Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

2.6 Macro Analysis
Pages 80-114

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 80...
... 2.6 MACRO ANALYSIS Our two fundamental hypotheses suggest a particular ordering of steps within the macro analysis. The first basic hypothesis is that the socioeconomic determinants of fertility affect the components of the reproductive process differently.
From page 81...
... The coefficients used to derive these counts are the contrasts, described in the text, which provide the response variables in the macro analysis. A blank indicates that the explanatory variable was not included in the particular micro specification.
From page 82...
... Again it should be recalled that these data refer only to the cohort aged 40-44 in 1974. This cohort would have spent a high proportion of its reproductive life, in many of these countries, in a period of rather slow socioeconomic development and in the absence of well-developed family planning programs.
From page 83...
... Setting insignificant results to zero could thus mask important and interpretable patterns in the magnitudes of small and insignif icant coefficients in the micro equations. Simultaneous estimation of both the micro and macro effects by the method of maximum likelihood is almost possible.
From page 84...
... Use of this variable enables the reader to dichotomize on the social setting dimension, since the left-most six points are always those for countries in the low category of the index. Similarly, for the diagrams that use family planning program strength as the macro predictor, the left-most five are always those countries in the low category of the Mauldin et al.
From page 85...
... Coefficients from Al? B Micro Equations Against Social Setting Ranks (SSR)
From page 86...
... Coeff icients from AFB Micro Equations Against Social Setting Ranks (SSR) with Bivariate (weighted)
From page 87...
... Coefficients from EF Micro Equations Against Social Setting Ranks (SSR) , with Bivariate (weighted)
From page 88...
... Coefficients from EF Micro Equations Against Social Setting Ranks (SSR) , with Bivariate (weighted)
From page 89...
... Coefficients from EF Micro Equations Against Social Setting Ranks (SSR) , with Bivariate (weighted)
From page 90...
... We have found that the macro equations relating the micro coefficients to social setting rank have very poor fits, as can be seen from the scatter diagrams; moreover, the slopes over countries for the AFB socioeconomic determinants are slight, and either positive or negative, depending on the macro indicator used. For the socioeconomic effects in the EF micro equations, the betweencountry slopes are barely negative, the fits poor.
From page 91...
... Now, the correlation between social setting index ranks and family planning program effort scores for the 15 countries at hand is .32.17 The correlation between GDP and family planning program effort is .63. m e correlation between the dichotomous versions of family planning effort and social setting index is exactly zero.l8 This means that using either the social setting ranks or GDP per capita, Pl2 > 0 and~p21 > 0.
From page 92...
... Coefficients from LF Micro Equations Against Social Setting Ranks (SSR) , with Bivariate (weighted)
From page 93...
... Coefficients from LF Micro Equations Against Family Planning Program Scores tFPS) ~ with Bivariate (weighted)
From page 94...
... Derived Effects from OF Micro Equations Aga~nst Social Setting ~nk~; (SSR) , with Bivariate (weighted)
From page 95...
... Derived Effects from LF Micro Equations Against Family Planning Program Scores (FPS}, with Bivariate "weighted) Regression Line: y a -.53 - .018 {EPS)
From page 96...
... Coefficients from LF Micro Equations Against Social Setting Ranks {SSR) , with Bivariate "weighted)
From page 97...
... Coefficients from LF Micro Equations Against Family Planning Program Scores (E~S}, with Bivariate (weighted} Regression Line: Y ~ 0.062 ~ .0013 (EPS)
From page 98...
... Coefficient. from LF Micro Equations Against Social Setting Ranks, with Bi~rariate {weighted)
From page 99...
... Coefficients from OF Micro Equations Against Family Planning Program Scores (EMS) , with Bivariate {weighted)
From page 100...
... Coefficient,; from EF Micro Equations Against Social Setting Rank" (SSR) , with Bivariate (weighted)
From page 101...
... Coefficients from LF Micro Equations Against Family Planning Program Scores (FPS) , with Bivariate (weighted)
From page 102...
... Coefficients from LF Micro Equations Against Social Setting Ranks (SSR) , with Bivariate (weighted} Regression Line: Y a -.23 - .037(SSR)
From page 103...
... Coefficients from OF Micro Equations Against Family Planning Program Scores {EPS}, with Bi~rariate "weighted) Regression Line: Y -- ~27 - .016(EPS)
From page 104...
... Derived Effects from LF Micro Equations Against Social Setting Ranks (SSR) , with Bivariate (weighted)
From page 105...
... Derived Effects from LF Micro Equations Against Family Planning Program Scores {FPS) , with Bivariate "weighted} Regression Line: Y - .21 - .019 (PPS)
From page 106...
... subscripts countries, 40 is the intercept, S is a measure of socioeconomic development, FP is a measure of family planning program effort, S FP is the interaction of S with FP, and Yk (k = 1,...,K) is an additive nuisance parameter that distinguishes the net mean value over the 15 countries of the kth micro socioeconomic effect from similar means for other socioeconomic effects.
From page 107...
... 41~_ sac ~ —~ _ m e pattern in Table 2.11 indicated that for every single micro socioeconomic determinant of LF, there is at least one alternative among the measurement choices made for which the interactive specification yields all three macro coefficients with signs as hypothesized. In general, the data provide a certain amount of support for our hypotheses about the macro variability of the socioeconomic effects in the LF equation across settings.
From page 108...
... Although we do not have seven independent replications (there are seven micro socioeconomic effects in the LF equation) , there is certainly greater statistical leverage than could be gained with just a single coefficient type.
From page 109...
... Inspection of the additive specification makes it clear that these signs must both remain negative. We have computed the same family of specifications for the LF intercepts that we used in studying the LF socioeconomic coefficients, looking at both interactive and additive specifications, and trying the different measures of socioeconomic development and family planning program effort.
From page 110...
... S89 15 . 00O FIGURE 2.20 Plot of Intercepts from AFB Micro Equations Against Social Setting Ranks (SSR)
From page 111...
... 7778 1 t .889 8.7778 1 ~ `] ~ ~ S FIGURE 2.21 Plot of Intercepts from EF Micro Equations Against Social Setting Ranks (SSR)
From page 112...
... _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ + _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ + _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ ~ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ 4- _ _ _ _ 4. _ _ _ _ · _ — _ _ ~ — — — — ~ — — — — ~ — — — — ~ — — — — + — — — — ~ 1.0000 4.1111 7.2222 10.333 13.444 SSR 2.5556 5.6667 8.7778 1 1 .889 15.000 FIGURE 2.22 Plot of Intercepts from LF Micro Equations Against Social Setting Ranks (SSR)
From page 113...
... . FIGURE 2.23 Plot of Intercepts from LF Micro Equations Against Family Planning Program Scores (EMS)
From page 114...
... We began the main work of this chapter by extending and operationalizing the macro-level aspects of the theory. AS part of this effort, we presented a rationale for using measures of socioeconomic development and family planning program effort as indicators of what we mean to convey by the traditional/transitional vocabulary employed in Chapter 1.


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.