That evidence supports an increase in fertility, but only in the very short term. From the abstract:
Abstract: “The effect on fertility is positive only temporarily – lasting only 1-3 years after the beginning of the ITN distribution programs – and then becomes negative. Taken together, these results suggest the ITN distribution campaigns may have caused fertility to increase unexpectedly and temporarily, or that these increases may just be a tempo effect – changes in fertility timing which do not lead to increased completed fertility”.
Conclusion: “In contrast, our findings do not support the contention that erosion of international funding for malaria control, specifically of ITNs, would lead to higher fertility rates in the short-run. While our results are suggestive that this may be the case for long-run fertility, we show the exact opposite for the short-run”.
If the results are suggestive that decreasing ITNs leads to higher long-run fertility, AMF would tend to decrease longterm fertility.
Yes, I wrote “neglecting longterm effects” above to signal that Roodman’s report did not refer to the longterm effects on population size, but thanks for clarifying!
Besides modelling the longterm effects on population size, it would also be important to determine how harmful/beneficial is a given change in population size (e.g. as a function of the country).
Agree that the paper leaves open the ultimate impact on completed fertility and on your #3. On #2 - I think it would be a mistake to try to adjust for this and neglect long run effects, as in your estimate in fn1.
Thanks for the feedback! Some thoughts:
That evidence supports an increase in fertility, but only in the very short term. From the abstract:
Abstract: “The effect on fertility is positive only temporarily – lasting only 1-3 years after the beginning of the ITN distribution programs – and then becomes negative. Taken together, these results suggest the ITN distribution campaigns may have caused fertility to increase unexpectedly and temporarily, or that these increases may just be a tempo effect – changes in fertility timing which do not lead to increased completed fertility”.
Conclusion: “In contrast, our findings do not support the contention that erosion of international funding for malaria control, specifically of ITNs, would lead to higher fertility rates in the short-run. While our results are suggestive that this may be the case for long-run fertility, we show the exact opposite for the short-run”.
If the results are suggestive that decreasing ITNs leads to higher long-run fertility, AMF would tend to decrease longterm fertility.
Yes, I wrote “neglecting longterm effects” above to signal that Roodman’s report did not refer to the longterm effects on population size, but thanks for clarifying!
Besides modelling the longterm effects on population size, it would also be important to determine how harmful/beneficial is a given change in population size (e.g. as a function of the country).
Agree that the paper leaves open the ultimate impact on completed fertility and on your #3. On #2 - I think it would be a mistake to try to adjust for this and neglect long run effects, as in your estimate in fn1.
I agree, and have adjusted the text and footnote accordingly.