The "theory" sounds persuasive to me-- the large rise in out of wedlock births clearly reflects changing social norms, which in turn are affected in major ways by technology. Attempts to reduce the phenomenon either to the availability of welfare or the decline in the pool of marriageable males seem like searches for a magic policy bullet to solve "the problem" of poor single moms. I do think that single parenting-- in our society-- is a huge challenge, and that children need the involvement of fathers and mothers. How to encourage responsible fatherhood is to me the big question-- and it doesn't involve cutting welfare benefits. I find the Akerlof and Yellen argument interesting, because it suggests how a liberating technology allowed some women to "exit" from an (oppressive) social norm of abstinence; and once a sufficiently large number had defected, the norm lost its social sustainability. Without this norm, male opportunities to flee child rearing responsibilities grew even faster. The question than becomes, how do we create new, functional, norms which encourage male involvement, when exit opportunities are so easy? Eban On Fri, 22 Nov 1996 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Maggie C. writes that:>>I'm not sure about what technology shock > is, but I do think the increase in teen pregnancy is over stated. > I believe I've said this before, the method of reporting the > statistics has more to do with the increase than actually > increasing teen births.<< > > this point seemed to me to be part of the Akerlof/Yellen theory. > They point to the decline in "shot-gun marriages" which had > hidden the out-of-wedlock preganancies and births in the past. > > "Technology shock" to A & Y simply refers to the sudden rise of > the availability of contraception and abortion (which, as I said, > seems more than technological in nature, more sociological) and > how social mores did not adapt well to the change. > > Arvind Jaggi wrote: >>Maybe Akerlof and Yellen should get > together with Gary Becker and go bowling.<< > > that's not helpful. Are you saying that relations between the > sexes and issues of pregnancy are not subject to > political-economic analysis given the absurdity of Gary Becker's > theories? > > BTW, I am not advocating the Akerlof/Yellen theory. I want to > know what people think. > > in pen-l solidarity, > > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. > 7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA > 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 > "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way > and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A. > > > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Eban Goodstein email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Department of Economics phone: 503-768-7626 Lewis and Clark College fax: 503-768-7379 Portland, OR 97219
