The child quality/quantity trade-off in the Industrial Revolution

Non-economists cringe when they hear us talking about investment in children and the quantity/quality trade-off in this regard. Yet, this is a very real aspect of child rearing pointed out by Gary Becker that is at the core of many models, and has been found wild in nature. This trade-off is though to be an integral part of the demographic transition, where fertility suddenly drops massively in the course of development.

Marc Klemp and Jacob Weisdorf look at data from Anglican parish registers from the 18th century that contain all sort of demographic data to look at the child quality/quantity trade-off during the Industrial Revolution. Theory tells us that if the returns to education and/or the cost of time (wages) get larger, parents switch from having many children with no education to few of them with better education. Klemp and Weisdorf's data indicates clearly that this trade-off is present: each additional sibling reduces by 8% the probability of a child eventually becoming literate. That is a strong effect, in particular considering the larger number of children at the time, and its rather large standard deviation during this time of transition.

Energy spending and household poverty

There is broad agreement that energy, especially polluting energy, is too cheap, calling for higher energy taxes. The problem is that such taxes are believed to be highly regressive, as poor households spend a larger share of their income on energy for transportation, heating and cooling. Of course, this could be alleviated by an appropriate redistribution of the proceeds, but to do this properly one first needs to understand well the energy spending of poor households.

Tooraj Jamasb and Helena Meier do this for the United Kingdom. There, households that spend more than 10% of their income on energy are considered "fuel poor" and deemed as having difficulties heating their home. I have always been suspicious of such definitions, as one may choose to spend more to heat at higher temperatures, for example, without being considered at risk. But this definition may indeed capture a good portion of the households of interest. While Jamasb and Meier find the usual conclusions (fuel poor households are poor, have children or are retired, spend more time at home), they also put high hope in smart meters. By showing current energy consumption, they hope that these meters will trigger behavioral changes and in particular help so far ill-informed households manage better the available energy and look for energy efficiency. As so often, good information goes a long way in managing scarcity.

The smart children of vengeance

As someone who has been raised in a non-violent environment, I am often surprised how people in some circles easily resort to vengeance and violence while a conciliatory attitude could have resolved "issues" quickly and efficiently. There is certainly a good deal of learned behavior that determines whether you are of a conflicting or conciliatory type, and this learning comes from example, in the family, among peers and in society. Society is important (say, compare Scandinavia to the Balkans) but there are also striking differences within societies. That is where parents may come in.

Ruby Henry studies how the use of retaliation is transmitted to children, first using a model of education effort by parents, and then using UK National Childhood Development Survey. The theoretical prediction is confirmed that high-cognitive parents are better able to transmit their values and override the peer culture, as long as the parents are retaliators. Indeed, if a child is told to retaliate and meet a forgiver, he wins and his values are reinforced. If he is a forgiver and meets a retaliator, he looses and is upset by the teachings of his parents. It the long run, this means that humankind will settle on a retaliating culture. But I do not think this is what we observe. In fact, there are less wars, people abide more to contracts and, I think, respect more the rule of law over time. Correct me if I am wrong.

Breastfeeding and cognitive skills

Breastfeeding is now almost universally promoted as the healthiest way to feed a baby. And indeed, while breastfed babies are a little smaller and than bottle-fed ones and gain a little less weight, they are healthier, it is thought mainly because the mother milk transmits antibodies and relevant nutrients. But not every mother breast feeds, maybe because not every mother realizes all the benefits, or because some of the costs are high (time management for working mothers or aesthetic issues). Or there are some other benefits that are not well known.

Maria Iacovou and Almudena Sevilla-Sanz report that breastfeeding has significant positive impacts on cognitive skills (reading, writing and mathematics). While this correlation is well known, it may be spurious because mothers who breastfeed are more likely to be well educated (Irish example), and their children are also more likely to be well educated as well. The obvious way to overcome this statistical issue, a randomized trial, is not feasible on ethical grounds. What Iacovou and Sevilla-Sanz do is use propensity score matching, which essentially matches babies that have the same characteristics but breastfeeding and then compare their cognitive skills. What is particularly impressive in this study is that the retained characteristics are very broad beyond baby demographics and health, including parent characteristics such as education, job, income, and even pre-birth attitude towards breastfeeding or home and neighborhood. And even after controlling for all these variables, the impact of breastfeeding is still significant on babies from Bristol (England), and it may even grow with age.