Family Structure, Wealth, and Economic Growth

Download Report

Transcript Family Structure, Wealth, and Economic Growth

“REQUIREMENTS OF THE FAMILY
THAT FORMS:
SOME ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS”
Maria Sophia Aguirre
Department of Economics
The Catholic University of America
Washington, DC
VI World Meeting of Families
Mexico, January 14-18, 2009
How Does Women Fit in the
Economy?
Basic
Activities
Means Used
Role of the
Family
Purpose
Production
Resources
Human Capital
Basic Needs
Exchange
Market
Human, Moral,
Social Capital
Profit
Consumption
Optimization and
Distribution
Appropriate
distribution
Wellbeing
(welfare)
Socioeconomic Relevance
 Children develop best within a family that is functional, i.e.,
with their biological parents in a stable marriage


Marriage Increases likelihood of father having good relations with
children.
Marriage reduces the probability of children divorcing themselves or
becoming unwed parents.
 The academic and social performance of a child is very closely
related to the structure of the family in which he lives and this is
important for the quality of human and social capital


Divorce reduces the likelihood of children graduating from college and
high school.
Divorce increases risk of course failure.

The psychological stability and health of a child is
closely related to healthy families and this is important
for worker productivity and government finances
 Children enjoy better physical health, on average, than other
family forms.
 Sharply reduces infant mortality.
 Increases life expectancy, especially for men
 Associated with reduced abuse of alcohol, and substance abuse
for adults and teens.
 Associated with better health and lower probability of injuries
for both men and women.
 Lower levels of physiological distress and mental illness.
 Mothers have lower levels of depression than single or cohabiting mothers.
The breakdown of the family is a
symptom of a sick and weak society
Abuse of women is 25 times more likely to occur in an
irregular family.
Men who have witnessed domestic violence are three
times more likely to abuse their own wives and children.
Substance abuse and teen-age pregnancy is higher in
broken families.
Women and children of broken families have a higher
probability of living in poverty.
Increase of the social welfare expenditures burden.
Higher levels of suicide.
Boys from single parents have are more likely to engaged
in delinquent and criminal behavior.
Family Constitution
and
Life Style
Its impact in Numbers:
Long-Term Effects on Individual
and Family Economic Wellbeing
Family Relationships and Its Relation to
the Frequency of Family Dining
(% of Teens)
80
72
69
Percentage
70
60
50
40
30
20
51
40%
5 to 7
48
19
40%
10
0
Speak with
Parents when a
Problem
0 to 2
Parents Build
Children
Character
Source: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, Columbia University.
171%
7
Tension at Home
Academic Performance and Its Relation
to the Frequency of Family Dining
(% of Teens Obtaining Mostly A or B Grades in School)
70
62
Percentage
60
50
45
38%
40
30
20
10
0
0 to 2
Source: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, Columbia University.
5 to 7
Substance Abuse and Its Relation to the
Frequency of Family Dining
Percetage
(% of Teens Who Have Tried Abuse Substances)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
52
73%
34
35
30
142%
14
Cigarettes
Alcohol
0 to 2
35
191%
169%
12
13
Marijuana
5 to 7
Source:National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, Columbia University.
More than
Half of
Friends use
drugs
Percentage of Children Whose Families
have Family Dining by Family Structure
(% of children)
50
Percetage of Total sample
45
40
35
3.5 times
higher
30
25
20
45
15
10
13
5
0
Married
Single-Parent
Source: Administration for Children and Families, Department of House and Human Services
SUSTAINABLE GROWTH
REQUIRES
Savings
Wealth
Investment: Physical and Human Capital
Remittances?
Average Net Wealth Worth within the USA per
Education Level
25000000
Average of NETWORTH
20000000
253%
15000000
333%
10000000
5000000
0
Less than high school
High school
Some College
EDCL
Sources: Aguirre (2007)
College
MARRIED
Married
Single-parent
Co-habiting
Average Net Wealth Worth in USA per
Age Classification
Average of NETWORTH
40000000
35000000
30000000
AGECL
<35
35-44
45-54
55-64
65-74
>75
25000000
20000000
15000000
40%
10000000
51%
5000000
0
Married
Single-parents
Family Structure
Sources: Aguirre (2007)
Co-habiting
Average Net Wealth in Canada
per Family Structure
160,000
Canadian Dollars
140,000
120,000
263 %
100,000
Wealth
Housing
80,000
155%
60,000
200 %
250%
40,000
20,000
0
Married
Co-Habiting
Marital Status
Sources: Aguirre (2007)
Single-Parent
Net Wealth in Canada
250,000
Canadian Dollars
Married
200,000
242%
Not-Married
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
Less HS
HS
Terciary
Level of Education
Sources: Aguirre (2007)
College
Percentage of Head of Households that
Report Owning Property and
Holding Savings in Guatemala
70.00%
Own Home
60.00%
Hold Savings
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Unions
Married
Source: ENEI (2004)
Separated
Divorced
Widowed
Percentage of Households
Level of Education of the Head of Household per
Race and Family Structure in Guatemala
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
No-education
Grade School
High School
Terciary
College
Graduate
20
10
0
LAD
INDIG
Unions
LAD
INDIG
Married
LAD
INDIG
Separated
LAD
Divorce
Family Structure
Sources: ENEI (2004)
INDIG
LAD
INDIG LRACE INDIG
Widows
Single Parents
Children School Attendance by
Family Structure in Guatemala
Head Count
8000
7000
Indigenous
6000
Ladino
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Unions
Marriage Separated
Divorce
Family Structure
Sources: ENEI (2004)
Widows
Net Wealth by Family Structure
in Chile
Millions of Pesos (1997)
1,200,000
1,000,000
126 %
800,000
139%
600,000
400,000
160%
200,000
0
Married
Single Mother
Family Structure
Sources: INE (1997)
Cohabiting
Wealth by Head of Household’s age and
Family Structure in Chile
Millions of pesos (1997)
600,000
500,000
Married
Single Mother
Cohabiting
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
15-24
25-34
Sources: INE (1997)
35-44
45-54
55-64
65 y mas
Education Level Achieved by Head of
Household who Receive Remittances by
Family Structure
(% of Family Structure)
70.0
63.6
60.0
62.1
55.8
53.3
None
Elementary-3
Elementary-6
HighSchool-3
HighSchool-6
College
50.0
43.5
41.3
40.0
36.5
30.0
20.0
25.6
20.7
19.3
18.2
17.9
15.9
18.2
14.7
10.3
10.0
7.1
7.1
5.8 6.04.8
4.5 3.84.8
3.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.9
3.5
1.6 1.21.6
0.0
0.0
4.43.4
6.2
3.2
1.3 1.8
0.0
0.0
Union
Married
Separated- Separatedunion
Married
Divorced
Widow
Single
Mother
School Attendance of Children (6-14) in
Households who Receive Remittances by
Family Structure
(% of Family Structure)
57.8
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.6
20.0
8.3
10.0
4.8
4.2
3.4
1.0
0.0
Union
Married
Separatedunion
SeparatedMarried
Divorced
Widow
Single
Mother
Ownership in Households who Receive
Remittances by Family Structure
(% of Family Structure)
60.0
53.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
18.5
16.8
10.0
4.7
3.4
1.8
1.8
0.0
Union
Married
Separatedunion
SeparatedMarried
Divorced
Widow
Single
Mother
Guatemalan Children in Families
who Receive Remittances



Have a highest probability of attending
grade school in married households (it
increases by 58%)
Have the lowest probability of attending
high school in non-married households (it
decreases by 89% for single mothers.)
If women is head of household and works
the probability decreases by 66%.
Conclusion
 The family is a necessary good for economic
development: it should be promoted and protected if
poverty reduction wants to be achieved.
Children develop in the best way within a family
that is functional, i.e., with his biological parents in
a stable marriage.
The breakdown of the family: damages the
economy and the society since human, moral, and
social capital is reduced and social costs increased.

Family structure is relevant for wealth. This happens to
be the case after other characteristics are controlled by.

The impact of children on family wealth is best within
marriage.

Evidence seems to hold across countries. In socialized
market economies the negative impacts seem to be
mitigated but not eliminated.

Healthy family structures support private property.

Family dinners shows evidence of the importance of
families spending time together.