Married girls are often under pressure to become pregnant as soon as possible. An estimated million women in developing countries would like to delay or stop childbearing but are not using any method of contraception. Most of these women live in the poorest countries on earth. In Africa, one in four women of reproductive age have an unmet need for modern contraception. This is due to many reasons, including limited information, limited options of contraceptive methods, limited access to contraception, cultural or religious opposition and poor quality of available services.
For example, in India, children and grandchildren are legally required to provide food, accommodation, and health care for their parents if their parent is unable to provide for themselves. In these communities, there can be a cultural expectation to have big families to combat their need for extra labour.
For them, a large family might be the only assurance for survival. Religious beliefs may mean a family chooses not to use contraceptives. Affordable options for accessing contraception and healthcare for remote or rural communities are in short supply. A couple's family size is their own personal decision and our local staff would never seek to denigrate it. As part of our Mums and Babies survival projects, local staff share family planning methods in a culturally appropriate way so parents can make informed decisions.
This content was correct at the time of publishing. Compassion closed its programs in India on 15 March and no longer works in that nation.
How this one change can help people fight poverty
You can help give children living in poverty their own gift by donating to the Christmas Gift Fund. Learn more. Every child is a gift and a joy. But when income is scarce and a family is already struggling, why do parents expand their families?
- Piece Of Mynd: A Collection of Poetry and Prayers?
- Yale Insights is produced by the Yale School of Management.
- A Most Devilish Rogue.
- Poverty: What It Is and What We're Doing To End It - Business Connect World!
- Ethics and Poverty | OpenMind;
- You are what you eat — and how you cook it.
- Shared Parenting: Beyond the Great Divide: The Twenty Essential Co-parenting Tasks for Raising Children in Two Homes;
There are many social, cultural, religious and economic reasons why parents in the developing world have large families. Some might surprise you! Limited access to education Generally, the higher the degree of education and GDP per capita a country has, the lower the birth rate.
- Africa doesn’t need charity, it needs good leadership | World Economic Forum.
- Return to Amberley.
- Sports Publicity: A Practical Approach.
- Good cop, nice cop?
- The Behavioral Aspects of Poverty.
- Ethics and Poverty | OpenMind.
For many progressives, talk of personal responsibility amounts to blaming the victim and letting a low-wage Wal-Mart economy off the hook. For conservatives, there is still too much coddling by the welfare state; the story is all about personal values, and, if anything, America should get even tougher on the poor. This ideological stalemate is typical of why, as the columnist E. Dionne once wrote, "Americans hate politics. And that sentiment is exactly correct: Individual and systemic factors both explain poverty.
Yes, capitalism produces large numbers of economic losers, and especially lately, as the left suggests. But it is also clear that personal agency and cultural norms can influence economic success, as the right suggests.
The Behavioral Aspects of Poverty
It makes plenty of sense to debate which cause of poverty is most important. What doesn't make sense is to wholly dismiss one explanation in favor of another. Looking ahead, the winning ideas for reducing poverty will change individual attitudes and create more widely shared prosperity. Is this so complicated?
Africa doesn’t need charity, it needs good leadership
Libertarians and evangelicals are fixated on personal responsibility -- to the point of being woefully naive about the realities of our global age. But progressives and moderates should be capable of clearer thinking, too.
We all have every reason to embrace a nuanced understanding of poverty, as well as to move such common sense to the center of public policy. Right wingers like Charles Murray did not invent the idea that individual or cultural factors can determine success. Nor was it Jack Kemp who first said that personal empowerment was a key to getting out of poverty.
Sign up for stories
Liberals can claim a large share of credit for both these notions. From the earliest days of the labor movement, progressives championed the virtuous ideals of self-improvement and hard work. Many of the signature social policies of the 20th century -- like Pell Grants and the GI Bill -- sought to reward personal striving, not give handouts. A basic premise of modern psychology also largely a liberal enterprise is that a person's success is not governed by material conditions alone.
Family background, cultural influences, mental health -- each can affect how well we cope with the challenges of life. All of us know people from affluent backgrounds who have slid downward economically because of personal problems -- overly indulgent parents, an expensive divorce, a bad drug habit, untreated depression, or whatnot.
We also know people who have risen far above their origins through willpower and smart choices. Studies on social mobility find that class status at birth largely determines life chances, and that this correlation has actually intensified in recent years.
pierreducalvet.ca/172952.php This reality favors the liberal side of the argument. But the link is not ironclad; there are plenty of exceptions. As the sociologist Dalton Conley showed in his book The Pecking Order , large income gaps often exist among siblings raised in the same household. More broadly, a growing body of research underscores the pivotal role of family structure in determining household earnings. Men and women can both reduce their chances of being poor by delaying parenthood, by not parenting children out of wedlock, and by getting married and staying married -- just like they can reduce their chances of being poor by graduating from high school, staying sober, and setting the alarm every night.
All of this is easier said than done, of course -- especially if you've grown up against a backdrop of economic and social despair, in neighborhoods with high unemployment, rampant crime, violent husbands, and terrible schools. It is foolish to suggest that everyone can triumph against high odds if he or she just exercises personal responsibility.
But it is equally foolish to suggest that no one can beat the odds, or to ignore the role of individual agency in doing so. Both sides should agree on one thing, even if they argue about the details: the idea that poor people can empower themselves and change their own lives.
Long before George W. Bush picked up on the empowerment mantra of Jack Kemp and others, arguing in a speech that "real change in our culture comes from the bottom up, not the top down," activist groups like the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now ACORN and the Industrial Areas Foundation were saying the same thing -- and acting on it.