In this article, Warren Robinson describes the ‘economic model’ that has been used to explain fertility and family planning for the past two decades. This model is known as the Becker/Chicago demand theory of fertility. First, Robinson gives an overview of the model, then introduces seven problems that he sees as detrimental to the validity of the model.
Gary Becker’s theory says, in basic terms, that fertility is a purposeful decision and that it ultimately can be equated to a form of consumer demand. He describes an idea of “household production function,” in which the household uses both internal and external sources to produce its own utility. By way of this theory, Becker concludes that the ‘demand’ for a child is essentially the parents’ demand for goods and services from that child that will be used in the household. He believes that each household will ultimately reach a “utility-maximizing equilibrium,” where the birth of another child would only lead to decreased utility in the household. At this point, the couple will stop procreation.
A trend that has occurred relatively recently indicates that with an increase in income, there is a decrease in fertility. This model accounts for this decrease in fertility by saying that those parents with a higher income are demanding better quality children rather than a higher quantity of children. In order to produce a better quality child (who will produce more or better services within the household), there need to be more external inputs into the child. These external inputs cost more money, which is why parents with higher incomes can afford to do this, and thus decrease their fertility.
The author of this article indicates that the Becker/Chicago theory is too simplistic, and tends to overlook many potential flaws that could be detrimental to its usefulness as a working theory. The first problem that Robinson brings to the reader’s attention is that the model does not account for the pleasure that comes from the activities that produce children. This physical pleasure during sex may increase a couple’s fertility, regardless of their economic model in the household. Second, the author argues that parents may no longer expect all of the services that a child was once held responsible for in the household. Therefore, a decrease in fertility may be a result of this “decline in the expected overall utility of child-services” rather than an increased demand for higher-quality children. Third, contrary to the Becker/Chicago theory, child services are not unique, as external goods can almost always be acquired to fulfill these services. This is why we do not see a complete lack of fertility in couples with an income that would allow them to purchase all of the external goods to complete these service.
A fourth problem that Robinson reveals is that children are a risky asset. Once a child is born, parents cannot discard it, regardless of how many or how few services it provides. There are also no guarantees as to the quality of a particular child’s services. Also, a child may die before his/her services have been contributed to the household. It would be much less risky for a parent to invent in external goods that would provide the same services as a child. A fifth problem is that it is nearly impossible to conceptualize a supply curve for children. It is hard to determine what a supply curve would look like when there are such things as adoption and differences in fertility between particular groups. Sixth, the Becker/Chicago theory says nothing about how quality in child services is produced, and what costs may be included in increasing the quality. Last, Robinson states that having children may merely be the result of not wanting to buy contraception. Fertility may not be a positive desire for children at all; rather, it may be a negative desire for birth control.
As can be seen, the author of this article believes the Becker/Chicago demand theory of fertility to have many flaws. Overall, he believes that the model is too simplistic and needs clarification in many areas, seven of which he explains in this article.