Vol. 7 No. 1 (2023)
Peer Reviewed Articles

Family Planning Progress in 113 Countries Using a New Composite Progress Index

PDF
  • Aalok Chaurasia
Aalok Chaurasia
MLC Foundation and 'Shyam' Institute
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3197/JPS.63799953906866

Published 2023-02-03

Keywords

  • Sustainable Development,
  • Family Planning Progress,
  • Composite Index,
  • Contraceptive Prevalence,
  • Family Planning Demand

How to Cite

Chaurasia, Aalok. 2023. “Family Planning Progress in 113 Countries Using a New Composite Progress Index”. The Journal of Population and Sustainability 7 (1):71-122. https://doi.org/10.3197/JPS.63799953906866.

Copyright (c) 2023 Aalok Chaurasia

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Abstract

This paper analyses family planning progress in 113 countries in the context of meeting the demand for family planning through a composite progress index that measures progress in three dimensions – demand for permanent methods, demand for modern spacing methods and expansion of method choice – following the progress triangle approach. This paper suggests that in more than forty per cent of countries analysed, family planning progress remains far from satisfactory in meeting the family planning demand and there is substantial inter-country variation in the progress. In some countries, progress appears to have reversed. The inter-country variation in family planning progress is primarily the result of inter-country variation in meeting the demand for permanent methods. The analysis calls for the reinvigoration of family planning efforts to meet the target set under the United Nations 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda and the FP2030 initiative.

PDF

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Adamchak, D.J. and M.T. Mbizvo. 1990. ‘The relationship between fertility and contraceptive prevalence in Zimbabwe’. International Family Planning Perspectives 16 (3): 103–106. https://doi.org/10.2307/2133307.
  2. Albach, H. and A. Moerke. 1995. ‘Die Überlegenheit der japanischen Unternehmen im globalen Wettbewerb. Berlin, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung’. Discussion Paper FS IV 96-4.
  3. Apablaza, M. and G. Yalonetzky. 2011. ‘Measuring the Dynamics of Multiple Deprivations among Children: The Cases of Andhra Pradesh, Ethiopia, Peru and Vietnam’. Young Lives Research in Progress. Oxford, University of Oxford.
  4. Bertrand, J.T., T.M. Sullivan, E.A. Knowles, … J.E. Shelton. 2014. ‘Contraceptive method skew and shifts in method mix in low- and middle-income countries’. International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 40 (3):144–153. https://doi.org/10.1363/4014414.
  5. Bertrand, J.T., J. Ross, T.M. Sullivan, …J.D. Shelton. 2020. ‘Contraceptive method mix: updates and implications’. Global Health Science and Practice 8 (4): 666–679. https://doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-20-00229
  6. Biestsch, K., A. Arbaji, J. Mason, … M.A. Ouri. 2021. ‘Shifting dynamics: Changes in the relationship between total fertility rate and contraceptive prevalence rate in Jordan between 2012 and 2017’. Gates Open Research 4: 160. https://doi.org/10.12688/gatesopenres.13188.2
  7. Bogan, C.E. and M.J. English. 1994. Benchmarking for Best Practice: Winning through Innovative Adaptation. New York, McGraw Hill.
  8. Bongaarts, J. 1978. ‘A framework for analyzing proximate determinants of fertility’. Population and Development Review 4 (1): 105–132. https://doi.org/10.2307/1972149
  9. Bongaarts, J. 1987. ‘The proximate determinants of exceptionally high fertility’. Population and Development Review 13 (1): 133–139. https://doi.org/10.2307/1972125
  10. Bongaarts, J. 2015. ‘Modeling the fertility impact of the proximate determinants: Time for a tune-up’. Demographic Research 33: 535–560. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2015.33.19
  11. Bongaarts, J. 2017. ‘The effect of contraception on fertility. Is sub-Saharan Africa different?’ Demographic Research 37: 129–146. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2017.37.6
  12. Bongaarts, J., J. Cleland, J.W. Townsend, … Das Gupta, M. 2012. Family Planning Programs for the 21st Century. Rationale and Design. New York, Population Council. https://doi.org/10.31899/rh11.1017
  13. Bongaarts, J. and D. Hodgson. 2022. Fertility Transition in the Developing World. New York, Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-11840-1
  14. Breiman, L., J.H. Friedman, C.J. Stone and R.A. Olshen. 1984. Classification and Regression Trees. Belmont, CA, Wadsworth.
  15. Carlson, B.C. 1972. ‘The logarithmic mean’. American Mathematical Monthly 79 (6): 615–618. https://doi.org/10.1080/00029890.1972.11993095
  16. Chaurasia, A.R. 2018. ‘The state of development in villages of India: an analysis of 2011 census data’. Indian Journal of Human Development 12 (3): 305–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/0973703018802731
  17. Chaurasia, A.R. 2020a. ‘Population effects of the increase in world energy use and CO2 emissions: 1990–2019’. The Journal of Population and Sustainability 5 (1): 87–125. https://doi.org/10.3197/jps.2020.5.1.87
  18. Chaurasia, A.R. 2020b. ‘Child survival progress in 194 countries: 1990–2015’. Demography India 49 (2): 35–51.
  19. Chaurasia, A.R. 2021. ‘Contraceptive method skew in India 1992–2016: analysis using a new method skew index’. Studies in Family Planning 52 (4): 487–512. https://doi.org/10.1111/sifp.12177
  20. Choi, Y., M.S. Fabic and J. Adetunji. 2018. ‘Does age-adjusted measurement of contraceptive use better explain the relationship between fertility and contraception?’ Demographic Research 39: 1227–1240. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2018.39.45
  21. Clegg, L.X., B.F. Hankey, R. Tiwari, … B.K. Edwards. 2009. ‘Estimating average annual percent change in trend analysis’. Statistics in Medicine 20 (29): 3670–3682. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.3733
  22. Dasgupta, P. 2019. Time and Generations: Population Ethics for a Diminishing Planet. New York, Columbia University Press. https://doi.org/10.7312/dasg16012
  23. Domptin, C. 1997. ‘Budget: nos voisins au banc d’essai’. Alternatives Economiques. 152.
  24. FP2020. 2020. ‘Progress Report 2012–2013: Partnership in Action’. Washington DC, FP2020. FP2020. nd. ‘FP2030 Measurement Framework’. p2030.org/sites/default/files/Draft-framework-20211029.pdf.
  25. Han, J., M. Kamber and J. Pei. 2012. Data Mining. Concepts and Techniques. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  26. Horvitz, C., D.W. Schemske and H. Caswell. 1997. ‘The relative “importance” of life-history stages to population growth: prospective and retrospective analyses.’ In S. Tuljapurkar and H. Caswell (ed.) Structured-population Models in Marine, Terrestrial, and Freshwater Systems. London, Chapman and Hall, Population and Community Biology Series 18: 247–271.
  27. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-5973-3_7
  28. Jain, A.K. 1997. ‘Consistency between contraceptive use and fertility in India’. Demography India 26 (1): 19–36.
  29. Jain, A., J. Ross, J. Gribble and E. McGinn. 2014. ‘Inconsistencies in the total fertility rate and contraceptive prevalence rate in Malawi’. Washington DC, Futures Group, Health Policy Project.
  30. Jurczynska, K., B. Kuang and E. Smith. 2016. ‘Accounting for the mismatch between predicted and observed fertility in sub-Saharan Africa’. Paper presented at the Population Association of America Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C.
  31. Lianos, T.P. and A. Pseridis. 2016. ‘Sustainable welfare and optimum population size.’ Environment, Development and Sustainability 18 (6): 1679–1699. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-015-9711-5
  32. Measure Evaluation. 2018. ‘Family planning method choice. Key indicators.’ Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina, Carolina Population Centre, Measure Evaluation.
  33. Nold, H. and L. Michel. 2016. ‘The performance triangle: a model for corporate agility’. Leadership and Organization Development Journal 37 (3): 341–356. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-07-2014-0123
  34. Rees, M., P.J. Grubb and D. Kelly. 1996. ‘Quantifying the impact of competition and spatial heterogeneity on the structure and dynamics of a four-species guild of winter annuals.’ American Naturalist 147 (1):1–32. https://doi.org/10.1086/285837
  35. Rees, M., C.P. Osborne, F.I. Woodward and S.H. Taylor. 2010. ‘Partitioning the components of relative growth rate: how important is plant size variation?’ The American Naturalist 176 (6). https://doi.org/10.1086/657037
  36. Robinson, W.C. and J.A. Ross. 2007. The Global Family Planning Revolution: Three Decades of Population Policies and Programs. Washington, D.C. The World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-6951-7
  37. Rosenberg, R. 2020. The National Composite Index for Family Planning (NCIFP): 2017 Global Report. New York, Avenir Health.
  38. Ross, J., J. Keesbury and K. Hardee. 2015. ‘Trends in the contraceptive method mix in low- and middle-income countries: analysis using a new “average deviation” measure’. Global Health Science and Practice 3 (1): 34–55. https://doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-14-00199
  39. Ross, J.A. and W.P. Mauldin. 1996. ‘Family planning programs: efforts and results.’ Studies in Family Planning 27 (3): 137–147. https://doi.org/10.2307/2137919
  40. Ross, J.J. and J. Stover. 2001. ‘The family planning program effort index: 1999 cycle.’ International Family Planning Perspective 27 (3): 119–129. https://doi.org/10.2307/2673833
  41. Schütz, H., S. Speckesser and G. Schmid. 1998. ‘Benchmarking labour market performance and labour market policies: theoretical foundations and applications.’ Berlin, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung. Discussion Paper FS I 98–205.
  42. Seiber, E.E., J.T. Bertrand and T.M. Sullivan. 2007. ‘Changes in contraceptive method mix in developing countries’. International Family Planning Perspective 33 (3): 117–123. https://doi.org/10.1363/3311707
  43. Srinivasan, K. 1993. ‘A critique on contraceptive prevalence rate (CPR)’. Paper presented at 1993 IUSSP General Conference, Montreal, Canada.
  44. Stover, J. 1998. ‘Revising the proximate determinants of fertility framework: What have we learned in the past 20 Years?’ Studies in Family Planning 29 (3): 255–267. https://doi.org/10.2307/172272
  45. Sullivan, T.M., J.T. Bertrand and J.D. Shelton. 2006. ‘Skewed contraceptive method mix: why it happens, why it matters’. Journal of Biosocial Science 38 (4): 501–521. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021932005026647
  46. Tan, P-N., M. Steinbach and V. Kumar. 2006. Introduction to Data Mining. Boston, MA, Pearson Addison-Wesley.
  47. Thomas, N. and C. Mercer. 1995. ‘An examination of the fertility/contraceptive prevalence anomaly in Zimbabwe’. Genus 51 (3–4): 179–203.
  48. Tsui, A.O. 2001. ‘Population policies, family planning programs and fertility: the record’. Population and Development Review 27 (5): 184–204.
  49. United Nations 2015. Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015. New York, United Nations. A/RES/70/1.
  50. United Nations 2019. Contraceptive Use by Method. Data Booklet. New York, United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Population Division
  51. United Nations 2020. Estimates and Projections of Family Planning Indicators 2020. New York, United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division.
  52. United Nations 2022. World Population Prospects 2022. Online Edition. New York, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Population Division.
  53. Westoff, C.F. and A. Bankole. 2001. ‘The contraception fertility link in sub-Saharan Africa and in other developing countries’. Calverton: ORC Macro (DHS Analytical Studies No. 4).
  54. Yeakey, M.P. and K.P. Gilles. 2017. ‘Expanding method choice for successful family planning programs’. Washington DC, Population Reference Bureau.
  55. Zeine, R., C.A. Boglarsky, P. Blessinger and L. Michel. 2014. ‘External adaptability of higher education institutions. The use of diagnostic interventions to improve agility’. Change Management: An International Journal 13. https://doi.org/10.18848/2327-798X/CGP/v13i04/50757