Some specifics on the brain drain from the Andean region

An analysis of the brain drain from the Andean countries of Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru to the United States is presented. The data are from a survey of 62 persons from those countries who are currently residing in the United States and are listed in the current edition of "American Men and Women of Science". The reasons why they left their country of origin and are staying in the United States are considered. (summary in FRE, SPA)     

Errata

My article entitled "Replications, Significance Tests, and Confidencein Findings in Survey Research" (POQ 47:261–69) is marredby a serious error which has implications for most of the contentsof the article. Table 1, which is adapted from a table published by Rosenthaland Hall,¹ gives the critical values of required for significance at several levels; itdoes not give the critical values of Trans , or () (). Rather, the latter should be referreddirectly to a table giving the areas under the normal curve,or, in other words, it should be treated as though it were aZ from a single-sample test. This means that the comparisons of significance test resultsfrom pooled data and from series of replications in Tables 2and 3 do not support the conclusion that using a replicate designrather than pooled data lessens the probability of Type II errors.In the case of Table 2, the probability from the pooled sampleis lower than the correct one from the series of replications,and in the case of Table 3, the probabilities are about thesame. The data in Table 4 illustrate a kind of situation in whicha replicate design may be the preferred one for another reason.The replicate design allows an estimate of sampling variabilityfrom the actual variability among a small number of samples,whereas the single-sample and pooled-sample significance testresults may be substantially in error due to the unstable meaningof the "zero" assigned to the reference category for the dummyvariables. However, the estimated probability for the arrayof replications should be .05 rather than the probability reported. Another error with less serious implications for the paper asa whole is that the third "alternative formula" for Trans is incorrect as printed. One of thefirst two formulas, or () (), should be used instead. The major error resulted from a misreading of the paper by Rosenthaland Hall. I apologize to Rosenthal and Hall and to any readersof my paper who have used the table of critical values incorrectlyin their research.     

Maternal care receptivity--an innovative approach for the evaluation of MCH services

Despite rapid expansion in the maternal and child health and family planning services, there have been few attempts made to study the extent of utilisation of these services and their impact. The present study reports a simple method evolved in the quantification of utilisation of maternal care services (called maternal care receptivity - MCR), the relationship of factors such as age, parity, caste of the women and the distance of the health centre on the MCR and the impact of MCR on perinatal and neonatal mortalities. An inverse relationship was observed between MCR and perinatal and neonatal mortality rates and the two rates were three times less among babies born to mothers with high MCR scores compared to those with poor MCR scores.     

Changes in the distribution and composition of the population recorded as temporary residents in the years 1978-1980

The author describes two surveys carried out in 1978 and 1980 in Poland that were concerned with temporary residence, defined as residence for more than two months. The results of the surveys are presented, including data on age, sex, and urban or rural residence.     

The management of offshore resources—Some implications of the 200-mile limit

This article examines in depth the strategic implications for those States who have recently declared 200 mile off-shore resource management zones. The authors, in a comprehensive and stimulating paper, examine the implications of so-calling a nation's offshore limit. It is an appropriate name for a nation's offshore limit since the primary reason for many nations declaring a 200 mile limit has been the abundance of resources which have often been found within those limits either in the sea or the sea bed itself. This paper reviews the current background of off-shore resource management and outlines suitable roles for adoption by the coastal States in the management of their off-shore renewable and non-renewable resources. Furthermore, it examines the contentious but nonetheless central issue of the benefits and costs which accrue through coastal state jurisdiction. The authors also examine an appropriate resource management process and the implications of resource use conflicts within the off shore limit as well as defining these conflicts on the basis of ‘stakeholder’ interests and introduces a new concept of the maximization of economic equity amongst competing stakeholders. The problem remains that the measurement of economic equity perhaps leaves the States concerned within a situation of only having defined the problem; the political process has then to deal with any reallocation measures that may be deemed appropriate.