Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Nancy Folbre: Contraceptive Economics - NYTimes.com

But unintended pregnancies – which account for about half of all pregnancies – have huge economic consequences for women’s employment, family welfare, public spending and children’s health. In a recent Guttmacher Institute study of women at 22 family planning clinics in 13 states, the most frequently cited reason given for using contraception was inability to take care of a baby at the time.

The Guttmacher Institute estimates that unintended pregnancy costs American taxpayers roughly $11 billion each year.

A report by Adam Thomas published in March by the Brookings Institution shows that unintended pregnancies are disproportionately concentrated among women who are unmarried, teenage and poor. It also summarizes evidence that these pregnancies set in motion a series of unfortunate outcomes that effectively reproduce poverty.

Conventional economic theory, still taught in many college classrooms, assumes that individual decisions reflect rational choices. From this perspective, a woman who engages in sexual intercourse without making the effort required to make low-cost methods of contraception succeed (which typically includes finding a partner willing to cooperate, as with use of a condom) must either be unpardonably ignorant or trying to get pregnant.

Behavioral economics, on the other hand, emphasizes that people often lack self-control, particularly when affected by “visceral factors,” such as hunger, thirst and sexual desire.

From this perspective, people need to protect themselves, pre-emptively, from carelessness that can lead to costly consequences. Even small differences in the form protection takes can have significant long-run effects.

Women sometimes forget to take birth control pills or let their prescription lapse. Partly for this reason, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists now prioritizes use of IUDs and hormonal implants. Unpopular among older physicians and older women because they were once considered risky, these methods are now rated quite safe.

Mounting evidence suggests that making these new contraceptive technologies more economically accessible reduces abortions and unwanted births.

Fortunately, we super-humans are all immune to these inconveniences of so-called overwhelming passion. Hmmm. I wonder. Even at age 80 when I have much less temptation, I doubt that.

Posted via email from FRauncher's posterous

S'more thoughts on the marshmallow game and it's ramifications

Everybody reading this has probably run across the persistent (and well-subsidized) narrative that goes something like this: virtually all of the variability we see in wealth can be explained by intelligence, talent and character with luck and inequality of opportunity playing little role in a person's success. In this narrative the labor market is now strongly efficient and the decrease in social mobility is simply the consequence of that current level of efficiency and a very large genetic component associated with those traits needed for success.

Since I reblogged the original, it's my duty to continue with the followup/

Posted via email from FRauncher's posterous

Econbrowser: If You Want Faster Growth...Get out of the Zombie Economy

As in the movie "The Sixth Sense," (in which many ghosts didn't know they are dead and only see what they want to see), for most Americans our auto centric suburban way of life is dead, but most of us don't know it yet, and we only see what we want to see.

It's not my fault. I sold my car.

This is from a comment by one Jeffrey J. Brown on Menzie Chin's blog post.

Posted via email from FRauncher's posterous

Nobel Prizewinners Work Toward Solutions Better Than Socalled Free Markets

A Nobel for Planning?: “The combination of Shapley’s basic theory and Roth’s empirical investigations, experiments and practical design has generated a flourishing field of research and improved the performance of many markets,” said the committee awarding the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel.

We've all noticed that the influence of powerful players has made the term "free markets" more or less of an oxymoron, but Arindrajit Dube points out that maybe something better is on the way. Hat tip to Mark Thoma who gives us hope that it may be a Nobel for Planning.

Posted via email from FRauncher's posterous