Total Fertility 1.64 Children Born/Woman (2008 Est.)

[PeaceBlondie]

This the this

[IanForbes]

Although I can't understand the post, PB, it's nice to see you are around. I also know the reason for your typing problems and hope everything is improving.

[Scully]

I think PB is pointing out that Thailand has a low fertility rate which is usually not seen in developing countries. Developed countries usually have a much lower fertility rate due to greater wealth and education with Thailand having a similar rate to the rest of the western world.

The fertility rate is the average number of children that would be born to a woman over their lifetime. Personally not knowing how these figures are compiled or whether they are true or not is probably the reason for PB's post.

[IanForbes]

I think PB is pointing out that Thailand has a low fertility rate which is usually not seen in developing countries. Developed countries usually have a much lower fertility rate due to greater wealth and education with Thailand having a similar rate to the rest of the western world.

The fertility rate is the average number of children that would be born to a woman over their lifetime. Personally not knowing how these figures are compiled or whether they are true or not is probably the reason for PB's post.

Thanks for the explanation, Scully. It might partially explain the Philippines high rate of child birth. That, and being predominantly Catholic where they want poor mothers to have even MORE children than they can possibly feed.

[Mosha]

Doesn't a population growth need to be around 2.1?

[isanbirder]

Doesn't a population growth need to be around 2.1?

2.1 is the fertility rate needed to maintain a population at its current size. Thailand, like many Western countries , is heading for a period when there will be a much higher proportion of non-productive older people.

The low fertility rate is partly a result of Mr Condom's success in promoting the condom. Great to reduce the incidence of AIDS, but with this side-effect.

Oh, and welcome back, PeaceBlondie!

[sbk]

No, it had nothing to do with AIDS and condom use. Read this report:

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:HYE-YC1oJZMJ:www.olemiss.edu/pubs/amsa/pdfs/AMSA%25201_1_%2520Billingsley%2520-%2520Thai%2520Fertility%2520Decline.pdf+thai+fertility+per+woman&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiCiOPKjkGU2uGfFcXpBJCPlSU0eaI5LF-ljwvLmB48hQC7bt_xayIF8wuPESy7FdqA2bK-u3aA7EyWrHJjAYKTITqyRAUYaACIXEE_FfwnQCnBJuySCT3BEqD9yQrPBgDStU-x&sig=AHIEtbSf6Dj3Ye8YymXzU6nOeEiznSo9ew

The Southeast Asian nation of Thailand has undergone one of the world’s most rapid and uniform demographic transitions. In the 1960s, the total fertility rate in Thailand was over 6.6 children per woman, yielding a population growth rate greater than three percent per year (Knodel and Pitaktepsombati 1973:229). The predicted costs of providing social infrastructure to support such a large population—then estimated to surpass 100 million people by the turn of the millennium—led the Thai Cabinet to drop its pronatalist position on population growth and initiate a National Family Planning Program (hereafter, NFPP) in March 1970. Administered by the Ministry of Public Health, the Thai NFPP was specifically charged “to inform eligible women, particularly those living in rural and remote areas, about concepts of family planning, to motivate them to use contraception, and to make family planning services readily available throughout the country” as well as “to integrate family planning activities with overall maternal and child health services and thus mutually to strengthen the activities in these closely related fields” (Gullaprawit 1997:3, 5).

The Thai Cabinet and the Ministry of Public Health designed their NFPP with the intention of reducing the rate of annual population growth from 3 percent to 2.5 percent by 1976, a numerical target outlined in the program charter as well as in a national five-year economic plan (Burintratikul and Samaniego 1978; Knodel and Pitaktepsombati 1973:230). Within just a few years, greater contraceptive prevalence and a decline in fertility were noticeable throughout the kingdom, among urban and rural couples alike. Each numerical target set by the NFPP over the following two-and-a-half decades was

met or exceeded, reducing the total fertility to below the replacement level of 2.25

children per woman by the late 1980s or early 1990s (Knodel et al. 1996:308).

Demographers now expect the Thai population to peak below 75 million people, a downward revision of almost 35 million from estimates made in the late 1970s (Gullaprawit 1997:21; Population Reference Bureau [PRB] 2005). The rapid Thai fertility transition has been attributed to the prevalence of free or low-cost contraceptives provided to women throughout the kingdom by the Ministry of Public Health and nongovernmental agencies that cooperate with the NFPP (Kamnuansilpa, Chamratrithirong, and Knodel 1982; Rosenfield et al. 1982:43).

Contraceptive use skyrocketed from 14 percent in 1970 to 37 percent in 1975, 50 percent in 1979, and surpassed 70 percent in 2003 (Kamnuansilpa et al. 1982:52; United Nations 2003a). Demographer John Knodel and his associates have noted that the fertility transition “permeated virtually all major segments of Thai society, with the partial exception of Malay-speaking Muslims in the lower south” and a few hill tribe communities in the upper north (Knodel et al. 1996:310-311). Socioeconomic

differentials that typically delineate the contours of contraceptive use—such as education,

income, and urban-rural locality—were virtually insignificant in the Thai context

(Rosenfield et al. 1982:43).

And yes, welcome back PB and cheers for an interesting topic!

[sbk]

And on a personal note, my inlaws both come from families of 7-8 kids. They had 4. They have four grandkids (one had two and one had none). All the Thai people I know do not want more than 2 children, stating its too many. This is down to education and the widely available, often free and not taboo birth control pill.

[isanbirder]

Your extract says 'free contraceptives', which meant, and still means, free condoms at the village clinics as well as oral contraceptives. But this is less important than the effect it has all had.

As always when this happens, the decrease in fertility is mostly among the educated people, while the uneducated villagers still procreate as freely as before... well, not quite so freely, because of the village clinic.

[Warhammer820]

maybe it's so low because of the high gay population (this is a serious response).

[sbk]

Your extract says 'free contraceptives', which meant, and still means, free condoms at the village clinics as well as oral contraceptives. But this is less important than the effect it has all had.

As always when this happens, the decrease in fertility is mostly among the educated people, while the uneducated villagers still procreate as freely as before... well, not quite so freely, because of the village clinic.

My husbands family are all villagers and this pattern is in effect with everyone. And if you look at the data you will see it predates Meechai's AIDS education campaign.

[sbk]

maybe it's so low because of the high gay population (this is a serious response).

Did you read the article?

[folium]

maybe it's so low because of the high gay population (this is a serious response).

Did you read the article?

Excellent article. Thailand is a great example of a country that has moved along the Demographic transition model in 50 years while the UK took 150 years to achieve the same sequence of drop in deathrates (DR)-> population explosion-> drop in birth rates (BR). Thailand is now a late Stage 4 nation where DR and BR are both low and the population growth is now tailing off. It will take a while for the boom year children to work through, meanwhile the population will age and possibly DR will exceed BR and the population shrinks as we are seeing in Russia, Japan, Italy and Germany.

Demographically Thailand's population will now see a larger proportion of the total being 65+, and if fertility rates remain below replacement level of 2.1 the total population will ultimately shrink. This has all sorts of social/economic repercussions and the Thai government may go for yet another change of policy, back to a pro-natalist stance. This pattern is being played out across Asia.

The one horror story is the growing discrepancy in the gender ratio, especially where ultrasounds are readily and cheaply accessible, and there is a cultural bias for boy babies. This coupled with a desire for 1-2 children is fueling a wave of foeticides of female babies to be. Again this appears to be an Asian wide issue, not just in China. Census data backs this up here, across SE Asia and particularly in India, where it is being driven by the newly affluent middle class who can afford ultrasounds and living in urban areas cannot afford more than 2 children.

[PeaceBlondie]

2015-2020 1.51 2020-2025 1.47

2025-2030 1.44

2030-2035 1.40

2035-2040 1.38

2040-2045 1.37

2045-2050 1.35

[Beetlejuice]

Great to see you back, PB. Keep em coming.

I would have thought, worldwide, with improved medical advances and better living conditions that the fertility rates must be increasing year by year.

Of course the figures can vary greatly according to wealth and in what parts of the world and areas of a country in which we live. But on the other hand, considering that the world population is now up to 7 billion, do we really need anymore major population increases? Isn`t there enough of us already?

Just think? We could probably plonk a few billion people on another planet somewhere and hardly notice it.

Edited August 21, 2012 by Beetlejuice

[Bender]

With all the gay people in thailand you dont have to wonder why there arent so much new born.

[PeaceBlondie]

Thai Fertile

1980-1985 2.95

1985-1990 2.30

1990-1995 1.99

1995-2000 1.77

2000-2005 1.68

2005-2010 1.63

2010-2015 1.58

2015-2020 1.54

2020-2025 1.51

2025-2030 1.48

2030-2035 1.45

2035-2040 1.43

2040-2045 1.41

2045-2050 1.39

[folium]

Thai Fertile

1980-1985 2.95

1985-1990 2.30

1990-1995 1.99

1995-2000 1.77

2000-2005 1.68

2005-2010 1.63

2010-2015 1.58

2015-2020 1.54

2020-2025 1.51

2025-2030 1.48

2030-2035 1.45

2035-2040 1.43

2040-2045 1.41

2045-2050 1.39

The interesting thing about Thai fertility rates is that they were very similar to China's in the 1950's at around 6.5 children per woman. Today they are again similar at 1.6.

The sad fact is how the 2 countries got to today's figure. The 1 child policy with its quotas for rewards mentality led to infanticide, forced abortions and forced sterilizations. Thailand had a successful contraception programme and left it up to people to make the right choice and equipped them with the knowledge and resources to carry them out.

While Thailand's approach was far more humane, both countries are facing a growing gender imbalance due to the preference for male babies and the accessibility to ultrasounds that allow for selective abortions of female unborn.

[SimonD]

I forget the exact figure but isn't the population sustainability rate about 2.3?

Anything below that and we run out of people over two generations and also places an increased tax burden on those of working age?

With Thailand's growing consumption of western food and the increasing sedentary, unhealthy, lifestyles associated with it, does this mean that longevity will decrease alongside lower birth rates as well...?

Population meltdown inside two generations?

[travelmann]

as far as Im concerned population decrease worldwide would be a good thing in the long term.

[PeaceBlondie]

2015-2020 1.54

2020-2025 1.51

2025-2030 1.48

2030-2035 1.45

2035-2040 1.43

2040-2045 1.41

2045-2050 1.39