8  Implications for policy

8.1  The contribution of different disciplines

The disciplines described in this paper provide a diversity of views on human nature and the structure and behaviour of families. Since each discipline rests on very different assumptions about human nature, and uses different explanatory models, each has different implications for government in the design and implementation of policies that involve individuals and affect families. Such policies of course, are not necessarily those directed only at families, but also include others that affect families and where individual decisions involve, affect or are affected by other family members.

There are some overlaps. Evolutionary biology encompasses evolutionary psychology; and there are links between sociology and anthropology. Evolutionary biology resembles economics in its methodology (Hirshleifer 1977). Both try to explain complex phenomena from a few basic principles, and use a scientific methodology of hypothesis testing. Both disciplines use notions such as optimisation, cost-benefit analysis, investment and game theory and make predictions about how people behave. Although mainstream economics has not yet incorporated evolutionary insights, evolution is being incorporated into some aspects of economics (Burnham 1997). There are also overlaps and complementarities in explanations of assortative mating, altruism, and non-marital childbearing between disciplines.

Of the disciplines discussed, economics seems to be most commonly used to analyse policy, perhaps because of its emphasis on defining the problem to be addressed, and predicting the nature, size and distribution of policy effects (for example the incentives it produces; its likely effectiveness and the costs and benefits). Other disciplines are also used to analyse policy. Evolutionary biology, for example, has informed “Third Way” policies in the United Kingdom (see for example Singer 1999). Feminist analysis is often used to analyse policies that have implications for women.

Table 5 summarises key ideas on aspects of family behaviour from different disciplines.

History documents the changes in families over time—how they have been defined and structured, and how the roles of individuals have changed. It serves as a reminder that families are not static, but change in response to changing circumstances. At the same time, however, it illustrates the path-dependent nature of families—families today are influenced by the way families have been structured and have functioned in the past.

Demography illustrates the changing nature of the family through trends in cohabitation and marriage and divorce, births and deaths and work patterns. The changing family suggests that the family can change both in structure and function as circumstances change.

Anthropology is an important source of information on the nature and structure of families, and of how individuals fit within family systems. Most research has been undertaken on non-Western societies and illustrates the considerable variation in family systems across cultures. It also underscores the centrality of the family across cultures, suggesting that it fulfils important functions and that there are thus are strong drives for family formation. It also shows that family systems change over time, although some dimensions of family systems remain fairly intact.

Sociology does not have a central, established core of belief. Its principal theories are structural functionalism in which the family is seen to exist to socialise children to stabilise adult personality, and symbolic interactionism, which describes how families create and re-create themselves through interaction and ritual. Marxist sociology focuses on the family as the mechanism for reproducing class, while feminist sociology views the family as the site of patriarchal oppression. In general, sociologists are inclined to view the environment as more important than heredity in influencing gender differences. Sociologists tend to view changes in the family as driven, in part, by technical and economic change. While the structure of the family has changed, it has retained its core functions of reproduction and bringing up children. A central question for sociology however, is how well different types of family structure fulfil these core functions.

In contrast to the social perspective of anthropology and sociology, psychology, like economics, focuses on the individual. At its core is the study of human nature. Social psychology examines the social influences on individuals and how they behave, while developmental psychology focuses on childhood as a formative stage.

The economic view reinforces the structural functionalism of sociology, suggesting that the forces and incentives shaping the drive for family formation have changed over time, resulting in changes to family structure. The market now handles many functions, such as education, insurance and signalling, better than the family. The increasing human capital of women in Western economies has led to their greater labour force participation and has resulted in a drop in fertility and increased divorce.

In analysing policy, economics emphasises that second-round effects (ie, beyond the immediate effects intended), perverse incentives and unintended consequences. Well-intentioned policy might not only be thwarted by the individuals’ responses, but it might also harm the very people it was designed to help. Government policies, such as female education, which are not directed at families, may yet have significant impacts on the family. Other policies directed at one aspect of the family (for example supporting children in single parent families) may have unintended consequences in another aspect of the family (for example discouraging father involvement with children). Some government policies, for example “baby bonuses” to increase fertility, may be ineffectual if they run counter to other forces such as the increasing labour force participation of women.

Evolutionary biology explains human behaviour from a genetic perspective in which reproductive success is the fundamental driver. The differences in the investment of men and women in reproduction are seen as driving differences in their motivation and behaviour. In contrast to anthropology, psychology and sociology, which tend to favour nurture over nature as explaining behaviour, evolutionary biology suggests that nature shapes potentialities, but not outcomes (Pinker 2002).

There is growing recognition that both genes and the environment are important — the issue is not whether nature or nurture is more important, but how they interact. Genes do not determine behaviour; rather they are conditioned by and react to the environment (Ridley 2003). Understanding of how different environments and events affect and in turn are affected by genes can be important in policymaking.