8.2 Applying theories of the family to policy issues
This section illustrates some of the strengths of the different approaches in analysing policy issues. Theories of the family can shed light not only on policies that are obviously related to the family, but also on policies that are not, prima facie about the family. For example, policy questions about issues as diverse as banning the smacking of children, controlling what children watch on television, eliminating racism and discrimination, tackling corruption and controlling binge-drinking by teenagers can all be addressed from a family perspective. A few such questions are raised here as examples of how different theories of the family can help in analysing policy.
The introduction of equal employment opportunities for women, even coupled with significant investment in their human capital and their increasing labour force participation has not resulted in the elimination of differences between men and women in employment. Women predominate in certain occupations such as teaching and nursing, and men predominate in others such as engineering. At the same time, women typically earn less than men (for a summary of the literature see Jacobsen 1998). The feminist explanation for these differences centres on the male patriarchy that systematically discriminates against women. The policy measures suggested to overcome such discrimination include comparable worth or pay equity policies that seek to equivalise the value of work done by men and women.
The evolutionary biology perspective on the other hand suggests that men and women have profoundly different motivations regarding work that lead them to select different types of work and ways of working. It suggests that policies that view men and women as identical in their preferences and behaviours is not likely to be effective. Rather, policy should recognise the basic conflict of reproductive interest between men and women, that men and women are different and it should accommodate the particular needs of women (for example by making workplaces more family-friendly) (Browne 1995, Gray 2000). Evolutionary biology could also be used to suggest that policies need to compensate for the advantages conferred on men by their biologically programmed competitive behaviour.
The economic approach centres on the costs and benefits of household decisions. The preferences and endowments of individuals are taken as given, but may differ between men and women. The comparative advantage of spouses will lead to household specialisation. Women will take the primary role in child-rearing, and will seek work that complements this role. They will also make consistent decisions about investing in human capital. The rational behaviour of households can thus lead to work and pay differences between men and women. The economic approach concludes that if differences in wages between men and women are due to differences in productivity or tastes, then no policy intervention is required. Indeed, pay equity policies can be both costly and ineffectual. On the other hand, if the gender pay gap is due to other factors such as discrimination or a lack of female human capital, then other policies may be useful, such as enforcement of anti-discrimination laws or more education for girls.
A central area of social policy concern in many countries is the rise in the number of sole parents, especially those headed by women. Sole motherhood is often associated with poverty and poor outcomes for the mothers themselves and for their children. Many sole mothers however fare well and their children grow up without negative effects. The psychological and sociological literature suggests that sole motherhood itself is not the underlying cause, but that other unobserved factors may be the underlying cause both of sole motherhood and adverse outcomes. Economic explanations of changes in family structure centre on the rational responses of individuals to the incentives they face. Increases in female human capital and labour force participation and the availability of welfare support can alter the costs and benefits of marriage, making sole motherhood a rational choice for some people. Economic policy prescriptions typically focus on trying to achieve a balance between the positive effects of the welfare system (such as relieving poverty and improving well-being through increased income) and its negative effects (such as dependency, poor incentives to work, low income and single parent families) (for an assessment of US welfare reform see Blank 2002). The evolutionary biology literature suggests that it can be rational for young women to bear and rear children without a spouse, when environments are uncertain and risky and where young men do not have adequate resources to support them and their children.
Youth unemployment, particularly among males, is of concern in many countries. Young unemployed men typically have poor educational qualifications and are often involved in antisocial and risk-taking activities, such as crime and violence. The psychological and sociological literatures emphasise the individual, family and social factors that lead to educational under-attainment and antisocial behaviour. Policies generally focus on early identification and interventions such as parenting programmes for parents of young children, and therapeutic programmes such as Multisystemic Therapy for young people (US Surgeon General 2001). The economic approach typically analyses the costs and benefits of different educational programmes and institutional arrangements (such as the funding and regulation of schools) in improving educational achievement levels (see for example Witte 2000). Another key feature is the analysis of the cost-effectiveness of the range of policies and programmes to encourage young people into employment (Martin and Grubb 2001). The economic explanation of youth unemployment emphasises the effects of other sources of income (for example from crime or welfare) relative to income from legitimate work for individuals with few skills and no experience. The “young male syndrome” is a central feature of the evolutionary biology approach, suggesting that the antisocial behaviours often associated with young unemployed men are adaptive responses to precarious and uncertain environments. A reduction in inequality is seen as a potential solution. A better understanding of how winners become winners and losers become losers within a particular setting can also help in devising policies to change the distribution of outcomes (Gray 2000).
8.3 Lessons for policy
A key feature of the literatures on the family discussed in this paper is the centrality of the family as a core unit of society. Families occur across cultures and through time. Definitions of the family vary. The evolutionary biology literature explains the centrality of the kin relationship as part of the drive to perpetuate one’s genes. People are biologically primed to care for their relatives—the closer the relationship, the greater the care. This drive underlies wider kin groupings, such as clans or tribes, and explains why non-kin groups often use relationship terms like “brotherhood” to bind members together. It also explains people’s need for identity and knowing who they are. The centrality of kin relationships may also explain social cohesion in small, homogeneous societies such as Iceland.
The centrality of the family suggests that people will tend to favour kin over non-kin—the fundamental basis of nepotism. While there are some advantages in favouring kin (such as reduced transaction costs), it can also foster corruption that is not socially desirable (Bellow 2003). Overcoming this tendency requires strong institutions characterised by transparency and accountability (Rose Ackerman 1999).
Relationships between non-kin may not provide the same level as care as between kin. Step-children, for example are at greater risk than natural children of abuse by a parent, and family homicides typically involve the killing someone who is not a blood relative. Understanding the unacknowledged biological drivers for these behaviours can potentially assist in devising appropriate policies and in understanding why some policies are likely to be ineffective. For example, a parenting course for step-parents may be less effective than understanding why they feel differently about their natural and step-children (Cronin and Curry 2000). Other relationships between non-kin may be more successful. For example, the market has taken over many of the functions of the family that involved caring for kin such as education and food production. Contracts can be enforced, for example if the service is not up to standard and do not rely on the voluntary assumption of the role of kin.
Another key characteristic of the family is both its tenacity and changeability over time. While the structure of the family has changed, and it has lost some of the functions it had in the past, it has retained certain features, such as the care of children. Exogenous factors, such as technical and economic change, play an important role in the changes in both the structure and functions of families.
The malleability yet resilience of the family presents something of a puzzle for policy makers in determining which features of the family are responsive to policy and which are resistant. The evolutionary biology literature may provide some clues to identifying the core feature of a family. It suggests that the key relationship is between a mother and her offspring. While a mother knows her offspring are hers, a father may not be sure, and therefore may be less committed to a family relationship. This suggests that perhaps the relationship between mother and child is less responsive to policy and other external factors than the father’s relationship with her and her child.
A further feature of the family is its variability. While most marriages are monogamous, most societies are polygamous. None of the disciplines discussed recommend a particular family structure. An important concern of the sociological and developmental psychology literature is determining how well different family structures fulfil their functions, especially in bringing up children. A key part of this enquiry is separating the effects of the family structure on children from other, unobserved factors. The evidence suggests that family structure, per se, does not necessarily affect child outcomes.
The flexibility of family structure has important implications for policy. It suggests that exogenous factors, such as technical change, are likely to shape families. Policies that affect the economic and social environment may also have effects on the structure of the family, in ways that are often unintended. For example, rising levels of education among women and increased labour force participation have affected decisions about fertility, marriage and divorce. Also, policies that are intended to foster certain types of family structure (an example might be encouraging marriage rather than cohabitation, or encouraging one-child families) might be ineffectual, especially when faced with economic and social forces acting in the opposite direction. Even in areas where the state has a clearly developed rationale for involvement, it is often highly constricted in its ability to influence the behaviour of individuals and families.
The pervasiveness of the family makes it crucial to devising policy. While much policy is aimed at individuals and individual responses, it does not necessarily take into account how the individual’s role in the family affects those responses, the impact on the family or how other members of the family may respond. Understanding how and why individuals and families behave the way they do can help in designing effective policies. A persistent issue, for example, is the ineffectiveness of training programmes to get unemployed people into work. A particular barrier seems to be an “attitude problem” demonstrated by defiance and non-cooperation with authority. Examining the issue through the lens of psychology could help identifying the causes of antisocial behaviour, influence the effects of families, peers, and the community, and in designing appropriate interventions and therapies. An evolutionary biology lens could help in identifying the underlying reason for the seeking the respect of peers and engaging in risky behaviour and how these behaviours could be changed.
Policymaking is typically undertaken under uncertainty. There is generally uncertainty about the “true state” of the world, for example the true nature and extent of problems. The optimal policy is a function of the “true state”, but there is typically uncertainty about the optimal policy and its effects. There is also likely to be some uncertainty about the loss function—the “costs of being wrong”. Sound theory and empirical evidence can help to provide better information that reduces the uncertainty. A multi-disciplinary approach can be useful in managing risk. A policy prescription that draws on a portfolio of disciplines and reflects an averaging of the different kinds of error of each is likely to show less variance in its outcome than one that relies on one single approach (Berg 2003).
