On Two Schools of the Economics of Fertility

Datos Bibliográficos

ID4121787
AutoresWarren C Sanderson (0000-0002-2205-948X, autor de correspondencia)
Año1976
Volumen2
Número3/4
Páginas469
Fecha de publicación1976-09-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessNo
TipoARTICLE
RevistaPopulation and Development Review (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0098-7921 • E-ISSN: 1728-4457
EditorialJSTOR (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.2307/1971623
OpenAlexW1998665602
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas13
Referencias citadas2

For 10 years American economists have primarily been divided into 3 major groups those of Richard Easterlin and Gary Becker with dissidents forming the 3rd. Recently differences between the groups have narrowed and the remaining issues are of style rather than substance. From 1960 to 1966 Becker argued that variations in completed fertility could be understood within the economic framework used for the analysis of demand for durable goods. Easterlin introduced the concept of socialization into the economic model; rejecting that the representative household behaves rationally on the basis of unchanging tastes. In 1973 both groups agreed that keeping other things constant the relation between fertility and income is positive. But when income changes something else is likely to change which has an offsetting effect on fertility. It is the nature of this force over which they disagree. In 1976 the Becker-Tomes model included child quality and child endowment which can be used for intergenerational fertility analysis and further reduced differences between groups. The Easterlin and Becker framework can be merged into a single model which is more consistent with theviews held by demographers and sociologists

Economics · Fertility · Political science · Population · Sociology · Demography · Economic Growth and Productivity · Gender, Labor, and Family Dynamics · Insurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk Management