pull down to refresh

Economist and author of Hannah’s Children: The Women Quietly Defying the Birth Dearth, Catherine Pakaluk delivered an address entitled, “Pronatalists, Antinatalists: We’re All Malthusians Now.” In it, she made the insightful observation that both anti-natalists and pro-natalists fall into an overly simplistic understanding of fertility choice. In short, each policy position relies on an “more resources into households—more babies out” view of natality. She regards those who hold this view as “default natalists,” who hold the view that to maximize children we should maximize household resources. Ironically, one of the leftist critiques of the Natal Conference from Jacobin goaded attendees that if they really wanted more babies on the planet, then they would advocate for the expansion of the welfare state! Indeed, South Korea and Hungary have done just that, and have very little to show for it.
However, this assumption about child-bearing provides a deterministic view of human behavior that denies deliberate action. Pakaluk recognizes that child-bearing should be viewed as a form of human action. She notes that,
Wherever people can get their hands on the means to reduce births today they seem to do so. Adopting the notion that people fundamentally want to have children forces us into a kind of nonsense position that the freest, wealthiest, most reproductively-enabled people in history have not been able to act on their biological inclination to have children. If having kids is an instinct or a constant inclination of the human animal, we are surely the least functional species on the planet.
She continues,
…it’s vastly more sensible to conclude that having children is an act and a habit for individuals and societies It’s a mode of human excellence governed by the classical account of human action, the rational part of the rational animal. People choose to do a thing because they want its object perceived to them as good.
A Misesian statement if there ever was one! …
Here, it’s vital to recall that technological advancements come from the human mind. This fact raises the question: What conditions would cause both women and men to accept and adopt multiple forms of birth control, from prophylactics, the Pill, and abortion? The use of contraception is an attempt to lower the long-run costs of sexual action and to maximize the short-term benefits—plain and simple. So, what is it that drives shorter-run thinking? High time preference rates. Put even more simply, technological advances don’t come from nowhere. They emerge from human actors who believe that the use of certain means create a preferable state of affairs, given the general conditions of life that surround them, including the prevailing culture.
Moreover, it is the inflation culture which drives shorter time horizons. In such a culture this technological development of modern contraception is eminently rational. Child-bearing and rearing is a deliberate choice, and natality requires longer time horizons and lower time preferences. Such a disposition is less likely to prevail in the inflation culture.
Once again we find that humans, being mostly rational, assess their surroundings and situations, then act on what they see in a rational manner. If they have high time preferences they don’t have kids, if they have low time preferences they will have kids if they see the utility in children. So, to conclude that having children is a rational, economic decision may point the way to increasing the population. One way would to be ridding the economy of inflation to lower time preferences, thereby making it easier for people to see the utility in having children! It is all in the economics of life, isn’t it?
Austrians' use of the term human action is somewhat mistifying to me. When did anyone, pronatalist or otherwise, deny that the decision to have children is the result of deliberate action?
IMO the only point of disagreement is the extent to which the lack of childbearing is due to financial constraints vs a lack of demand for children
reply
I think the issue is that Malthusians use strict deterministic relationships between resource availability and reproduction rates.
We might say that those are toy models to be tested empirically, but alarmists treat them as fully causal, which does deny agency to the people in question.
reply
The Malthusians also ignore the role of the state and the economy in the decisions, especially time preferences and inflation (which can only be initiated by the state). The use of mathematical or computer models seems to be less than useful in any area where human agency ignored. Human agency and action are, IMHO, are the determining factors in many decisions where there are not guns pointed at heads.
reply
Models can be plenty useful. They just shouldn’t be confused with The Truth.
Since people are involved, any observed relationships are subject to change.
reply
Since people are involved, any observed relationships are subject to change.
This is always true and why mathematical and statistical models do not seem to work in the realm of human actions and interactions. Too many people are wrapped up in the model of physics to understand that humans are not random acting particles,
reply
I guess that’s where we differ. I’d say models often work fine, until they don’t.
Austrians' use of the term human action is somewhat mistifying to me.
Austrians use the term human action to denote that everything starts from a choice that a human makes before taking any kind of action. It is not a collective choice and to be honest, it is also not a coerced decision.
When did anyone, pronatalist or otherwise, deny that the decision to have children is the result of deliberate action?
They didn’t ever say that the decision was not the result of deliberate action, they were saying that feeding more resources into the picture would change people’s choices.
IMO the only point of disagreement is the extent to which the lack of childbearing is due to financial constraints vs a lack of demand for children
I think the article was pointing out that the natalists of all varieties were making mistakes in how to remedy the situation. This article says that lowering time preference would be a better method than pouring extra resources into families.
reply