You are on page 1of 34

The Demand

for Children
Oleh:
Adrianna Bella
Agnestesia Putri
Qolbie Ardie
Malthus, asumsi: population growth at a
rapid rate unless checked by limited
supplies of food and other subsistence
goods.
2 faktor yang dapat mengendalikan
pertumbuhan populasi:
- moral restraints
- misery
Darwin, melanjutkan temuan Malthus:
the children of fertile parents will constitute a
larger fraction of their own generation than
their parent do of the earlier generation.... if
fertility is strongly inherited from parent,
because children of fertile parent would
then also be fertile
( sesuai dengan argumen Darwin yang
menyatakan bahwa pada seleksi alam,
populasi akan didominasi oleh highly fertile,
namun argumen ini kurang relevan dengan
populasi manusia )
Malthus : mengabaikan kualitas dan mengasumsikan
bahwa jumlah anak sangat peka terhadap
perubahan pendapatan
Darwin : mengabaikan komoditas lain dan
menganggap kualitas dan kuantitas harus dipilih
untuk memaksimalkan jumlah keturunan generasi
berikutnya
Kombinasi dari teori Darwin dan Malthus, asumsi:
Each family maximizes a utility function of the
quantity of children n; the expenditure on each
children, called the quality of children q; and the
quantities of other commodities
U = U ( n,q,Z1,.....Z2 )



Total cost of producing and rearing
children is different
Demand for children would depend on
the relative price ( - ) and full income ( +
).


Cost of mothers time is the major part of
the total cost of producing and rearing
children
Number of children is strongly negatively
related to the wage rate or the other
measure of the value of time of wife.
At low levels of income, increases to
income have a positive effect on fertility
As incomes grow, however, the
microeconomic theory of fertility predicts a
threshold where parents switch from
choosing quantity to quality of children.
After this threshold level, all increments to
income are expected to reduce fertility, as
a greater proportion of the population
switch to demanding high quality children.
Becker, states I am convinced that the
most promising explanation is found in
the interaction between the quantity
and quality of children, for it implies that
the demand for children is highly
responsive to price and perhaps to
income, even when children have no
close substitutes (Becker 1991 p.149).
The Interaction between
Quantity and Quality
The Utility Function

. +

.Z = I


q : the quality of each child
n : number of children
Z : Consumption of all other commodities

: shadow prices (maximum willingness to pay)


of Z
Marginal utility s.t. Budget
Constrain
Keterangan:

constant cost of a unit of quality


q : the quality of each child
n : number of children

: shadow price of quantity of children


maximum willingness to pay in quantity of children

: shadow price of each children quality


maximum willingness to pay in children quality


The Interaction

q
an increase in quantity is more expensive if the children are
of higher quality

n
an increase in quality is more expensive if there are more
children
n


n
q


q
Indifference and Budget Curve
Conclusion
Jika kuantitas anak bertambah (n ) ,
maka kualitas dari tiap anak yang
dilahirkan akan menurun (q ).

Sebaliknya, jika hendak meningkatkan
kualitas tiap anak (q ), maka jumlah
anak harus diturunkan (n ).
FURTHER EMPIRICAL
IMPLICATIONS OF THE
QUALITY QUANTITY
INTERACTION
SUBSTITUTION
Health Expenditure/capita (in US$)
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Indonesia 22,45919 20,331832 9,549158 15,15809 15,13273 16,57183 19,97729 26,8144 27,07513 35,55699
Japan 2600,127 2361,9165 2221,306 2603,802 2834,21 2550,519 2453,555 2691,776 2912,828 2927,729
Brazil 349,932 355,47437 335,6478 242,0004 264,809 227,7493 203,0641 213,6492 257,3944 387,4484
Franc 2738,563 2436,7609 2483,485 2451,719 2202,702 2234,307 2489,203 3158,756 3630,427 3784,939
Benin 18,60062 16,333179 17,49445 18,03651 15,70404 17,42719 17,29773 22,99007 24,97868 27,02495
Fertility rate
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Indonesia 2,635 2,579 2,53 2,489 2,453 2,419 2,386 2,353 2,318 2,282
Japan 1,425 1,388 1,384 1,342 1,359 1,33 1,32 1,29 1,29 1,26
Brazil 2,474 2,451 2,427 2,399 2,364 2,319 2,264 2,203 2,136 2,068
France 1,75 1,77 1,78 1,81 1,89 1,9 1,88 1,89 1,92 1,94
Benin 6,282 6,2 6,12 6,041 5,966 5,895 5,828 5,764 5,702 5,64
JEWS CASE
Jews have invested more in human capital
PROOF:
Relatively have low children mortality in 19th and
20th centuries in Europe and US (Schemelz, 1971)
Relatively have higher incomes recent decades



JEWS CASE (CONTD)
Jewish families have been smaller than average
PROOF:
Jewish birth rate was 47% below average the
average birth rate in Florens at beginning of 19th
century (Livi-Bacci, 1977, table 1.23)
Jewish marital fertility was 20% below Catholic
fertility in Munich in 1875 (Knodel, 1974, table 3.18)