Dear all,

Even if he is not an economist, Francis Galton, 
the founding father of eugenics, considered SOME 
children as public goods and justified that the 
cost of their production and maintenance should 
be beared by the local or national community.

"Many cases in which individuals and states have 
portioned girls may be found in Malthus. It is 
therefore far from improbable that if the merits 
of good race became widely recognised and its 
indications were rendered more surely 
intelligible than they now are, that local 
endowments, and perhaps adoptions, might be made 
in favour of those of both sexes who showed 
evidences of high race and of belonging to 
prolific and thriving families. (...) It is 
better economy, in the long run, to use the best 
mares as breeders than as workers, the loss 
through their withdrawal from active service 
being more than recouped in the next generation 
through what is gained by their progeny." 
[/Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its 
Development/, 1883, pp.328-329] The final purpose 
being, in Galton's mind, the preservation and 
improvement of the English race (the race being itself a public good).

He later wrote in a similar way that the whole 
society should show "respect to the parents of 
noteworthy children, which the contributors of 
such valuable assets to the national wealth 
richly deserve." [/Essays on Eugenics/, 1909, 
p.41] On the contrary, Galton considered the 
children of "criminals" and "gipsy-like" people as public bads.
Stressing the importance of selection, he talked 
through and through about the “quality of 
parentages”, the cost of children (and immigrants 
too) and the “the productivity” of a marriage 
(that is, its number of children) in a way Gary 
Becker wouldn't repudiate, he who wrote about the 
“production of children”, the “value of 
children”, the “cost of child quality”, and who 
proudly called them “commodities”.

This reference to eugenics may sound unsuitable. 
It shouldn't. For treating children as public 
goods shall naturally call for plans to produce, 
distribute, maintain, and use them in the most 
efficient way (most efficient from a general 
point of view, and not only from the parents’ one).

Not so far from Galton, what made children public 
goods in the eyes of the physiologists was their 
future “social productivity”. This is how they 
justified public schools, medical care for 
children and mothers' education. (Querton wrote 
for instance: “L’école peut exercer une influence 
considérable sur la productivité sociale, en 
assurant le développement et le perfectionnement 
des différents rouages de la machine humaine.” 
[QUERTON Louis, /L'Augmentation du rendement de 
la machine humaine/, 1905, p.112])

 From the 30s and the 40s, children won't be 
considered as public goods only in their quality 
of producers to be, but also as consumers. 
"Potential consumers, advocated an advertising in 
the 40s, are also reached by this all inclusive 
medium (the outdoor advertising billboards). As 
purchase influencers, Chicago 750,000 school 
children represent an active group of great 
value." [General Outdoor Advertising Company, "To 
Market to Market", 1942] Economic growth 
replacing, in both cases, Galton's race improvement.

It is a bit simplistic to put it this way, but I 
think it points out to some issues of what's at 
stake behind this question of children as public goods.

Thibault Le Texier