Barbara R. Bergmann has given her response to Gary Becker’s theory of family, criticizing his approaches to the analysis of polygamy, altruism in family, and fertility, as well as the methods used in his research. This work is aimed at analyzing Bergmann’s statements in terms of logical grounding and finding out whether Becker’s assumptions are really “preposterous”, as Bergmann states in the name of her article.
The introduction of Bergmann’s essay includes certain logical inaccuracy: she says that the functions of a traditional family, such as mobilizing tangible and moral resources for raising children, do not work in modern society. She states that, firstly, in many countries, the share of children brought up in one-parent families is increasing; secondly, the uncontrolled population growth in some countries causes social problems (Bergmann 1996, 9).
Her arguments are similar to a statement that the hammer is not effective for coping with nails, as some people manage to drive them in using a fist. A growing number of single-parent families does not refute the functions of a traditional family: it is rather unlikely that it is easier for a single parent to mobilize resources for bringing a child up compared to two-parent families. Perhaps, it is a social precedent that encourages lonely parents for child-bearing, as well as the cases of divorce which become more frequent. In the past, society denounced such situations, which explains their rarity.
In the chapter devoted to the analysis of Becker’s view concerning polygamy, Bergmann calls it false, as the status of a woman in a polygamous society is dismal. She states not groundlessly that in many polygamous societies, females have no opportunity to develop their talents and participate actively in social life. Nevertheless, the traditions within any community develop simultaneously. It is difficult to imagine that once men decided to marry two or three wives, and later it caused somehow deterioration of the females’ position. As well, it does not mean that in modern developed societies, polygamy would cause such an effect. In other words, Bergmann uses the terms “polygamy” and “subordination” as interchangeable, not providing grounding for this (Bergmann 1996, 10).
As for the developed societies, Bergmann marks not groundlessly that men will have to share their consumption bundles with the wives in a polygamous family. At the same time, she omits the fact that the wives will also share their consumption bundles. Moreover, she does not analyze other benefits and disadvantages of a polygamous wedding for men, though she claims that it “damages them so gravely” (Bergmann 1996, 10).
The strongest point of Bergmann’s response is her remark about the inaccuracy of Becker’s definition of altruism in the family. Becker says that altruistic behavior means deriving positive utility from raising another’s consumption. Firstly, men often bring more money to the family budget, which makes them automatically called more altruistic. Secondly, the definition does not require equal sharing, which means that even when distributing the money in the proportion of 9 to 1, a man can be called an altruist (Bergmann 1996, 11).
Bergmann criticizes Becker’s theory of fertility which says that the reason for child-bearing is the contemplation of the children’s happiness. Her counterargument is that, according to this theory, the number of children in the family does not depend on the cost of living, the family’s initial capital, etc, being influenced only by the family’s “altruism”. Bergmann is right to say that social matters do influence the number of children (1996, 12).
However, is it so that they are not included in the notion of contemplating happiness? If a family has a decent living standard, the increase of the cost of bringing children up means that they will be able to felicitate children worse. This will make them think about avoiding giving birth to a big number of children. Bergmann mentions such factors as females’ social status (1996, 12). However, when a woman has a job and active social position, she understands that it will be difficult for her to spare time for children and, correspondingly, she will felicitate children worse. To felicitate worse means to contemplate less happiness.
No doubt, Bergman has contributed to extending the notions of the economics of family using considering social and cultural matters. She has managed to find disputable elements of Becker’s theory. However, she presents her statements without providing appropriate argumentation for them. Thus, having called the opponent’s arguments preposterous, the author should have provided stronger grounding for making her statement valid.
Bibliography
Bergmann, Barbara R. 1996. Becker’s theory of the family: preposterous conclusions. Challenge 39 (1): 9-12.