Demography

, Volume 33, Issue 1, pp 1–11 | Cite as

Community and contraceptive choice in rural Thailand: A case study of Nang Rong

  • Barbara Entwisle
  • Ronald R. Rindfuss
  • David K. Guilkey
  • Aphichat Chamratrithirong
  • Sara R. Curran
  • Yothin Sawangdee
Contraception

Abstract

This paper blends quantitative with qualitative data in an investigation of community and contraceptive choice in Nang Rong, Thailand. Specifically, it develops an explanation of 1) method dominance within villages, coupled with 2) marked differences between villages in the popularity of particular methods. The quantitative analysis demonstrates the importance of village location and placement of family planning services for patterns of contraceptive choice. The qualitative data provide a complementary perspective, emphasizing the importance of social as well as physical space and giving particular attention to the structure of conversational networks.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arthur, W.B. 1988. “Competing Technologies: An Overview.” Pp. 590–607 in Technical Change and Economic Theory, edited by G. Dosi, C. Freeman, R. Nelson, G. Silverberg, and L. Soete. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  2. Bennett, A., C. Frisen, P. Kamnuansilpa, and J. McWilliam. 1990. “How Thailand’s Family Planning Program Reached Replacement Level Fertility: Lessons Learned.” Occasional Paper 4, Population Technical Assistance Project. Arlington, VA: Population Technical Assistance Project.Google Scholar
  3. Brewster, K.L. 1994. “Neighborhood Context and the Transition to Sexual Activity among Young Black Women.” Demography 31:603–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bumpass, L.L. 1987. “The Risk of an Unwanted Birth: The Changing Context of Contraceptive Sterilization in the US.” Population Studies 41:347–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carnic, C. 1986. “The Matter of Habit.” American Journal of Sociology 91:1039–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Casterline, J.B., ed. 1985. The Collection and Analysis of Community Data. Voorburg, The Netherlands: International Statistical Institute.Google Scholar
  7. Chamratrithirong, A. and P. Kamnuansilpa. 1984. “How Family Planning Availability Affects Contraceptive Use: The Case of Thailand.” Pp. 219–35 in Survey Analysis for the Guidance of Family Planning Programs, edited by J.A. Ross and R. McNamara. Liege: Ordina Editions.Google Scholar
  8. Chayovan, N., A.I. Hermalin, and J. Knodel. 1984. “Measuring Accessibility to Family Planning in Rural Thailand.” Studies in Family Planning 15:201–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cleland, J. and C. Wilson. 1987. “Demand Theories of the Fertility Transition: An Iconoclastic View.” Population Studies 41:5–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cochrane, S. and D.K. Guilkey. 1991a. “The Effect of Access on Contraceptive Use and Fertility in Colombia.” Presented at the Demographic and Health Survey World Conference, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  11. Cochrane, S. and D.K. Guilkey. 1991b. “The Effects of Access on Contraceptive Use in Tunisia: Tracing Through the Effects of Social Services on Contraceptive Use.” Mimeographed document, World Bank.Google Scholar
  12. Entwisle, B., J.B. Casterline, and H.A.-A. Sayed. 1989. “Villages as Contexts for Contraceptive Behavior in Rural Egypt.” American Sociological Review 54: 1019–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Entwisle, B., A.I. Hermalin, P. Kamnuansilpa, and A. Chamratrithirong. 1984. “A Multilevel Model of Family Planning Availability and Contraceptive Use in Rural Thailand.” Demography 21:559–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Freedman, R.C. 1974. “Community-Level Data in Fertility Surveys.” WFS Occasional Papers 8. Voorburg, The Netherlands: International Statistical Institute.Google Scholar
  15. Guilkey, D.K. 1992. Community Effects in Demographic and Health Survey Data. Working Paper, IRD/Macro, Columbia, MD.Google Scholar
  16. Kamnuansilpa, P. and A. Chamratrithirong. 1985. Contraceptive Use and Fertility in Thailand: Results from the Contraceptive Prevalence Survey. Bangkok: National Family Planning Program, Ministry of Public Health.Google Scholar
  17. Krongkaew, M., A. Chamratrithirong, and V. Woromotri. 1983. A Study of Low-Income Households in the Northeastern Region of Thailand. Salaya: Institution of Population and Social Research, Mahidol University.Google Scholar
  18. Lee, N.H. 1969. The Search for an Abortionist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Maddala, G.S. 1983. Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Economics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Mason, W.M. and V.T. Palan. 1978. “Community-Level Variables and Their Effects on Reproductive Behavior in Malaysia.” Presented at the Conference on Comparative Fertility Transition in Asia, Tokyo.Google Scholar
  21. Phillips, J.F. and E. Zimmerman. 1993. “Assessing the Demographic Role of Program Effect with DHS Data from Six Developing Countries.” Presented at the Annual Meetings of the Population Association of America, Cincinnati.Google Scholar
  22. Rindfuss, R.R. and T.F. Liao. 1988. “Medical and Contraceptive Reasons for Sterilization in the United States.” Studies in Family Planning 19:370–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rogers, E.M. 1979. “Network Analysis of the Diffusion of Innovations.” Pp. 137–64 in Perspectives on Social Network Research, Edited by P.W. Holland and S. Leinhardt. Stanford: Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences.Google Scholar
  24. Rosero-Bixby, L. and J.B. Casterline. 1993. “Modeling Diffusion Effects in the Fertility Transition.” Population Studies 38:147–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tsui, A.O., D.P. Hogan, J.D. Teachman, and C. Welti-Chanes. 1981. “Community Availability of Contraceptives and Family Limitation.” Demography 18:615–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Watkins, S.C. 1991. “Markets, States, Nations, and Bedrooms in Western Europe, 1870–1960.” Pp. 263–79 in Macro-Micro Linkages in Sociology, edited by J. Huber. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Yodumnern-Attig, B. 1992. “Thai Family Structure and Organization: Changing Roles and Duties in Historical Perspective.” Pp. 8–24 in Changing Roles and Status of Women in Thailand: A Documentary Assessment, edited by B. Yoddumnern-Attig, K. Richter, A. Soonthorndhada, C. Sethaput, and A. Pramualratana. Bangkok: Institute for Population and Social Research.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Population Association of America 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbara Entwisle
    • 1
  • Ronald R. Rindfuss
    • 2
  • David K. Guilkey
    • 3
  • Aphichat Chamratrithirong
    • 4
  • Sara R. Curran
    • 5
  • Yothin Sawangdee
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA
  2. 2.Carolina Population CenterUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA
  3. 3.Department of EconomicsUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA
  4. 4.Institute for Population and Social ResearchMahidol UniversityUSA
  5. 5.Center for Studies in Demography and EcologyUniversity of Washington-SeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations