Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Are Children a Normal Good or an Inferior Good? A Critique to the Neoclassical Theory

Year 2019, Volume: 5 Issue: 3, 152 - 159, 24.10.2019
https://doi.org/10.30855/gjeb.2019.5.3.001

Abstract

This
study analyzes the neoclassical theory on the demand for children. Neoclassical
theory assumes that child demand is not different from a commodity demand. The
neoclassical theory takes child demand in the utility function, like any other
commodities. But, the demand for children is different from things which
increase our utility; such as car, refrigerator, elevator, and other goods and
services, whose price is determined in the market through its sellers and
buyers. However, demand for children is determined by socio-cultural things. It
is certain that there is a relationship between economic growth and child
rearing. For example, economic growth raises the cost of children due the time
spent on child care becoming more valuable. But it cannot be called "child
demand is an inferior good".

References

  • Becker, G.S. (1960). An Economic Analysis of Fertility, nber.http://www.nber.org/chapters/c2387.pdf
  • Becker, G. & Tomes, N. (1976). Child Endowments and Quantity and Quality of Children. The Journal of Political Economy, Vol: 84, No: 4, 143-162.
  • Blake, J. (1968). Are Babies Durables? A Critic of the Economic Theory of Reproductive Motivation. Population Studies, Vol: 22, No: 1, 5-25.
  • Caplan, B. (2006). Terrorism: The relevance of the rational choice model. Public Choice, 91-107. (http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/pdfs/terrorism.pdf)
  • Cochrane, S.H. (1975). Children as By-products, Investment Goods and Consumer Goods: A review of Some Micro-economic Models of Fertility. Population Studies, Vol: 29, No: 3, 373-390.
  • Dixon-Mueller, R. (1993). Population policy & women's rights: Transforming reproductive choice. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.
  • Folbre, N. (1984). Household production in Philippinnpes: A Non-Neoclassical Approach. Economic Development and Culture Change, Vol:32, No:2, 303-330.
  • Leibenstein, H. (1974). An interpretation of the economic theory of fertility: Promising path or blind alley?. Journal of Economic Literature, 12, no. 2 (June): 457-479.
  • Lucas, R.E., Jr. (1988). On the Mechanics of Economic Development, Journal of Monetary Economics, Vol. 22, No.4, pp. 3-42.
  • Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous Technological Change. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 98, No.5, pp. 71-102.
  • Romer, P. M. (1994). The Origins of Endogenous Growth. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 8, No.1, pp. 3-22.

Çocuklar Normal Mal Mıdır, Yoksa Düşük Mal Mıdır? Neoklasik Teoriye Bir Eleştiri

Year 2019, Volume: 5 Issue: 3, 152 - 159, 24.10.2019
https://doi.org/10.30855/gjeb.2019.5.3.001

Abstract

Bu
çalışma neoklasik teoriyi çocuk talebi üzerine analiz etmektedir. Neoklasik
teori çocuk talebinin herhangi bir mal talebinden farksız olduğunu
varsaymaktadır. Bu bakış açısından hareketle çocuk talebi, diğer tüm mallar
gibi, fayda fonksiyonu içerisine dahil edilir. Ne var ki çocuk talebi faydamızı
artıran araba, buzdolabı, asansör ve diğer mal ve hizmetlerden farklıdır, zira
bu tür malların fiyatları piyasada satıcılar ve alıcılar tarafından belirlenir.
Çocuk talebi ise sosyo-kültürel gerçeklikler tarafından tayin edilir. Ekonomik
büyüme ve çocuk yetiştirme arasında bir ilişki olduğu muhakkaktır. Örneğin,
iktisadi büyümeyle birlikte çocuğa ayrılan vakit daha değerli hale geldiği için
çocuk maliyetini de artırmıştır. Yine de bu sonuç çocuk talebinin bir düşük mal
olduğunu göstermez.

References

  • Becker, G.S. (1960). An Economic Analysis of Fertility, nber.http://www.nber.org/chapters/c2387.pdf
  • Becker, G. & Tomes, N. (1976). Child Endowments and Quantity and Quality of Children. The Journal of Political Economy, Vol: 84, No: 4, 143-162.
  • Blake, J. (1968). Are Babies Durables? A Critic of the Economic Theory of Reproductive Motivation. Population Studies, Vol: 22, No: 1, 5-25.
  • Caplan, B. (2006). Terrorism: The relevance of the rational choice model. Public Choice, 91-107. (http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/pdfs/terrorism.pdf)
  • Cochrane, S.H. (1975). Children as By-products, Investment Goods and Consumer Goods: A review of Some Micro-economic Models of Fertility. Population Studies, Vol: 29, No: 3, 373-390.
  • Dixon-Mueller, R. (1993). Population policy & women's rights: Transforming reproductive choice. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.
  • Folbre, N. (1984). Household production in Philippinnpes: A Non-Neoclassical Approach. Economic Development and Culture Change, Vol:32, No:2, 303-330.
  • Leibenstein, H. (1974). An interpretation of the economic theory of fertility: Promising path or blind alley?. Journal of Economic Literature, 12, no. 2 (June): 457-479.
  • Lucas, R.E., Jr. (1988). On the Mechanics of Economic Development, Journal of Monetary Economics, Vol. 22, No.4, pp. 3-42.
  • Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous Technological Change. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 98, No.5, pp. 71-102.
  • Romer, P. M. (1994). The Origins of Endogenous Growth. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 8, No.1, pp. 3-22.
There are 11 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Economics
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Fuat Sekmen 0000-0002-8854-8737

Publication Date October 24, 2019
Published in Issue Year 2019 Volume: 5 Issue: 3

Cite

APA Sekmen, F. (2019). Are Children a Normal Good or an Inferior Good? A Critique to the Neoclassical Theory. Gazi İktisat Ve İşletme Dergisi, 5(3), 152-159. https://doi.org/10.30855/gjeb.2019.5.3.001
22273
Gazi İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi Creative Commons Atıf-GayriTicari 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı ile lisanslanmıştır.