This thesis is an attempt to examine the possible socio-cultural and economicrnconditions influencing women's status and role in family planning decision-making withrnspecific reference to Kotebe District (Woreda 28), Addis Ababa.rnThe thesis discussed the theoretical issues and perspectives with regard tornpopulation growth as a population problem and the mechanisms of population controLrnA significant number of useful studies have been conducted which account forrnaggregate fertility trends or explain individual fertility behaviours with some degree ofrnpower. But here the most central issues are: Do the respective societies and theirrnindividual members articulate the population problem and its relationship torndevelopment in its aggregate form? Why do couples desire large families which renderrnthe notion of fertility regulation irrelevant to their lives? For those couples whornperceive the need to regulate their fertility, what are the subjective and economic costsrnof adopting contraceptive technology?rnIt can be firmly asserted that the weakness of fertility research to date is notrnone of the poor theoretical formulation, but its failure to place fel1ility within its localrnsocio-cultural and economic context. Here it should be noted that couples behavernrationally within their respective socio-cultural and economic context~ and theirrnperceptions which are functions of the respective circumstances might be ditlerentrnfrom those of policy makers or scientists in a laboratory or library. In other words,rnhigh fel1ility persists in much of the world not because parents are foolish but becausernthey are not disadvantaged by large families.rnThe primary goal of this research was to examine the status and role of womenrnin family planning decision-making. The available literature on this topic has beenrnidentified and, to some extent, established four possible loci for this mechanisms (a)rnthe change in the fertility belief system, which lowers the society's optimal family sizernin recognition of such factors as decreased mOl1ality or decreased child utility. (b) Arndownward shift in the actual and perceived economic value of children to their parents,rnwith respect to their perceived socio-emotional value, resulting in lower desired familyrnsize. ( c) A cognitive shift in the direction of increased rationality and sense of personalrncontrol over the environment, making family planning decision and implementationrnpossible. (a) An increase in couple communication 011 fel1ility matters, which makesrnachieving fertility goals more efficient and etlective. This thesis assumed that all fourrnapproaches above mentioned are valid to some extent. They are woven into arnhypothesized three stage fertility decision models which were developed by Christinern(1985). Today pure disciplinary models are somewhat rare. Social, cultural, economic,rnpsychological and other variables are pm1s of the more successfitl models, inrnrecognition of the complexities and subtleties of the issue. In ShOI1, economic, social,rncultural and psychological factors interact on feI1ility. Economic circumstances affectrnthe value orientations of the socializing generation, set constraints on family buildingrnpatterns, and open or close possibilities for cultural diffusion Educational levels of therncohorts, their mentality, and their economic planning effect fertility decisions.rnThe central theme of this study was that the status of women and their role inrncommunity and family decision-making, including the timing and numbering of bil1hsrnand choice of contraception, have an important bearing on improving the standard ofrnliving, the success of family planning and a long term reduction in the fel1ility level of arncoulltry.rn, ,rn/IrnFUl1hermore, the research sought answers to the fiJllowing more specificrnquestions in line with Christine's (1985) fel1ility decision-making model These werern(1) To what extent are women's fel1ility goals motivators of their behaviour, and tornwhat extent are they mere reflections of circumstances? (2) Is the fel1ility decisionrnprocess like that of other family decision processes, or in what ways does it differ? (3)rnTo what extent is the fel1ility decision process an active one, that is, to what extent arernfertility decisions made versus simply being left up to fate? (4) What is the extent of arnwoman's participation in and control of the family decision-making process, and doesrnthis extend to decisions about her own fertility? (5) What gives women the ability tornassert their individual fertility goals, especially in the face of a hostile familyrnenvironment? (6) What factors constrain women's involvement in f~1I11ily planningrndecision-making and how can we challenge these constraints?rnThe present study assumed that women's control over their own fertilityrndecision process depends substantially upon attributes which they possess which givernthem prestige in the eye of the family and the community, as well as upon thernresources which they control which are the basis of their present and future securityrnResource and attributes are both material and non-material ownership of land orrnimplements of production, the skills to use those implements, influential kin ties,rnaffiliation with one's spouse, and the satisfaction of social norms for childbearing,rnamong many others. These all may function to grant women power in the familyrndecision-making process in general and in the n1mily planning decision-making processrnin particular. However, hereTt should be noted that the socio-econolnic conditions byrnti1emselves cannot explain women's fel1ility behaviour. In our local social and culturalrncontext, women's fertility behaviour is greatly influenced by the socio-cultural valuesrnattached to childbearing. Moreover, the persistent traditional negative attitudesrntowards a 'barren' woman is one of the socio-cultural imperatives influencing women'srninvolvement in family planning programmes