9 Conclusion
Many disciplines have as a central core the study of the family. Some, like anthropology, rely on case studies that illuminate family systems in their huge variety. Others, like economics, rely on a simple model of human behaviour and apply it to household decisions. Some, like sociology, have a number of theories about the family, others, like economics and evolutionary biology, rely on a single central theory. Each discipline therefore brings a different perspective to the study of the family, with different insights about how and why families are formed, structured and dissolved; families and the individuals within them behave and undesirable or pathological behaviour occurs. They also have different views on the factors underlying changes in the family. These differences can lead to differing policy positions.
The different disciplinary perspectives on the family can lead to mutually incomprehensible arguments in policy discussions where analysts rely only on their own discipline. Domination of the analysis by one discipline is unlikely to lead to fully informed policy making. An approach that uses the insights of a range of different disciplines, drawing on the strengths of each is likely to provide a richer picture of human behaviour and the responses of individuals and families to policy interventions than one that relies on a single discipline (Wilson 1998).
All policy-making is uncertain. There is typically uncertainty about the nature of the problem to be addressed, its underlying causes, the range of available options and the likely effects. Making use of the viewpoints of different disciplines can mitigate some of this uncertainty. A diversified portfolio of approaches to policy issues can reduce the potential variance in policy outcomes associated with relying on a single discipline.
A multidisciplinary approach can help to understand the nature and causes of the particular problem that a policy seeks to address. This is typically the most difficult part of the policy process, as the manifestation of a problem is generally not the ultimate cause. For example, if a high rate of pregnancy among unmarried teenagers is seen as a problem, not only is it necessary to determine whether it is in fact a problem and for whom, but also to establish the underlying causes. An economic view, for example would seek to identify the full social and private costs and benefits of early pregnancy. This perspective could include, for example the direct and indirect costs of contraception social welfare receipt and the effects of early pregnancy on the acquisition of human capital and future employment and earnings. In contrast, a psychological approach would be likely to focus on the psychological precursors (eg emotional needs) and consequences for the mother and the development effects on the child. It would also be likely to explore aspects of adolescent psychology, such as cognitive immaturity, and its effects on sexual activity.
A multi-disciplinary approach can also assist in devising policy options. All policy interventions rely on changing in behaviour, so different perspectives on human nature imply different types of policies. Teenagers for example are prone to risk-taking behaviour (such as driving fast) and show fewer or none of these behaviours as mature adults. An economic view might be that they simply have high discount rates or are risk-loving. It can also estimate the social and private costs of these behaviours, such as motor accidents. Developmental psychology might explain that the brains of teenagers have not yet developed in ways that can fully assess risk. Policy interventions, such as a system of graduated driver’s licensing, that take into account the growing ability to assess risk are this likely to be more effective than those that simply assume an adult’s capacity and responses.
A multidisciplinary approach can also be helpful in assessing whether policies will work. In particular, it can highlight the limits of policy in altering behaviour. For example, an evolutionary biology perspective on risk-taking among teenagers is likely to stress the “young male syndrome” and the need for young men to gain the esteem of their peers and win the attention of young women by taking risks. This suggests that risk-taking behaviour is inherent, likely to be resistant to policies that simply seek to reduce it and likely to be exhibited in other ways if policy is successful in reducing one type of risk-taking.
It can also illustrate the unintended consequences, perverse incentives and second-round effects of policies. Looking beyond the immediate, or first-round policy effects to both predict and empirically evaluate the ultimate effects is a particular strength of economics. For example, some writers in the evolutionary biology literature have advocated “decreasing inequality” as a policy to overcome some undesirable behaviours, particularly those associated with the “young male syndrome”, such as risk-taking. An economic perspective can show the unintended consequences of such policies. Using taxes and transfers to promote income equality for example, can create perverse incentives, inducing less work among taxpayers and welfare recipients alike, and may make welfare recipients and their families worse off by creating welfare dependency.
This paper has reviewed the principal features of the theory of the family for a number of important disciplines. The reviews are necessarily not comprehensive, but they do illustrate both the diversity and the commonality of theories about how the family is formed, structured and functions, and how individuals within it behave and are influenced by it.
Common themes across all the disciplines are that the existence of the family is common to all societies and cultures but that its form is very variable and has changed over time. The structure of the family has responded to changes in the external environment. It has lost certain functions and gained others. Yet certain core features remain, typically the relationship between blood relatives and in particular between parents and children. Family structures may therefore be affected both by the economic and social environment as well as policies directed specifically at the family. However, the nature and direction of the of the effects can be hard to predict, and the result may be unintended. Also, the ability of policies to influence the behaviour of individuals and families can be constrained if it acts counter to other influences.
A central theme across all the disciplines is the centrality of the family as a core unit of society. While definitions of the family vary, its core seems to be a blood relationship. People tend to favour kin over non-kin —“blood is thicker than water”—and will take the interests of other family members into account in their decisions. Policy measures that seek to influence behaviour need to consider not just individuals, but how families, make decisions.
