Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
20 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Outline how China's One Child Policy is implemented |
1. Punishments - >20% income penalty - Confiscation of basic supplies 2. Incentives - Higher priority for things - Healthcare, education, rations |
|
|
List the positive impacts of China's One Child Policy |
1. 400 million births prevented 2. Fertility rate dropped from 6 to 1.7 in 50 years 3. Population growth rate 2.61% --> 0.65% |
|
|
List the negative impacts of China's One Child Policy |
1. 6:5 male:female birth ratio - 32 million more males than females below 20 - Inequality felt in rural areas, as females marry into cities 2. Abortion, neglect & Infanticide - 30 million annually (1980s) 3. Ageing population - "Four-Two-Owe" 4. Population at 1.3 billion, and still growing |
|
|
Name one Pro-natal policy by name. |
France's Code de la famille |
|
|
Background of France's large dependancy |
1. Elderly population to increase 50% by 2050 2. Costing €12.9 billion on social security and healthcare for elderly 3. Fertility rate decreased by 0.6 in 30 years |
|
|
Outline how France's Code de la famille is implemented |
1. $1000 on 3rd child 2. Maternity leave with nearly full pay 2x length after 3rd child 3. 100% mortgage and preferential treatment for 3 bedroom flats 4. Full tax benefits until first child turns 18 5. 30% reduction in public transport costs for 3 children families |
|
|
List the positive impacts of France's Code de la famille |
1. Population increase 0.6 million by 2050 2. ex-Prime Minister announced France as most populous European country by 2030 3. Fertility rate increased by 0.31 last 20 years |
|
|
List the negative impacts of France's Code de la famille |
1. Impact is small (compared to China) 2. UN challenges ex-prime minister's statement (69.2 mil vs 77.9 mil Germany) 3. 7.5% GDP deficit, non-sustainable |
|
|
Pull factors affecting international migration from Poland to UK |
1. 5.1% (low) unemployment in UK 2. 600,000 job vacancies (2007) 3. $31,000 (high) mean annual wage 4. UK not imposing immigration restrictions 5. 18 airports in UK |
|
|
Push factors affecting international migration from Poland to UK |
1. 18.5% (high unemployment in Poland 2. 40% youth & rural unemployment 3. $13,000 (low) mean annual wage 4. 9 airports in Poland |
|
|
Positive impacts of migrants on destination (Poland --> UK) |
1. Migrants contribute £2.5 billion to economy 2. 1% of UK growth attributed to migrants (2006) 3. 80% of migrants between 15-35 age (help w/ ageing population) 4. Unwanted jobs are filled up (e.g. dishwashing) |
|
|
Negative impacts of migrants on destination (Poland --> UK) |
1. Workers brought in 36,000 dependents 2. 27,000 more child benefits approved 3. Housing prices rose 4.5% 4. Competition in unskilled labour, Polish work for less money than UK citizens |
|
|
Compare the push and pull factors affecting international migration between Mexico and USA |
|
|
|
Positive impacts of migrants on destination (Mexico --> USA) |
Large supply of unskilled labour - Mexicans take up unwanted jobs - 22% migrants no high school diploma - 3% w/ high school diploma - 2% college degree - 50% in manufacturing occupation (craft, repair, laborer, fabricator) |
|
|
Negative impacts of migrants on destination (Mexico --> USA) |
1. Lost 5 million factory jobs (natives out-competed) 2. Increase crime rate - 6% incarceration rate for Hispanics - 4% for whites |
|
|
Positive impacts of migrants on origin (Mexico --> USA) |
$22 million in remittances (2013) |
|
|
Negative impacts of migrants on origin (Mexico --> USA) |
1. Loss of high-skilled & educated workers - Only 14% labour is skilled 2. 9:10 male:female ratio (males migrate) |
|
|
Compare the push and pull factors affecting internal migration between Cornwall and London |
|
|
|
Background on forced migration within Sudan |
|
|
|
Compare the positive and negative impacts of forced migration in Sudan |
|
