# **WEB APPENDIX TABLE 4: URBAN BIRTH RATES, URBAN FERTILITY RATES AND SHARE OF WOMEN OF REPRODUCTIVE AGE IN THE POPULATION, 2000**

|Dependent Variable:|Urban Birth Rate<br>(%, 2000)|Urban TFR * SWRA<br>(2000)|
|---|---|---|
||(1)|(2)|
|Urban Total Fertility Rate (TFR)|-0.05|25.92***|
|(Births per Woman, 2000)|(0.27)|(0.45)|
|Urban Share Women of Reproductive Age (SWRA)|(-0.04)|2.81***|
|(Per 100 People, 2000)|(0.03)|(0.16)|
|Urban TFR * SWRA|0.03***||
|(2000)|(0.01)||
|Fixed Effects, Controls|N|N|
|Observations;R-squared|89;0.89|89;0.99|

**_Notes_ : This table shows that the main component of the urban birth rate is the urban total fertility rate (TFR), and not the share of women of reproductive age (SWRA) (15-49 years) in the urban population in 2000. Column (1): The urban birth rate is explained by the product of the two other variables. Column (2): The product is mostly explained by the urban total fertility rate: e.g., a 1 standard deviation in the urban TFR (SWRA) is associated with a 1.12 (0.28) standard deviation in the product.** The sample consists of 89 countries that were still developing countries in 1960, for the closest year to 2000, in the 1990-2010 interval. Robust standard errors in parentheses; * p _<_ 0.10, ** p _<_ 0.05, *** p _<_ 0.01. In column (1), we regress the urban birth rate (per 100 people) on the urban total fertility rate (the number of children that would be born to a woman if she were to live to the end of her childbearing years and bear children in accordance with current age-specific fertility rates), the share of women of reproductive age (15-49 years) in the urban population in 2000, and their product, in 2000. In column (2), we regress the product on the urban total fertility rate and share of women of reproductive age in the urban population. See Web Appendix for data sources and construction of variables.

# **WEB APPENDIX TABLE 5: ALTERNATIVE IDENTIFICATION STRATEGIES, 1960-2010**

|Dependent Variable:|Annual<br>(|Urban Growt<br>%, Decade _t_)|h Rate<br>|Change in<br>(Percent|the Urbaniz<br>age Points, D|ation Rate<br>ecade _t_)|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||_IV-Shares_<br>_Religions_<br>_& Family_<br>_Planning_|_IV-Shares_<br>_Religions_|_IV-Family_<br>_Planning_|_OLS_<br>_Religions_<br>_& Family_<br>_Planning_|_IV-Shares_<br>_Religions_|_IV-Family_<br>_Planning_|
||(1)|(2)|(3)|(4)|(5)|(6)|
|Urban Natural Increase Rate|0.87**|1.03*|0.73**|2.12***|1.82<sup>†</sup>|2.32***|
|(Per 100 People, Decade _t_)|(0.42)|(0.53)|(0.35)|(0.70)|(1.14)|(0.84)|
|Residual Migration Rate||||2.14***|2.11***|2.12***|
|(Per 100 People, Decade _t_)||||(0.27)|(0.27)|(0.27)|
|Rural Natural Increase Rate|-0.13|-0.12|-0.02|-1.27***|-1.05*|-1.35***|
|(Per 100 People, Decade _t_)|(0.25)|(0.29)|(0.23)|(0.44)|(0.58)|(0.46)|
|Kleibergen-Paaprk Wald F stat|37.6|8.5|99.9|137.2|8.1|177.8|
|Country & Decade FE, Controls|Y|Y|Y|Y|Y|Y|
|Region FE (10) x Time Trend|Y|Y|Y|Y|Y|Y|
|Observations (35 x 5)|175|175|175|175|175|175|
|Adj./Centered R-squared|0.84|0.84|0.84|0.80|0.79|0.80|

**_Notes_ : This table shows that the IV results are in line with the OLS results when using as instruments (while simultaneously controlling for rural natural increase in** _t_ **): Columns (1) and (4): The initial religious conditions and the initial family planning conditions for each country in the 1960s, interacted with decade FE (to allow them to have an effect on the country-specific evolutions of urban fertility, and thus urban natural increase). Columns (2) and (5): The initial religious conditions in the 1960s, interacted with decade FE. Columns (3) and (6): The initial family planning conditions in the 1960s, interacted with decade FE.** The sample is the same as in Table 1. Robust SEs clustered at the country level in parentheses;<sup>†</sup> p _<_ 0.11 * p _<_ 0.10, ** p _<_ 0.05, *** p _<_ 0.01. The initial religious conditions are the population shares of 8 religions = [Catholicism, Protestantism, Other Christian Religions, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Other Eastern Religions, Other Religions] in the 1960s. The initial family planning conditions are 4 dummies equal to one if the country had very weak, weak, moderate or strong family planning policies in the 1960s, interacted with decade FE. All regressions include country and decade FE, log GDP per capita (PPP, cst 2005$) at the start and the end of the decade, and the same controls as in Table 1. In columns (1)-(3), we add the urbanization rate at the start of the decade. See Web Appendix for data sources. A. 15