My econ courses are oriented not around an analytical description of perfect competition, or the Neoclassical model, but around where the market fails to create an optimal equilibrium or, in the vernacular, "market failures". In my opinion, this is the entrance for policy discussions or, what makes economics interesting in the first place.
An interesting question that is relevant to all sorts of current topics ranging from gay marriage to work-life policies is the degree to which the government is responsible for families and children, both in terms of encouraging and supporting marriage (however defined) and in terms of financial support in terms of direct and indirect subsidies as well as direct transfers.
I have not done the research on the history of family policy in the US (or elsewhere for that matter) or seen a history on family-friendly policies, but there has been some work on the notion that children are public goods.
There are several definitions of public goods, here, and here for example and according to another FFE Samuelson et al.'s version of public goods had very restricted definitions: things that had to be provided by the government, if they were to be provided at all (Feminist Economics Listserve, 4/10/2005).
Recently Crooked Timber has commented on the topic as well, referencing yet another FFE (one of my personal favs).
Thursday, April 14, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment