IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/econjl/v127y2017i606p2263-2301.html

Contraception and the Demographic Transition

Author

Listed:
  • Joydeep Bhattacharya
  • Shankha Chakraborty

Abstract

Inspired by the historical English experience, we modify the Beckerian paradigm of fertility by incorporating costly, societal influence on contraception. Heterogeneous, generationally-linked households choose between ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’ contraception. The modern has a higher fixed but lower variable cost of averting childbirths. Initially the rich adopt the modern, which unleashes society-wide diffusion. Eventually everyone switches, lowering fertility further and across households. Hastening the switch is falling child mortality. Quantitative experiments suggest contraception was a vital link between the historical mortality and fertility transitions, though not the latter’s proximate cause. Implications for more recent transitions are discussed.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Joydeep Bhattacharya & Shankha Chakraborty, 2017. "Contraception and the Demographic Transition," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 127(606), pages 2263-2301, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:econjl:v:127:y:2017:i:606:p:2263-2301
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/ecoj.2017.127.issue-606
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mahesh Karra & Joshua Wilde, 2024. "Economic Foundations of Contraceptive Transitions: Theories and a Review of the Evidence," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 50(S2), pages 539-569, December.
    2. Bhattacharya, Joydeep & Chakraborty, Shankha & Kim, Minkyong, 2023. "Child survival and contraception choice: Theory and evidence," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    3. Atolia, Manoj & Papageorgiou, Chris & Turnovsky, Stephen J., 2021. "Re-opening after the lockdown: Long-run aggregate and distributional consequences of COVID-19," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    4. Adams, Jonathan J., 2022. "Urbanization, long-run growth, and the demographic transition," Journal of Demographic Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 88(1), pages 31-77, March.
    5. d'Albis, Hippolyte & Greulich, Angela & Ponthiere, Gregory, 2018. "Development, fertility and childbearing age: A Unified Growth Theory," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 461-494.
    6. Strulik, Holger, 2019. "Desire And Development," Macroeconomic Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(7), pages 2717-2747, October.
    7. Reyer Gerlagh & Veronica Lupi & Marzio Galeotti, 2023. "Fertility and climate change," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 125(1), pages 208-252, January.
    8. Canning, David & Mabeu, Marie Christelle & Pongou, Roland, 2020. "Colonial origins and fertility: can the market overcome history?," MPRA Paper 112496, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Gori, Luca & Lupi, Enrico & Manfredi, Piero & Sodini, Mauro, 2020. "A contribution to the theory of economic development and the demographic transition: fertility reversal under the HIV epidemic," Journal of Demographic Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 86(2), pages 125-155, June.
    10. Fabian Siuda & Uwe Sunde, 2021. "Disease and demographic development: the legacy of the plague," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 1-30, March.
    11. Jakob Madsen & Holger Strulik, 2023. "Testing unified growth theory: Technological progress and the child quantity‐quality tradeoff," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 14(1), pages 235-275, January.
    12. James Foreman-Peck & Peng Zhou, 2021. "Correction to: fertility versus productivity: a model of growth with evolutionary equilibria," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 34(4), pages 1473-1474, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:econjl:v:127:y:2017:i:606:p:2263-2301. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/resssea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.