyar district of Tamil Nadu, 1991-92, n =360

Dependent Variables: FP

-------------------------------

Independent Regression t Value

Variable coefficient

Land 0.0151 -1.223

INC -0.0024 -0.494

CHL 0.1654 -0.432

FCL 0.0419 1.074

EOAS 0.0647 0.226

DIV -0.1116 0.426

CONS -0.0240 -0.315

DM 0.0451 1.035

EDH 0.1652*** 3.331

EDW 0.2478 1.512

Constant -0.5816 --

Log likelihood -230.08 (10 d.f)

----------------------------------------------------



Note: Same as in Table IV.1.

FP=Family planning acceptance; 0=not using 1= currently

using.


Table IV.5 Decomposition of the effect of LAND on CEB and DFS in Periyar district of Tamil Nadu, 1991-92


(n =360)

Dependent Variable : CEB DFS

----------------------------------------------

Direct effect .0958 .0440

--------------------------------------------------------

Indirect effect

---------------

Through INC .0309 .0479

Through INC &CHL -.0004 .0004

Through INC & FCL -.0001 -.0000

Through INC & EOAS -.0056 -.0076

Through INC & DIV -.0055 -.0039

Through INC & CONS -.0111 -.0047

---------------------

Total indirect effect through inc. .0082 .0321

---------------------

Through CHL .0004 -.0004

Through FLC -.0006 -.0000

Through EOAS -.0115 -.0156

Through DIV .0011 .0008

Through CONS -.0126 -.0053

---------------------

Total indirect effect without -.0232 -.0205

income path

--------------------------------------------------------

Total indirect effect -.0150 .0116

--------------------------------------------------------

Direct + Indirect .0808 .0556

--------------------------------------------------------

Source: Nagarajan (1993).

Notes: Same as in Table IV.1.
APPENDIX V
Table V.1 Mean Desired Family Size by land ownership in three surveyed districts of Kerala, 1980, 1991

(Standardized for Parity)

Land ownership Ernakulam palakkad Malappuram

----------- ----------- -----------

1980 1991 1980 1991 1991

Nil 2.64 3.50 3.03 3.43 4.13



<5 cents 2.93 2.34 3.33 0.62 3.86

5-10 cents 3.02 3.13 3.33 1.83 3.88

10-49 cents 3.12 3.51 3.40 3.32 3.92

50-99 cents 3.15 3.03 3.28 3.47 3.99

100+ cents 3.10 3.20 3.42 3.45 4.15

-----------------------------------------------------------

Source: Zachariah et al. (1994)


Table V.2 Age at Marriage of Females by Household land Ownership in three surveyed districts of Kerala, 1991
Land Owned Ernakulam Palakkad Malappuram All Dists.

No land 20.47 18.99 17.62 19.13

.01-05 cents 20.44 17.00 17.10 19.31

.06-.10 cents 21.07 17.83 17.92 19.41

.11-.49 cents 20.86 20.02 17.71 18.97

.50-.99 cents 21.88 19.13 17.66 19.52

1 Acre and more 21.69 19.34 17.37 19.25

-------------------------------------------------------------

Source: Zachariah et al. (1994)

APPENDIX VI
As National Family Survey consists of 25 separate statesurveys to estimate combined regression for all states, the data have been weighted by the all India weight calculated as a part of the sampling procedure with state level dummy variables for 25 states and Union Territories included in the analysis. Model one does not control the effect of income variable. Model 2 is after controlling for ncome variables.
Table VI.1 Tobit Regression Model of Impact of Land Ownership on Fertility Using National Family Health Survey
Model 1 Model 2

-------------- ------------

Independent Variables Coeff. Std. Coeff. Std

Error Error

Total land owned

(Irrigated and Unirrigated)

Landless (omitted category) -0.058*** 0.017 -0.054*** 0.017

0-1 acres(sub-marginal farmer) -0.097*** 0.023 -0.083*** 0.023

1-2.5 acres(marginal farmer) -0.037* 0.021 -0.014 0.021

2.6-5 acres(small farmer) -0.045** 0.022 -0.007 0.023

6-1.5 acres(medium farmer) -0.024 0.034 -0.037 0.035

More than 15 acres(large farmer)

Wife's Education

Not educated (omitted category)

1-5 years of education -0.1*** 0.020 -0.071*** 0.021

6-8 years of education -0.141*** 0.025 -0.086*** 0.026

9-10 years of education -0.121*** 0.032 -0.039 0.032

Over 11 years of education -0.164** 0.043 -0.056 0.044

Husband's Education

Not educated (omitted category)

0-5 years of education -0.09*** 0.018 -0.065*** 0.018

6-8 years of education -0.081*** 0.020 -0.043** 0.020

9-10 years of education -0.115*** 0.021 -0.059*** 0.022

Over 11 years of education -0.202*** 0.025 -0.124*** 0.026

Age of woman 0.170*** 0.008 0.166*** 0.008

Age squared -0.005*** 0.000 -0.005*** 0.000

Hindu (omitted category)

Muslim 0.355*** 0.021 0.367*** 0.021

Other Religion 0.046 0.034 0.049 0.034

Caste


Main caste (omitted category)

Scheduled caste 0.102*** 0.019 0.09*** 0.019

Scheduled tribe 0.027 0.022 0.006 0.022

Condition of house

Kachcha (omitted category)

Semi-pucca -0.047*** 0.016

Pucca -0.099*** 0.023

Consumption index-no of assets -0.054*** 0.006

in house

Number of cases 51078 50975

-------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Desai and Alva (1998).

Notes: * p < 0.10, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01

Sample: Currently married women in rural areas,

weighted by all India weight.

Dependent variable=Children ever born in last 5 years
APPENDIX VII
Table VII.1 Summary of the Empirical Findings

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Studies Before 1960

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Year of Area& Independent Dependent Stat. Relati-

Author Study Sample Variables Variables Method onship

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Jain 1930's Punjab SE CEB C +

(1939) 20000

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

United Early Mysore Size of CEB C +

Nations 1950's 23314 Land AM C -

(1961)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Driver Late Maharashtra Size of CEB C +

(1963) 1950's 2719 Land

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Das Gupta 1952 India Size of CEB C +

et al.(1955) 11448 Land

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Studies Between 1960-80

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Year of Area& Independent Dependent Stat. Relati-

Author Study Sample Variables Variables Method onship

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Pillai & 1969- Tamil Nadu Size of CEB C +

Namboothiri 1970 2255 Land

(1972)


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Patnaik 1977- Bihar Size of CEB C +

(1985) 1978 800 Land

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Krishnaji 1964-65 India Land(D) CWR C +

(1989) 1974-75 HH size C +

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Raamanujam 1971-75 Tamil Nadu Land(D) NNM C -

(1988) 6500

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Gondotra & - Gujarat SE NNM C -

Narayan (1988) 6645 PNM C -

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Stoeckel & 1967 Bangladesh Size of TMFR C -

Choudhury 2008 Land

(1969)


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Mosena & 1968 Bangladesh Size of DFS C +

Stoeckel 1600 Land

(1972)


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Stoeckel & 1967 Bangladesh Size of FP Hindus C +

Choudhury 1600 Land FP Muslims C -

(1973)


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Cain (1978) 1976-78 Bangladesh Land(3) Age.std C CL

471 CEB

-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Stoeckel & 1968-71 Bangladesh Size of TFR C +

Choudhury 19689 Land

(1980)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Tuladhar 1975-78 Nepal Size of CEB C -

et al. 6607 Land

(1982)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Amin et al. 1977 Bangladesh Size of CEB C +

(1985) 1384 Land

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Latif & 1975 Bangladesh Size of CEB R +*

Choudhury 109 Land

(1977)


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rosenzweig 1961 India Land size CWR TLS +*

& Evenson 189 Land

(1977) districts inequality CWR TLS -*

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rosenzweig 1968-71 India Size of ASMB R NS

(1982) 4115 Land

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Oberai& Late Punjab Size of CEB R +*

Singh (1983) 1970's 2529 Land

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Zachariah 1980 Kerala Size of CEB R +*

(1984) 3000 Land Births1965-74 R +*

Births1970-79 R -

Births 1979 R -

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Baskara Rao 1979-80 Karnataka Size of DFS R +*

et al. 2189 Land CEB R NS

(1986) AM NS

FP NS


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Studies After 1980

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Year of Area& Independent Dependent Stat. Relati-

Author Study Sample Variables Variables Method onship

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Singh Early Punjab & Size of CEB C -

1986) 1980's Haryana Land

2109

-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Rodgers 1981-83 Bihar Size of CEB C NC

et al. 385 Land CS C NC

(1989) FP C +

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Shariff 1981 Karnataka Size of CEB C +

(1989) 594 Land CS C +

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Patel 1984-85 Rajasthan Size of CEB C CL

(1996) 620 Land

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Lakshmanasamy 1985 Tamil Nadu Size of CEB R +*

(1988) 670 Land

Cropped Area CEB R +*

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rob

(1990) NA Bangladesh Size of DCFS R +*



5465 Land

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Ram (1992) 1975 & 4 States Income CEB R -*

1984-85 in India Risk

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Nagarajan & 1988 Tamil Nadu Size of Land CEB & DFS R +*

Krishnamoorthy 236 Cropped Area CEB & DFS R +*

(1992)


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Nagarajan 1991-92 Tamil Nadu Size of CEB R +*

(1993) 599 Land CEB P +

DFS R NS


FP L NS

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Zachariah 1990 Kerala Size of CEB R -*

et al.(1994) 3000 Land Births1986-91 R -*

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Desai & 1992-93 India Size of Births during T -*

Alva 50975 Land 5 years prior

(1998) to interview

-----------------------------------------------------------

Notes: * represents significant relationship;

SE=Socio-economic variables including land;

CEB=Children ever born (for bivariate tables CEB represent the

average number of children ever born;

HH=household;

NNM=Neonatal mortality rate;

PNM=postnatal mortality rate;

TMFR=Total marital fertility rate;

ASMB=Age standardised marital birth rate;

TFR=Total fertility rate;

CWR=Child Women Ratio;

FP=Family Planning;

DFS=Desired family size;

DCFS=Desired completed family size;

AM=age at marriage;

C=Bivariate table;

R= Multiple regression (Ordinary Least square);

L=Logit analysis;

TLS=Two stage least square estimate;

T=Tobit analysis;

NS=Not significant;

CL=Curve Linear;

NC=Not Clear;

NA=Not Available;

Land (D)=Dichotomous Variable (Landless and Others).


References
Amin, R., A.G. Mariam and R. Faruquee. (1985) 'Fertility,Contraceptive Use and Socioeconomic context in Bangladesh',Demography India, Vol.14 (1), P:1-16.
Baskara Rao, N., P.M. Kulkarni and P. Hanumantha Rayappa. (1986) Determinants of Fertility Decline: A Case Study of Rural Karnataka, New Delhi: South Asian Publishers.
Boserup, E. (1989) 'Population, the Status of Women and Rural Development' in G. McNicoll and M. Cain (eds.), Rural Development and Population: Institutions and Policy, Population and Development Review, Supplement to Vol.8, New York: Population council.

Bulatao, R.A. and R.D. Lee. (eds.) (1983) Determinants of Fertility in Developing Countries, Vol.1: Supply and Demand for Children, New York: Academic Press.


Cain, M. (1977) 'The Economic Activities of Children in a Village in Bangladesh', Population and Development Review, Vol.3 (3), P:201-227.
Cain, M. (1978) 'The Household Life Cycle and Economic Mobility in Rural Bangladesh', Population and Development Review, vol.4 (3), P:421-428.
Cain, M. (1985) 'On the Relationship Between Landholding and Fertility', Population Studies, Vol.39 (1), P:5-15.
Cain, M. (1986) 'Landholding and Fertility: A Rejoinder', Population Studies, Vol. 40 (2), p:313-337.
Caldwell, J.C. (1982) Theory of Fertility Decline, London: Academic Press.
Census of India. (1981) Fertility in India: A Analysis of Census Data, Occasional Paper No.13 of 1988, Demographic Division, Office of the Registrar General, New Delhi: Ministry of Home Affairs.

Das Gupta, A., R.K. Som, M. Mazumdar and S.N. Mitra. (1955) 'Couple Fertility', National Sample Survey No.7, New Delhi: Department of Economic Affairs.


Desai, Sonalde and Soumya Alva (1998) 'Land Redistribution: A Population Stabilisation Strategy?', Economic and Political Weekly, (March 7), P:533-536.
Dharmalingam, A. (1991) 'Agrarian Structure and Population in India: A Selective Survey', Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 26, (June 29) P:A46-A62.
Dinesh, B.M. (1988) Economic Activities of children, New Delhi: Daya Publishing House.
Driver, E. (1963) Differential Fertility in Central India, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Gondotra, M.M and Narayan Das (1988) 'Infant Mortality: An analysis of recent births in Gujarat', in Anurdh K. Jain and Pravin Visaria (eds.) Infant Mortality in India: Differentials and Determinants, New Delhi, Sage Publication.
Jain, S. P. (1939) Relationship Between Fertility and Economic and Social Status in the Punjab, Board of Economic Inequality, Punjab, Publication No. 64, Lahore: Civil and Military Gazette.
James, K. S. (1997) "Can Poverty Determine Fertility? Agricultural labourers and their fertility decisions",in K.C.
Zachariah and S. Irudaya Rajan (eds) Kerala's Demographic Transition: Determinants and Consequences, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Jodha, N.S. and R.P. Singh. (1991) 'Child labour in Dryland Agriculture in India', in R. Kanbargi (ed.), Child Labour in the Indian Subcontinent: Dimensions and Implications, New Delhi: Sage Publication.
Kanbargi, R. (1985) 'Old Age Security and Fertility Behaviour: Some Research Issues', Journal of the Indian Anthropological Society, Vol.20, (3), P:226-237.
Kanbargi, R. and P.M. Kulkarni. (1986) 'Child Labour, Schooling and Fertility in Rural Karnataka, South India', in J. Stoeckel and A.K. jain (eds.), Fertility in Asia: Assessing the Impact of Development Projects, The Population Council, London: Frances Publishers.
Khuda, B-E. (1980) 'Fertility Level and Attitudes and the Value of Children in Sreebolbpur: A Relatively Developed Bangladesh Village', Research Report o.23, Dhaka: Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies.
Krishnaji, N. (1983) 'Poverty and Fertility: A Review of Theory and Evidence', Economic and Political Weekly, Vol.18 (19-21), P:865-876.

Krishnaji, N. (1989) 'The Size and Structure of Agricultural Households in India', in G. Rodgers (ed.), Population Growth and Poverty in Rural South Asia, New Delhi: Sage Publication.


Lakshmanasamy, T. (1988) 'Economic Utility and the Demand for Children: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis', Artha Vijnana, Vol.30 (4), P:421-453.
Latif, A. and N. Chowdhury (1977) 'Land Ownership and Fertility in Two Areas of Bangladesh', Bangladesh Development Studies, Vol.5 (2), P:239-246.
Lee, R.D. and R. A. Bulatao. (1983) 'The Demand for Children: A Critical Essay', in R. A. Bulatao and R.D. Lee (eds.), Determinants of Fertility in Developing Countries, Vol.1: Supply and Demand for Children, New York: Academic Press.
Mamdani, M. (1972) The Myth of Population Control: Family, Caste and Class in an Indian Village, New York: Monthly Review Press.
Mosena, P.W. and J.Stoeckel. (1972) 'Correlates of Desired Family Size in a Rural Area of Bangladesh', Journal of Comparative Family Studies, Vol. 3, P:207-216.
Mueller, E. and K. Short. (1983) 'Effects of Income and Wealth on the Demand for Children', in R. A. Bulatao and R.D. Lee (eds.), Determinants of Fertility in Developing Countries, Vol.1: Supply and Demand for Children, New York: Academic Press.
Nadkarni, M.V. (1978) 'Overpopulation and the Rural Poor', Economic and Political Weekly, Vol.11(31-33), P:1163-1172.
Nagarajan, R. (1993) Landholding and Fertility in an Agrarian Community of Tamil Nadu, India, Ph.d Thesis, Department of Population Studies, Coimbatore: Bharathiar University.
Nagarajan, R. and S. Krishnamoorthy. (1992) 'Landholding and Fertility Relationship in a Low Fertility Agricultural Community in Tamil Nadu', in A. Bose and M.K. Premi (eds.), Population Transition in South Asia, New Delhi: D.K. Publishers.
National Sample Survey Organisation. (1995) Land and Livestock holdings Survey, NSS Forty-Eighth Round, (jan-Dec 1992), Department of Statistics, Ministry of Planning and Programme Implementation, New Delhi: Government of India.
Oberai, A.S. and H.K.M. Singh. (1983) Causes and Consequences of Internal Migration: A Study in Indian Punjab, New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Patel, T. (1996) Fertility Behaviour: Population and Society in a Rajasthan Village, Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Patnaik, M. M. (1985) Socio-Economic, Cultural and Demographic Rationality of Fertility Behaviour, New Delhi: Janaki Prakasham. Pillai, K.M. and D.N.
Namboothiri. (1972) 'Caste, Status and Fertility in a Rural Area of Tamil Nadu', Bulletin of the Ghandhigram Institute of Rural Health and Family Planning, Vol. 7 (1), P:1-58.
Ram, M. (1992) The Importance of Surviving Sons in India: An Analysis of the Risk-Fertility Relationship, Ph.d thesis, Cornell: Cornell University.
Ramanujam, C. (1988) 'Infant Mortality: An analysis of recent births in Gujarat', in Anurdh K. Jain and Pravin Visaria (eds.)Infant Mortality in India: Differentials and Determinants, New Delhi, Sage Publication.
Rob, A.K.U. (1990) 'Socio-economic Determinants of Desired Fertility in Bangladesh', Demography India, Vol. 19 (2), P:251- 261.
Rodgers, G.S., S. Gupta, A.N. Sharma and B. Sharma. (1989) 'Demographic Patterns and Poverty Among Households in Rural Bihar' in G. Rodgers (ed.), Population Growth and Poverty in Rural South Asia, New Delhi: Sage Publication.
Rosenzweig, M.R. (1982) 'Educational Subsidy, Agricultural Development and Fertility Change', Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. XCVII (1), P:67-88.
Rosenzweig, M.R. and R. Evenson. (1977) 'Fertility, Schooling and Economic Contributions of Children in Rural India: An Econometric Analysis, Econometrica, Vol.45 (5), P:1065-1079.
Shariff, A. (1989) Fertility Transition in Rural South India, New Delhi: Gian Publishing House.
Singh, K.P. (1986) Correlates of Fertility Behaviour: A Study of Rural Communities in Punjab and Haryana, New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company.
Stoeckel, J. and A.K.M.A. Chowdhury. (1969) 'Differential Fertility in Rural Area of East Pakistan', Millbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, Vol. 47, P:189-198.
Stoeckel, J. and M.A. Chowdhury. (1973) Fertility, Infant Mortality and Family Planning in Rural Bangladesh, Bangladesh: Oxford University Press.
Stoeckel, J. and A.K.M.A. Chowdhury. (1980) 'Fertility and Socio- economic Status in Rural Bangladesh', Population Studies, Vol.34 (3), P:519-524.
Stokes, C.S. and W.A. Schutjer (1984) 'Access to Land and Fertility in Developing Countries in W.A. Schutjer and C.S. Stokes (eds.), Rural Development and Human Fertility, New York: Macmillian Press.
Stokes, C.S, W.A. Schutjer and R.A. Bulatao. (1986) 'Is the Relationship Between Landholding and Fertility Spurious? A Response to Cain', Population Studies, Vol.40 (2), P:305-311.
Thomas, N. (1991) 'Land, Fertility and the Population Establishment, Population Studies, Vol.45, (2) P:379-397.
Tuladhar, J.M., J.Stoeckel and A. Fisher. (1982) 'Differential Fertility in Rural Nepal', Population Studies, Vol.36 (1), P:81- 85.
United Nations. (1961) The Mysore Population Studies, Population Studies No.34, New York: Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
Vlassoff, M. (1979) 'Labour Demand and Economic Utility of children: A Case Study in Rural India', Population Studies, Vol.33 (1), P:415-428.
Vlassoff, M and C. Vlassoff. (1980) 'Old Age Security and the Utility of children in Rural India', Population Studies, Vol. 34 (3), P:487-499.
Visaria, P. (1980) 'Poverty and Living Standards in Asia', Population and Development Review, Vol.6 (2), P:189-223.
Zachariah, K.C. (1984) The Anomaly of the Fertility Decline in India's Kerala State: A Field Investigation, World Bank Staff Working papers No. 700, Population and Development Series No.25, Washington: The World Bank.Zachariah, K.C., S. Irudaya Rajan, P.S. Sarma, K. Navaneetham, P.S.G.
Nair and U.S. Mishra (1994) Kerala's Demographic Transition in the 1980's, Thiruvanathapuram: Centre for Development Studies.










Download 200.81 Kb.

Share with your friends:




The database is protected by copyright ©www.sckool.org 2023
send message

    Main page