| Submit your comments on this article |
| International-UN-NGOs |
| The False Choice Between [International] Development and Daughters |
| 2007-08-01 |
| Throughout human history, demographers tell us, nature has provided about 105 male births for every 100 females. This “sex ratio at birth”—stable across generations and ethnic boundaries—may range from 103 to as high as 106 boys for every 100 girls. In only one generation, that ratio has come unglued. A Chinese census reports ratios as high as 120–136 boys born for every 100 girls; in Taiwan, ratios of 119 boys to 100 girls; in Singapore 118 boys per 100 girls; South Korea 112 boys per 100 girls; and in India, where the practice was outlawed in 1994, the ratio continues to exceed 120 boys for every 100 girls in some areas. Countries such as Greece, Luxembourg, El Salvador, the Philippines, Cape Verde, and Egypt, even among some ethnic groups in the United States (Chinese, Japanese, and Filipino), are showing the same deadly discrimination against daughters. What is the cause of the crisis? Experts point to a recent confluence of four main factors: rising access to sonogram technology, increased access to abortion, a preference for sons, and fertility decline. Of the four factors, the first two seem fairly straightforward. Simply put, parents who prefer sons are better equipped than ever to get what they want. Abortion is increasingly legal, available, and socially acceptable in every part of the world. The second factor, sex detection, has been recognized by concerned government officials for years, and even banned in India. Sex determination by sonogram or ultrasound, amniocentesis, and IVF is increasingly available. Some U.N. officials have argued that the third factor, son preference, is the primary cause of the problem and therefore should be the main target of international condemnation. Son preference is prevalent in East and Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa, and stems from norms and laws related to inheritance, dowries, men’s higher wage earnings, and a desire to carry on the family line. Thus killing girls before or after birth is part of the wider problem of violence against women, like dowry deaths and widow burnings. It is important to note that these practices, too, persist long after Delhi has banned them. Desperate, the government has introduced state-run orphanages for unwanted girls. As Ashley Fernandes recently noted in First Things, the good that this stop-gap measure will do is still uncertain. India’s first woman head of state, Pratibha Patil, announced at her inauguration last week that stopping female feticide tops her agenda. Over the last generation, the world has witnessed a drive toward smaller families, and this is directly related to sex selection. With fewer children, the sex of each child matters more. Analysis by Nicholas Eberstadt shows that, in India, each child after the first is increasingly unwanted, such that, with the second child, the desirability of girls to boys is 16% to 40%. By the fourth pregnancy, a girl’s desirability is a sad 9%, compared with 75% in favor of a boy. With these odds, and with cheap sonogram technology and easy access to abortion, is it any wonder India reports that 300,000 to 500,000 girls go “missing” every year due to infanticide and abortion? In China, at least half of all second or higher-order female pregnancies are terminated owing to sex. The most recent Chinese census shows a sex ratio of 150 boys for 100 girls in subsequent pregnancies. Hence, the fertility-reduction imperative drives the culling of girls. The fertility-reduction imperative, in turn, is at the heart of a generation-long campaign by international development institutions. From the time Robert McNamara took the reins of the World Bank in 1968 to the latest Bank health, nutrition, and population strategy released in April, successive Bank presidents have pursued an aggressive population-control agenda, targeting developing countries. UNFPA’s latest update to its report on member-state contributions shows that eight wealthy European countries, along with Canada and Japan, pay 86% of the $389 million bill to fund that agency, which aggressively promotes population control. The top per capita contributors were Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands. The Bush administration withdrew American support in July 2002 because of evidence that UNFPA collaborated with the Chinese government’s one-child policy. Nonetheless, USAID remains the world’s top provider of contraceptives, budgeting $150 million per year for the effort. There's more, sadly, at the link. IIRC, the Romans solved their female shortage by paying house-calls in Sabine towns and villages. |
| Posted by:mrp |
| #5 There may be rational reasons historically for the preference. But it doesn't make sense any longer. It will be interesting to see how quickly these cultures can make the transition to a state where sons and daughters are equally welcome and loved. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-08-01 20:51 |
| #4 Various mostly Radical Enviros have argued that alleged severe enviro stress? will over time induce nature to make specias produce more males to increase potentias for survival. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-08-01 20:42 |
| #3 M. Murcek, don't know, but have the feeling it's going to go up. ;) |
| Posted by: Swamp Blondie 2007-08-01 20:22 |
| #2 A doctor from California told me that 80% of the Asian babies aborted in the state were female. Al |
| Posted by: Frozen Al 2007-08-01 18:21 |
| #1 OTOH, what percentage of the extra boys are, ahem, not heterosexually inclined? |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2007-08-01 12:52 |