[FYI, I've been struggling recently to keep this 
thread within the bounds of the history of 
economics, broadly defined. Forgive me if you 
think the holes in the net are too big (and 
remember  the delete key is close by). Forgive me 
if you think the holes are too small and I should 
not have rejected your message. Unlike 
Goldilocks, it's hard to know what's just right. 
Thanks to all who contribute to this list. HB]



Marie Duggan wrote:
>Microeconomics does seem to offer insights into 
>the pressure our society puts on parents to pay, 
>and into the tensions among members of society.


Marie Duggan seems to claim the domain of 
"children as public goods" (misnomer) for 
feminist economics, but perhaps as a babysitting 
grandpa I may add a few remarks. The issue is at 
the core of economics: raising children is about 
allocating scarce resources as well as about love 
and affection. Lack of the latter may cause 
serious economic problems (Heckman's point). So 
it's a nice illustration for undergraduates to 
define what economics is about and what not.

I offer a silly policy example from recent Dutch 
experience. Our coalition government is dominated 
by two christian-democratic parties and includes 
a minister of family affairs. The PM likes to 
call his crew a Norms and Values Cabinet. It 
introduced a remuneration for babysitting 
grandparents and neighbours. Economists warned: 
this will hardly bring about new activity, but 
merely take non-market work to market; it will 
need a lot of bureaucracy and still remain 
extremely sensitive to fraud. And so it happened, 
the expenses exploded ­ with intermediate 
agencies, not the grandparents profiting the most 
- and the arrangement was slimmed down to minimal proportions.
(Needless to say, this grandpa always refused to 
have his affectionate relationship with his 
children and grandchildren being spoilt by market 
considerations. Speaking of norms and values!)

Evert Schoorl