Centre for Global Health, Population, Poverty, and Policy

1

Seminar Series on Poverty and Sexual and Reproductive Health : Towards Unravelling the Vicious Circle:

NEWS BRIEF on the seminar on Poverty and Fertility

The Poverty and Fertility seminar which was held on 28-29 January 2010 at the Centre for Global Health, Population, Poverty and Policy (GHP3) at the University of Southmapon was the first of a series of four seminars on “Poverty and Sexual and Reproductive Health: Towards Unravelling the Vicious Circle”, where academics and practitioners come together to review evidence from cutting edge research in the field and to identify gaps for further scientific research, policy, and practice. Scholars and practitioners from Africa, Asia, USA, and the UK attended this exciting two-day seminar. The seminars are funded by the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council. The presentations covered areas of family planning, strategies for achieving desired fertility where mortality expectations are high, adolescent fertility, land holding and fertility,community based provision of reproductive health services. Other areas covered included the link between infertility and poverty and generating national and political priorities for reproductive health supplies. The research covered Africa, Asia, and South America. Keynote presentation were made by Prof P M Kulkarni of Jawaharlal Nehru University and Dr E Zulu of the African Institute for Development and Policy

Abstracts for the presentations can be found on the GHP3 website http://www.southampton.ac.uk/socsci/ghp3/Events/index.html

Photo by GHP3: Monica Magadi and Rachel

Baird having a discussion over tea break.

Participants engaged in discussions at the end of each day. The discussions centred around the following three questions. 1) What the evidence was and what gaps were

still left to be filled?

There was evidence of the poor supply of contraceptive commodities in some areas while in other areas there was an issue of demand and high mortality rates resulting in an insurance decision. Quality of care was not always good and the women needed to be economically empowered. Context was seen to be very important in reviewing the evidence. On the gaps in knowledge, the largest gap was on what interventions and programmes really work? Thus implementation research was highlighted as important—knowing what the real barriers are between the supply and delivery of services to men and women.

Key discussion points

Programme

NEWS BRIEF on the seminar on Fertility and Poverty

Centre for Global Health, Population, Poverty, and Policy

2

Other gaps that were identified included: the importance of engaging both women and men; decision-making within households; the importance of dowries in fertility behaviour; the public health aspect in reproduction. On links between fertility and labour participation, the seminar cautioned against the assumption of the existence of jobs everywhere as sometimes the lack of participation in wage employment was due to the scarcity of jobs.

The seminar also highlighted the need for further evidence on couple’s and individual’s fertility choices, fertility and the economies of scale, and empirical evidence on hoarding and insurance fertility strategies.

Photo by GHP3: Eliya Zulu talking to Beth Outterson

2. What are the methodological challenges in

measuring fertility and poverty?

More longitudinal studies were necessary to understand fully the links between poverty and fertility and unmet need for contraception. There was no shaortage of macro-level analyses but micro approaches were required also. and there should be a more micro level approach to the macro. The value of studies using of meta-analysis and sub-population specific analysis was highlighted. Participants also felt that there should be more integration of quantitative and qualitative studies. Cross-national comparisons were seen as important as long as there was comparability and consistency in surveys.

3. What are the best approaches to communicating with policymakers about population growth and poverty? Do we need a one number answer?

The seminar agreed that academics should aim to involve policy makers in the process of the research and that they should be more creative in

disseminating their findings. For example using future scenarios in explaining the impact of population growth is often more powerful that just reporting on high population growth. There were barriers to uptake of research fundings including lack of political will, budget constraints, corruption, and different interpretation of policies

The seminar ended on Day 2 with an overall summary of the discussions that had taken place.

Summary points

1. High fertility is evident in poor countries,

often leading to unsustainable population growth. High fertility and high child mortality work hand-in-hand.

2. Pro-natalist societies within ‘anti-natalist’

administrations result in weak commitment to FP programmes

3. In poor countries, there is a clear gradient

in contraceptive use by household wealth status

4. The urban poor are becoming increasingly

marginalized resulting in higher fertility relative to other urban inhabitants.

5. There is a neglect of infertility issues in

high fertility countries

To join the network or to get in touch with us please email us @ rl@soton.ac.uk

Future seminars:

1. Reproductive Morbidity and Poverty, 6th November 2010 – London School of Economics 2. Poverty and Maternal Newborn and Child Health, 17/18 January 2011- University of Aberdeen 3. Poverty, Geography and Reproductive Health, Spring 2011 – University of Warwick This seminar Series partners are: London School of Economics, London School of

Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Warwick University,

University of Loughborough, City University.

Follow up and future seminars

Summing up