# **WEB APPENDIX TABLE 6: URBAN BIRTH RATES, POPULATION SHARES OF MAJOR RELIGIONS AND FAMILY PLANNING EFFORT IN THE 1960s**

|Dependent Variable:|Urban Birth|Rate (%, 1960s)|
|---|---|---|
||(1)|(2)|
|Catholicism (% of Population, 1960s)|2.71**<br>(1.28)||
|Islam (% of Population, 1960s)|2.56**<br>(1.17)||
|Protestantism (% of Population, 1960s)|4.15<br>(2.51)||
|Other Christian Religions (% of Population, 1960s)|2.38<br>(1.54)||
|Hinduism (% of Population, 1960s)|1.11<br>(1.33)||
|Buddhism (% of Population, 1960s)|1.06<br>(1.21)||
|Other Eastern Religions (% of Population, 1960s)|0.59<br>(2.08)||
|Other Religions (% of Population, 1960s)|3.15**<br>(1.36)||
|_Strong_Family Planning Effort (1960s)||-1.71***<br>(0.50)|
|_Moderate_Family Planning Effort (1960s)||-1.22***<br>(0.30)|
|_Weak_Family Planning Effort (1960s)||-0.79***<br>(0.28)|
|Log GDP Per Capita|-0.46**|-0.07|
|(constant 2005 international$,1960)|(0.21)|(0.15)|
|Fixed Effects, Controls|N|N|
|<br>Observations; R-squared|35; 0.62|35; 0.48|

**_Notes_ : This table shows the strong correlations between the initial urban birth rate (1960s) and the initial cultural/religious and policy environments (proxied by measures in the 1960s), conditional on income per capita (1960). Column (1): Catholic and Muslim countries started with higher urban birth rates. No significant difference is found for other religions. Column (2): The countries that have “idiosyncratically” adopted family planning policies in the 1960s had lower urban births rates then. In Web Appendix Table 5, we interact these initial conditions with year FE to allow them to have an effect on the country-specific evolutions of urban fertility.** The sample consists of 35 countries that were still developing countries in 1960. Robust SEs in parentheses; * p _<_ 0.10, ** p _<_ 0.05, *** p _<_ 0.01. Column (1): The population share of the irreligious residents (%) is the omitted variable. Column (2): Ross and Maudlin (1996) use their Family Planning Effort (FPE) index to define 4 categories of family planing policies in the 1960s: _very weak_ (0 _<_ FPE _≤_ 20), _weak_ (20 _<_ FPE _≤_ 45), _moderate_ (45 _<_ FPE _≤_ 66) and _strong_ (66 _<_ FPE _≤_ 100). The countries with _very weak_ family planning are the omitted group. See Web Appendix for data sources.

# **WEB APPENDIX TABLE 7: FAMILY PLANNING, RELIGION AND URBAN GROWTH, 1950s-60s**

|Dependent Variable:|Dummy for Mo<br>Family Planning|derate or Strong<br>Effort (1960s)|Population<br>Catholics and M|Share (%) of<br>uslims (1960s)|
|---|---|---|---|---|
||(1)|(2)|(3)|(4)|
|Annual Urban Growth Rate|-0.06|0.01|0.01|0.01|
|(%, 1950s)|(0.05)|(0.07)|(0.03)|(0.06)|
|Annual Urban Growth Rate||-0.10||0.00|
|(%, 1960s)||(0.09)||(0.06)|
|Log GDP Per Capita|0.13|0.12|0.22***|0.22***|
|(cst. 2005 international$,1960)|(0.09)|(0.09)|(0.07)|(0.07)|
|Fixed Effects, Controls<br>|N|N|N|N|
|Observations; R-squared|35; 0.08|35; 0.13|35; 0.27|35; 0.27|

**_Notes_ : This table shows that the probability of adopting a strong or moderate family planning policy in the 1960s and the total population share (%) of catholicism and islam in the 1960s are independent of the urban growth rate in the 1950s (and the 1960s) conditional on per capita income in 1960.** The sample consists of 35 countries that were still developing countries in 1960. Robust SEs in parentheses; * p _<_ 0.10, ** p _<_ 0.05, *** p _<_ 0.01. See Web Appendix for data sources.

A. 16