> In a message dated 7/14/03 9:52:40 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> >A few people seem to have skipped over the first sentence of my post. 
> >
> >The article said that fertility rate is higher in dictatorships than in
> >democracies at *all income levels*. Meaning if you take any income level
> >and compare dictatorships and democracies in the same level, the
> >dictatorships will tend to have a higher fertility rate.
> 
> Yes, this is why I've suggested the higher fertility rate may arise from 
> attempts to escape the oppression through the joys of sex.  


Right, and even if you assume access to birth control and the like,
there may still be non-sexual "joys of child-rearing" that can accruse
even under a dictatorship.

More formally: In a dictatorship, the returns to non-child-rearing
activities are reduced more than the returns to child-rearing, so
child-rearing becomes relatively more attractive, so people do more of
it.

In other words, yes of course I'd rather raise my kids in a democracy
than a dictatorship, just as I'd rather start a business (for example)
in a democracy than a dictatorship.  But in a dictatorship, while my
child-rearing opportunities suffer, my business opportunities suffer
even more.

I can't think of any reason why this couldn't be true at every level.

Still, I agree with Marko that we can't be sure that the underlying
facts are true until we see how they treated the now-ex-communist
countries of Eastern Europe/USSR.  I was under the impression that
fertility in the USSR and the Warsaw pact countries was very low, and
I think it's still very low in Russia.  I think the Russian population
is decreasing.


--Robert Book    


Reply via email to