c - usaid

4
equation and 31.87 by the second equation.
It can be shown (as we
shall do in this monograph in section 5)
that both these arc groa-s
under-estimates.
b) by using two separate models, one linking TFR and CPR in a
fertility model, and the other Li nki ng CBR to variables like crude
death ral;e and Life expectation in a population projection model,
the underlying assumption being that since the two models have
same common ee ents, the CBR values given by the second model
might be consistent with the values of TFR and CPR given by the
first model. Again such an assumption nead not be valid. The
point to be stressed is that, in the absence of a direct
relationship between CPR, TFR and CBR, unrealistic CBR targets can
be tagged on
to
reali stic TFR
targets.
c) by presumi ng that the same ASFR s which are uued as an input
in the ago-specific version of the Population Counci l's model
will be multiplied by the number of women in the respective
agegroups
to calculate the numbor of births, and that will he lp
compute UaR. But such a procedure wi LL necessarily involve
subjective
judgment for predicting ASFR and will be considered as
a methodological welakness, particularly in countries like
Bangladesh, as already mentioned above.
In this monograph we consider as realistic the aggregate
codel of the Population Counci l, but superimpose upon it a
modified version of the ago-specific model. An attempt has been
made to romovu the two main shortcomings of that modal, which
specifically implies the following:­
- In our model, the age-specific ferti lity rates are shifted
from the package of inputs to the package of outputs. Of