The Impact of Population Policies: Reply

Specific critiques were made by James Knowles John Akin David Guilkey and John Bongaarts of the authors article Fertility and the Impact of Population Policies. In response the author makes 6 points: 1) Empirically nearly all the differences across countries in actual fertility are explained by cross-country differences in womens desired fertility. Desired fertility plus a constant is an excellent prediction of actual fertility. 2) The 2 most potent objections to the use of desired fertility as an explanatory variable can be overcome by using both retrospective and prospective data on desired fertility together with the statistical estimation technique of instrumental variables. Neither ex-post rationalization of prior births nor the influence of contraceptive costs on reported fertility desires determines the empirical results. 3) In explaining differences in fertility such measures as contraceptive use unmet need and family planning effort have an empirically small impact and explain very little of fertility variation once differences in desired fertility are accounted for. These 3 facts were consistent with economic common sense consistent with much of the literature and not refuted by arguments commonly adduced in support of the presumed importance of family planning programs. 4) A small effect of family planning programs is plausible when the cost of avoiding a child is compared with the cost of having a child. Contraceptive costs do not strongly affect the decision to have a child. 5) The small effect of family planning programs on fertility is consistent with historical experience which shows that modern contraceptive technology is not a precondition for fertility decline. 6) Arguments based on the existence of unmet need for contraception the speed of the demographic transition or experimental family planning programs do not provide contradictory evidence to an empirically small family planning program impact.