The politics of family planning in the Maghrib

This article uses a comparative case study approach to relate policy outcomes in terms of family planning to the patterns of political forces observed in the 3 Maghrib states of Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia. It is suggested that official support for a strong family planning program may be linked to recognition of the problem of low labor absorption and to concrete steps taken to counter the problem. The article discusses different vantage points for approaching the political context of family planning and distinguishes between the use of family planning as an instrument of social policy and as an instrument of economic policy. Ideological reasons for opposition to or support of family planning are then outlined. The colonial experience of the 3 states is differentiated and a chronological account of their family planning programs is provided. The political systems and leadership of the 3 countries are separately discussed in greater detail, after which the influence of elite groups on family planning programs and activities in each country is assessed. Developments in the 3 countries since 1978 are then sketched. The author concludes that the relative importance of policies toward employment and women's status in connection with support for family planning has probably varied over time, with economics playing a greater role in the 1970s. The activities of non-regime political actors were found to be very significant in formulation of population policies in Algeria and Morocco but less so in Tunisia.     

Cost Benefit Study of the New Covent Garden Market

The Hon. Editor has received the following letter commenting on Professor Kirk's and Mr. Sloyan's article on the New Covent Garden Market (Vol. 56 Spring 1978). The author is lecturer in applied economics in the Department of Social and Economic Research, University of Glasgow. Mr. Heald's letter is followed by a reply by Professor Kirk on behalf of Mr. Sloyan and himself.     

Rewriting Roe v. Wade

Presented in this essay are suggestions for rewriting Roe vs. Wade, the case that resulted in the establishment of a constitutional right to abortion. Essentially, the argument is 1 of equal protection. It is suggested that abortion be viewed as presenting a problem that might be termed "the law of samaritanism" -- the law regarding obligations imposed on certain individuals to provide assistance to others. In American law it is a deeply rooted principle that an individual is ordinarily not required to volunteer assistance to another individual who is in danger or in need of aid. The argument presented maintains that if a pregnant woman is required to carry the fetus to term and deliver it, then she is being compelled to be a Good Samaritan. It is argued further that if the generally limited scope of obligations of samaritanism under current law are considered, and the special nature of the burdens imposed on pregnant women by laws forbidding abortion are also considered, the obvious conclusion is that the equal protection clause forbids imposition of these burdens on pregnant women. The argument is developed in a lengthy form and calls for an extended discussion of the law of samaritanism. The uniqueness of the abortion case also creates problems as the equal protection argument is approached, and an approach to equal protection questions is sketched.