Love & Economics: Why the Laissez-Faire Family Doesn't Work

What does the free-market have to do with the family? What does libertarianism have to do with community? What does the minimal state have to do with social order? Indeed, what does love have to do with economics? Good questions indeed.Those opposed to libertarian principles will of course answer these questions differently from those in favour. But Jennifer Roback Morse offers an interesting third proposal. She notes that attacks on the family have not just come from welfare statism on the left. It has also come from radical individualism on the right. Interestingly, while she is a political and economic libertarian, she is aware of the shortcomings of moral and social libertarianism. Thus she is far from hostile to libertarianism. She is, in fact, a free-market economist. But she is not blind to the short-comings of laissez-faire social policy. Indeed, she believes it to be unworkable. Says Dr Morse, "We cannot afford to take a completely laissez-faire attitude toward the family and the issues that surround it." So how does a libertarian defend marriage and family? Well, that is what this book is all about. She attempts to show that a genuine libertarianism must be one stripped of its "bankrupt materialism" and must be open in fact to the supernatural. That is, a secular, atheistic society does not contain within itself the ability to long sustain a free people. A free society requires three legs to stand on, as Michael Novak long ago pointed out. It needs economic liberty, political liberty, and moral-cultural liberty. The last, which includes the importance of religion, has too often been ignored in this discussion.A minimalist state is one that depends on a substantial component of its citizenry exercising self-control and self-constraint. People making sacrifices for others, foregoing instant gratification, controlling anti-social desires are what make for a free society. And these kinds of virtues are basically learned and developed in the home, and buttressed by religion.The internalised ethic of love, self-control and cooperation can nowhere better come into being than in the home, where mothers and fathers model such virtues to their children. The cooperation and restraint needed for a society to last is first and foremost found in the home.It is in the home that a naturally selfish and me-centered child learns the rules of social harmony and cooperation. All of these virtues can be subsumed under the word love. And love, as the author reminds us, is not an emotion or a feeling, but is in fact willing the highest good of another. "Love is the force that moderates self-interest and makes it possible for self-interested people to live together without causing each other too much trouble."If it is rare for an economists to talk about love, it is even more rare to hear one talk about God. As a Catholic, she knows that in God we have an infinite supply of love accessible to us. "A society of free people requires more human connections, more

Since the 1970s, the Chicago school of economics has applied the standard economic assumption of self interest outside the ordinary workings of the commercial marketplace. The public choice school of economics analyses the workings of a government system where politicians, administrators and indeed everyone involved in the system is motivated by personal gain. Criminal behavior is one more career choice. Children are conceived as consumption items for the benefit of the parents. This way of thinking - which has now spread to many economists well outside Chicago -- provoked strong objections from the beginning. Among other problems, the critics argued that such an economic approach failed to take account of trust, loyalty and moral conviction in human affairs. Chicago and other economists, however, dismissed these critics as simple minded moralists who were opposed to the advance of "economic science." They cannot make that claim, however, with respect to a new critic, Jennifer Roback Morse. Morse is a well respected member of the economics profession who nevertheless thinks that there is much more to the world than self interest. In the commercial market place, as Morse describes herself, she remains a libertarian in her convictions. Within the family, however, Morse has concluded that the pursuit of self interest alone would mean the end of the family as we have known it. The experience of being a mother with two children (one adopted) taught Morse lessons more powerful than any she had learned in her education as an economic professional. As a devout Catholic, she also found that her own religious convictions could not easily be squared in the domain of the family with the standard economic ways of thought. As Morse describes it, a marriage based on self interest by itself would be almost pathological. It would be impossible to live with a husband, or a wife, who was seen as loyal to the marriage only as long as it gave them "more utility." The old fashioned idea of love may not have any clear meaning within the framework of economic analysis but it remains for Morse an essential element of a successful marriage and the raising of children. Morse is part of a wider current questioning of the methods of economics. The idea of "social capital" became fashionable throughout the social sciences in the 1990s as an essential element in economic growth. A "new institutional economics" is challenging many of the basic conclusions previously derived from economic models. Even some leading economists are now finally acknowledging that culture and belief are important factors in economic outcomes. Most of this writing, however, is turgid and directed to other social scientists. Morse has rejected not only some of the foundational assumptions but also the heavy handed jargon and mathematical formulations characteristic of economists. Instead, she writes in a clear prose that aims to be accessible to a wide p

I can summarize LOVE & ECONOMICS with a true story: While I was a child, my (full-time) mother -- while in a state of total exasperation - lamented to me, "The hardest job in the world is raising children." Being the perfect child :-), I simply thought that her statement was a gross exaggeration. Raising my own child and having a greater variety of jobs than my mother ever did, I can say that my mom's original comment is a gross understatement.I think that Roback and her colleagues at the Hoover Institute may have heart attacks as a result of my first reaction to LOVE & ECONOMICS. Many of the ideas Roback presents carry the identical theme found in Clinton's IT TAKES A VILLAGE. Here we find Clinton suggesting ideas like: We have two choices, to guide our children around negative influences and toward positive ones, or to allow our children to wander without us through a labyrinth of the predators which include violence, recreational sex, substance abuse, reckless conduct, and other immoralities. Do we live in an evil world? 59% of the children born in our regional hospital are born out of wedlock. Who is going to guide these children? Familyless children are the peers of my child. This is a fear that is shared by both liberals and conservatives.Roback addressed the above stated concept by noting that in the late 60's, our society embraced a "me first" philosophy. We remain egocentric. This egocentrism that Roback has identified is the heart of the problem for the American family. She shocks us with some critically important information. Both Liberals and Conservatives embrace egocentrism. They do for different reasons, but they both do it. The important historical/sociological issue is, there are no credible voices that reject the "me first" philosophy. In fact, Roback may be the first. Even social institutions such as the Church (conservative and liberal) embraces egocentrism! What hope do children have? Roback states that our only hope is reshaping the American family. Focus on children, not ourselves.I can make three additional but unrelated reactions to LOVE & ECONOMICS.First on a scholarly level, Roback attempts to define, describe and/or explain the contemporary American family by employing one of two philosophical devices, reductionism and/or emergentism. Both efforts fail miserably. However, this is not the fault of the author. "Family" cannot be understood by employing either micro or macro concepts. There is simply no adequate language to articulate many of the complex concepts addressed in this book. Roback did the best she could with the theoretical frameworks currently available.Roback failed to provide an economic explanation for the current family structure - but maybe that wasn't the point she wanted to make. She seems to be saying that children are an economic liability not an asset. They consume economic resources. They are economically unproductive and establish roadblocks for th

Few books actually break new ground, but this book is one of them. By adopting a Romanian orphan and then having a biological child, Morse came to realize that one of the key concepts of economics, upon which the discipline is based, is defective. "Economic man," egotistical and preference-maximizing, seemed remarkably like her Romanian son, neglected in a primitive orphanage and now unable to bond normally with his loving family. This insight from real life led Morse to some remarkable thoughts about the family and its role in producing people capable of living and prospering in a free society. This is a very readable and intriguing book. It made me think a lot about individualism, families, and what makes a free society tick.

Dr. Morse is a trained economist with high academic credentials under her belt (taught 15 years at Yale). This book decribes her personal journey from believing that every person should only as their personal self interst dictates to believing that the family must be based on self-giving love. And, that only through self-giving love is an adult really fulfilled.Speaking with the passion of a convert and the precision of a memeber of the academy, Dr. Morse spins a story that will be missed by those who choose career, hobbies, money or pleasure over children and spouse at their peril. A strong voice for traditional values, especially motherhood.