Maria Sophia Aguirre, Ph. D



Download 222.43 Kb.
Page5/6
Date conversion14.05.2016
Size222.43 Kb.
1   2   3   4   5   6

VI. Helpful Initiatives in Developing Countries
1. Microcredit

Microcredit, the provision of small loans to the poor is a development approach that has gained increased attention in the past two decades.61 Some microfinance institutions or organizations, including the often-cited ACCION International in Latin America, Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, and Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee (BRAC), have been providing credit since the mid-1970s or early 1980s. Only in the last decade or so, however, has the popularity of microcredit as a means of fostering development attracted significant energy and resources from high profile donors. Among these donors are governments, through the support of bilateral development agencies, as well as multilateral sources such as the United Nations (UN), the World Bank, regional development banks, and international NGOs (Figure 7).


Figure 7

International Commitment




Note: It includes the World Bank, USAID, IDB, ADB, ADB, UN

'Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime.' Microcredit services are targeted to the poor who, because of the expense of small transactions or because they lack collateral, literacy or other requirements, do not have access to the financial services provided by formal banks and other formal financial institutions. The lack of economic opportunity caused in part by the lack of access to credit and formal financial services, is a serious hindrance to initiatives made by the poor to improve their families’ quality of life and to overcome dependency. By supporting their own initiatives, microcredit provides opportunity to these families and in the process, allows them to gain both economic and personal development. It also helps them manage risk and smooth consumption in the face of sharp fluctuations in agricultural yields and prices, economic shocks, and even natural disasters. Thus it becomes a valuable means to facilitate the development of human and social capital.

In developing countries, this poorest group without access to formal economic opportunities is predominantly women. Initially, many microcredit institutions and donors focused their lending primarily to women borrowers, however it soon expanded to married men. Microcredit impact studies have shown that resources in the hands of women are more likely to be used for the benefit of the household than resources in the hands of men.62 This suggests that there are valid arguments that targeting microcredit to women borrowers more often results in the greater benefit of the whole family.

Rather than temporarily providing poor persons with donor- or government-dependent (material) capital at subsidized interest rates, effective microcredit institutions, as distinct from social welfare institutions, successfully loan to the poor at market competitive commercial interest rates. They use innovative collective monitoring methods of group lending to strengthen repayment performance and charge interest rates that fully cover operational costs. While few microcredit institutions are currently viable, i.e. not heavily donor-dependent, they are moving towards this goal and they are doing this successfully.

Microcedit has shown to be a successful dollar-efficient lending method. It has effectively opened doors to low-income populations in developing countries while generating significant financial return. Figure 8 to 11 present the return to equity, the return to assets, the debt-equity and the portfolio risk ratios for several microcredit institutions in Latin America respectively. In all cases these institutions significantly outperform the Citigroup, one of the leading financial institutions in the world. While the Citigroup reported a return on equity of 20.2% in 2003, F.J. Nieborowski reported a return on equity of 80.3%. On average, Latin American microcredit institutions generated a 22.3% return on equity (Figure 8). Similar results can be found for the Return on Assets (Figure 9). The debt/ratio reported by Citigroup in 2003 was 11.6 while the same ratio for Latin American microcredit institutions has not excided 4% (Figure 10). This last number is not surprising as one expects Citigroup to enjoy a higher credibility that this small institutions. Finally, Figure 11 depicts the portfolio at risk. While Citibank reports a low 1.4%, other microcredit institutions report lower rates and overall, they are significantly lower than commercial banks in those countries. Nevertheless, the high level of return experience by microcredit institutions has begun to attract private investors and venture capitals, thus further expanding opportunities to the poor.


Table 8

Microcredit vs Citigroup Return on Equity

Source: MicroRate Database, Sample of most profitable profiles, 2003

Table 9

Microcredit vs Citigroup Return on Assets



Source: MicroRate Database, Sample of most profitable profiles, 2003


Table 10

Microcredit Debt/Equity Ratio



Source: MicroRate Database, Sample of most profitable profiles, 2003

Table 11

Microcredit vs Citigroup Portfolio at Risk




Source: MicroRate Database, Sample of most profitable profiles, 2003

Taking advantage of the close link between microcredit activities and poor borrower households, many programs also link the provision of credit access to compliance with other social measures. In many cases, microcredit organizations require the client participation in these non-business services in order to maintain credit access. These services are designed to meet social development objectives and often include education programs in nutrition, sanitation, childcare, and family planning. Yet studies have shown that institution productivity is significantly reduced when social programs of these types are required or included. This is so because funds that otherwise could be used to help the poor through microfinance are used instead to cover overhead costs and salaries of those involved in the social programs offered, mainly NGOs. Figures 12 and 13 depict the social to financial staff of institutions by region and by institutional characteristics. They depict these effects clearly.

For the most part, Grameen Bank models typically have non-business social programs attached to their lending activities and these are required. Most of these institutions are found in Asia, some in Africa, and only few in Latin America. Figure 12 shows the ratio of social staff to financial staff by regions. Not surprisingly, the highest ratio is shown in Asia and the lowest in

Figure 12

Ratio of Social to Financial Staff by Regions





Source: Paxton, Julia. A Worldwide Inventory of Microfinance Institutions.

Washington, DC: Sustainable Banking with the Poor, The World Bank, 1996.

Figure 13

Ratio of Social to Financial Staff by Regional Institutional Characteristics


Source: Paxton, Julia. A Worldwide Inventory of Microfinance Institutions.

Washington, DC: Sustainable Banking with the Poor, The World Bank, 1996.

Latin America. Similarly, Figure 13 present the same ratio but by type of institution. The highest ratio corresponds to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as they tend to have the highest quantity of social programs attached to the microcredit operations.

Two ways in which the productivity of microcredit employees is often measured are the number of borrowers per staff (NBS) and the number of client per credit officer (NCCF). Figure 14 present these ratios by regions. Institutions that follow the Grameen Bank model capture Asia, for it in here where the majority of these institutions are operating. Consistent with previous measures, Grameen bank institutions are the least productive while Africa shows the highest productivity, followed by Latin America. One institution that, because of its characteristics, has been extremely successful biases the results in Africa. If this is removed, the results are closer to the Latin American case but still outperform it by a small margin. It is worth noting, however, that this one African institution does not follow the Grameen Bank model. Clearly, a group-lending model without attached non-business social objective programs is the most successful and efficient model of microcredit to help the poor and their families are to be helped.63

Figure 14

Productivity Indicators



Source: MicroRate and Grameen Bank

NBS = number of borrowers per staff and NCCF = number of client per credit officer

Microcredit, also has something else valuable to offer. By design, it fosters development by instigating habits that are fundamental for economic growth: responsibility, accountability, trust, market operations, education, and creativity. Because of the environment in which typically the poor find themselves, these habits are often lacking in many of the institutions they encounter or live in. Thus, by providing this opportunity, microcredit institutions effectively contribute to the building and strengthening of both human and social capital in a small yet very significant way.

While microcredit is not the answer to all the many and various problems faced by the poor, it can be said that it is a tool with real potential for helping to lift the economic resources trapped. All the same, without denying the need for a holistic approach to poverty and acknowledging that lack of access to credit is not the sole problem faced by the poor, it is not necessary to assert that microcredit programs must be the source of all types of development services for the poor. In fact, productivity measures suggest otherwise.



2. Heavily-Indebted Poor Countries Program

For so many years, concessional lending to the developing world has been a central point in the issue of debt, but despite all this, most poor countries could not meet their debt obligations. In the 1980s and early 1990s, strategies to ease up repayment terms for poor countries were pursuit, including further concessional relief.64 However, it became clear that countries’ repayment problem was not temporary and that a more comprehensive solution was needed. In 1996, a new debt relief program was initiated called the Heavily–Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC). This initiative is today under the leadership of the IMF and the World Bank.

HIPC is relevant, because it is the first comprehensive approach to reducing the external debt of most heavily indebted countries, as it includes both macro-economics and social programs. Because of this, the initiative has the potential to place debt relief within an overall framework of poverty reduction. A mix of debt forgiveness and debt relief funds from creditors is activated at the completion point, i.e., when reforms are implemented correctly and a period of adequate performance is completed. It is the hope that this new approach would actually help heavily indebted countries shift from endless debt restructuring to enduring debt relief. External debt servicing has been predicted to be reduced by approximately $50 billion and the World Bank has committed itself to reduce its debt claims by nearly $11 billion.

In order to qualify for the forgiveness of debt, a country must: 1) be eligible for concessional assistance from the IMF and the World Bank; 2) face an unsustainable debt burden, beyond available debt-relief mechanisms; and 3) establish a track record of reform and sound policies through a well defined Strategy for Poverty Reduction Program (PRSP), which includes domestic macroeconomic adjustments as well as structural social policy reforms as previously mentioned.

Of the 40 countries eligible, most of them in Sub-Sahara Africa, ten have acted upon it. Of these, five countries reached their completion point by 2001 (Burkina Faso, Uganda, Bolivia, Tanzania, Mozambique) and the other five countries still in the process of implementation (Senegal, Nicaragua, Guyana, Mali, Benin). Strategies for Poverty Reduction Programs vary by country as, the initiative requires each country to delineate their own strategy. Evidence from these countries thus far indicates, that some have been more successful than others in both their macro-economic and the social policy design and efforts.

Table 4 presents a summary of the SPRP components followed by the countries that reached the completion point in 2001. As one can see, programs vary widely from country to country, but they center mainly around three issues: education, health, and governance. These three areas essential as they facilitate or hamper the development of human, social, and moral capital.



Table 4

Strategy for Poverty Reduction Program

Components


Country

Education

Health

Governance

Other

Burkina Faso

- New Schools

- Policy reform for hiring and retention of teachers



- Immunization

- Staff in primary health care facilities




- Reduction of corruption

- Training of government personnel






Uganda


- Reduction of Illiteracy

-Increase number of teachers

-Expand technical education


- Staff in primary health care facilities

- Renovation of hospitals

- Increase spending on health


- Increase police and prison numbers

- Job evaluation pay increase



- Main road program

Bolivia


-Expand quality and coverage of basic education

- Expand the coverage of quality health

- Introduce pension

- Expand sanitary infrastructure and

Zambia/

Mozambique

- Expand Rural education

- Reduction of gender disparities

Increase funds


- Transparency in the distribution of drugs

- Reproductive health



- Social safety nets


- Disaster relief

- Expand provision and quality of water



Some of the positive effects found in both African and Latin American Countries include an increase of social expenditures to government revenue of 6% (from $4,407 in 1999 to $6,897 in 2001) in addition to an over all improvement of social indicators. In addition, on average, per capita real spending on education and health increased by 3.4% and 3.3% respectively, which in turn contribute to increasing awareness of the relevance that education has for the expansion of human capital. According to the strategies defined thus far, on average 40% of the countries annual interim relief will be spent on education and 25% on health care.

Programs that directed resources towards education and health (children and tropical diseases) were especially successful such as those implemented in Uganda, Tanzania, and Bolivia. Also helpful were anticorruption programs, although with different degrees of success. Burkina Faso reports better results than Uganda. Programs addressing infrastructure issues and labor training in Uganda and Bolivia also performed well. Overall, however, much is still left to be done.

On the other hand, programs that report negative results include those directed to fund armaments, those who failed to define clear processes for accountability, as it was the case of Mauritania and Mali. Also negative results were reported by programs that focused mainly on reproductive health and AIDS at the cost of more fundamental needs. Countries reporting negative results in this area include Zambia, Mozambique, Senegal, Ghana, Nicaragua, and Mali. This last case is especially serious because limited budget savings, led these countries to transfer more funds to creditors than they were able to invest in basic services. Most of the medicines and tools of reproductive health and AIDS proceed from developed countries.



VII. Conclusions

Economic development is an outcome of more than economic processes. It is an outcome of economic, social, and political processes that interact with and reinforce each other in ways that worsen or ease the achievement of economic development. To achieve economic development, opportunities need to be promoted, empowerment at all levels facilitated, and stability ensured. This requires actions at local, national, and global levels. How can priorities be decided in practice? What framework is needed to ensure sustainable development? Data from across countries and sciences seems to suggest clearly that it is the family that should be the point of reference if sustainable development is to be achieved. This is so not because the family is a problem to economic development but rather the contrary. It is the solution, for it is within the family where human, moral, and social capital, all sine qua non conditions for an economy to develop, are supported or hampered. Children develop best within a family that is functional, i.e., with biological parents in a stable marriage. This means that the family is a necessary good for economic development and thus it should be promoted and protected if sustainable development is to be achieved.

At the same time, data across sciences also show that the breakdown of the family damages the economy and the society since human, moral, and social capital is reduced and social costs increased. Today, when the family is in need of assistance to be strengthened, solutions that assume Malthusian and Neo-Malthusian theories are not helpful. This is so, because these theories are seriously flawed on many levels and policy actions based on such assumptions are inefficient and hampers real sustainable development. They lead to: an aging trap, the weakening of the family, the creation of health problems as well as the worsening of health problems that already exist, and the inefficient use of resources that otherwise could be use to foster real economic development by providing education, infrastructure, training, etc. This last effect has proven not only to waste resources, but also cause serious financial burden for governments. This effect should not to be underestimated. Developed countries today are straggling with the burden of such financial pressures and they are not only wealthy economies but they have savings. One can see, what a disastrous effect these financial burdens would have in less developed countries, where not only wealth is insufficient, but savings are rare. The future of these poor countries relies on their population. Thus, forcing these countries into a population trap, would condemn them to unsustainable development.

Actual priorities and actions need to be designed for each country’s economic, sociological, structural, and cultural context, even each community. But even though choices depend on local conditions and circumstances at a given time, generally it is necessary to always consider what would be the impact of any policy on the family, as it behooves countries its promotion and protection. There is hope. Some of the recent reevaluations of family policies in developed countries in favor of healthy families seem to point in the right direction. Microcredit and the HIPC initiative are other example of how funds can be used efficiently to provide opportunities to those most needed, and by doing so, strengthen families in distress.


Bibliography
Agenor, Pierre-Richard, 2000. The Economics of Adjustment and Growth, San Diego, California: Academic Press.
Agenor, Pierre-Richard and Montiel, Peter, 1999. Economic Development, Princeton University Press, New Jersey.
Aguirre, Maria Sophia, 2001. “Family, Economics, and the Information Society: How Are They Affecting Each Other?” International Journal of Social Economics, 28:3-4, 225-247.
___________, 2002. “Sustainable Development: Why the Focus on Population?”, Journal of Socio-Economics, 29:12.
Aguirre, Maria Sophia and Ann Wolfgram , 2002. “United Nations Policy and the Family: Redefining the Ties that Bind”, Journal of Public Law, Winter Issue, 28:3.
Amato and Keith, 1991. “Parental Divorce and the Well-Being of Children: A Meta-Analysis”, Psychological Bulletin, 110:1, pp. 26-46.
American Medical Association, 1992. Medical News, January 24.
Amorós, Celia, 1985. Hacia una Crítica de la Razón Patriarcal, Barcelona: Anthropos.
Aquilino, William S., 1996. “The Life Course of Children Born to Unmarried Mothers: Childhood Living Arrangements and young Adult Outcomes”, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58:2, pp. 293-310.
American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Violation and the Family, (APA), 1996. Report on the Status of Violation and the Family.
Bell, Clive, Shantayanan Devarajan, and Hans Gersbach, 2003. “The Long-run Economic Costs of AIDS: Theory and Application to South Africa”, World Bank Papers, Washington: DC
Barro, Robert, 1989. “Economic Growth in Cross Section Countries”, Working Paper n. 3120. Cambridge: NBET.
Barro, Robert. and Lee, Jung-Wan, 1993. "International Comparisons of Educational Attainment", Journal Of Monetary Economics, 43:4.

Beauvoir, Simmon, de, 1949. Le Deuxième Sexe, Paris: Gallimord.


Becker, Gary, 1974. "A Theory of Social Interactions", Journal of Political Economy, 87:4, pp. 1063-93.
__________, 1991. A Treatise on the Family. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
__________, et al, 1993. "Human Capital, Fertility, and Economic growth", in Gary Becker, Human Capital: Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with a Special Reference to Education, 3rd ed, Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Birdsall, Alfred, 1995. "Economic Approaches to Growth and Development", in Hollis Chenery and T. Srinivasan, ed. Handbook of Development Economics, Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Bisnaire, Lisa, Philip Firestone, and david Rynard, 1990. “Fcators Associated With Academic Achievement in Children Following Parental Separation”, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 60:1, pp. 67-76.
Bloom, David and David Canning, and Jaypee Sevilla, 2004. “The Effects of Health on Economic Growth: Theory and Evidence”, National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER Working Papers, n. 8587.
Bolger, Kerry, Charlotte Patterson, William Thompson, and Janice Kuperson, 1995. “Psychosocial Adjustment Among Children Experiencing Persistent and Intermittent Economic Hardship”, Child Development, 66:4, 1107-1129.
Brown, Lester, Gary Gardner and Brian Halweil, 1999. Beyond Malthus: Nineteen Dimensions to the Population Problem. Washington DC: Worldwatch Institute.
Chand, Sheetal and Jaeger, Albert, 1996. “Aging Populations and Public Pension Schemes”, Occasional Paper, IMF.
CLADEM, 1998. “Nada Personal”, Report of Committee de America Latina y el Caribe, December.
Coleman, James, 1999. Foundations of Social Theory, Harvard University Press, MA: Boston.
Coomaraswamy, Radika, 1997. Reinventing International Law: Women’s Rights as Human Rights in the International Community, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Human Rights Program.
Davis, Karen and Susan C. Weller, 1999. "The Effectiveness of Condoms in Reducing Heterosexual Transmission of HIV", Family Planning Perspectives,31:6, pp. 272-279.
Denison, Edward, 1985. Trends in America Economic Growth, 1929-1982. Washington: Brookings Institute.
Dobson, Andy P. et. al, 1997. “Hopes for the Future: Restoration Ecology and Conservation Biology.” Science, 25 July, 515-521.
Downey, Douglas B., 1995. “Understanding Academic Achievement among Children in Stephouseholds: The Role of Parental Resources, Sex of Stepparent, and Sex of Child”, Social Forces, 73:3, 875-894.
Dube, Shanta, 2003. “Childhood Abuse, Neglect, and Household Dysfunction and Risk of Illicit Drug Use Adverse Experiences Study”, Pediatrics, 111:4, 564-572.
Duncan, Wayne, 1994. “Economic Impact of Divorce on Children’s Development: Current Findings and Policy implications”, Journal of Clinical and Child Psychology, 23:2, 444-457.
Easterly, William, Kremer, M., Pritchett, L., Summers, L., 1993. "Good Policy or Good Luck? Country Growth Performance and Temporary Shocks", Journal Of Monetary Economics; 43:4

Eberstadt, Nicholas, 1995. Tyranny of Numbers: Mismeasurement and Misrule, American Enterprise Institute, Washington DC.


Eberstadt, Nicholas, 2000. Prosperous Paupers and Other Population Problems, Washington, DC: Free Press.
Ehrlich,Paul, 1968. The Population Bomb, New York: Ballantine Books.
Ehrlich and Ehrlich, 1990. The Population Explosion. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1990.
Evans, Julie and Bernard Bloom, 1997. “Effects of Parental Divorce Among College Undergraduates”, Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 26:1-2, 69-88.
Fagan, Patrick, 1999. “How Broken Families Rob Children of their Chance for Future Prosperity”, Heritage Foundation Backgrounder N. 1283
___________, 2002. “The Effects of Marriage on Child Poverty”, Heritage Foundation Backgrounder N. 02-04, April 15.
___________ and Kirk Johnson, 2002. “Marriage: The Safest Place for Women and Children”, Heritage Foundation Backgrounder N. 1535, April 10.

___________ and Robert Rector, 2000. “The Effects of Divorce on America”, Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1373. 

Farley, Raynolds, 1995, State of the Union: America in the 1990s, vol.2, Social Trends. Russell Sage Foundation, New York.


Featherstone, Darin, Bert P. Cundick, and Larry Jensen, 1992. “Differences in School Behavior and Achievement Between Children from intact, Reconstituted, and Single-parent Families”, Adolescense, 27:105, pp. 1-12.
Fitch, Thomas, Joe McIllhaney, Mary Adam, David Hager, Joseph Zanga, 2003. Sex, Condoms and STDs: What We Now Know, The Medical Institute for Sexual Health, Texas: Austin.
Friedan, Betty, 1963. Feminine Mystique, New York, New York: Dell Publishing Co.

__________, 1997. Beyond Gender: The New Politics of Work and Family. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press.

Fuerst, J.S. and R. Petty, 1996, "The Best Use of Federal Funds for Early Childhood Education", Phi Delta Kappa, June, pp. 676-681.

Fukuyama, Francis, 1999, The Great Disruption, The Free Press, New York.

_____________, 2000. “Social Capital and Civil Society”, IMF Working Paper N. 74, International Monetary Fund.

Furedi, Frank. 1997. Population and Development. New York: St. Martin’s Press.



Gallup, John and Jeffrey Sachs, 2000, The Economic Burden of Malaria, Center for International Development, Boston: Harvard University.
Green, Edwards, 2003. Ranking AIDS Prevention: Learning from Successes in Developing Countries, Greenwood Publishers Group, NY: New York.
Grissmer, D.W., S.N. Kirby, M. Berends, and S. Williamson, 1994, Student Achievement and the Changing American Family, Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CA.
Hardin, Garret, 1968. "The Tragedy of the Commons." Science, 162, p.1243.
___________, 1998. The Ostrich Factor. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Housekneckt, Susan and Jaya Sastry, 1996. “Family Decline and Child Well-Being: A Comparative Assessment”, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58:2, 726-239.
Jeynes, William, 2001. “The Effects of Recent Parental Divorce on Their Children’s Consumption and Marihuana and Cocaine”, Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 35:3-4, 43-64.
Johnson, Gale, 2000. “Population, Food, and Knowledge”, American Economic Review, 90:1, pp. 1-13.
Kaiser, 2000.”Safe Sex, Condoms and The Pill”, Sexsmarts, Kaiser Family Foundation, November
Kennedy, P. 1993. Preparing for the Twenty-First Century. London: Harper Collins.
Kiester, Jr., Edwin. 1999. “A Town Buries the Axe.” Smithsonian (July).
Kliksberg, Bernardo, 2000. “The Role of Social Cultural capital in the Development Press”, Latin American Studies Center, University of Maryland, MD: College Park.
______________, 2001. The Social Situation of Latin America and Its Impact on Family and Education, Organization of the American States, DC: Washington.
Kubrin, Charis, 2003. ‘Structural Covariates of Homicide Rates: Does Type of Homicide Matter?”, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40:1, 130-170.
Long, J. Bradford and Lawrence Summers, 1993. “How Strongly do Developing Economies Benefit ferom Equipment Investment?, Journal of Monetary Economics, 32:2, 395-415.
Longman, Phillip, 1999. “How Global Aging will Change the World’s Economic Well-being”, US News & World Report, March 1, pp. 30-39.
Malthus, Thomas, 1798. "A Summary View of the Principles of Population", in Three Essays on Population, Mentor Books, New York, 1960.
Matson, P. A. et. al, 1997. “Agricultural Intensification and Ecosystem Properties.” Science, 25 July, 504-509.
McCloskey, Laura, 2002. “A Comparative Study of Battered Women and Their Children in Italy and The United States”, Journal of Family and Violence, 17:1, 53-74.
Millet, K, 1971. La Politique de Mâle, Paris: Stock.
Ministry of Health of Uganda, 2001. “HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report”, June.
Mirowsky, John, 1999. “Economic Hardship Across the Life Course”, American Sociology Review, 64:3, 548-569.
Mongomery, Laura, John Kiely, and Gregory Pappas, 1996. “The effects of Poverty, Race, and Family Structure on U.S. Children’s Health: Data 1978 through 1980 and 1989 through 1991”, American Journal of Public Health, 86:4, 1401-1405.
Mosher, Steven, 1983. Broken earth: The Rural Chinese, New York: Free Press.
National Security Council, 1974. “Implications of Worldwide population Growth for US Security and Overseas Interest”, National Security Study Memorandum 200. DC: National Archives, Record Group 273.
National Institute of Child Health and Development (NICHD), 1999, "Child Outcomes when Child Care Center Classes Meet Recommended Standards for Quality. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network", American Journal of Public Health, vol. 89, no. 7, pp. 1072-1077.
National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (NCASA), 2003. “The Importance of Family Dinners”, Research Series, N.3, Columbia University, NY: New York.
Neighbors, Bryan, Rex Forehand, and Lisa Armistead, 1992. “Is Parental Divorce a Critical Stressor for Young Adolescents? Grade Point Average as a Case in Point,” Adolescence 27:107, pp. 638-646.
Paton, David, 2002. "The economics of family planning and underage conceptions." Journal

of Health Economics 21:2, 207-225.
Pitt, Mark M. & Shahidur R. Khandker, 1998. "The Impact of Group-Based Credit Programs

on Poor Households in Bangladesh: Does the Gender of Participants Matter?" The Journal of Political Economy 106:5, 958-996.


Rabkin, Jeremy, 1997. Greenhouse Politics, American Enterprise Institute, D.C.
Rector, Robert, Kirk Johnsnson, and Patrick Fagan, 2003. “Increasing Marriage Would Dramatically Reduce Child Poverty”, Heritage Foundation Backgrounder N. 03-06, May 20.

___________, Patrick Fagan, and Kirk Johnson, 2004. “Marriage: Still the Safest Place for Women and Children”, Heritage Foundation Backgrounder N. 1732, March 9.


Rosemberg, Nathan and L.E. Birdzell, 1986. How the West Grew Rich: The economic Transformation of the Industrial World. New york: Basic Books.
Schramn, David, 2003. “What Could Divorce Be Costing Your State? The Costly Consequence of Divorce in Impact on Couples, Communities, and Government”, Studies of the Department of Family, Consumer, and Human Development, Utah State University.
Sebstad, Jennefer & Gregory Chen, 1996. Overview of Studies on the Impact of Microenterprise Credit. Washington, DC: AIMS, USAID.
Sen, Amartya, 1981. Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation, Oxford, Clarendon Press.
___________, 1994. “Population and Reasoned Agency: Food, fertility, and Economic Development”, in K. Lindhal-Kiessling and H. Landberg (ed.), Population, Economic Development, and The Environment. New Delhi: Sage Publications.
___________, 1996. “Fertility and Coercion,” The University of Chicago Law Review, vol. 63, pp. 1035-1061.
___________, 1998. “A Job or Your Rights”, Document of Human Rights Watch, December.

Scully, Gerald, 1988. "The Institutional Framework and Economic Development", Journal of Political Economy, 96:3.


Smith, David and Susan Mc Vee, 2003. “Theory and Method in the Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime”, British Journal and Criminology, 43:1.
Simon, Julian, 1992. Population and Development in poor Countries: Selected Essay,

Princeton: Princeton University Press.


___________, 1996a. The Ultimate Resource 2, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

___________, 1996b. The State of Humanity, Blackwell, New York.


Sun, Yongmin, 2001. “Family Environment and Adolescents’ Well-Being and After Parent’ Marital Disruption: A Longitudinal Analysis”, Journal of Marriage and Family, 63:4, 697-713.
Teachman, Jay, Kathleen Paasch, and Karen Carver, 1997. “Social Capital and The Generation of Human Capital”, Social Forces, 74:4, 1-17.
Todd, Helen, 1996. Women at the Centre: Grameen Bank Borrowers After One Decade.

Boulder, CO: Westview Press.



United Nations (1974), Report of the United Nations World Population Conference. UN Document N. E.75.XIII.3. (Also known as Bucharest’74)
United Nations (1994), Report of the International Conference on Population and Development UN Document A/CONF.171/13 (Also known as ICPD’94 Programme of Action)
___________, 1995. Report and Plan of Action of the World Summit for Social Development.

Copenhagen, 19 March 1995. A/CONF.166/9.


__________, 1995. Report of the Fourth World Conference on Women and Platform for Action. A/CONF. 177/20. (Beijing’95).
__________, 2000. United Nations Millennium Declaration, A/55/L.2.
UNEP, 1992. Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development: Agenda 21, Rio de Janeiro, 3-14 June 1992. E.93.I.8. (Agenda 21)
UNAIDS, 1996. AIDS Epidemic Update: December 1996, Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, New York: New York.
UNAIDS, 2001. “HIV Prevention Needs and Successes: A Tail of three Countries”, April 2001.
_______, 2002. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. "HIV/AIDS: Awareness and Behaviour." New York: United Nations. ST/ESA/SER.A/209
___________, 2003. AIDS Epidemic Update: December 2003, Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, New York: New York.
UNDP, 2002. The Human Development Report 2002. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
UNDP, 2003. The Human Development Report 2003. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
UNFPA, 1998. Global Population Assistance 1996, United Nations Population Fund, New York.
UNFPA, 2000. A Global Strategy for Reproductive Health Commodity Security.
U.S. Department of Education, 1994, The Condition of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Education, 1996, Reading Literacy in the United States: Findings from the IEA reading Literacy Study., National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC.



U.S. Department of Justice, 1998. “Report to the Nation on Crime and Justice”, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC
USAID, 2003. Prevention. http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/ global_health/aids/ TechAreas/ prevention/abcs.html
Wolfgram, A., (1999), Population, Resources, & Environment: A Survey of the Debate,

http://arts-sciences.cua.edu/econ/faculty/aguirre.
World Health Organization, 1999a. Infectious Diseases Report, Geneva: WHO. http://www.who.int/infectious-disease-report.html.
WHO (1999b), Press Release “TB is Single Biggest Killer of Young Women,”
1   2   3   4   5   6


The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page