Feminists and Neo-Malthusians: Past and Present Alliances Dennis Hodgson; Susan Cotts Watkins Population and Development Review, Vol. 23, No. 3. (Sep., 1997), pp. 469-523.
Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0098-7921%28199709%2923%3A3%3C469%3AFANPAP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-A Population and Development Review is currently published by Population Council.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/journals/popcouncil.html. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.
JSTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
http://www.jstor.org Wed May 9 10:35:50 2007
Feminists and Neo-Malthusians: Past and Present Alliances
THEPROGRAM ACTION OF (United Nations 1994) adopted at the International
Conference on Population and Development in Cairo is intended to establish international population policy for the next two decades. It is an unusual population policy document. The phrase "population problem" never occurs in its pages; more significantly, no demographic factor is identified as the principal cause of any problem, and few demographic changes are sought. The Program assigns (in Principle 4) an explicit feminist agenda to population programs:
Advancing gender equality and equity and the empowerment of women, and the elimination of all kinds of violence against women, and ensuring women's ability to control their own fertility, are cornerstones of population and development-related programmes.
The purpose of population programs is to promote reproductive health, defined (in paragraph 7.2) as ensuring women "the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when and how often to do so." A family planning program is a n appropriate part of such a program (7.12) if it employs no "form of coercion," uses no "incentives and disincentives," and imposes no demographic "targets" or "quotas" on providers. The document melds feminist and human rights rhetoric into a programmatic position that bans explicit attempts to influence reproductive behavior. Yet a neo-Malthusian subtext still runs through much of the Program and occasionally breaks through to the surface of the document (3.14):
POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ( 3 ) : 9 - 3 (SEPTEMBER )
F E M I N I S TAND N E O - M A L T H U S I A N S S
Slower population growth has in many countries bought more time to adjust to future population increases. This has increased those countries' ability to attack poverty, protect and repair the environment, and build the base for future sustainable development. Even the difference of a single decade in the transition to stabilization levels of fertility can have a considerable positive impact on quality of life.
The presumptions of a neo-Malthusian movement that for nearly half a century has sought to make fertility reduction an important objective of international policy are invariably echoed: low rates of population growth are beneficial; more rapid fertility declines are better than slower declines; and population stabilization is an ultimate goal. Despite this mild neo-Malthusianism, in volume the feminists' commitment to the rights of the individual woman is granted much more significance than the neo-Malthusians' emphasis on the prerogatives of the group. The Program offers a rationale for this bias by asserting (3.16) that "eliminating social, cultural, political and economic discrimination against women" is a "prerequisite" for "achieving balance between population and available resources." Protecting the individual rights o women is thus pref sented as an indispensable means for achieving aggregate neo-Malthusian ends. Cairo distinguished itself from earlier population conferences by having its population strategies depend so extensively upon attaining feminist aims. The Bucharest document (United Nations 1974) called for the equal participation of women in the economic, social, and political life of their countries, and specifically sought to increase women's education. The Mexico City document (United Nations 1984) noted that improving the status of women was an important goal in and of itself, and that it would also lower family size. The Cairo document went a step further and contended that unless women's status was improved, lasting population stabilization was unlikely. In the Program of Action the agenda of the neoMalthusian movement coalesces with that of the feminist reproductive health movement, and both neo-Malthusians and feminists at Cairo spoke in terms of a "common ground." Neo-Malthusians commit themselves to a gender equity strategy for attaining population stabilization, and programmatically agree to supplement family planning activities with reproductive health activities that add several times to program costs. Feminists thereby gain an ally for gender equity campaigns and a commitment to additional funding for women's health programs. They offer, in turn, only lukewarm support for neo-Malthusian goals, and that support is heavily circumscribed with human rights rhetoric regarding choice. What conditions will make for a lasting alliance between neo-Malthusians and feminists? This question takes us beyond the specific terrain of Cairo and into a historical consideration of neo-Malthusianism and femi-

est convictions of a large group of taxpayers" (1963: 27). Yet voluntary family planning programs were considered by influential opinion makers to be excellent philosophical complements to the gradualist development strategies being promoted by US foreign aid programs; and powerfully positioned neo-Malthusians began making concerted efforts during the late 1950s to gain government support for the movement.15 Meanwhile alliances were made between planned parenthood proponents and population specialists. Planned parenthood representatives and members of the Population Council met in 1955, 1956, and 1957 "to develop and define general principles for promoting birth control overseas" (Piotrow 1973: 14). Population Council and IPPF representatives discussed contraceptive technology in 1957, and planned small field tests of the birth control pill in Los Angeles and in Puerto Rico (Chesler 1992: 443-444). By the early 1960s they had developed a standard choreography for encouraging third world governments to adopt national family planning programs. First, foundations would grant fellowship support for nationals to study demography at various US population centers, where they would absorb a crisis orientation toward population growth. Next, a "KAP" survey of the local population's knowledge, attitudes, and practice of contraception would be undertaken. The survey results would be used to document the existence of a "ready market" for birth control, to convince any skeptical national leaders and bureaucrats that family planning was possible,16and to prepare the way for the national planned parenthood association, with financial and technical assistance from IPPF, to establish a limited number of clinics within the country. Successfully-operating private clinics would be used to demonstrate the feasibility of establishing a national family planning program. Initially, tensions existed in this alliance between population specialists and planned parenthood proponents. During this period planned parenthood proponents were even more action-oriented than the population specialists. William Vogt, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, wrote one of the earliest and most influential of the postwar neo-Malthusian tracts, Road to Survival (1948), at a time when specialists still questioned the usefulness of family planning campaigns. And when Hugh Moore published a shrill neo-Malthusian tract in 1956, The Population Bomb, the IPPF welcomed him into its ranks while the population specialists tried to distance themselves from what they considered extremism (Piotrow 1973: 18-19). Strains also arose from differences in the power and financial strength of these two players (Stycos 1968: 25):

For decades in the United States, small organized groups of courageous women have been insisting that the health and social welfare of the woman depend on the ability rationally to regulate the number and timing of her births.
Such arguments received the degree o respect and attention normally acf corded to small organized groups o courageous women in the United States. f At the same time, however, a handful of less vociferous but more influential men of affairs began to be concerned about the economic and political implications of world population growth, and in particular, about the growth of the under-developed areas. Their fears included Starvation, Unrest, War, and Communism. When thrown together at an occasional conference, they regarded each other with the combined suspicions and hope o exploif tation found only at a social function o Ivy League boys and townie girls. f Some population specialists at first doubted the usefulness of IPPF's "feminist"bias, worrying that providing contraception exclusively to women might lessen its acceptability in male-dominated societies. At Sanger's Cheltenham conference in 1948 Frank Lorimer proposed "isolating contraception from what he perceived to be the complicating and variable factors of gender relations and sexual ethics," and argued against the planned parenthood method of establishing family planning clinics for women (Chesler 1992: 410). Dudley Kirk, speaking to an IPPF audience in New Delhi in 1959, recommended that "male" methods of contraception, specifically condoms and withdrawal, be used in India in preference to expensive "female" ones that required a medical infrastructure (Chesler 1992: 451). J. Mayone Stycos complained that IPPF's feminist bias led to an "emphasis on female methods for female patients, and the justification of family planning largely in terms of its benefits for the female. Even the most effective male methods are viewed with some suspicion" (1962: 481482). However, there was little evidence of male interest in using the methods at their disposal, such as withdrawal. Eventually, the population specialists agreed with their planned parenthood partners about the importance of female methods of birth control, and thus women became the "targets" of family planning programs (Watkins 1993). Most population specialists came to view the IPPF's moderate feminist rationale for family planning as a valuable supplement to their economic and political arguments for fertility control. They were in no way pressured into accepting this position by a feminist social movement, since no such movement existed at the time. Acceptance was based on their belief that the traditional male-dominated social structures of agrarian societies were organized in ways that imposed high fertility. In such a context they came to hope that women might seek to control their fertility but simply lacked the means to do so. A family planning program might, therefore, fulfill a suppressed female demand for birth control. Although not interested in equalizing gender relations in third world societies, population specialists were looking for evidence that family planning programs would work in such societies. On this score, the mild feminist assumptions

(Bambara 1970; Weisbord 1975), and the antiwar Left saw it as a part of an imperialist strategy for third world pacification. The neo-Malthusians' third world fertility control programs attracted concerted opposition from leftist feminists. Early in the 1970s Linda Gordon disparaged the post-World War I1 neo-Malthusian movement by tracing its roots to American eugenists who, she argued, in the 1940s had reframed their old beliefs into new, more palatable population control arguments ( 1974: 8 1-9 1). She portrayed postwar neo-Malthusians simply as eugenists who broadened their horizons beyond national boundaries and softened their rhetoric. Their goal was still to preserve "the hegemony of the most able of the old yankees," but now by limiting the numbers and influence of the world's nonwhite populations (Gordon 1974: 86). Bonnie Mass analyzed the "political economy of population control" and concluded that it was part of a strategy to preserve Western hegemony by controlling the wombs of third world women (1972: 48-49; 1974; 1976). These leftist feminists were not necessarily opposed to the idea of population control, but only to the reactionary purposes to which it was put. Gordon, for example, argued that reproduction can be controlled by the group for the good of the group (1974: 87): "Population control may be a reasonable part of any overall plan for economic development if it is democratically decided upon and administered." Mass (1976: 187) depicted socialist "birth planning" as a "scientific method" of determining the size of families: "How many children a woman has is based upon her own daily circumstances, her health, her ambitions and talents, the family's situation and society's needs." She held up as positive models of such planning the practices of Cuba, China, Vietnam, and the Soviet Union because of their emphasis on collective decisionmaking rather than on individual rights. The attacks by radical feminists relied heavily on a general Marxist critique of population control, and appear to have provoked little response from members of the population control movement. For example, there is no reference to these concerns in Donaldson's ( 1990) comprehensive history of the population control movement.20Why were feminist criticisms ignored? We suspect that the diversity within the feminist movement made it possible for neo-Malthusians to listen selectively to feminist voices. NeoMalthusians could note that American feminists of all persuasions supported access to reproductive control as a human right, as established in Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade, and proposals for programs that went "beyond family planning" had been rejected within the population control establishment itself. The language of the liberal feminists relating reproductive control to enhanced women's status in the United States added another rationale for population policies and programs, one that was easily translated into third world terms, especially in the context of a growing UN interest in "Women in Development" programs (Kardam 1991). Radi-

the objective of neo-Malthusianism. The administration adopted policies that intentionally held hostage the access of millions of women to contraception in order to reduce abortion. Although pushed together by these actions, feminists and neo-Malthusians did not form an alliance. Reagan's amalgam of conservative positions actually exposed the different reproductive objectives of the two movements. For instance, in response to the administration's positions the Population Division of USAID protected its funding and bureaucracy not only by isolating its family planning programs from all connection with abortion services, but also by elaborating non-population control rationales for them, designating them as components of maternal and child health programs (McPherson 1985).*' Reproductive rights feminists objected strenuously to USAID's abortion position, but viewed with some approval its display of anti-Malthusianism: "the Reagan Administration identified economic underdevelopment as the real problem, and excessive population growth as merely a symptom" (Dixon-Mueller 1987: 163-167). Many feminists actively endorsed the recasting of family planning as a health program: "Indeed, the emphasis within AID on the right of couples and families to control their own fertility, and on maternal and child health as the major justifications for international family planning assistance, provides a promising policy basis for stressing clients' needs, informed choice, and quality of care" (Dixon-Mueller 1987: 167). Population control programs engaging in practices such as enticing tuba1 ligation candidates with incentives faced concerted attack by feminists (Hartmann and Standing 1985), and problems of rapid population growth were not seen as warranting any infringement on the reproductive autonomy of women. Few feminists, therefore, objected to the waning of administration support for neo-Malthusianism. Likewise, feminists could not rely on much neo-Malthusian support in their struggle for abortion rights. Abortion, a woman's ultimate means of controlling her reproductive destiny, was preeminently a feminist issue. At the population level, abortion is an expensive and not especially efficient means of limiting births. Neo-Malthusians, worried about cost-benefit ratios, never favored abortion as a means of birth control. Sterilization, with its permanence and limited need for motivation, held more appeal along with the IUD and long-lasting hormonal methods such as DepoProvera and Norplant. O course, the attributes that attracted neo-Malthuf sians to these methods made feminists suspicious of them, especially sterilization (Shapiro 1985). Moreover, neo-Malthusians were less able to offer assistance to feminists in the domestic political arena during the 1980s since mass neo-Malthusian movements such as ZPG had faded considerably in strength and no longer were a major source of pro-choice votes. The sharing of a common enemy, therefore, did not provide a sufficient foundation on which to build an alliance between feminists and neoMalthusians. Even so, the actions of the Reagan administration did en-

en, such as the unmarried, currently excluded from services. By 1994, however, feminists engaged in the effort to influence the Cairo Program of Action were using the term in a far more expansive fashion, one evocative of Emma Goldman, the early Margaret Sanger, and leftist-feminists calling for positive rights in the 1970s (Abzug 1994):
So, what should we emphasize in Cairo? First, we must collectively address the challenge of how to meet the real unmet demand and need of billions of people for simple human dignity and basic human rights. How do we meet the unmet demand and need by the female half of our population for power over their lives, for control over their bodies, for physical and emotional security, for education and economic independence that enables the realization of one's human potential? And how do we meet the unmet consumption demand and need for food, for shelter, for education, for jobs, for health care?
In March 1993 the IWHC, acting as international secretariat, began circulating for signatures a policy statement, "Women's Voices '94" (International Women's Health Coalition 1993), aimed at insuring that women would be "heard" during the preparations for the International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo. "Women's Voices '94" illustrates how the ideological package of the international reproductive rights feminists was reframed after 1987. It includes the aims set out by Germain in her 1987 paper to improve and expand delivery of family planning serv i c e ~but ~ , ~ adds opposition to any form of coercion (such as the offering of incentives), advocates women organizing and running all programs providing health services for women, and calls for "equal rights legislation" to insure women better access to education, employment, and credit. Both liberal feminist concerns with gender equality and radical feminist concerns with the abolishment of patriarchy are addressed, suggesting a variety of influences from second-wave feminism. Over 2,200 individuals eventually signed the statement.39 The expansion of the feminist population agenda facilitated alliances with a wider range of feminists than had been possible before. The more visible of these allies during the preparations for Cairo was the Women's Environment and Development Organization (WEDO), a New York-based group led by former Congresswoman Bella Abzug. Among the resources offered by WED0 was the mobilization of support by Southern women. In November 1991 WED0 organized a "World Women's Congress for a Healthy Planet" in Miami attended by some 1,500 women from 83 countries, a mobilization that enhanced WEDO's presence at the Rio UNCED conference during June 1992. Whereas IWHC's tactics were to work in the corridors of power, WEDO's tactics were more reminiscent of the grass-

roots collective action developed by the new social movements of the late 1960s and 1970s. Susan Davis, executive director of WEDO, described (1994) what has become the group's technique for representing women's interests at UN conferences:
It is a methodology to organize lots of people's energies for a "common ground" advocacy and to influence the process. It requires an understanding of the UN process and where the points of leverage are. Women a decade ago wouldn't have understood that. It wasn't widely understood. It is now. And there wasn't a concerted effort to harness lots of voices.
Harnessing "lots of voices" was an implicit challenge to the white male neo-Malthusian establishment continuing to decide what was best for third world women. The tactic, however, posed problems for IWHC leaders who wanted to work with that establishment to plan for Cairo. Many of the Southern women at the UNCED meetings were actively hostile to all talk of population problems, and had displayed a willingness to confront openly A those who thought otherwise.40 repeat of the UNCED Women's Tent antiMalthusian display at Cairo was not what moderate reproductive health activists wanted. The Ford Foundation gave funds to the IWHC to bring together in January 1994 over 200 women activists, many with radical leanings, to see whether a unified Cairo strategy could be forged. Five days of meetings in Rio de Janeiro produced a "Rio Statement" on reproductive health and justice (International Women's Health Coalition 1994) that was notably more anti-population control than the original "Women's Voices '94" statement, even observing that "a significant number of the participants opposed population policies as being inherently c ~ e r c i v e. " It ' de~ clared "unanimous opposition to designing fertility control measures or population policies specifically targeted at Southern countries," and explicitly questioned the safety of non-barrier methods of contraception. But, in the end, the participants did agree that women should come to PrepCom I11 and Cairo with a united voice and work to effect change within the limits of conference procedures. An overt dismissal of the population problem could not be incorporated into a "common ground" position that was to serve as a basis for an alliance between feminists and neo-Malthusians. Although crisis rhetoric had diminished, neo-Malthusianism had not died. Prestigious journals such as Science were publishing articles with neo-Malthusian conclusions: "there is broad agreement that reduction in rapid population growth in the developing world will enhance the prospects for improved living standards of additional billions in the decades ahead" (Bongaarts 1994: 77 1). And some academics (Kelley and Schmidt 1994) were discovering evidence of negative correlation between aggregate population growth and per capita out-

D E N N I SH O D G S O N /

COTTS WATKINS

influence individual fertility decisions directly. But situations are arising, both domestically and internationally, that are testing the depth of feminist dedication to reproductive rights. Domestically, a number of "welfare reform" initiatives have been initiated that purposely restrict taxpayer support for unwed teenage mothers in order to reduce out-of-wedlock births. Feminists have mobilized surprisingly little opposition to this obvious infringement of their concept of reproductive autonomy. This muted response suggests superficial support for reproductive rights among middle-class feminists. With their own family-size decisions constrained by economic considerations, many might accept the notion that one should have only the children for whom one can provide. As such proposals become law with minimal protest, neo-Malthusians are in a position to draw obvious analogies: efforts to control the fertility of overseas populations receiving significant aid from US taxpayers are justifiable. Internationally, the practice of many couples aborting female fetuses in order to give birth to more sons has made it difficult for any feminist to absolutely support the individual's reproductive autonomy. Although reproductive rights feminists theoretically are opposed to any form of coercion, they worked hard to include in the Program of Action (4.23) a call for state intervention to stop such prenatal sex selection. The document offers no reason why individuals should not be able to choose the sex of their offspring. The stated objection to current practice is found in the gender imbalance of aborted fetuses, not in the practice itself.48 Such apparent approval of reproductive coercion to accomplish feminist gender-equity goals makes it less than obvious why reproductive coercion to accomplish the development goals of neo-Malthusians should be considered necessarily unethical. Finally, both parties to this alliance live in a culture that accepts the importance of evidence produced by positivist science, and much of the "common ground" agenda rests on a less than firm scientific basis. Demographers (McNicoll 1994: 659; Cleland 1996: 110), for example, know of numerous counter-examples to the empirical generalization on which the Program of Action's population stabilization program is founded: that gender equity is a prerequisite of low fertility. Neo-Malthusians, who had never lost faith in the efficacy of their fertility control programs, now find themselves resting their movement's fate on a questionable empirical proposition. Likewise, feminists have taken an anti-Malthusian stance for a quarter-century and are very familiar with the empirical studies whose findings question the link between rapid population growth and stagnant economic growth. Their acquiescence to the Program of Action's goal of population stabilization, therefore, does not derive from any empirical judgment that such a stabilization would improve the circumstances of Southern women. Adrienne Germain of the IWHC admits as much (1994): "Our constituency includes, probably by far the majority, those who really don't think it [population] is a problem." Real questions exist, then, both about the ex-

D E N N I SH O D G S O N S U S A N C O T T S WATKINS I
trol documents. Feminism is generally less well established in Southern countries, especially outside the capital cities. If Southern officials find that pragmatically relabeling family planning programs as "reproductive health programs" and AIDS prevention programs as "sexual health programs" induces donors to fund their requests for assistance, then strong international support for the Program of Action might develop. A "common ground" agenda that pragmatically works to fulfill the material needs of highly placed Southern neo-Malthusians and the ideological needs of influential Northern feminists might also work to keep alive a fragile domestic alliance between unequal partners.
Versions of this article were presented at the 1996 Population Association of America Meeting and the 1995 Social Science History Association Meeting. We are grateful for comments from Deborah Barrett, for conversations with Jose Barzelatto, Judith Bruce, Lynn Freedman, Amy Higer, Carolyn Makinson, Faith Mitchell, Shara Neidell, Steven Sinding, Sylvia Tesh, Nahid Toubia, and Charles Westoff, and for interviews with Barbara Crane, Susan Davis, Joan Dunlop, Adrienne Germain, Margaret Hempel, Elizabeth McGrory, and Thomas Merrick. 1 For the purposes of this article, we consider both feminism and neo-Malthusianism to be social movements. The definition of a social movement is contested. "Social movements are often described as collective responses to a group's experience of subordination" (Buechler 1990: 9), responses that are often directed at the state. This definition fits feminism well, but the neo-Malthusian movement less well, since, like the temperance movement or the environmental movement, it is a collective response to the behavior of other groups or to conditions that affect many. (For an introduction to the social movement literature, see McCarthy and Zald 1977; Piven and Cloward 1977; McAdam 1982; Buechler 1990; Morris and Mueller 1992; and Dalton and Kuechler 1990). Currently, the two dominant perspectives on social movements are those of the politics of resource mobilization and the politics of identity. The first privileges formal organizations and their attempts to mobilize resources (including funds, members, and allies); the second privileges more broadly social movement communities, including those who may be members of a social movement by virtue of their shared values (peace, the environment, feminism) but may not be associated with any movement organization. We draw from both perspectives. Because the Cairo document was the product of formal organizations, we focus on the behavior of organizations, although we point out that the concept of a feminist identity is important in understanding the behavior of feminist organizations in elaborating and promoting a feminist population policy. 2 In privileging ideologies, we recognize that we are ignoring many other aspects of social movements. One important aspect is the degree to which a social movement is institutionalized, with organizational structures, bureaucracies, and budgets. At the time of the Cairo conference the population movement had more elaborate structures, larger bureaucracies, and larger budgets than the feminist reproductive health movement. The institutionalization of these social movements is clearly an area that needs more detailed research. As we suggest later, however, one incentive for some members of the population movement to ally themselves with the feminists may have been to attempt to preserve these structures, bureaucracies, and budgets in the face of declining interest within the United States in third world population growth.

FEMINISTSD NEO-MALTHUSIANS AN
Commission on Population Growth and the American Future. 1972. Population and the American Future. New York: New American Library. Cook, Robert C. 1955. "Population in the United Nations," Population Bulletin 11, no. 7 (November): 93-105. Cott, Nancy F. 1987. The Grounding of Modem Feminism. New Haven: Yale University Press. Crane, Barbara B. 1993. "International population institutions: Adaptation to a changing world order," in Peter M. Haas, Robert 0. Keohane, and Marc A. Levy (eds.), Institutions for the Earth: Sources of Effective International Environmental Protection, pp. 35 1-393. Cambridge: MIT Press. Dalton, Russell J. and Manfred Kuechler (eds.). 1990. Challenging the Political Order: N e w Social and Political Movements i n Western Democracies. New York: Oxford University Press. Davis, Kingsley. 1967. "Population policy: Will current programs succeed?" Science 158, no. 3802 (10 November): 730-739. Davis, Susan. 1994. Personal interview with Susan Watkins and Dennis Hodgson, 24 May. Demeny, Paul. 1994. "Population and development," Distinguished Lecture Series on Population and Development. LiPge: International Union for the Scientific Study of Population. Dixon-Mueller, Ruth. 1987. "U.S. international population policy and 'The Woman Question,'" Journal ofInternationa1 L a w and Politics 20, no. 1 (Fall): 143-167. 1993. Population Policy and Women's Rights: Transforming Reproductive Choice. Westport, CT: Praeger. Donaldson, Peter J. 1990. Nature Against Us: The United States and the World Population Crisis, 1965-1980. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Dublin, Louis I. 1926. "The fallacious propaganda for birth control," Atlantic Monthly 137, no. 2 (February): 186-194. 1932. "Birth selection vs. birth control: Eminent sociologists, scientists and publicists discuss Dr. Henry Fairchild Osborn's address at the Third International Eugenics Congress," Birth ControlReview 16, no. 8 (October): 233. Dublin, Louis I. and Alfred Lotka. 1925. "On the true rate of natural increase," Journalof the American Statistical Association 20, no. 150 (September): 305-3 39. Ehrenreich, Barbara, Mark Dowie, and Stephen Minkin. 1979. "The charge: Gynocide; The accused: The U.S. Government," Mother Jones 4, no. 11 (November): 26-37. Ehrlich, Paul R. 1968. The Population Bomb. New York: Ballantine Books. Ehrlich, Paul R. and Anne H. Ehrlich. 1972. Population. Resources, Environment: Issues i n Hum a n Ecology, Second Edition. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company. Eisenhower, Dwight D. 1963. "Let's be honest with ourselves," Saturday Evening Post (26 October): 27. Enke, Stephen. 1963. Economics for Development. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Fairchild, Henry Pratt. 1940. Speech at the 1940 Annual Meeting of the Birth Control Federation. Found in Planned Parenthood Federation of America Papers, Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College Library. Quoted in Gordon (1990): 285. Finkle, Jason L. and Barbara B. Crane. 1975. "The politics of Bucharest: Population, development, and the new international economic order," Population and Development Review 1, no. 1 (September):87-1 14. 1985. "Ideology and politics at Mexico City: The United States at the 1984 International Conference on Population," Population and Development Review 11, no. 1 (March): 1-28. Freedman, Lynn P. and Stephen L. Isaacs. 1993. "Human rights and reproductive choice," Studies i n Family Planning 24, no. 1 (JanuarylFebruary): 18-30. Germain, Adrienne. 1987. "Reproductive health and dignity: Choices by Third World women," background paper prepared for the International Conference on Better Health for Women and Children through Family Planning, held in Nairobi, Kenya, 5-9 October. New York: Population Council. 1994. Personal interview with Susan Watkins and Dennis Hodgson, May.

Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame Analysis: A n Essay o n the Organization of Experience. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Goldman, Emma. 1916. "The social aspects of birth control," Mother Earth 11, no. 12 (April): 468-475. Goodkind, Daniel. 1996a. "Sex-selective abortion, inequality, and reproductive rights: Questions left unasked and unanswered at Cairo," unpublished paper, Population Studies Center, University of Michigan. 1996b. "On substituting sex preference strategies in East Asia: Does prenatal sex selection reduce postnatal discrimination?" Population and Development Review 22, no. 1 (March): 111-125. Gordon, Linda. 1974. "The politics of population: Birth control and the eugenics movement," Radical America 8, no. 4: 61-97. 1976. Woman's Body, Woman's Right. New York: Grossman Publishers. 1990. Woman's Body, Woman's Right, Revised Edition. New York: Penguin Books. Gore, Al. 1992. Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Grant, Nicole. 1992. The Selling of Contraception: The Dalkon Shield Case. Columbus: Ohio State University Press. Green, Marshall. 1993. "The evolution of US international population policy," Population and Development Review 19, no. 2 (June): 303-32 1. Greene, Stephen G. 1994. "Philanthropy's population explosion," The Chronicle of Philanthropy (31 May): 6-8. Greenhalgh, Susan. 1996. "The social construction of population science: An intellectual, institutional, and political history of twentieth-century demography," Comparative Studies in Society and History 38, no. 1 (January): 26-66. Greer, Germaine. 1984. Sex and Destiny: The Politics of Human Fertility. New York: Harper and Row. Harkavy, Oscar. 1995. Curbing Population Growth: A n Insider's Perspective on the Population Movement. New York: Plenum Press. Harr, John Ensor and Peter J. Johnson. 1991. The Rockefeller Conscience: A n American Family in Public and in Private. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. Hartmann, Betsy. 1987. Reproductive Rights and Wrongs: The Global Politics of Population Control and Contraceptive Choice. New York: Harper and Row. 1990. "Population policies and programs: A feminist assessment," Radical America 24, no. 2 (1 April): 45-5 1. 1995. Reproductive Rights and Wrongs: The Global Politics of Population Control and Contraceptive Choice, Revised Edition. Boston: South End Press. Hartmann, Betsy and Hilary Standing. 1985. Food, Saris and Sterilization: Population Control i n Bangladesh. London: Bangladesh International Action Group. Hempel, Margaret. 1994. Personal interview with Susan Watkins and Dennis Hodgson, 24 May. Higer, Amy P. J. 1996. "Transnational movements and world politics: The international women's health movement and population policy," dissertation-in-progress, Department of Politics, Brandeis University. Hilgartner, Steven and Charles Bosk. 1988. "The rise and fall of social problems: A public arenas model," American Journal of Sociology 94, no. 1 (January): 53-78. Hodgson, Dennis. 1983. "Demography as social science and policy science," Population and Development Review 9, no. 1 (March): 1-34. Hodgson, Dennis and Susan Cotts Watkins. 1995. "Population controllers and feminists: Strange bedfellows at Cairo?" presented at the session on "The Role of ExpertslIntellectuals in State Policy," 1995 Social Science History Association Meeting, 17 November, Chicago. ICPD 94.1994. "State Department leader describes new U.S. commitment to women's rights," ICPD 94 (Newsletter of the International Conference on Population and Development), No. 14 (April). Cairo: United Nations, Electronic Publication.

Demographic Policiesfrom a Christian Viewpoint: Proceedings of the Symposium, Rio de Janeiro,
27-30 September 1982, pp. 409-425. Rome: International Federation of Catholic Universities. McIntosh, C. Alison and Jason L. Finkle. 1995. "The Cairo conference on population and development: A new paradigm?" Population and Development Review 2 1, no. 2 (June): 223-260. McNicoll, Geoffrey. 1994. Review of Laurie Ann Mazur (ed.), Beyond the Numbers: A Reader on Population, Consumption, and the Environment, in Population and Development Review 20, no. 3 (September):656-661. McPherson, Peter. 1985. "International family planning: The reasons for the program," speech delivered to the American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C., 25 November. Meyer, David S. and Nancy Whittier. 1994. "Social movement spillover," Social Problems 41, no. 2 (May): 277-298. Mintz, Morton. 1985. A t A n y Cost: Corporate Greed, Women, and the Dalkon Shield. New York: Pantheon. Moffett, George D. 1994. Critical Masses: The Global Population Challenge. New York: Viking.
Moore, Hugh. 1956.The Population Bomb. New York: Hugh Moore Fund. Morris, Aldon D. and Carol McClurg Mueller (eds). 1992.Frontiers i n Social Movement Theory. New Haven: Yale University Press. Mueller, Carol McClurg. 1992."Building social movement theory," in Morris and Mueller (1992): 3-25. Mumford, Stephen D. 1994. The Life and Death of NSSM 200: How the Destruction of Political Will Doomed a U.S. Population Policy. Research Triangle Park, NC: Center for Research on Population and Security. National Center for Health Statistics. 1994.Health, United States, 1993.Hyattsville, MD: NCHS. National Research Council. 1986. Population Growth and Economic Development: Policy Questions. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Neidell, Shara G. Forthcoming. "Women's empowerment as a public problem," Population Research and Policy R w i a v. Notestein, Frank W. 1950."The population of the world in the year 2000,"American Statistical Association Journal 45 (September): 335-345. 1982."Demography in the United States: A partial account of the development of the field," Population and Development Review 8, no. 4 (December):651-687. Osborn, Frederick Henry. 1960.This Crowded World. New York: Public Affairs Committee. Petchesky, Rosalind Pollack. 1995."From population control to reproductive rights: Feminist fault lines," Reproductive Health Matters, No. 6 (November): 152-161. Piotrow, Phyllis Tilson. 1973. World Population Crisis: The United States Response. New York: Praeger. Piven, Frances Fox and Richard A. Cloward. 1977.Poor People's Movements: W h y They Succeed, HOW They Fail. New York: Pantheon. Popenoe, Paul. 19 17."Birth control and eugenics," Birth Control Rm'ew 1, no. 3 (April-May): 6. Population Council. 1978. The Population Council: A Chronicle of the First Twenty-Five Years, 1952-1977. New York: Population Council. Potts, Malcolm. 1995. "Cairo's skewed consensus," Populah'on Today 23, no. (November): 4-5. 1996. "USA aborts international family planning," The Lancet 347, no. 9001 (2 March): 556. Preston, Lewis. 1994."A call to action: Slowing population growth and accelerating sustainable development," an address to the International Conference on Population and Development, by the president of the World Bank Group, Cairo, 6 September. Electronic publication by United Nations Development Programme: gopher:llgopher. undp.org:701001ungopherslpopinlicpdlconferenceluna13 Preston, Samuel H. 1986."Changing values and falling birth rates," Population and Development Review 12 (Supp): 176-195. Pritchett, Lant H. 1994."Desired fertility and the impact of population policies," Population and Development Review 20,no. 1 (March): 1-55. Rockefeller, John D. 3rd. 1974."Population growth: The role of the developed world," Lecture Series o n Population. Liege: IUSSP. Reprinted in Population and Development Review 4,no. 3 (September 1978):509-516. Roosevelt, Theodore. 1907. "A letter from President Roosevelt on race suicide," American Monthly Review of Reviews 35,no. 5 (May): 550-551. Ross, Edward Alsworth. 1920."The growth of population," Birth Control Review 4,no. 3 5: 7, 17-18. 1927.Standing Room Only? New York: The Century Company. Royal Society of London and the US National Academy of Sciences. 1992.Population Growth, Resource Consumption, and a Sustainable World. Reprinted in Population and Development Review 18,no. 2 (June): 375-378. Sadik, Nafis. 1996."Statement by Dr. Nafis Sadik, Executive Director of the United Nations Population Fund," to the Conference on Women, Poverty and Population, Washing-