At stage 2, the DTM starts to change, with the total population increasing, due to a fall in the death rate and a still high birth rate. This can be seen in many developing countries now, such as Ethiopia, and many others from Africa. The death rate falls due to an increase in the availability and effectiveness of healthcare, and also due to an increase in the mechanisation of work, causing less people to die while working from accidents. The birth rate however remains high, as it takes time for the population to fully realise that less children are dying, and therefore they do not need to have as many children in order to support themselves. Another reason due to the high birth rate in countries such as Ethiopia is the lack of use of contraceptives.
If the LEDC had the high enough levels of development it could educate it population and these profit providing process could be taxed and boost the economy of the LDC to allow such infrastructure to grow. With low levels of infrastructure health care is not as available as in MEDC nations. This causes LDC nations to have lower life expectancies and be less productive due to being ill. In Sierra Leone high levels of AIDS/ HIV, approximately 49,000, and outbreaks such as the deadly Ebola Virus means little taxes can be taken as unemployment is high. As a consequence many LDC nations rely on foreign health and economic aid putting them in a situation of unrepayable debt, so even less money can be spent on infrastructure and supporting the economy.
How much did social attitudes change in the years 1955-75? Between the years 1955-75 there were many changes regarding the law that seemed like it would have a positive change however did not make much of an impact on the social attitudes towards the issue. The main ones in my opinion are abortion, immigration, death penalty and homosexuality. The main change in the 60s in my opinion was the legalisation of abortion in 1967. In the view of the government this would have a good impact on society because it reduced the amount of children being put up for adoption, less people would go through back street abortion which was a very dangerous procedure and the government also believed it would reduce the amount of poverty.
This certainly fights against the view that Alexander II was reluctant in his reforms on the surface – however, once investigated, the limits of emancipation are clear. The 49 year redemption payments were a huge limiting factor in allowing peasants economic freedom to then have social freedom, and class was still a major issue even if it had been reduced. The highly inflated land prices that ensued meant that very few peasants could afford land, and Alexander II did nothing to resolve this. It does lend to the idea of his ‘radical’ reforms being fairly reluctant as he did not go further with them. Alexander III took an even more conservative view during his reign, repealing many of Alexander II’s social
This is due to social class. The higher the class the higher the standard of care. Researchers found that some of the 7500 deaths that are among people younger than the age of 65 could have been prevented could have been prevented if inequalities in wealth narrowed to their 1983 levels. If a baby girl is born in leeds she is more than twice as likely to die in the first year of life compared to an infant girl growing up in a dorset town. Alot of studies into health inequalities rely on morality, death, and morbidity, illness, data.
This means children are now expensive to have and people do not have the money to have as many children as they used too. Medical advances have been a consequence to the changes in population. Due to improvements in midwifery and immunisation, the infant mortality rate has decreased significantly. This now means partners do not need to have as many children as it is more certain their child will live through their childhood. This was not the case at the beginning of the 20th century.
More children are born in Britain today outside of marriage than in most other European countries. This has been linked to many explanations such as; poor education in sexual health and the lack of knowlege on different types of contraceptives. Nearly a quarter of children lived with only one parent (25%) last year and nine out of ten of these households were headed by mothers. Dennis and Erdos believe that is is down to most families being fatherless, meaning they automatically have poor health and lower educational attainment, however this is only one theory. Another main reason is the simple fact people are marrying later for many reasons, more because of the change in attitudes towards education and religion (seclurisation).
Children growing up in poverty face many disadvantages such as unhealthy levels of stress making it near impossible to successfully complete college, thus making it harder to escape their surroundings. The poverty rates in some European countries are much lower than in the United States because of programs they have put into place to help the poor and unlucky, leading one to think the government should once again re-declare the war on poverty. Krugman’s article not only shows percentages he also lets his readers know what the findings were from scientific studies. Living in the conditions of poverty is stressful for anyone, much less children. I see the effects that poverty has on many people every day, and always think one day that could be me.
It is common knowledge that the Malagasy people have more than two children. It is a way for them to ensure their descendants and to have people who can help them at work when they are in need. However, having many children has created overpopulation, and more and more people are becoming poor because of this. The question is: is applying the one-child policy a solution to that? Although some people might say that the one-child policy should be applied in Madagascar in order to create prosperity for the next generation, it is my contention that this would bring more harm than good and should never be applied.
The success of any continent is largely dependent on its economic development (Suter 2006). It would seem that Africa, a continent rich in resources would be regarded as a very promising continent, much to the contrary, Africa has proved to be a continent showing very little potential. Its failure to thrive at a rapid rate could be attributed to a number of factors; one of which includes the failure of many African governments to handle their responsibilities both legal and political (Suter 2006). It is both the lack of democracy of many African governments and the existence of autocratic rulers , that have led to the downfall of these countries, as their intent was to increase their own wealth instead of acting in the interest of their country and people. These failed leaderships have often led to civil war, negatively impacting further on the economy of the country.