EPIDEMIOLOGY

 DEMOGRAPHICS OF SPAIN
 DEMOGRAPHICS OF ARGENTINA

Professor: Jose Maria Mata

Student: Maria Jose Lopez
 DIAGRAM 1 and solution
MASCULINITY INDEX PERCENTAGE OF THE
0-14 15-64 ≥ 65 POPULATION BY GENDER

Year 1966 104,434% 95,132% 69,375% Male population: 48,708%

Female population: 51,291%

Year 2016 106,046% 100,910% 75,321% Male population: 49,024%

Female population: 50,975%

Year 2026 106,311% 101,891% 78,860% Male population: 49,119%

Female population: 50,880%

Year 1966
Age range Men / Women x 100 Result (masculinity index)
0 – 14 4.617.135 / 4.421.080 x 100 104,434%
15 – 64 10.048.244 / 10.562.392 x 100 95,132%
≥65 1.182.826 / 1.704.960 x 100 69,375%

Year 2016
Age range Men / Women x 100 Result (masculinity index)
0 – 14 3.496.820 / 3.297.454 x 100 106,046%
15 – 64 15.311.686 / 15.173.558 x 100 100,910%
≥65 3.774.252 / 5.010.834 x 100 75,321%

Year 2026
Age range Men / Women x 100 Result (masculinity index)
0 – 14 3.026.788 / 2.847.089 x 100 106,311%
15 – 64 14.873.155 / 14.596.994 x 100 101,891%
≥65 4.725.053 / 5.991.683 x 100 78,860%

Year Men / total population x 100 Result (male population)

1966 15.848.205 / 32.536.637 x 100 48,708%
2016 22.582.758 / 46.064.604 x 100 49,024%
2026 22.624.766/ 46.060.762 x 100 48,119%
 Year Women / total population x 100 Result (female population)
1966 16.688.432 / 32.536.637 x 100 51,291%
2016 23.481.846 / 46.064.604 x 100 50,975%
2026 23.435.766 / 46.060.762 x 100 50,880%

1. B)
SUNDBARG INDEX ECONOMIC DEPENDENCY
INDEX
Year 1966 A 56,869 % Youth dependency: 43,85%
B 47,855 % Old people dependency: 14,01%
Progressive population Global dependency: 57,86%
Year 2016 A 32,242 % Youth dependency: 22,28%
B 86.357 % Old people dependency: 28,81%
Regressive population Global dependency:51,10%
Year 2026 A 31,854 % Youth dependency: 19,93%
B 86.357 % Old people dependency: 36,36%
Regressive population Global dependency: 56,29%

SUNDBARG INDEX

Year 1966
Age range Men + Women Total population by age range
X (0 – 14) 4.617.135 + 4.421.080 9.038.215
Z (15 – 50) 7.863.276 + 8.029.577 15.892.853
Y (≥50) 3.357.794 + 4.237.775 7.605.569

Equation Solution Result

A = (X / Z) x 100 (9.038.215 / 15.892.853) x 100 56,869 %
B = (Y / Z) x 100 (7.605.569 / 15.892.853) x 100 47,855 %
A>B = Progressive population

Year 2016
Age range Men + Women Total population by age range
X (0 – 14) 3.026.788 + 2.847.089 5.873.877
Z (15 – 50) 9.348.768 + 9.090.966 18.439.734
Y (≥50) 10.249.440 + 11.497.711 21.747.151
 Equation Solution Result
A = (X / Z) x 100 (6.794.274 / 21.072.660) x 100 32,242 %
B = (Y / Z) x 100 (18.197.670 / 21.072.660) x 100 86.357 %
A<B = Regressive population

Year 2026
Age range Men + Women Total population by age range
X (0 – 14) 3.496.820 + 3.297.454 6.794. 274
Z (15 – 50) 10.670.381 + 10.402.279 21.078.660
Y (≥50) 8.415.557 + 9.782.113 18.197.670

Equation Solution Result

A = (X / Z) x 100 (5.873.877 / 18.439.734) x 100 31,854 %
B = (Y / Z) x 100 (21.747.151 / 18.439.734) x 100 117,936 %
A<B = Regressive population

ECONOMIC DEPENDENCY INDEX

Year 1966
Age range Men + Women Total population by age range
X (0 – 14) 4.617.135 + 4.421.080 9.038.215
Z (15 – 65) 10.048.244 + 10.562.392 20.610.636
Y (≥65) 1.182.826 + 1.704.960 2.887.786

Equation Solution Result

(X / Z) x 100 (9.038.215 / 20.610.636) x 100 43,85%
(Y / Z) x 100 (2.887.786 / 20.610.636) x 100 14,01%
(X + Y / Z) x 100 (9.038.215 + 2.887.786 / 20.610.636) x 100 57,86%

Year 2016
Age range Men + Women Total population by age range
X (0 – 14) 3.496.820 + 3.297.454 6.794.274
Z (15 – 65) 15.311.686 + 15.173.558 30.485.244
Y (≥65) 3.774.252 + 5.010.834 8.785.086

Equation Solution Result

(X / Z) x 100 (6.794.274 / 30.485.244) x 100 22,28%
(Y / Z) x 100 (8.785.086 / 30.485.244) x 100 28,81%
(X + Y / Z) x 100 (6.794.274 + 8.785.086 / 30.485.244) x 100 51,10%
Year 2026
Age range Men + Women Total population by age range
X (0 – 14) 3.026.788 + 2.847.089 5.873.877
Z (15 – 65) 14.873.155 + 14.596.994 29.470.149
Y (≥65) 4.725.053 + 5.991.683 10.716.736

Equation Solution Result

(X / Z) x 100 (5.873.877 / 29.470.149) x 100 19,93%
(Y / Z) x 100 (10.716.736 / 29.470.149) x 100 36,36%
(X + Y / Z) x 100 (5.873.877 + 10.716.736 / 29.470.149) x 100 56,29%

1. C) The first demographic pyramid, related to the year 1966, has some interesting
historical derivations that must be correctly addressed and utterly explained. The
first one is related to the masculinity index. Its low ratio (in the active, old and
overall population) must be understood in its latest historical context: from 1936
to the year 1939 Spain was involved in a bloody civil war that evidently and
dramatically decreased the number of men. The impact of the war can also be
observed in the decrease of the natality and, subsequently, of the population that
is included between the 25-29 age range. After the war and after some years of
moderate growth of the population, the creation of the National Social Security (a
governmental global health care organization that had an extensive health cover
as its stated in the document “Fuero de los Españoles” from 1945) and the exodus
from the countryside to the industrial metropolis (which started in 1950 and which
was more important in Madrid and Barcelona), stimulated a huge baby boom (and
a positive vegetative balance) that can be observed at the bottom of the pyramid1.
So, as its Sundbarg index reflects, the population is progressive and so is the
structure of the pyramid analyzed (which corresponds to a pagoda expanding type,
with a predominant young population). Nevertheless, due to the low active
population because of the war, Spain had a high economic dependency index, but
mostly caused of its high fertility rate, which was not a very big deal due to the
fact that, in a matter of few years, those children would be incorporated into the
active population.
The second demographic pyramid, related to the year 2016, shows a very different
outlook. Due to the natural tendency towards a bigger male births ratio,
masculinity index increases in the active and old population and, of course, in the
overall population. A high improvement in the life quality (because of a better and
more sophisticated health system, better medicines and a lot of social advances)
would lead us to think in a greater number of newborns. However, the reality turns
out to be completely different: since 1975 the pyramid has been suffering a
considerable reduction in its base due to the lack of births and a negative
vegetative balance. As we find out that the Sundbarg index points out a brutal
increase in the old population, we also find that the pyramid constricts in its
bottom adopting the form of a bulb type pyramid (the reason of the low fecundity
 rate is explained in the point 2B). Nevertheless, since the effects of the war had
come to an end, now Spain has more active people than before and its economic
dependency index is lower than the one exhibited in the past. Despite this, the
actual economic dependency index is more dangerous: it shows a regressive
population with a significant increment in the old population that can lead Spain,
in the future, to an economic disaster, mainly because of the accelerated decrease
in the young population and the fact that the next generation cannot sustain, or
generate the economic resources to maintain, a high mass of people in retirement
age.
The last and hypothetical pyramid, related to the year 2026, shows the
consequences and effects of the pattern exhibited in 2016. The masculinity index
is increasing in all three age ranges, widely surpassing the equal proportions in
the first two of them (0-14 and 15-64), but still low in the last one (≥65) and, in
consequence, not matching up the female population yet (due to the natural high-
longevity tendency of the feminine gender, an issue that has not been properly
introduced in the last two pyramids for the porpoise of being introduced here).
Also, it has an alarming Sundbarg index that reveals an even more regressive
population than in 2016, with a pyramid that is severely constricted at its bottom
and has a huge amount of old people (bulb type). The economic dependency index
corroborates this problem, revealing a high global economic dependency index
brutally increased by the economic dependency ratio of the old people (which, as
it has just been pointed out in the paragraph before, is not sustainable neither
economically neither demographically, principally because of the even lower
natality ratio).

2. A)

Year Equation: Result (Birth rate)

Birth rate = (births / total population) x 1.000
2015 (420.290 / 46.410.149) x 1.000 9,056‰
1975 (669.378 / 35.750.033) x 1.000 18,724‰

B)
First of all, the pyramids’ type, shape and structure should be introduced to give
an important feedback. The 1975 pyramid exhibits a huge base that starts to
slightly constrict at its very bottom but not in a significant way. Because of this,
 it is reasonable to consider the pyramid as a static one, principally because of its
shape, very similar to a bell. However, that consideration can lead us directly to
think there is some risk that the population could start to get regressive: although
that was what happened, it should be quoted that in 1975 the fertility rate was
2,77, a very superior rate than the 2,1 needed to maintain a stable population. So,
if the “2,1 replacement-level fertility of the following generations” was reached
by far and the vegetative balance was practically at its highest point in all Spain’s
history, why the pyramid from 2015 reveals a total different pattern? Why a
pyramid of only 40 years’ difference has a very narrow bottom and exhibits a
negative vegetative balance with such a poor fecundity index (1,33)? And how
can one state that the pyramid in 1975 was a static type and not a pagoda type?
The last question has a simple answer: in 1975 Spain had reached a very high
industrial development and the baby boom was reaching its limit as the economic-
situation started to stabilize after a huge economic growth2, that is the reason why
this population should be considered as a static one. The other two questions have
2 different approaches. He first one is the historical approach: in 1975 Franco’s
dictatorship came to an end because of the death of the dictator, and Spain become
a full capitalist country. Not only the workers lost some social guarantees
suffering the consequences of an unstable job economic model (making of this
social and economic situation progressively more difficult for forming a family),
but also (and this is the second approach) it had a deep impact in the emancipation
of the women. With the fall of the dictatorship, new labor opportunities emerged
for women who now where more self-sufficient and independent, and
consequently had more power and freedom of decision in order to form a family
(moreover, new prophylactic methods converged, giving even more freedom to
the women with this issue). Those are the main reasons why the approximate age
of the women who had their first child jumped from the 25-29 range in 1975 to
the 30-34 range in 2015, and the main reasons why the brutal decrement of the
natality occurred within such a short range of time.

3. A)

Year Equation: Result (Mortality rate)

Mortality rate = (deaths / total population) x 1.000
2015 (422.568 / 46.410.149) x 1.000 9,105‰
1975 (298.192 / 35.750.033) x 1.000 8,342‰

Interpretation of the results: As it has just been calculated above, the mortality
ratio manifests a clear increment from 1975 to 2015. Before introducing the
unavoidable consequences, some multifactorial issues that may be connected to
this increment should be presented. The first factor is linked to the progressive
aging of the population, and the second one is directly related to a deterioration in
sanitary assistance for the old people (both have some interesting derivations).
Although there is a high mass of population situated in an advanced age, the
State’s global health system seems unable to offer the required health treatment
for aged population in 2015. From better hygienic procedures, better medicines
and advances in the sociosanitary environment from 1975 (with a positive
vegetative balance) we pass to a more precarious health system for old people in
2015 (with a negative vegetative balance), principally due to the emergence of
new health companies that require the erosion of the actual sanitary system in
order to get new clients in conjunction with the economic crisis3.
Consequences are quite obvious: in the socioeconomic aspect, a worsening of the
global situation as a result of a very big aged population ratio that will need means
to sustain itself without being productive, demanding more resources to a State
unable to get them with such a low active population (because of the negative
vegetative balance). On the sanitary aspect, the collapse seems evident as this high
aged population ratio is demanding (and will demand) more and more sanitary
assistance, assistance of a system that it is about to implode nowadays.

B)
Talking about the pyramids’ shapes first, because of the many improvements
accomplished in life quality, economic development and the general sanitary
assistance, changes in the mortality ratio should be highly-visible at the top of the
pyramids. Not only the upper pinnacle of the 2015 pyramid should be higher (due
to an obvious increase in the life expectancy) but also wider (because more
population should be able to achieve a longer life) than in the pyramid in 1975.
Progressively, and as it has been stated just before, the mortality ratio should
slightly decrease in all age ranges (although, in the actual health system, the old
people mortality ratio is suffering a significant incrementation); while life
expectancy should still continue its apparently unstoppable incrementation. The
mortality ratio tables should suffer the same modifications: the 2015 mortality
ratio table should be higher (due to the increase in the life expectancy) and wider
(because more population should be able to achieve a longer life, and, for that
reason, they should be situated in these ranges incrementing mortality in them)
than in the 1975 table.

C)
The mortality ratio is not a reliable resource to accurately evaluate the health
development of a country. The reason is simple: the mortality ratio is a
multifactorial ratio influenced by many and diverse factors, such as
socioeconomic issues (for example: poverty, unemployment, contamination,
adverse natural environment…; moreover, health development should also be
 quoted here), biological factors (gender, age and congenital diseases that have a
solid bond with the endogenous mortality) and even completely exogenous causes
(such as the involvement of the country in a war, traffic accidents…). But not all
of the mortality ratio ranges have this multifactorial influence over them: the
annual infant mortality rate is a good and direct indicator of the health and
economic development of a country, mainly because its low percentage almost
completely relies on a better sanitary assistance on the birth and the incidence of
this assistance, and other economical features, have a deep impact in a better
feeding of the newborn.

4.
Result
Emigrants = 22.396 (1st semester) + 29.713 (2nd semester) 52.109 emigrants in 2015
Immigrants = 48.359 (1st semester) + 46.285 (2nd semester) 94.644 immigrants in 2015

Migration balance = immigrants – emigrants Result (Migration balance 2015)

52.109 - 94.644 - 42.535

5.
Population change in 2015 = Natural increase rate + net migrations rate
Net migratory rate = (immigrants – emigrants) / population x 1.000 Result
(52.109 - 94.644) / 46.410.149 x 1.000 - 0,9165‰

Natural increase rate = birth rate – mortality rate Result

9,056‰ - 9,105‰ - 0,049‰

Population change in 2015 = Natural increase rate + net migrations rate Result (population growth rate)
- 0,049‰ - 0,9165‰ - 0,9655‰
 Webgraphy and Bibliography

1. https://www.wikipedia.org/. Wikipedia; 2018 [Date of access: 25/01/2018].

“Evolución demográfica moderna de España”. Electronic address:
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evoluci%C3%B3n_demogr%C3%A1fica_modern
a_de_Espa%C3%B1a

2. https://www.wikipedia.org/. Wikipedia; 2018 [Date of access: 25/01/2018].

“Explosión de natalidad” in “Postguerra, desarrollo económico y baby boom”.
Electronic address:
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosi%C3%B3n_de_natalidad

3. https://www.wikipedia.org/. Wikipedia; 2018 [Date of access: 25/01/2018].

“Envejecimiento de la población”. Electronic address:
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Envejecimiento_de_la_poblaci%C3%B3n

*Justification for the usage of Wikipedia as a reliable source of information:

Anna Sánchez-Juárez. “Wikipedia es una fuente fiable y de calidad para la información
científica” (electronic edition). Diario Público; 2016 [date of access: 08/02/2018].
Electronic address: http://www.publico.es/ciencias/wikipedia-fuente-fiable-y-
calidad.html
 Static demography
Total population1
Population by gender1
Population by age groups2
Population by age groups (men)2
Population by age groups
(women)2
Nationality of the population3 Foreign born population 1.805.957 (from America: 1.471.399; from Europe:
Births5
Deaths2
Marriages1
Emigrations*
Immigrations*
Year 2010 – Argentina
40.117.096
Men: 19.523.766 Women: 20.593.330
0-14: 10.222.317 15-64: 25.790.131 ≥65: 4.104.648
0-14: 5.195.096 15-64: 12.654.528 ≥65: 1.674.142
0-14: 5.027.221 15-64: 13.135.603 ≥65: 2.430.506
299.394; from Asia 31.001; from Africa: 2.738; from Oceania: 1.425).
750.190
316.925
10.222.236
≈25.170
≈25.170

*As it is specified below the net migration rate was considered null from 2008 to 2014
(https://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=ar&v=27&l=es9). Although the number of
immigrants in 2010 could be around 350.000 people as it is detailed here
(http://atlasid.planificacion.gob.ar/indicador.aspx?id=828) (but in the undetermined
range of 5 years; and presumably most of them could have returned to their homeland
after the census); and the emigrants number could be around 125.847
(https://www.datosmacro.com/demografia/migracion/emigracion/argentina4) (but also
in the undetermined range of 5 years); the real numbers still remain uncertain: there were
no effective border controls in Argentina due to the general corruption of the country and
the INDEC was not a reliable source of information in some political-demographic
aspects, until the past two years when it had a general purge
(http://casos.lanacion.com.ar/indec-la-maquina-de-la-mentira7). To avoid the
controversial numbers and be as truthful as is required, both quantities (migrations and
emigrations) will be considered the same, in order to achieve the “0” net migration rate
quoted above.

ECONOMIC DEPENDENCY INDEX

Age range Total population by age range

X (0 – 14) 10.222.317
Z (15 – 65) 25.790.131
Y (≥65) 4.104.648

Equation Solution Result

(X / Z) x 100 (10.222.317 / 25.790.131) x 100 39,64 %
(Y / Z) x 100 (4.104.648 / 25.790.131) x 100 15,915%
(X + Y / Z) x 100 (10.222.317 + 4.104.648 / 25.790.131) x 100 55,55%
SUNDBARG INDEX

Age range Total population by age range

X (0 – 14) 10.222.3172
Z (15 – 50) 20.256.9982
Y (≥50) 9.637.7812

Equation Solution Result

A = (X / Z) x 100 (10.222.317 / 20.256.998) x 100 50,46%
B = (Y / Z) x 100 (9.637.781 / 20.256.998) x 100 47,58%
A>B = Progressive population

As is can be appreciated, Argentina’s 2010 population pyramid had normal numbers

related to the gender distribution. The first age interval (0-14) shows a more significant
ratio of male population. As it was stated in demographics of Spain this can be justified
because of the natural human tendency towards more male births than female births. The
next two intervals (15-64 and specially ≥65) show a prevalence of the female population
over the male population. The 15-64 gender distribution interval can be justified for the
wide ratio of crude mortality, which affects more to men population; while the ≥65 gender
distribution interval can be validated for the natural human tendency towards a higher-
longevity for the women than for the men (also quoted in demographics of Spain). The
economic dependency index is very similar to the one exhibited in Spain in the year 1966,
with a high global economic dependency index because of Argentina’s great fertility rate
(with a positive and unbalanced vegetative ratio between births and deaths) which it is
 not a very big deal due to the fact that, in a matter of few years, those children will be
incorporated into the active population.
Analyzing now the shape of the pyramid itself, it reveals to have a static population due
to its bell appearance. Nevertheless, although natality seems to have constricted a bit, the
Sundbarg index points out that the population of this country is still slightly progressive,
with more young population than old and aging population. This may be the principal
dissimilitude with 1966 Spain’s pyramid, a factor that can be easily explained by the baby
boom occurred in Spain those years, mainly because of the favorable economic
circumstances of the country at that time of its history, while Argentina has still lots of
internal socioeconomic problems to deal with.
In addition, it might also be said that the number of immigrants living in Argentina was
quite low (4,5% of the total population) compared, for example, to the ratio of immigrants
censed in Spain in 2010 (that was over 12,2% of the total population), with a huge
quantity of them from bordering countries.

DEMOGRAPHIC EQUATION APPLICATION OF THE RESULT

PHENOMENON EQUATION
Birth rate / Natality rate (Births / total population) x 1.000 (750.190 / 40.117.096) x 1.000 18,7‰
General fecundity rate (Number of births / fertile female (750.190 / 20.256.998) x 1.000 37‰
population [15-49]3) x 1.000
Crude mortality rate (Deaths / total population) x 1.000 (316.925 / 40.117.0) x 1.000 7,9‰
Annual infant mortality (Number of babies in their first year (477.393 / 40.117.096) x 1.000 11,9‰
rate of life / total population) x 1.000
Life expectancy ≈ 75.5 years6
Natural increase balance Births – deaths 750.190 - 316.925 443.696
Natural increase rate (Natural increase balance / total (433.265 / 40.117.096) x 1.000 10,8‰
population) x 1.000
Migration balance Immigrants – emigrants 25.170 – 25.170 0
Net migration rate (Migration balance / total population) 0 / 40.117.096 0‰
x 1.000
Demographic growth Natural increase rate + net migrations 10,8‰ + 0‰ 10,8‰
rate rate

Conclusion: Argentina is a country with an elevate fecundity rate which is reflected either
in the birth rate and in the general fecundity rate. Although it has a significant annual
infant mortality rate and a high crude mortality rate, the natural increase balance is still
in favor of a gorgeous growth. Although the pyramid would lead us to think the
population of Argentina being a static one (because of its pseudo-regressive bell shape),
it is a fact that economic and social measures of the government such as “asignación
universal por hijo” (universal assignment per child), which is a payment to the
progenitors granted by the government, will contribute to reverse this situation when
Argentina has a more favorable economic situation10. Despite of the confusing numbers
of the migration balance, its now negative numbers (-0,1% by 2017) will have no
significant impact on the demographic growth rate, the pyramid from which is suffering
a normal and predictable contraction after some years of bad and unstable economic
development. However, life expectancy (plus the annual infant mortality rate) reflect
some needs for more investments in health development and sanitary assistance, in order
to reverse the practically-static demographic situation, and migration balance urges better
border controls to have reliable numbers to work with. It could be also said that some of
the suggestions proposed before are being taken more seriously by the actual government
which has implemented and provided more sophisticated methods and professionals to
grant more reliable numbers but has failed to provide (like all governments of the
developing countries) the adequate sanitary assistance needed to dramatically improve
the annual infant mortality ratio. In conclusion Argentina is a country with a stable
demographic population, without a preoccupant aging of the people living there and with
some typical problems of the developing countries.
 Webgraphy and Bibliography

1) INDEC: Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos [Responsible for the edition: Lic.
Ana María Edwin]. Censo nacional de población, hogares y viviendas 2010; censo
del Bicentenario: resultados definitivos. Serie B nº 2 (1st edition). Buenos Aires:
Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos (INDEC), 2010. Electronic address:
https://www.indec.gob.ar/ftp/cuadros/poblacion/censo2010_tomo1.pdf

2) INDEC: Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos. “Cuadro P5. Total del país.
Población total por país de nacimiento, según sexo y grupo de edad. Año 2010”.
Buenos Aires: Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos (INDEC), 2010. Electronic
address:
https://www.indec.gov.ar/censos_total_pais.asp?id_tema_1=2&id_tema_2=41&id_t
ema_3=135&t=0&s=0&c=2010
The mortality issue is very controverted: while INDEC states a mortality index of
7,9‰, the diary “Expansión” gives a different number: 7,64 ‰. This case is not like
the “migration issue” quoted above, because here INDEC provides detailed
information and there is no political benefit in increasing the death ratio. For more
details please visit: “Electronic diary “Expansión”, a diary of Unidad Editorial [sub-
subsidiary: www.datosmacro.com]. Spain; source: indirect, extracted from various
statistics institutes. Unidad Editorial; publication date: 2015 [date of access:
25/01/2018]. “En Argentina se reduce la tasa de mortalidad en el último año”.
Electronic address:
https://www.datosmacro.com/demografia/mortalidad/argentina”

3) INDEC: Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos [Responsible for the edition: Lic.
Ana María Edwin]. Censo nacional de población, hogares y viviendas 2010; censo
del Bicentenario: resultados definitivos - MIGRACIONES. Serie B nº 2 (1st edition).
Buenos Aires: Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos (INDEC), 2010. Electronic
address: https://www.indec.gob.ar/comunidadeducativa/migraciones.pdf

4) Electronic diary “Expansión”, a diary of Unidad Editorial [sub-subsidiary:

www.datosmacro.com]. Spain; source: indirect, extracted from various statistics
institutes. Unidad Editorial; publication date: 2015 [date of access: 25/01/2018]. “Los
argentinos emigran más”. Electronic address:
https://www.datosmacro.com/demografia/migracion/emigracion/argentina

5) Marcela Fernández. “Bajaron los nacimientos en Argentina”. Diario La Voz; 2014

[date of access: 25/01/2018]; Diary from 22/04/2014. Electronic address:
http://www.lavoz.com.ar/ciudadanos/bajaron-los-nacimientos-en-argentina
6) www.data.worldbank.org. The World Bank; 2017 [date of access: 25/01/2018]. Life
expectancy at birth, total (years). Electronic address:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.IN

7) Journalist manager: Francisco Jueguen; “El INDEC, la máquina de la mentira”.

Source: extracted from various journalists’ essays. Diario la Nación; 2015 [date of
access: 25/01/2018]. Electronic address: http://casos.lanacion.com.ar/indec-la-
maquina-de-la-mentira

8) http://atlasid.planificacion.gob.ar/default.aspx. Consejo Federal de Planificación;

2012 [date of access: 25/01/2018]. “Saldo migratorio; Análisis”. Electronic address:
http://atlasid.planificacion.gob.ar/indicador.aspx?id=82

9) https://www.indexmundi.com/. IndexMundi [Founder: Miguel Barrientos]; 2017

[date of access: 25/01/2018]. “Cuadros de Datos Históricos Anuales”. Electronic
address: https://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=ar&v=27&l=es

10) https://www.wikipedia.org/. Wikipedia; 2018 [Date of access: 25/01/2018].

“Asignación Universal por Hijo”. Electronic address:
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asignaci%C3%B3n_Universal_por_Hijo