Who was Francis Place? It was Francis Place, not Thomas Malthus, who first advocated the use of contraception to control population growth. He did so in the midst of arbitrating the debate between Malthus and Godwin, published in his Illustrations and Proofs of the Principle of Population (1822). Malthus always maintained that contraception was a vice,

“Promiscuous intercourse, unnatural passions, violations of the marriage bed, and improper arts to conceal the consequences of irregular connexions, are preventive checks that clearly come under the head of vice.” (Malthus, Essay,, 6th ed.,I.II.12)

It is interesting to read Place’s argument in favor of contraception,

“He is a visionary who expects to remove vice altogether, and he is a driveller who, because he cannot accomplish what is impossible to be accomplished, sets himself down and refrains fro doing the good which is in his power.” (p. 174)

Place concedes to Malthus that the use of contraception is a vice, but argues that, since we cannot remove it altogether, we might as well advocate it to control population growth. His ad hominen attacks on those who would object to his proposals as “visionaries” and “drivellers” are duly noted, e.g. Malthus. Of particular note are his predictions,

“One circumstance deserves notice, as an objection which will probably be made–would not incontinence be increased, if the means recommended were adopted? I am of the opinion it would not; so much depends on manners, that it would seem to be by no means an unreasonable expectation that if these were so improved, as greatly to increase the prudential habits, and to encourage the love of distinction, ‘the master of public prosperity,’ and if, in consequence of the course recommended, all could marry early, there would be less debauchery of any kind.” (p. 174)

For the modern reader, incontinence means “lacking in moderation or self-control, especially of sexual desire.”

It seems that the promotion of prudential habits, the love of distinction, and early marriage have been somewhat neglected, though Place’s recommendation to promote contraception was eventually enthusiastically adopted. Additionally, after 200 years, the evidence does not seem to indicate that contraception has led to “less debauchery.”

Malthus, Thomas, An Essay on the Principle of Population, 6th ed.,London: John Murray, 1826.

Place, Francis, Illustrations and Proofs of the Principle of Population, London: Allen and Unwin, 1930. First edition 1822.

“Wealthier men … tended to have more children in monogamous societies prior to the nineteenth century…. This positive relation between wealth and fertility in monogamous societies generally continued in rural communities throughout the nineteenth century…

Sometime in the nineteenth century… fertility and wealth became partially and wholly negatively related among urban families; evidence for German cities around 1900 can be found in Knodel, 1974…” (Becker, Treatise on the Family, p. 144)

Becker hypothesizes that, as households become wealthier, they prefer to have fewer children of higher quality instead of more children of lower quality. While I have my doubts about this theory, the interesting point is that, whether true or not, it was not always the case that wealthier households had fewer children. Historically, until very recently, wealthier households tended to have more, not fewer, children, which is what we would expect if children are normal goods.

With the rising levels of income and standards of living since the nineteenth century, demand for children–fertility–should have continued to rise. Why hasn’t it? Has there been a change in relative prices to cause households to substitute fewer children of high quality for more children of low quality? Or have household preferences changed in a fundamental way? Or is it possible that the effects of the Enlightenment and subsequent shift of culture away from Christianity diminished fertility rates?

Becker’s evidence raises another interesting question: is this difference between urban and rural fertility rates simply due to the fact that urban households tend to be wealthier than rural ones? Or is there something else about urban culture and urban life that affects household demand for children?

Births per 1000 girls age 15-19 continue to fall.

Figure 1. Birth rates for women aged 15–19: United States, 1940–2010, and by age, 1960–2010

See the full CDC report:  Birth Rates for U.S. Teenagers Reach Historic Lows for All Age and Ethnic Groups

However, the number, rate and percentage of births to unmarried women of all ages continues to rise.

See the full report on patterns of non-marital fertility here: Changing Patterns of Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States

Joe and I plan to post on a few of the interesting papers we attended at the AEA annual meeting in Chicago in early January.  Here is one I found memorable: Maya Rossin-Slater, a PhD candidate at Columbia, has nearly finished a remarkable comprehensive study of the causal effects of in-hospital paternity establishment programs (IHVPE) on paternity establishment rates, marriage behavior, and father-involvement post childbirth.  The study exploits variation in state timing of IHVPE program initiation, together with data from the Office of Child Support Enforcement, and the Current Population Survey-Child Support Supplement.  The study provides evidence that IHVPE programs increase paternity establishment by 34%, and that these programs reduce the likelihood of marriage post-childbirth.  Rossin-Slater explores a simple model in which fathers are heterogeneous in partner quality, such that for some (very) low quality fathers, women prefer to receive lower levels of support outside of marriage (with no partnership), than higher levels within a marriage to a low-quality partner.

The losers in this game–as usual–may just be the children.  Rossin-Slater provides some evidence that children treated with IHVPE programs are less likely to receive health insurance from a member of the family.  Read as a crude measure of father involvement, we learn–intriguingly enough–that state attempts to “establish paternity” succeed in doing just that.  But only that.  They don’t seem to be able to make fathers into dads.

The abstract and paper link can be found here:
http://www.columbia.edu/~mr2856/research.html