For Valentine’s Day, on love and marriage and economics

Perhaps I’m hyper aware of things going on in both media and social media these days, but it seems that UPenn economists Justin Wolfers and Betsey Stevenson are everywhere these days. They’re all over my twitter feed for one. Then, today this came out in the Washington Post, and over the weekend, out came a profile in the NYT. The Times article describes them as a ‘power couple’ of economics. Which is pretty funny if you know any economist couples.

Though our research hasn’t come head to head yet, Justin and Betsey do a lot of work in family economics, much like I do. So, their meteoric rise to national prominence (at least among the WaPo-, NYT-reading set, is of interest to me. In particular, someone mentioned a quote from Betsey Stevenson saying that the household problem (as we so lovingly call it in economics) had turned from one of shared production to shared consumption.

Much of the dominant thinking in family and household economics has roots in Gary Becker’s A Treatise on the Family. It rests on ideas that can only politely be called antiquated. Women are in charge of domestic production (cleaning, child-rearing, cooking, laundry, etc) and men are in charge of bringing home the bacon. It’s specialization at the household level. Very economist-y. On some level, it probably made a lot of sense to think about marriage in this manner, particularly when women’s wages were much, much lower than men’s. In fact, it made so much sense that it partly earned Becker a Nobel Prize in Economics.

At some point during my fourth year of graduate school, I ordered my own copy. It was a simple (though really expensive!) purchase. A paperback, just a book, but a book that essentially formed much of the dominant thinking in my field. Even then, I knew its time in the spotlight was waning. I’ve still never read the whole thing. Despite knowing it was a classic, I can still only look up passages when I think they’re relevant. Reading more than a few pages makes the feminist in me absolutely boil.

But someone else recently said that, as economists, we should hope that our research becomes irrelevant, because that means that society has changed or that we’ve developed policy solutions for those questions and problems. And that’s probably what is happening here.

The world is changing; marriage is changing, love is changing. Household production is definitely changing. And perhaps all of this is about household consumption (enjoying kids and raising them together) rather than household production (raising kids, a public good). I’m unsure whether this is true at every socio-economic level, or whether it’s a privilege of high-earners, but it’s certainly an interesting way to frame and model marriage in economic terms.

Happy Valentine’s Day!

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “For Valentine’s Day, on love and marriage and economics

  1. My dad, who studied accounting and economics in college, always says that the housewife’s contribution is not included in GDP, because that would overwhelm all other activities. Not sure where that idea is from… 🙂
    At least in India, kids are supposed to take care of their parents. Here in the US, I wonder how many parents have children because “that’s just the way it is” – enjoyment or thoughts about the public good be damned. Maybe people start enjoying kids when they have few other worries – so a function of socio-economic strata. (Damn, that sounds cynical.) I love to follow Wolfers-Stevenson on Twitter; one factoid I remember is their decision to have a child even though they figured out it wasn’t economically viable!
    Happy V-day!

    • A friend recently told me that having kids is what you’re supposed to do when being an adult becomes too easy, which is definitely an approach with inherent SES bias. I like your dad’s comment though. Thanks!

  2. Pingback: On Shared Consumption | Irrational Tonics

  3. Pingback: Back to Becker | Irrational Tonics

  4. Pingback: Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers on why we study families | Irrational Tonics

  5. Pingback: Why not Becker? | weychi.com

  6. Pingback: Why not Becker? | Govidea | Worldwide Travel , Home Design , ETC

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s