Discuss the usefulness of at least two population measures as indicators of development The fertility rate is useful to an extent as an indicator of development. Fertility rate is the number of live births per 1,000 of the female population aged 15-4 in 1 year. It can also be described as the number of children a woman within a country will have in their life time. If the figure is above 2.1 the population will replace its self. There is a positive correlation between high rates of fertility and development with ‘Less economically developed country’s tending to have higher rates of fertility. This is undoubtedly not down to any one factor but it could be due to: A higher infant mortality rate in these countries which we could infer that therefore there is a higher risk of losing your child possibly down to poor hygiene and medication which improves with development, and thus there is a incentive to having more children as there is a high chance that not all will survive; it could also indicate lower levels of education for women, where gender roles are still largely believed in and therefore women are expected to remain at home and have children, as development increases these ideas to seem to stop with a rise of individualism and materialism in medium economically developed countries which in its self leads to a lower fertility rate. Therefore, fertility rate would seem an good indicator of development however as we have seen in cases such as the post World War 2 baby boom in Britain more wealth has sometimes encouraged higher fertility rates. The infant Mortality rate is somewhat useful as an indicator of development. Infant mortality rate is measured as the number of children who die before the age of 1 per 1,000 live births per year. This age group is incredibly venerable and Reilly on others for their survival and therefore high rates can indicate low standard of living with poor hygiene, anti natal and post natal care, vaccinations and specialist medical care. All factors which improve with development. Therefore this could highlight the poorer countries with high infant mortality rates. Furthermore there is a correlation with infant mortality rate and access to clean water. The infant mortality rate also has a positive relationship with fertility rate and in that sense after reading the above paragraph is useful to an extent as a measure of development. Countries that are poor and prone to natural disasters also have a high infant mortality rate, as do countries which have high levels of HIV/Aids which could indicate the level of education; education is another thing which improves with development. However, this does to give a distorted view of infant mortality rate as it shows infant mortality rate is highly affected by disease, some diseases are incurable such as in recent months Ebola and therefore affect every country but only catch and spread in certain climates which therefore reflects certain countries, giving them a disproportional representation in terms of development infant mortality rate. It may prove that population measures more useful as measures of development when compared alongside one another in a correlative manner, giving a more comprehensive overview of a countries standings. It is obvious that no one population measure can accurately mirror development perfectly and are only ever useful to an ‘extent’ or ‘somewhat’ as shown above. Development is also arguably more complex than simply splitting richer countries from poorer ones, but statistics can have usefulness when patterns emerge.