A rejoinder to Mr Hajnal's comments

Mr Karmel takes up the points in Mr Hajnal's article. He analyses in detail the assumptions which are implicit in the use of female rather than male reproduction rates, and shows that female rates are appropriate either in a sexually promiscuous population, or in one where the females are ‘perfectly marriage dominant’. He goes on to examine the possibility of obtaining a ‘unique’ true rate of increase for a population and offers a theoretical solution of the problem, emphasizing the practical difficulties involved. He shows that, if such a ‘unique’ rate exists, it will in practice almost certainly lie between the ordinary male and female true rates of increase calculated from nuptially controlled net reproduction rates, and he shows how a rough estimate of such a ‘unique’ rate might be made. Whilst accepting Mr Hajnal's criticism on the subject of the measurement of the net fertility of marriage, he develops the measures involved further, and shows the relationships existing between Mr Hajnal's measure and those suggested in his original article

Biology · Criticism · Economics · Fertility · Geometry · Measure (data warehouse) · Net (polyhedron) · Political science · Population · Positive economics · Reproduction · Sociology · Subject (documents) · Computer Science · Demography · Ecology · Health and Conflict Studies · Historical Economic and Social Studies · Islamic Studies and History · Law · Mathematics · Psychology

• Male fertility between biology and the socioeconomic context news from the past (Alghero, 1866–1935)

  Open Access•Marco Breschi, A Fornasin et al.•Economics & Human Biology•2019

  Incluir item

• Family, fertility, and sex ratios in the British Caribbean

  Anthony Marino•Population Studies•1970

  Incluir item