Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T20:33:53.234Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Differentials of fertility between polygynous and monogamous marriages in rural Bangladesh

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2008

Kashem Shaikh ,
K. M. A. Aziz  and
A. I. Chowdhury
Kashem Shaikh
Affiliation:
International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Dhaka, Bangladesh
K. M. A. Aziz
Affiliation:
International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Dhaka, Bangladesh
A. I. Chowdhury
Affiliation:
International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

This paper discusses polygynous marriages in rural Bangladesh, using marital status and birth registration data from the Demographic Surveillance System of the International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, for the period 1975–79. Of all the marriages recorded during this period about 5% were polygynous. To identify the women polygynously married, 1974 census data of the DSS area were used. The difference in age at marriage between the polygynous groom and his subsequent wife was 15 years on average. The socioeconomic indicators studied were education, occupation and area of dwelling space. In general, these indicators differentially influence polygynous marriage. The fertility differentials between women in monogamous marriages were significantly higher than between the women in polygynous unions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Biosocial Science , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , January 1987 , pp. 49 - 56
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aziz, K. M. A. (1979) Kinship in Bangladesh. International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh.Google Scholar
Cain, M., Khanam, S. R. & Nahar, S. (1979) Class, patriarchy, and women's work in Bangladesh. Popul. Dev. Rev. 5, 405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorjahn, V. R. (1958) Fertility, polygyny and their interrelations in Temne society. Am. Anthrop. 60, 838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, K. (1972) Comment. Curr. Anthrop. 13, 231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kapadia, K. N. (1955) Marriage and Family in India. Oxford University Press, Bombay.Google Scholar
Lorimer, F. (1958) Culture and Human Fertility. Greenwood, New York.Google Scholar
Majumder, D. N. (1937) A Tribe in Transition. Longmans, London.Google Scholar
McDonald, P. (1980) Marriage and nuptiality. In: Beginning Population Studies, Chap. 5. Edited by Lucas, D.. Australian National University, Canberra.Google Scholar
Muhsam, H. V. (1956) Fertility of polygamous marriage. Popul. Stud. 10, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nag, M. (1968) Factors Affecting Human Fertility in Non-industrial Societies. A Cross-cultural Study. Publications in Anthropology. Yale University, New Haven.Google Scholar
Nag, M. (1972) Sex, culture and human fertility: India and the United States. Curr. Anthrop. 13, 231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nag, M. (1976) Factors Affecting Human Fertility in Non-industrial Societies: A Cross-cultural Study. Publications in Anthropology. Yale University, New Haven.Google Scholar
Ruzicka, L. T. & Bhatia, S. (1982) Coital frequency and sexual abstinence in rural Bangladesh. J. biosoc. Sci. 14, 397.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruzicka, L. T. & Chowdhury, A. K. M. A. (1978) Demographic Surveillance System—Matlab, Vol. 5, Vital Events, Migration and Marriages—1976. Cholera Research Laboratory, Dhaka.Google Scholar
Shaikh, K. (1982) Marriage and Marriage Dissolution in a Rural Area of Bangladesh. MA thesis, Australian National University, Canberra.Google Scholar
Ware, H. (1979) Social influences on fertility at later ages of reproduction. J. biosoc. Sci. Suppl. 6, 75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, H. (1942) Taboo: A Sociological Study. Stanford University Press, California.Google Scholar