The Demography of Inequality in Brazil

Abstract

Lang uag e: EnglishYear: 1988 Reg ion / Country: Brazil | South America | AmericasWe use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience By clicking any link on this pag e you are g iving your conse nt for us to se t cookie s. OK, I ag re e OK, I ag re e No, g ive me more info No, g ive me more info

Urbanization, development and under-five mortality differentials by place of residence in São Paulo, Brazil, 1970-1991

“…Despite this attention, there is an important research gap in documenting and explaining trends in rural-urban or intra-urban differentials in infant and child mortality in less developed countries. Although there are studies that have described these trends (e.g., Carvalho and Wood, 1978;Sawyer, Fernández-Castilla, and Monte-Mor, 1987;Wood and Carvalho, 1988), there are few that have sought to explain them. Thus, little is known about both how and why rural-urban or intra-urban differentials have changed over a period in which the development processes unfolded and levels of urbanization rose, women's educational attainment improved, infrastructure spread, and income and wealth increased.…”

Demographic dynamics of poverty and income inequality: the case of Brazil

“…Wood and Carvalho (1988) and Camarano and Beltrão (1995) estimated fertility, mortality, natural and intrinsic growth rates by household income in Brazil between 1960 and1980. The present investigation uses the studies mentioned as a point of reference to build knowledge, but it differs from them in three aspects.…”

Racial Inequality in Brazil from Independence to the Present

“…In the 1976 household survey, individuals were asked both an open-ended question on race and one with the four standard options (branca, parda, preta, or amarela): just six racial categories-including branca, parda, and preta, as well as morena, morena-clara, and clara-encompassed 94 % of respondents (Wood et al 1988). Although morena was as common a response in the open question as was parda in the structured one (34 % of respondents in each instance), its usage is perhaps too general to function as a census category (Telles 1995).…”