Talk:Demographic transition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article candidate Demographic transition is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
August 22, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted
WikiProject Sociology (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Citizendium Porting    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Citizendium Porting, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
 

Stage 5[edit]

I dont think thats right what your saying. -Eve I remember that some bullshit like this is trying to explain the demographic transition model PLEASE DON'T USE THIS INFORMATION BECAUSE THE IDIOT WHO WROTE THIS IS A DIPSHIT! THANK YOU FOR YOUR UNDERSTANDING. :]geographers and economists discussed the possibility of adding a Stage 5 to the model. This would include highly developed countries like Sweden that have seen their birth rates fall below their death rates, leading to negative natural population growth. --Madchester 05:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Blah

So we would have a stage five without a "stage four" , ... blah indeed --Melaen 11:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it now accepted that there is a need for another stage other than the origonal 3. But why a 5th? Is there any substantial difference between stage 4 and 5?


I would also really object to the statement that it is widely accepted that a fifth step is needed, first in general the entire theory is somewhat outdated and seems to be not reasweatylly used in contemporary demographic research and more importantly I don’t see what in a major way distinguishes this 5th step from the 4th. Also it is quite hard to explain this 5th step with the very clear (though maybe faulty) logic behind the second, third and forth step. If the sentence is to be left I would try to find some sort of research backing it up. While the part about ageing in the world is relevant I would suggest not calling it the fifth step. More relevant to the article seems Van de Kaas ideas about a second demographic transition (even though it is somewhat different in character).

I really disagree with utmost belief, of the idea of including the 5th Stage in the DTM. It is a theory that explains demographic transformation/Changes from High birth rates and Death rates to Low birth rates and death rates period. And the Low birth and Death rates are xhibited in Stage 4, so why do we need stage 5, we will change the model and will lose its originality. Otikal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.212.62.242 (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

First paragraph[edit]

the term demographic transition is used to describe the transition from high birth rates and death rates to low birth and death rates that occurs as part of the economic development of a country from a pre-industrial to an industrialized economy. Usually it is described through the "Demographic Transition Model" that describes the population changes over time.

replace this clunky def with something better someone!

Role of contraception[edit]

In developing countries today access to contraceptives to prevent AIDS

Dont know if this is such an "important factor" in stage two as the article boldly asserts. Anyone know?? I thought data on the sucess or otherwise of  AIDS prevention through contraception is unclear at best yet alone the correlation it has on econ development . Suggest this is deleted.

Economic burden of oldies[edit]

The large group born during stage two ages creates an economic burden on the shrinking working population

Not happy with the use of the word "burden", but im no economist so I dont want to change anything! The problem is institutional not a resource one ie the ratio of healthy working years to disabled years has not necessarily changed.

Further source[edit]

http://www.uwmc.uwc.edu/geography/Demotrans/demtran.htm
Keith Montgomery has given permission for the contents of this page to be moved into Wikipedia.

no countries in Stage 1?[edit]

the article says that there are no countries still in stage 1. this is completely untrue, as developing countries such as ethiopia, bangladesh, some rainforest tribes, and other poor african countries are still in stage 1. --Danbrown99 19:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No, they are in stage 2, their mortality rates have fallen substantially. However, Bangladesh is in Stage 3 and will soon be in Stage 4, its TFR is 2.85 (see List of countries and territories by fertility rate)--Grahamec 01:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Stage 2[edit]

What has happened to Stage 2?! 86.132.190.15 13:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Still no Stage 2. I'll see if I can get to adding it later, if I have the time. Okuzaone 17:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've put it back - see the history. Basically what happened is that a vandal made some changes to the article that were not in the stage 2 section. Someone reverted those changes, but while they were being reverted, the vandal removed the stage two section. MediaWiki didn't take this as an edit conflict because changes were being made to two different sections of the article, so it accepted both changes. It sounds complicated but that's what happened. Graham87 08:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
That explanation is most likely incorrect. see my message at the technical section of the village pump - the time between the vandal removing the section and the revert was 1 second, so the server did not take the most recent vandal edit into account and therefore it was not reverted. Graham87 14:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Subsistence farming and obstacles posed by title are legitimate aspects that characterize transitions in countries with lopsided development, in contrast to previous economic transitions in Europe. This section should be better explained and expanded but it is connected to the topic, as one of the main criticisms of the DT model is that it doesn't so neatly apply to these other countries. So I will restore that section, but welcome the input of other editors about it. I also made a slight change to the intro sentence.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
De Soto makes no connection between his work and the demographic transition. Source for "as one of the main criticisms of the DT model".Ultramarine (talk) 07:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Tagged for original research and insufficient references[edit]

I've added article tags for suspected original research and insufficient references. I've also added in-line tags for lack of citations and OR in some parts of the body of the article. The article currently only has six unique citation sources, with much of the information in the article not supported by specific refences. There also seems to be some OR, for example:

...birth rates remain high in some nations, particularly Saudi Arabia, despite great increases in prosperity, probably partly as a result of government policy and partly as a result of the limited need and opportunity for mothers to work.

The conclusions presented in that passage look like speculation to me (see wp:No original research), especially with no specific citation present. Beejaypii (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added further tags to the "Stage 4" and Stage 5" sections. Again, these sections seem to be unsubstantiated and composed largely of original research. Beejaypii (talk) 11:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

DTM Ethnocentric[edit]

While we're at it, I think we need to expand the criticism section. The DTM places all societies along a linear scale of development, measured against the standards of modern Western Civilization. This contradicts contemporary approaches to Sociocultural evolution, and perpetuates an ethnocentric worldview. It also ignores basic anthropology. Stage 1 of the model, for example, seems to apply only to agricultural societies (where birth and death rates are high), and does not reflect the situation of pre-agricultural (hunter-gatherer) societies, where birth and death rates were typically low.--Pariah (talk) 05:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Cleaned up[edit]

I have gone through the article and added references and removed many citation needed tags. I think that someone has probably gone through the article and put in many tags when there are references to substantiate what is a fairly well accepted model. It must be noted that the DTM is only a model and does not purport to say what will really happen in the future, it is only a suggestion giving an explanation as to what has happened in Europe and may happen elsewhere.

Anyway the article could do with more work and references. I hope my amendments are OK. SuzanneKn (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

stage 3/4[edit]

  • Stage 1 is high birth high death
  • Stage 2 is high birth low death
  • Stage 3 is low birth low death
  • Stage 4 is low birth low death

What's the difference between 3 and 4? --71.176.167.123 (talk) 03:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Stage 3 has the birth rate still falling and the gap between the two rates is still reasonably large, so perhaps this would make better sense:
  • Stage 1 is high birth, high death rates in rough equilibrium.
  • Stage 2 is high birth, low death rates.
  • Stage 3 is medium birth, low death rates.
  • Stage 4 is low birth, low death rates in rough equilibrium.

(~Katherine~ (talk) 10:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)) 10:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"The United Kingdom (is) the earliest nation universally recognised as reaching Stage Five"[edit]

I'm extremely sceptical about this claim - for one thing, the most recent TFR reported for England and Wales is substantially higher than the European average.[1] Looking at table 4.5 on page 106 in Livi-Bacci (2001) A Concise History of World Population, I see that England and Wales had higher fertility than Germany in 1925, 1950 and 1960, and higher fertility than Sweden in 1925 and 1950.Pondle (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Stage 3[edit]

The first bullet point in the Stage 3 section effectively has the same sentence twice:

"In rural areas continued decline in childhood death means that at some point parents realize they need not require so many children to be born to ensure a comfortable old age. As childhood death continues to fall and incomes increase parents can become increasingly confident that fewer children will suffice to help in family business and care for them in old age."

I didn't fix it myself in case some expert thinks I'm wrong, and anyway, I don't know which to delete (or whether to combine the two somehow...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.134.100.102 (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Concept vs. Model[edit]

The first sentence of the entry should describe the concept, not the model. The description of the detailed model could follow. However, references to the original sources are needed. Who developed this 5 stage model? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdkag (talkcontribs) 13:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"Non-applicability to less-developed countries"[edit]

This section could not be more wrong. The demographic transition is nowhere more dramatically evident than in less-developed countries like China and India. China in particular underwent one of the fastest, most striking demographic transitions ever. Although China's population is still growing (as it must, given the time-delay of fertility effects on population), its fertility dropped off precipitously in a scant two generations, from 5-6 per woman to under replacement. And this in a country that was just barely emerging from dirt-poor feudalism (i.e. certainly "less-developed" by any standard). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.61.39 (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Stage LFG[edit]

Demographers have not shown that a belief system that encourages large numbers of children per couple/person cannot exist (Large Family is Good religion). These belief systems must be found and quantified in order to predict future birth rates. They might be associated with main stream religions as small subsets, or new religions. Future stages of the DTM will simply be showing the dominance of these belief systems as they out reproduce those that don't have strong beliefs regarding the number of children one should have. For DTM to have any ability to predict future birth rates the demographers must show that these belief systems cannot exist, or they must determine their size and growth rates so that they can properly compensate.Johntaves (talk) 02:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)