Economic Preconceptions and Demographic Research

A Comment

Datos Bibliográficos

ID4812486
AutoresRichard A Easterlin (0000-0003-3013-9890, autor de correspondencia)
Año1986
Volumen12
Número3
Páginas517
Fecha de publicación1986-09-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessNo
TipoARTICLE
RevistaPopulation and Development Review (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0098-7921 • E-ISSN: 1728-4457
EditorialJSTOR (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.2307/1973221
OpenAlexW2009119204
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas9
Referencias citadas11

The author comments on Paul Schultzs review of THE FERTILITY REVOLUTION which he co-authered with Eileen M. Crimmins. The review is presented as a critique of statistical methodology but it actually illustrates how disciplinary preconceptions affect ones theoretical viewpoint and judgments of admissable evidence. The book was a collaborative research undertaking by a demographer and an economist. In seeking to bridge the disciplinary gap the authors violated 3 preconceptions held by a number of economists that are in conflict with views common among demographers: 1) all behavior is a matter of conscious choice; 2) one can never measure demand by asking people how much they want; and 3) statements relating to subjective states of mind and especially motivations are inadmissable evidence in model construction. If one accepts the plausibility of natural fertility a desired-family-size measure of demand and the admissibility of subjective evidence--notions that demographers would generally consider reasonable--then analyses like that in THE FERTILITY REVOLUTION of data obtained in fertility and family planning surveys become possible. The Easterlin-Crimmins model can be estimated from existing fertility and family planning data sets--indeed the model was partly formulated with a view to realizing the potential of these surveys. The Schultz model requires new and possibly voluminous data. It also suffers from a fundamental ambiguity--the lack of a criterion for distinguishing between variables endogenous and exogenous to the fertility decision. This conflict reflects fundamental differences between economists and demographers that would benefit from more explicit recognition and confrontation

Economic geography · Economics · demographic modeling and climate adaptation · Economics of Agriculture and Food Markets · Insurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk Management