Asia-Pacific Population Journal, Volume 26 No. 4

The Journal contains three articles: 

1. Demographic transition in Southern Asia: challenges and opportunities. This paper examines fertility and mortality trends in Southern Asia and its consequences for changes in age structure, dependency ratio, population ageing and feminization of the elderly population. It highlights challenges and opportunities brought about by the demographic transition and suggests ways in which countries in the Southern Asia can reap the benefits of the “demographic dividend”, which is a one-time “window of opportunity” that countries in the region should not fail to fully exploit.

2. Do slum dwellers have lower contraceptive prevalence rates? An analysis of current use patterns in Calcutta, India. This paper examines whether there are significant variations in contraceptive prevalence rates between slum and non-slum women of Calcutta, India. A Disparity Index is calculated, using unit level data from the 2006 Demographic Health Survey. The Index reveals that variations in overall and modern contraceptive prevalence rates between currently married slum and non-slum respondents are low. Statistical tests (both parametric and non-parametric) reveal that though differences in overall contraceptive prevalence rates are significantly lower in slums, differences in usage of modern methods between slum and non-slum areas is marginal.

3. Mobility as Development Strategy:  The case of the Pacific Islands.  Migration is often portrayed in terms of net gain or loss in which remittances provide the compensation for those States or territories which are seen as disadvantaged in the competition for especially skilled workers. In the Pacific region this dichotomy is illustrated through the loss for countries of origin (Pacific Island countries and territories) of their ’best and brightest’ to the region’s larger and more prosperous States. This has occurred to such an extent that many see the limited development gains made by small island States and territories in the post World War Two period as being largely explained by the failure to counter the resulting inequalities in both ‘brain drain’ and ‘brain gain’. This article argues though that such a dichotomy misses those shared development gains reaped through increased labour mobility.