Demographic Transition (Frank W. Notestein)
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb
On the back of the first page of the packet is the following question:
On a separate paper please explain where both of the countries you chose would fall in Frank Notestein's demographic transition model. Back up your response using data you collected just collected.
Please comment your response to the above question on the blog.
When you are finished go to the following link:
Snurffle Island
I decided to take stats on Sweden and Bangladesh. Sweden can most likely be categorized under Stage 4 aka Post-Transition. Sweden is undergoing a decelerating growth rate (.8%) with a very balanced and low birth to death rate at 12 births to 10 deaths per 1'000 people. On the other hand, Bangladesh is in Stage 2 or Early-Transition. As characterized by Frank W. Notestein, Bangladesh has a high birth rate and low death rate seen at 22 births to 5 deaths to every 1'000 people. Consequently, they are in the middle of a rapidly growing population.
ReplyDeleteI chose to focus on the countries of Israel and Djibouti. I would characterize Isreal as being in the second stage of Dr. Notestein’s Demographic Transition Theory. Isreal seems to be in the early transition stage because it has a fairly large population of 8.059 million and it’s going up at a rate of 1.8%. The birth rate of 21 outweighs the death rate of 5 by a significant amount. I would say that Irael is definitely later in transition than Djibouti is but they both fall under the same category of early transition based on their statistics. Djibouti has a small population of 828,324. However, they have a rapid growth rate of 2.1%. Their birth rate is 27 and the death rate is 9. Again, there is a huge disparity between the two, which leads me to believe that this country is currently transitioning.
ReplyDeleteThe two countries that I chose to focus on were Iceland and Bangladesh. Bangladesh is easily distinguishable as a stage 2 or early transitional country. They have a huge CBR to CDR discrepancy, with 22 births per every 1,000 population and only 5 deaths. Bangladesh already has a pretty large population (156,187,000) that currently has a 1.1% growth rate. Iceland is a little more difficult to place in this model. To begin with Iceland has about the same area as Bangladesh but an immensely smaller population, theirs only being 336,000 and growing at 1.2%. With the CBR in Iceland being at a fairly high 14 and the CDR being 5, I think I would say that Iceland is right at the end of stage 2, and possibly just beginning to enter stage 3 or late transition. I have to say I’m surprised at how these two countries ended up being in such close proximity in this model, based on statistics, I would’ve never assumed they’d be this similar.
ReplyDeleteNorway is in stage 3 (Late transition), because the birth rate (13) is starting to decline and they have a small population growth number (1.3). On the Population Pyramid, there is a high number of 25 year olds-70 year olds than 24 year olds and below. This shows that the population is declining slowly.
ReplyDeleteLaos is in stage 2 (early transition), because their death rate is low (9), and their birth rates are high (28). Their growth rate is also very high (1.8). On the Population Pyramid, the youth (35 years old and below) there is a much greater amount of people than the elders (36 years and above).
The two countries I chose to study were Germany and Chad. Germany most closely fits into early stage 4 (post transition). The population growth rate is very low, .2% and the death rate has actually exceeded the birth rate at 10.6 per 1000 die per year compared to 8.5 per 1000 born per year. The birth and death rate are very low and close together and the population growth will decline a little bit or stay stable at 0.
ReplyDeleteChad, a less developed country, exists in stage 2 or early transition. The birth rate is very high, 47.8 births per 1000 people, compared to the death rate of 14.3 deaths per 1000 people. This gives Chad a population growth rate of 3%. The death rate is relatively low but the birth rate has not yet started to decline.
I decided to choose Sweden and Mozambique for my two countries on this assignment. Based on demographic transition theory by Frank W. Notestein, I have concluded that Sweden would be distinguished as a stage four post-transition population. The total population of Sweden is nine million with a low birth rate of 0.8%. This country can be categorized as stage four because it has relatively low birth rate of 12 per every 1000 people and low death rates of 10 per every 1000 people.
ReplyDeleteMozambique is defined as being in the stage 2 early transition. Their growth rate is extremely high, especially compared to Sweden at 2.2%. The country's total population is 21,439,000 which is well over double the total population of Sweden. The birth rate is at a high 41 per every 1000 people and has a death rate of 14 per every 1000 people.
It was very interesting to see how different each of these countries were based on their population. As well, it was sad to see life expectancy age which was a staggering 50 years old.
i chose Somalia and Saudi as my countries. based on the demographic transition theory i decided that Somalia was a stage one pre-transition. Their birth rates are high but so are their death rates.
ReplyDeleteSaudi was a stage four country because their birth and death rates are quite low.
Finland, my developed country, has a relatively stable population distribution across different age groups (save for the obvious 80+ age group). The data also shows that there is a crude birth rate (CBR) of 11 people per thousand, while the crude death rate (CDR) is around 9 people per thousand. These rates are roughly balanced (slightly favoring population growth), and given the low mortality rate for infants and children under 5 (of only three per thousand), This country has shown that it is in the fourth stage of demographic transition, under modern stability.
ReplyDeleteMadagascar, on the other hand, is a developing country with a far more unstable population. The age profile graph shows a pyramid shape - meaning that the population boasts an unbalanced number of children. The pyramid tapers as it goes through age groups, reflecting high mortality rates and extreme stress on the people living within Madagascar, since their life expectancy is only 63. The CBR is as high as 36, although they have a high mortality rate among their young - 52 for infants and 76 for children under 5. This country is around phase one or two on the model - their high birth rates are somewhat balanced by high infant mortality, but they still experience a steep climb in population numbers.
I choose to do Sweden and Somalia. Sweden is most likely categorized under stage four, or a post-transitional society. Sweden has low birth rates, as well as low death rates. They are also very balanced, birth rates being at 11.8(per 1000) and undergoing a slight decline by about .84%. While death rates are around 9.4(per1000)
ReplyDeleteSomalia would be in an early transition or stage 2. There birth rates are staggering high(43.77 per 1000) while there death rates are very low(13.3 per 1000) causing the population to grow very rapidly.
The two countries I chose were Iceland and Eritrea. I would say that Iceland falls under Notestein's stage of Late transition. A few of Iceland's data points fall outside of the late transition stage but I believe the state Iceland is in is best described by this stage of transition. Iceland's birth rates are beginning to decline. Births still remain higher than deaths, but the population growth rate is beginning to decelerate from 2.1% to 1.3%. Total fertility rate is at a very stable 2.2 births per woman. Eritrea however has a total fertility rate nearly twice the amount of Iceland's. where Iceland has a crude birth rate of around 16, Eritrea has a crude birth rate more than double of Iceland's. Death rates are low in Eritrea compared to their birthrates. this leads me to believe that Eritrea is somewhere in the early transition stage, when deaths begin to decline but births remain high which leads to a large growth in population.
ReplyDeleteI think that is is fairly easy to see that Portugal has entered a late-transition or even post-transition stage, where the birth rate is relatively low and has even entered a decline in more recent times. The people seemed to have reached the carrying capacity of Portugal. While in Togo, it is a different story; they are still in early transition. I can see by recent graphs that while the infant and below-5 mortality hate are still high, they have quickly dropped, and the life expectancy is rising. Because the average woman has 7 children and most of them are set to survive, the population is experiencing a boom, which would place Togo squarely in early transition.
ReplyDeleteI chose France and Ethiopia for my two countries. I would place France under Notestein’s fourth stage.There are aspects of France’s demography that would suggest is would lie in stage three, but I believe France to be in the post-transitional stage due to its low crude birth rate and death rate, being 13 and 8 respectively. France’s Total Fertility rate is at 2.0, which is the optimum rate to have for most countries. France’s growth rate also lies at .6% which is close to negligible. For Ethiopia I would place it in the second stage or Early transition. Though there are elements of the pre-transitional stage in Ethiopia I still think it is in stage 2. Ethiopia’s death rate is not extremely high at 11, close to France’s. Ethiopia’s crude birth rate is however very large at 40. Its TFR is also at a very high 5.7, far beyond the optimal level. Similarly its growth rate is high at 2.6%. Its population is starting to increase rapidly as its death rate is lower, this data gives me reason to believe Ethiopia falls under Notestein’s stage 2.
ReplyDeleteJapan is in the post-transitional stage of demographic transition according to Notestein's model. It has a population growth rate of zero percent, with the death and birth rates both equaling nine deaths or births per 1000 people. Both of these rates are low, the birth rate especially when compared to Tanzania's. While the death rate is fairly low at ten deaths per 1000 people, the birth rate is at 40 births per 1000 people. They also have a growth rate of 2.8%, signifying rapid population growth. This classifies Tanzania as being in the early transitional stage of demographic transition.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe two countries I chose were Sweden and Madagascar. According to Dr.Notestein’s Demographic Transition Theory, Sweden would be categorized as stage 4 (Post-Transition), while Madagascar would be categorized as stage 2 (Early-Transition). Sweden is considered to be in stage 4 because it has a relatively low growth rate of 0.8%, and have low, balanced, birth and death rates of 12 births per 1,000 people and 10 deaths per 1,000 people. Madagascar would be in stage 2 because of its high growth rate of 2.8%, and high birth rate of 36 births per 1,000 people, and low death rate of 8 deaths per 1,000 people.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe two countries that I chose were Italy and Tuvalu. According to Frank W. Notestein’s demographic transition theory, I would characterize Italy as stage four, post-transition, because both their birth rate and death rate are very at 10 each. The population is slightly decreasing, and balanced at .7%. As for Tuvalu, I would characterize it under stage 2, early transition on its way to stage 3 because the birth rate (23 to every 1,000 people) is higher, the death rate is the same as Italy’s being 10, but the growth rate is very close to the growth rate of Italy being .6%- a steady, but slightly declining population growth.
ReplyDeleteFor my two countries, I chose to research Norway and Madagascar. According to Notestein, Norway is deep in the late transitional stage, stage 3. Norway has an overall population growth rate of 1.3%, with a crude birth rate of 12 births per 1000, and crude death rate of around 8 deaths per 1000. These stats show that as of now Norway is sitting comfortably with its population; that doesn’t necessarily mean for long though. If you look at the population profile of Norway, it’s observed that there is a dip around people in their mid to late twenties. What this shows is that there are less people reaching the age of recruitment than in prior generations. This means that the crude birth rate in the coming years will surely drop, leading to Norway’s transformation into a post-transitional stage four country.
ReplyDeleteMadagascar is in quite a different situation. Having an overall population growth rate of 2.8%, a crude birth rate of around 35 births per 1000, and crude death rate of about 7 deaths per 1000, Madagascar can be considered a developing country, or in Notestein’s model an early transitioning country. Another key and consistent conclusion that comes from the data collected is that a lot of people live very short lives in comparison to countries farther along the stages of the model. The life expectancy in Madagascar is only about 64 years, which is close to 20 years less than Norway’s. Additionally, the infant and under 5 mortality rates in Madagascar are both around a whopping 50 deaths per 1000. This is then reflected in the population profile, where for males and females you have a negative exponential graph. A very high percentage of lives don’t make it past their toddler years, not to mention that even if they make it past then, there are still low chances of making to the typical age of retirement. What’s remarkable about this data, is that even though the IMR and under 5 mortality rate are so high, the population still grows at a remarkable rate. A reason to explain this is that the average total fertility rate is over 4 births per woman, compared to Norway’s 1.85 births per woman.
The countries I chose were Greece and Madagascar. Greece has a current population is 10,955,000 and has a population density of 212 people per square mile on average. The population growth rate is actually declining with a growth rate of -0.6%. In fact the nation's death rate is 11.2 whereas the birth rate remains around 8.5. The average life expectancy is around 80.5 years with most of greece's citizens over 40 years of age. Greece is in a post traditional stage for a country.
ReplyDeleteOn the other side of the population spectrum sits madagascar, with an average population of around 22,434,363 in far surpasses greece although economically speaking in has a long way to come. Being a large country also allows it to have a smaller population density, around 91.1 people per square mile. With a high growth rate (2.8%) and a high fertility rate (4.53) the population is rapidly expanding. The crude birth rate is 37.7 with a very low death rate of 7 however the life expectancy is only 65 years of average.
Japan would have to be the 4th stage because their death rates and birthrates are equal and it creates a balance because people in japan are limited to 1 kid per couple. And even then people sometimes don't have kids, because in a documentary we saw in class we saw how the women wait a very long time to have kids.
ReplyDeleteDjibouti to me would be stage 2 as it is a developing country they are still very poor. Birthrates in Djibouti are much higher than the death rates as of right now. So the population has grown 2.23% as of 2014 and they expect it to go up.
For my developed country I chose France. I believe that this country is in stage four of the Demographic Transition model, because the population is increasing at a very low rate. Its fertility rate is 2.0, so the population should theoretically be staying at a steady line (but you must factor in that older people are living longer and so there are more people living at the same time)
ReplyDeleteSomalia, with a much higher birthrate and rapid population growth is a developing country. I would categorize this country in level 2 because the birth rates remain high while the death rates are beginning to decrease.
I researched statistics on Israel and Cape Verde. Keeping in mind that Israel is conscidered a developed country and Cape Verde is a developing country, their population pyramids differ very little. They are both in Phase II. Israel has a very large population with a high CBR of 21.5 and a low CDR of 5.2 and the population continues to accelerate. Israel's growth rate is actually 2.8% higher than Cape Verde; unique for a developed country. Cape Verde has a CBR of 20 and a CDR of 6. There is a high displacement of the two so Cape Verde is as well in Stage II.
ReplyDelete