“requirements of the family that forms: some economic considerations ”
DESCRIPTION
“REQUIREMENTS OF THE FAMILY THAT FORMS: SOME ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS ”. Maria Sophia Aguirre Department of Economics The Catholic University of America Washington, DC VI World Meeting of Families Mexico, January 14-18, 2009. How Does Women Fit in the Economy?. Socioeconomic Relevance. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
““REQUIREMENTS OF THE FAMILY REQUIREMENTS OF THE FAMILY THAT FORMS: THAT FORMS:
SOME ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONSSOME ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS” ”
Maria Sophia AguirreMaria Sophia AguirreDepartment of EconomicsDepartment of Economics
The Catholic University of AmericaThe Catholic University of AmericaWashington, DCWashington, DC
VI World Meeting of FamiliesVI World Meeting of FamiliesMexico, January 14-18, 2009Mexico, January 14-18, 2009
How Does Women Fit in the How Does Women Fit in the Economy?Economy?
Basic Basic ActivitiesActivities
Means UsedMeans UsedRole of the Role of the
FamilyFamilyPurposePurpose
ProductionProduction ResourcesResources Human CapitalHuman Capital Basic NeedsBasic Needs
ExchangeExchange MarketMarketHuman, Moral, Human, Moral, Social CapitalSocial Capital
ProfitProfit
ConsumptionConsumptionOptimization and Optimization and
DistributionDistributionAppropriate Appropriate distributiondistribution
WellbeingWellbeing
(welfare)(welfare)
Socioeconomic RelevanceSocioeconomic Relevance Children develop bestChildren develop best within a family that is functional, i.e., within a family that is functional, i.e.,
with their biological parents in a stable marriagewith their biological parents in a stable marriage
Marriage Increases likelihood of father having good relations with Marriage Increases likelihood of father having good relations with children.children.
Marriage reduces the probability of children divorcing themselves or Marriage reduces the probability of children divorcing themselves or becoming unwed parents.becoming unwed parents.
The The academic and social performanceacademic and social performance of a child is very of a child is very closely related to the structure of the family in which he lives closely related to the structure of the family in which he lives and this is important for the quality of human and social capitaland this is important for the quality of human and social capital
Divorce reduces the likelihood of children graduating from college and Divorce reduces the likelihood of children graduating from college and high school.high school.
Divorce increases risk of course failure.Divorce increases risk of course failure.
The The psychological stability and healthpsychological stability and health of a child is of a child is closely related to healthy families and this is important closely related to healthy families and this is important for worker productivity and government financesfor worker productivity and government finances
Children enjoy better physical health, on average, than other Children enjoy better physical health, on average, than other family forms.family forms.
Sharply reduces infant mortality.Sharply reduces infant mortality. Increases life expectancy, especially for menIncreases life expectancy, especially for men Associated with reduced abuse of alcohol, and substance abuse Associated with reduced abuse of alcohol, and substance abuse
for adults and teens.for adults and teens. Associated with better health and lower probability of injuries Associated with better health and lower probability of injuries
for both men and women.for both men and women. Lower levels of physiological distress and mental illness.Lower levels of physiological distress and mental illness. Mothers have lower levels of depression than single or co-Mothers have lower levels of depression than single or co-
habiting mothers.habiting mothers.
The breakdown of the family is a symptom of a sick and weak society
Abuse of women is 25 times more likely to occur in an irregular family.
Men who have witnessed domestic violence are three times more likely to abuse their own wives and children.
Substance abuse and teen-age pregnancy is higher in broken families.
Women and children of broken families have a higher probability of living in poverty.
Increase of the social welfare expenditures burden.Higher levels of suicide.Boys from single parents have are more likely to engaged
in delinquent and criminal behavior.
Family Constitution Family Constitution and and
Life StyleLife Style
Its impact in Numbers:Its impact in Numbers:
Long-Term Effects on Individual Long-Term Effects on Individual and Family Economic Wellbeingand Family Economic Wellbeing
Family Relationships and Its Relation to Family Relationships and Its Relation to the Frequency of Family Diningthe Frequency of Family Dining
(% of Teens)(% of Teens)
Source: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, Columbia University.
51 48
19
72 69
7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Speak withParents when a
Problem
Parents BuildChildren
Character
Tension at Home
Pe
rce
nta
ge
0 to 2
5 to 7
40% 40%171%
Academic Performance and Its Relation Academic Performance and Its Relation to the Frequency of Family Diningto the Frequency of Family Dining
(% of Teens Obtaining Mostly A or B Grades in School)(% of Teens Obtaining Mostly A or B Grades in School)
4 5
6 2
0
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 0
5 0
6 0
7 0
0 t o 2 5 t o 7
Per
cen
tag
e
Source: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, Columbia University.
38%
Substance Abuse and Its Relation to the Substance Abuse and Its Relation to the Frequency of Family DiningFrequency of Family Dining
(% of Teens Who Have Tried Abuse Substances)(% of Teens Who Have Tried Abuse Substances)
3 4
5 2
3 5
1 4
3 0
1 2 1 3
3 5
0
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 0
5 0
6 0
C i g a r e t t e s A l c o h o l M a r i j u a n a M o r e t h a nH a l f o f
F r i e n d s u s ed r u g s
Pe
rce
tag
e
0 t o 2 5 t o 7
Source:National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, Columbia University.
142%
73%
191% 169%
Percentage of Children Whose Families Percentage of Children Whose Families have Family Dining by Family Structurehave Family Dining by Family Structure
(% of children)(% of children)
45
13
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Married Single-Parent
Per
ceta
ge
of
To
tal
sam
ple
Source: Administration for Children and Families, Department of House and Human Services
3.5 timeshigher
SUSTAINABLE GROWTH REQUIRES
SavingsWealthInvestment: Physical and Human CapitalRemittances?
0
5000000
10000000
15000000
20000000
25000000
Less than high school High school Some College College
MarriedSingle-parentCo-habiting
Average of NETWORTH
EDCL
MARRIED
Average Net Wealth Worth within the USA per Education Level
Sources: Aguirre (2007)
253%
333%
Average Net Wealth Worth in USA per Age Classification
Sources: Aguirre (2007)
0
5000000
10000000
15000000
20000000
25000000
30000000
35000000
40000000
Married Single-parents Co-habiting
<35
35-44
45-54
55-64
65-74
>75
Average of NETWORTH
Family Structure
AGECL
51%
40%
Average Net Wealth in Canada
per Family Structure
155%250%
Sources: Aguirre (2007)
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
Married Co-Habiting Single-Parent
Marital Status
Ca
na
dia
n D
oll
ars
Wealth
Housing263 %
200 %
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
Less HS HS Terciary College
Level of Education
Cana
dian
Dol
lars
Married
Not-Married 242%
Net Wealth in Canada
Sources: Aguirre (2007)
Percentage of Head of Households that Percentage of Head of Households that Report Owning Property and Report Owning Property and Holding Savings in GuatemalaHolding Savings in Guatemala
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
Unions Married Separated Divorced Widowed
Own Home
Hold Savings
Source: ENEI (2004)
Level of Education of the Head of Household per Level of Education of the Head of Household per
Race and Family StructureRace and Family Structure in Guatemalain Guatemala
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
LAD INDIG LAD INDIG LAD INDIG LAD INDIG LAD INDIG LRACE INDIG
Unions Married Separated Divorce Widows Single Parents
Family Structure
Per
cent
age
of H
ouse
hold
s
No-education Grade School High School
Terciary College Graduate
Sources: ENEI (2004)
Children School Attendance by Children School Attendance by Family StructureFamily Structure in Guatemalain Guatemala
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Unions Marriage Separated Divorce Widows
Family Structure
Head
Co
un
t
Indigenous
Ladino
Sources: ENEI (2004)
Net Wealth by Family Structurein Chile
Sources: INE (1997)
126 %
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
Married Single Mother Cohabiting
Family Structure
Mill
ion
s o
f P
eso
s (1
997)
139%139%
160%160%
Wealth by Head of Household’s age and Wealth by Head of Household’s age and Family Structure in ChileFamily Structure in Chile
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 y mas
Mill
ions
of p
esos
(199
7)
MarriedSingle MotherCohabiting
Sources: INE (1997)
Education Level Achieved by Head of Education Level Achieved by Head of Household who Receive Remittances by Household who Receive Remittances by
Family StructureFamily Structure(% of Family Structure)(% of Family Structure)
School Attendance of Children (6-14) in School Attendance of Children (6-14) in Households who Receive Remittances by Households who Receive Remittances by
Family StructureFamily Structure(% of Family Structure)(% of Family Structure)
Ownership in Households who Receive Ownership in Households who Receive Remittances by Family StructureRemittances by Family Structure
(% of Family Structure)(% of Family Structure)
Guatemalan Children in Families Guatemalan Children in Families who Receive Remittanceswho Receive Remittances
Have a highest probability of attending Have a highest probability of attending grade school in married households grade school in married households (it (it increases by 58%)increases by 58%)
Have the lowest probability of attending Have the lowest probability of attending high school in non-married households high school in non-married households (it (it decreases by 89% for single mothers.)decreases by 89% for single mothers.)
If women is head of household and works If women is head of household and works the probability the probability decreases by 66%decreases by 66%..
ConclusionConclusion The family is a necessary good for economic
development: it should be promoted and protected if poverty reduction wants to be achieved.
Children develop in the best way within a family that is functional, i.e., with his biological parents in a stable marriage.
The breakdown of the family: damages the economy and the society since human, moral, and social capital is reduced and social costs increased.
Family structure is relevant for wealth. This happens to Family structure is relevant for wealth. This happens to be the case after other characteristics are controlled by.be the case after other characteristics are controlled by.
The impact of children on family wealth is best within The impact of children on family wealth is best within marriage.marriage.
Evidence seems to hold across countries. In socialized Evidence seems to hold across countries. In socialized market economies the negative impacts seem to be market economies the negative impacts seem to be mitigated but not eliminated.mitigated but not eliminated.
Healthy family structures support private property.Healthy family structures support private property.
Family dinners shows evidence of the importance of Family dinners shows evidence of the importance of families spending time together.families spending time together.