FWIW, over 46 thousand journal articles abstracted.
http://popindex.princeton.edu/index.html
http://popindex.princeton.edu/browse/v66/n1/index.html
Bibliography
A.General Population Studies and Theories
A.1.General Population
A.1.1.General Population--Long Studies
A.1.2.General Population--Short Studies
A.2.Population Theory
A.3.Interrelations with Other Disciplines
A.4.Textbooks and Teaching Programs
B.Regional Population Studies
B.1.Regional Demography--Long Studies
B.2.Regional Demography--Short Studies
C.Spatial Distribution
C.1.General Spatial Distribution
C.2.Urban Spatial Distribution
C.3.Rural Spatial Distribution
D.Trends in Population Growth and Size
D.1.Past Trends
D.2.Current Rates and Estimates
D.3.Projections and Predictions
D.4.Population Size and Growth
E.Mortality
E.1.General Mortality
E.2.Prenatal and Perinatal Mortality
E.3.Infant and Childhood Mortality
E.4.Mortality at Other Ages
E.5.Life Tables
E.6.Differential Mortality
E.7.Mortality by Cause
F.Fertility
F.1.General Fertility
F.2.Differential Fertility
F.3.Sterility and Other Pathology
F.4.Actions and Activities Directly Affecting Fertility
F.4.1.General Fertility Control and Contraception
F.4.2.Clinical Aspects and Use-Effectiveness Studies
F.4.3.Evaluation of Programs
F.4.4.Attitudes toward Fertility and Fertility Control
F.4.5.Induced Abortion
F.5.Factors Other Than Contraception Affecting Fertility
F.6.Fertility Outside Marriage
G.Nuptiality and the Family
G.1.Marriage and Divorce
G.2.Family and Household
H.Migration
H.1.General Migration
H.2.International Migration
H.3.Internal Migration
H.4.Settlement and Resettlement
H.5.Temporary Migration
H.6.Rural-Urban Migration
I.Historical Demography and Demographic History
I.1.General Historical Demography
I.2.Methods of Historical Demography
J.Characteristics
J.1.General Demographic Characteristics
J.2.Biological Characteristics
J.3.Economic Characteristics
J.4.Social Characteristics
J.5.Ethnic Characteristics
K.Demographic and Economic Interrelations and Natural Resources
K.1.Economic Development and Population
K.1.1.General Economic Development and Population
K.1.2.Economic Development and Population in Developing Countries
K.1.3.Economic Development and Population in Developed Countries
K.2.Population Growth and Natural Resources
K.3.Employment and Labor Force Participation
L.Demographic and Noneconomic Interrelations
L.1.General Social Development and Population
L.2.Demographic and Political Factors
L.3.Demographic Factors and Health
L.4.Demographic Factors and Human Genetics
M.Policies
M.1.General Population Policy and Legislation
M.2.Measures Affecting Fertility
M.3.Measures Affecting Migration
N.Methods of Research and Analysis Including Models
O.The Production of Population Statistics
O.1.Population Statistics, General Aspects
O.2.Registration of Vital Statistics
O.3.Population Censuses and Registers
O.4.Surveys
P.Professional Meetings and Conferences
Q.Bibliographies, Directories, and Other Information Services
R.New Periodicals
S.Official Statistical Publications
T.Machine-Readable Data Files (MRDF)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Copyright © 2000, Office of Population Research, Princeton University
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Devine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 8:27 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:11078] the enemy's statistics
> [was: Re: Nestor on HDI ]
>
> I wrote: >>It shouldn't surprise anyone that the IMF and the WB are major
> sources of UN data. But that doesn't mean we should throw out all those
> data as bogus. <<
>
> Louis answers: >Why not. The IMF and World Bank data is highly
politicized.
> It is used all the time to support reactionary ultimatums against
> governments like Alan Garcia's in Peru or Michael Manley's in Jamaica. The
> fight over reliable data is fundamental. <
>
> _Of course_ the Bretton Woods institutions are "highly politicized" and so
> are their data. I never said anything else, nor did anyone else on pen-l.
> (The IMF's emphasis on market measures of welfare shows their bias plain
> and clear for all to see.) And I answered the "why not?" question already
> and you simply elided my answer. I don't want to repeat myself. Look at
the
> pen-l archive, if you consider that to be a reliable source.
>
> >>Anyway, how's the IMF going to lie about the infant mortality rate
> without people finding out? They probably collect their data from local
> public health agencies.<<
>
> >Don't you understand that these are problematic questions?<
>
> of course. I never said otherwise.
>
> >There is intense debate about whether the Soviet Union was actually
> making progress in the 1950s or was going backwards. The CIA had stats
that
> said it was moving forward, but some scholars interpreted the numbers as
> cooked in order to make the USSR appear more powerful. This was a subtle
> way to get arms budget increases passed in congress. Just because the CIA,
> or the UN (same thing) say something, it doesn't make it true.<
>
> Of course. NO ONE said that just because the CIA says something is true
> that it is so. Strawfigures are easy to knock down, but they are also
> boring. One reason why e-mail discussions grind into nonsense is because
> people argue with strawfigures rather than with each other.
>
> It's also important to remember that the USSR seems to have exagerrated
its
> own growth rates for propaganda purposes, so that there was a community of
> interests between them and the CIA, at least on this issue. (It's
> reminiscent of the way that the CIA and KGB got into a somewhat symbiotic
> relationship with each other after awhile, "Spy vs. Spy" style.)
>
> Right. The UN is the same as the CIA. Then why is it that the US refuses
to
> submit to the authority of the UN on issues like war crimes or the war
> against Serbia? I'm no fan of the UN, but to equate it to the CIA is
> simplistic at best. Though the US is the main force shaping the UN, it
also
> reflects the interests of other imperial powers -- along with China, which
> most on the left don't see in these terms -- and the other members of the
> Security Council.
>
> > I rely on independent radical scholarship to understand the progress or
> lack of such in places like Colombia, Argentina or Nicaragua. You are
> welcome to gather this information in some other fashion if it suits you.<
>
> I would look to as many sources as possible because I wouldn't trust
> _anyone's_ analysis without examining it critically. I see no reason to
> suspend critical thinking, no matter what the source. The left is great,
> but unfortunately people on the left sometimes believe their own
> propaganda. (A lot of intelligent people used to deny Stalin's crimes
> simply because they were exposed by people who had been defined as the
> "enemy.") Sometimes it's worth looking at what the enemy says in order to
> get a different viewpoint. In CAPITAL, Marx relied on a lot of numbers and
> facts that were provided by the bourgeois state. He didn't use these
> numbers uncritically -- as your strawfigure would -- but instead analyzed
> them carefully, putting them in the context of class society.
>
> While it's right to be extremely skeptical of statistics that come from
the
> enemy, it's a mistake to simply shoot the messenger if you disagree with
> the conclusions. If you disagree with the stats that indicate that life
> expectancies are rising, what is wrong with the way the terms were
defined,
> the data collected, the numbers calculated? Just leaving out a section of
> the population from a survey doesn't undermine the validity of the
> statistics -- unless we have evidence that the excluded population is
> growing relative to the total.
>
> Don't you think that the UN statistics indicating a rise in mortality in
> Russia are valid, at least as ballpark estimates? why do you accept these
> statistics -- which make a newly capitalist country look horrible -- and
> not others, that might indicate that it's possible for workers to win
> longer life-spans under capitalism if they fight hard enough and they're
> lucky? Is it because you agree with the political conclusions that jump
out
> of the one set of statistics (that the transition to capitalism is a bad
> thing) and not those of the other (that capitalism might allow some
> reforms)? If so, that's totally fallacious.
>
> Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
> "There are few Einsteins today. Maybe they all flunk the Graduate Record
> Exam or get poor grades." -- Temple Grandin, _Thinking in Pictures and
> Other Reports From My Life with Autism_.
>
