ABSTRACT
Many aspects of urban life have the potential to affect fertility and reproductive health, but not all of these can be said to be distinctively urban. The broad fea tures of the urban economy-its dominance by industry and services, its work places situated outside the home-were noted so long ago in discussions of the demographic transition (Notestein, 1953) that they have almost ceased to be re garded as urban. Indeed, as discussed earlier in this report, many rural areas have been assuming similar characteristics, especially in the regions surrounding large cities. Lower infant and child mortality is also broadly characteristic of cities, and lower mortality reduces some of the risks parents face in adopting strategies of low fertility. But the mechanisms are not obviously urban in character; surely lower mortality would exert much the same sort of influence in rural villages. Mi grants are a distinctive presence in urban environments, and the fact that they have recently made transitions from other contexts raises issues of disruption, adjust ment, and selectivity. Apart from migration, however, there remains the question of what is gained by situating fertility and reproductive health decisions within specifically urban contexts. What does this “embedding” achieve? Does it bring to light any implications for services and programs?
