In “The Economic Theory of Fertility Over Three Decades”, Warren Robinson critiques the primary economic model for fertility and family planning by drawing upon the strengths and weaknesses from two economists. Robinson introduces the work of Harvey Leibenstein and Gary Becker who each contributed significantly to the current economic theory on fertility. Before Robinson investigates the model that Leibenstein and Becker have created, the author points out that although the economic perspective of fertility has been the dominant explanation over the past three decades, it is far from complete.
What Leibenstein and Becker do in their quest to implement economic principles into the topic of fertility and family planning is quite clever. The child, in their case, is treated like an economic good, one that has the ability to deliver a flow of services to the owners (parents). Leibenstein initiated this model by focusing on the theoretical point where a couple would decide whether the benefits of having a child would outweigh the costs involved in rearing that child. Later, Becker drew upon this work and links fertility with the “household production function”, viewing the household as its own mini-economy that can demand children or rather, child services. What was puzzling to Becker was his observation that as the household income grew, the number of children in that household declined, thus making children an “inferior good” in the model. What Becker then realized was that the parent’s demand for children was not based upon quantity but rather that parent’s demanded a higher quality child.
After this brief introduction of Leibenstein and Becker’s economic theory of fertility, Robinson commends the model for its simplicity, but highlights several weaknesses that surround it. One concept that the founders failed to incorporate was how the basic human sexual drive factored into the fertility equation. He maintains that humans are naturally sexual creatures as adults, and children are often just an unintended consequence. If a sufficient economic model is to be created, then a true demand for children or rather “child services” must be established apart from those children who are the result of strong sexual tendencies. Robinson also establishes “the unusual complexity of child services”. Although children can potentially provide many levels of utility, it is not to say that all couples expect to receive these services. Furthermore, Robinson emphasizes that children or the flow of services they bring are unique and risky; unlike other assets they do not have to be purchased nor can they be refunded. The amount of utility that these children bring will vary and there is always the possibility that the child may die. Another flaw that Robinson finds in the model is in conceptualizing the supply of children in the model.
He believes that Becker does a good enough job in creating the demand side of the model for children, but advocates that the supply curve for children involves a host of factors, none of which are incorporated into the model. He suggests that when making a decision about the supply of children, the model should take into account the extra availability from children outside the household, for example those unwanted children in orphanages, both domestic and from abroad.