Gary S. Becker: The Demand for Children

8/12/2019 Gary S. Becker: The Demand for Children

1/34

The Demandfor ChildrenOleh:Adrianna BellaAgnestesia PutriQolbie Ardie


2/34


3/34

Malthus, asumsi: population growth at arapid rate unless checked by limited

supplies of food and other subsistence goods. 2 faktor yang dapat mengendalikanpertumbuhan populasi:

- moral restraints- misery


4/34

Darwin, melanjutkan temuan Malthus: the children of fertile parents will constitute a

larger fraction of their own generation thantheir parent do of the earlier generation.... iffertility is strongly inherited from parent,because children of fertile parent wouldthen also be fertile

( sesuai dengan argumen Darwin yangmenyatakan bahwa pada seleksi alam,populasi akan didominasi oleh highly fertile,namun argumen ini kurang relevan denganpopulasi manusia )


5/34


6/34

Malthus : mengabaikan kualitas dan mengasumsikanbahwa jumlah anak sangat peka terhadapperubahan pendapatanDarwin : mengabaikan komoditas lain danmenganggap kualitas dan kuantitas harus dipilihuntuk memaksimalkan jumlah keturunan generasiberikutnyaKombinasi dari teori Darwin dan Malthus, asumsi:Each family maximizes a utility function of the

quantity of children n ; the expenditure on eachchildren, called the quality of children q ; and thequantities of other commoditiesU = U ( n,q,Z1,.....Z2 )


7/34

Total cost of producing and rearingchildren is different

Demand for children would depend onthe relative price ( - ) and full income ( +).


8/34


9/34


10/34

Cost of mothers time is the major part ofthe total cost of producing and rearing

childrenNumber of children is strongly negativelyrelated to the wage rate or the othermeasure of the value of time of wife.


11/34


12/34

At low levels of income, increases toincome have a positive effect on fertility

As incomes grow, however, themicroeconomic theory of fertility predicts athreshold where parents switch fromchoosing quantity to quality of children.

After this threshold level, all increments toincome are expected to reduce fertility, asa greater proportion of the populationswitch to demanding high quality children.


13/34


14/34

Becker, states I am convinced that themost promising explanation is found in

the interaction between the quantityand quality of children, for it implies thatthe demand for children is highlyresponsive to price and perhaps toincome, even when children have noclose substitutes (Becker 1991 p.149).


15/34

The Interaction betweenQuantity and Quality


16/34

The Utility Function

. + .Z = I

q : the quality of each childn : number of childrenZ : Consumption of all other commodities

: shadow prices (maximum willingness to pay)of Z


17/34

Marginal utility s.t. Budget

Constrain


18/34

Keterangan:

constant cost of a unit of quality

q : the quality of each childn : number of children

: shadow price of quantity of childrenmaximum willingness to pay in quantity of children

: shadow price of each children qualitymaximum willingness to pay in children quality


19/34

The Interaction

qan increase in quantity is more expensive if the children areof higher quality

nan increase in quality is more expensive if there are morechildren


20/34

n

q

n


21/34

q

n

q


22/34

Indifference and Budget Curve


23/34

ConclusionJika kuantitas anak bertambah (n ) ,maka kualitas dari tiap anak yangdilahirkan akan menurun (q ).

Sebaliknya, jika hendak meningkatkankualitas tiap anak (q ), maka jumlahanak harus diturunkan (n ).


24/34


25/34


26/34


27/34

FURTHER EMPIRICALIMPLICATIONS OF THEQUALITY QUANTITY

INTERACTION


28/34

SUBSTITUTION


29/34

Health Expenditure/capita (in US$)

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Indonesia 22,45919 20,331832 9,549158 15,15809 15,13273 16,57183 19,97729 26,8144 27,07513 35,55699

Japan 2600,127 2361,9165 2221,306 2603,802 2834,21 2550,519 2453,555 2691,776 2912,828 2927,729

Brazil 349,932 355,47437 335,6478 242,0004 264,809 227,7493 203,0641 213,6492 257,3944 387,4484

Franc 2738,563 2436,7609 2483 ,485 2451,719 2202,702 2234,307 2489,203 3158,756 3630,427 3784,939

Benin 18,60062 16,333179 17,49445 18,03651 15,70404 17,42719 17,29773 22,99007 24,97868 27,02495

Fertility rate

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Indonesia 2,635 2,579 2,53 2,489 2,453 2,419 2,386 2,353 2,318 2,282

Japan 1,425 1,388 1,384 1,342 1,359 1,33 1,32 1,29 1,29 1,26

Brazil 2,474 2,451 2,427 2,399 2,364 2,319 2,264 2,203 2,136 2,068

France 1,75 1,77 1,78 1,81 1,89 1,9 1,88 1,89 1,92 1,94

Benin 6,282 6,2 6,12 6,041 5,966 5,895 5,828 5,764 5,702 5,64


30/34

JEWS CASE

Jews have invested more in human capitalPROOF: Relatively have low children mortality in 19th and

20th centuries in Europe and US (Schemelz, 1971) Relatively have higher incomes recent decades


31/34

JEWS CASE (CONTD)

Jewish families have been smaller than averagePROOF: Jewish birth rate was 47% below average the

average birth rate in Florens at beginning of 19thcentury (Livi-Bacci, 1977, table 1.23)

Jewish marital fertility was 20% below Catholicfertility in Munich in 1875 (Knodel, 1974, table 3.18)


32/34


33/34


34/34

Documents

Gary S. Becker: The Demand for Children