Thanks to a post by Zoe and Geoff, I decided to use the social fact of variation in abortion rates from country to country as the inspiration for class discussion today on the modeling process in social sciences. First, the data* (listing only the top and bottom 10–the US is 30th (out of 90 countries with data available) with a rate of 23.9% in 2003):
|
Country
|
Year
|
%
|
|
Russia
|
2005
|
52.5
|
|
Greenland
|
2004
|
50.2
|
|
Bosnia and Herzegovina
|
1988
|
48.9
|
|
Estonia
|
2004
|
47.4
|
|
Romania
|
2004
|
46.9
|
|
Belarus
|
2004
|
44.6
|
|
Hungary
|
2004
|
42.0
|
|
Guadeloupe
|
2005
|
41.4
|
|
Ukraine
|
2004
|
40.4
|
|
Bulgaria
|
2004
|
40.3
|
|
…
|
|
|
|
…
|
|
|
|
Suriname
|
1994
|
3.0
|
|
Puerto Rico
|
2001
|
2.2
|
|
Malta
|
2004
|
1.7
|
|
Qatar
|
2004
|
1.3
|
|
Portugal
|
2005
|
0.8
|
|
Venezuela
|
1968
|
0.8
|
|
Mexico
|
2003
|
0.2
|
|
Poland
|
2004
|
0.06
|
|
Panama
|
2000
|
0.02
|
|
Chile
|
1991
|
0.02
|
Now, according to Lave and March, the next step in the model-building process is to consider a social process that would lead to this outcome. There were three potential answers given in class, which correspond to three categories of explanation that we will address throughout the course:
1) Cultural–it would seem that religion is very important to individuals in the countries with the lowest rates. Most of these countries are strongly Catholic and the Church’s official policies are strongly anti-abortion (pro-life). Thus, individuals in these societies are inculcated with a strong view of what to do in the case of an unwanted pregnancy.
2) Rational Choice–one of the groups argued that the decision to abort (or not) a fetus was made on the basis of strategic calculations of self-interest. The countries at the bottom, these students argued, were agricultural and poorer, and children are needed as a source of labor for the household, as a future hedge against retirement for parents who live in societies with a poorly developed social welfare state, with little hope of receiving retirement funds from the government.
3) Institutional–rules, laws, regulations. Some students argued that some countries (like Chile) have laws making abortion illegal, thus either lowering the number overall, or decreasing the incentive for those having illegal abortions to report them to the official authorities.
That was great work; give yourselves a pat on the back or a round of applause.
The third step in the modeling process is, then, to tease out further implications of your preferred hypothesis above. Let’s go back to the cultural explanation. If it’s true that the Catholic Church has a tremendous impact on people’s views of what is right and wrong then, as one student asked, “wouldn’t it also be the case that divorce levels in these countries should be lower than divorce levels in the countries at the top of the list (since the Catholic Church also frowns upon divorce) ?
Continue reading “Modeling Social Processes–Abortion in Cross-national Comparison”