What do you think?
Rate this book
金錢如何影響愛與教養？: 貧富不均下的育兒經濟學
人們擁有多少小孩、選擇何種教養方式，其實都跟經濟學有關！
育兒環境如何影響家長的教養決策？就讓經濟學家跟你說清楚、講明白。
教養方式大不同，專斷、放任、威信、忽略……
為什麼我們這樣受教育，那樣養小孩？
教養為何會是這種風氣？很多人以為是各國文化不同，但絕不應漏掉經濟這項因素。因此當亞洲經濟起飛後，教養方式都趨向較早開始發展的歐美。
過去兩百年，全球家庭結構與教養態度發生劇烈轉變：教養成本提高，人們因為資源有限減少生育，進而出現少子化現象；時代快速變遷，未來工作難以預料，家長從強調勤奮順從，轉為看重獨立與想像力；性別分工不再明顯，已沒有絕對適合男性或女性的工作。
在這樣的環境下，家長如預期社會將變得更不平等、競爭更為激烈，他們回應的教養方式，就是想辦法讓孩子能夠在激烈的競爭中生存，並期望孩子有所成就。
兩位作者受歐美國家級研究支持，透過數據資料，結合過往的經濟學訓練、身為家長的親身經歷與童年體驗，將他們對家庭教養與總體經濟相互影響的觀察，歸納出育兒決策與行為背後的動機和因素。
透過本書，我們將能理解：在不平等的年代，金錢如何影響愛與教養？揭開教養問題的真相，進而做出最合適的選擇。
本書特色
◆ 統整農業時期、工業化社會與當代各時期教養史，梳理過去、現今、未來的教養觀念，形成宏大的教養視野。
◆ 觀察亞洲與歐美各國的教養風格與差異，收錄美國、荷蘭、瑞典、瑞士、英國、中國、日本等經典案例介紹。
◆ 分析在各種宗教、政治、性別與家庭因素影響下，家長為何會有不同的教養選擇。
好評推薦
張慧慈（小花媽） 《咬一口馬克思的水煎包》作者
蔡依橙 「素養教育工作坊」核心講師／「蔡依橙的閱讀筆記」版主
藍佩嘉 《拚教養》作者／台大社會學系特聘教授
雷浩斯 暢銷財經書作家
「本書研究了不同年代與地區的教養方式，針對起源和結果提出精闢分析，說明家長如何且為何要培養孩子的喜好與技能，好讓他們適應長大後將面臨的社會與經濟現實。這本充滿野心且論述完備的著作，縝密檢視家庭如何影響孩子的社會與經濟前景。」——詹姆士．赫克曼（James Heckman），諾貝爾經濟學獎得主
「經濟學通常不會和教養聯想在一起，這本精采絕倫的著作將破除這項成見。本書證明了經濟因素如何徹底改變家長對孩子的看法與教養他們的手段，是一本必讀的佳作。」——戴倫．艾塞默魯（Daron Acemoglu），《國家為什麼會失敗》（Why Nations Fail）共同作者
「兩位作者為各種教養方式背後的原因提出經濟闡釋，並納入社會與文化因素。令人憂心的是，社會分歧可能讓某些家長把孩子逼得更緊，但艱困的經濟情勢又會讓他們白費力氣。因此作者希望，能藉由周全的政治干預來化解這些威脅。」——珍妮．亨弗里斯（Jane Humphries），牛津大學經濟史學教授
育兒環境如何影響家長的教養決策？就讓經濟學家跟你說清楚、講明白。
教養方式大不同，專斷、放任、威信、忽略……
為什麼我們這樣受教育，那樣養小孩？
教養為何會是這種風氣？很多人以為是各國文化不同，但絕不應漏掉經濟這項因素。因此當亞洲經濟起飛後，教養方式都趨向較早開始發展的歐美。
過去兩百年，全球家庭結構與教養態度發生劇烈轉變：教養成本提高，人們因為資源有限減少生育，進而出現少子化現象；時代快速變遷，未來工作難以預料，家長從強調勤奮順從，轉為看重獨立與想像力；性別分工不再明顯，已沒有絕對適合男性或女性的工作。
在這樣的環境下，家長如預期社會將變得更不平等、競爭更為激烈，他們回應的教養方式，就是想辦法讓孩子能夠在激烈的競爭中生存，並期望孩子有所成就。
兩位作者受歐美國家級研究支持，透過數據資料，結合過往的經濟學訓練、身為家長的親身經歷與童年體驗，將他們對家庭教養與總體經濟相互影響的觀察，歸納出育兒決策與行為背後的動機和因素。
透過本書，我們將能理解：在不平等的年代，金錢如何影響愛與教養？揭開教養問題的真相，進而做出最合適的選擇。
本書特色
◆ 統整農業時期、工業化社會與當代各時期教養史，梳理過去、現今、未來的教養觀念，形成宏大的教養視野。
◆ 觀察亞洲與歐美各國的教養風格與差異，收錄美國、荷蘭、瑞典、瑞士、英國、中國、日本等經典案例介紹。
◆ 分析在各種宗教、政治、性別與家庭因素影響下，家長為何會有不同的教養選擇。
好評推薦
張慧慈（小花媽） 《咬一口馬克思的水煎包》作者
蔡依橙 「素養教育工作坊」核心講師／「蔡依橙的閱讀筆記」版主
藍佩嘉 《拚教養》作者／台大社會學系特聘教授
雷浩斯 暢銷財經書作家
「本書研究了不同年代與地區的教養方式，針對起源和結果提出精闢分析，說明家長如何且為何要培養孩子的喜好與技能，好讓他們適應長大後將面臨的社會與經濟現實。這本充滿野心且論述完備的著作，縝密檢視家庭如何影響孩子的社會與經濟前景。」——詹姆士．赫克曼（James Heckman），諾貝爾經濟學獎得主
「經濟學通常不會和教養聯想在一起，這本精采絕倫的著作將破除這項成見。本書證明了經濟因素如何徹底改變家長對孩子的看法與教養他們的手段，是一本必讀的佳作。」——戴倫．艾塞默魯（Daron Acemoglu），《國家為什麼會失敗》（Why Nations Fail）共同作者
「兩位作者為各種教養方式背後的原因提出經濟闡釋，並納入社會與文化因素。令人憂心的是，社會分歧可能讓某些家長把孩子逼得更緊，但艱困的經濟情勢又會讓他們白費力氣。因此作者希望，能藉由周全的政治干預來化解這些威脅。」——珍妮．亨弗里斯（Jane Humphries），牛津大學經濟史學教授
310 pages, Kindle Edition
Published May 7, 2021
100 people are currently reading
1002 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 51 reviews
March 10, 2019
Such a powerful thesis and so dry and boring! It should have been an academic paper. The point is that inequality (and economic conditions in general) affect parenting. Not just for the poor, but everyone! In other words, when there’s further to fall, the middle class stressed out more to make their kids ideally suited for the workforce. People don’t educate kids if they just need to work. People don’t have girls when resources are tight. Fairly obvious stuff, but the data is really important
February 13, 2020
So I went into this book thinking it was going to be about talking to your kid about finances. Whoooooops! It’s actually about how economics affects and influences parenting choices—which probably sounds a little boring, but I have to say it is FASCINATING!
The authors argue that we’re getting back into a more authoritative style of parenting (right now most American parents exhibit heavy-handed helicopter-type controlling parenting practices, reminiscent of the US in the 1800s or current day Russia and China 😳). While it’s easy to criticize parents, especially when you see things like the recent college admission scandals, in truth, moms and dads are responding to the new economic and social constraints they are facing. One of the biggest constraints families are facing is the rapidly expanding gap between the richest ten percent and the poorest ten percent of Americans. When there is more inequality within a society, there are fewer opportunities for each person to make it on the “one right path” we push for every American kid’s future: college, grad school, and career. And when there are fewer opportunities to be successful, it means there’s a greater chance your kid won’t do well and succeed if they don’t get an A+ on that math test and volunteer at the soup kitchen every Friday.
While most of the book focuses on observing and explaining why things are the way they are—without passing a lot of judgment—I really appreciated the possible solutions the authors present—like focusing on vocational training (to open up more ways for the 60% of people who won’t quality for college to gain financial success) and offering early education for all kids age 0 – 5. (Apparently the first five years of a person’s life are so crucial that it’s nearly impossible to reverse negative effects incurred during that time. That was eye-opening to me…)
Even though the United States is on the path toward concentrating most of the power and wealth in this country into the hands of a few (much like, oh say, North Korea, China, and Russia, eek), I’m comforted by the fact that democracies have the ability to course correct. So long as people get out and vote to make their voices heard—and so long as their votes are counted by a democratically-elected government—we can find ways to redistribute resources, money, and power in this country. Let’s just hope Trump doesn’t turn the United States into a dictatorship during his remaining months (I hope not years…) in office.
The authors argue that we’re getting back into a more authoritative style of parenting (right now most American parents exhibit heavy-handed helicopter-type controlling parenting practices, reminiscent of the US in the 1800s or current day Russia and China 😳). While it’s easy to criticize parents, especially when you see things like the recent college admission scandals, in truth, moms and dads are responding to the new economic and social constraints they are facing. One of the biggest constraints families are facing is the rapidly expanding gap between the richest ten percent and the poorest ten percent of Americans. When there is more inequality within a society, there are fewer opportunities for each person to make it on the “one right path” we push for every American kid’s future: college, grad school, and career. And when there are fewer opportunities to be successful, it means there’s a greater chance your kid won’t do well and succeed if they don’t get an A+ on that math test and volunteer at the soup kitchen every Friday.
While most of the book focuses on observing and explaining why things are the way they are—without passing a lot of judgment—I really appreciated the possible solutions the authors present—like focusing on vocational training (to open up more ways for the 60% of people who won’t quality for college to gain financial success) and offering early education for all kids age 0 – 5. (Apparently the first five years of a person’s life are so crucial that it’s nearly impossible to reverse negative effects incurred during that time. That was eye-opening to me…)
Even though the United States is on the path toward concentrating most of the power and wealth in this country into the hands of a few (much like, oh say, North Korea, China, and Russia, eek), I’m comforted by the fact that democracies have the ability to course correct. So long as people get out and vote to make their voices heard—and so long as their votes are counted by a democratically-elected government—we can find ways to redistribute resources, money, and power in this country. Let’s just hope Trump doesn’t turn the United States into a dictatorship during his remaining months (I hope not years…) in office.
October 15, 2021
Sebetulnya ini bukan buku parenting melainkan social science. Buku ini merupakan hasil studi tentang hubungan antara pola asuh (parenting style) orang tua dengan situasi ekonomi, terutama soal kesenjangan sosial.
Penulis mengikuti pembagian pola asuh menjadi 3 tipe; authoritarian, authoritative dan permissive. Lewat berbagai data dan statistik, buku ini menjelaskan faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi pola asuh orang tua di suatu wilayah. Misalnya, soal kecenderungan orang tua yang lebih permisif di negara-negara Skandinavia dengan tingkat kesenjangan sosio-ekonomi yang rendah. Sementara itu, di negara-negara yang kesenjangan sosio-ekonominya besar dan pendidikan dianggap bisa menjadi kunci kesuksesan dalam konteks sosio-ekonomi seperti Amerika Serikat dan Cina, pola asuh akan lebih cenderung intens (authoritarian atau authoritative).
Namun, lebih dari itu, buku ini juga menjelaskan banyak hal soal hubungan antara pola asuh dengan kesetaraan gender, kebijakan publik, indeks korupsi, kemajuan teknologi baik di industri maupun ranah domestik, pembagian kelas sosial, sistem pendidikan serta ujian.
Buku ini menjadi banyak jawaban atas pertanyaan saya terkait pola asuh dan budaya. It's way more complex than East vs West karena melibatkan banyak variabel sosio-ekonomi dan kebijakan publik, bukan faktor budaya semata. Namun penulis tetap setia pada gagasan utamanya: semua orang tua menyayangi anaknya dan ingin anaknya bisa survive menghadapi masa depannya.
Menurut saya, buku ini cukup berat untuk disebut popular science karena memang lebih banyak bicara data, statistik, dan sejarah. Terlebih saya tidak punya pengalaman melakukan penelitian di bidang social science. Namun, buku ini justru memberikan banyak wawasan kepada saya tentang metoda penelitian.
Untuk yang tertarik dengan buku-buku parenting style dari berbagai negara, buku ini SAYA REKOMENDASIKAN BANGET tapi ya memang akan terasa lebih membosankan dibanding buku-buku semacam 'Bring up Bébé' atau 'Danish Way of Parenting' 😊
Penulis mengikuti pembagian pola asuh menjadi 3 tipe; authoritarian, authoritative dan permissive. Lewat berbagai data dan statistik, buku ini menjelaskan faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi pola asuh orang tua di suatu wilayah. Misalnya, soal kecenderungan orang tua yang lebih permisif di negara-negara Skandinavia dengan tingkat kesenjangan sosio-ekonomi yang rendah. Sementara itu, di negara-negara yang kesenjangan sosio-ekonominya besar dan pendidikan dianggap bisa menjadi kunci kesuksesan dalam konteks sosio-ekonomi seperti Amerika Serikat dan Cina, pola asuh akan lebih cenderung intens (authoritarian atau authoritative).
Namun, lebih dari itu, buku ini juga menjelaskan banyak hal soal hubungan antara pola asuh dengan kesetaraan gender, kebijakan publik, indeks korupsi, kemajuan teknologi baik di industri maupun ranah domestik, pembagian kelas sosial, sistem pendidikan serta ujian.
Buku ini menjadi banyak jawaban atas pertanyaan saya terkait pola asuh dan budaya. It's way more complex than East vs West karena melibatkan banyak variabel sosio-ekonomi dan kebijakan publik, bukan faktor budaya semata. Namun penulis tetap setia pada gagasan utamanya: semua orang tua menyayangi anaknya dan ingin anaknya bisa survive menghadapi masa depannya.
Menurut saya, buku ini cukup berat untuk disebut popular science karena memang lebih banyak bicara data, statistik, dan sejarah. Terlebih saya tidak punya pengalaman melakukan penelitian di bidang social science. Namun, buku ini justru memberikan banyak wawasan kepada saya tentang metoda penelitian.
Untuk yang tertarik dengan buku-buku parenting style dari berbagai negara, buku ini SAYA REKOMENDASIKAN BANGET tapi ya memang akan terasa lebih membosankan dibanding buku-buku semacam 'Bring up Bébé' atau 'Danish Way of Parenting' 😊
March 24, 2019
Good unconventional book. The first chapter is a little dry and tedious. But since chapter 2 (and especially chapter 3) the book gets engaging. I liked chapter 5 on the history of parenting and corporal punishment. I also liked the discussion of gender bias and the comparison among school systems (chapter 9).
April 3, 2019
The book exists somewhere between an actual academic text and a pop science book, and doesn't really succeed as either - the authors make too many uncited assertions for academia and don't really introduce things gently enough for a general audience.
The central thesis, that inequality shapes parenting, is intriguing, but the authors have published articles on the same idea which are better.
The central thesis, that inequality shapes parenting, is intriguing, but the authors have published articles on the same idea which are better.
March 23, 2022
Very comprehensive analysis! The overall message is simple but great to see the strong interactions between economy and parenting styles. So many mentions of Evanston make me reminisce about Northwestern.
April 21, 2025
This was really interesting, and I think they had a good thesis. I appreciated the personal stories that they included from their own experiences as fathers.
April 13, 2021
I started to read with somewhat modest expectations, but it turned out to be a very interesting discussion, with clear arguments and rich in data.
December 3, 2023
Perfect reference for my thesis
July 9, 2019
Some (really) quick thoughts:
1. It's much more interesting than most parenting books (and than most economics books). And while it is most definitely *not* a book on how to parent (see below for more on the actual content), I actually think there's some good food for thought here, in its presentation on the empirical relationships between the parenting styles people adopt and the incentives they have. In particular, the book helps locate decisions about parenting style in a larger, social context--how do you see the world your child will live/work in comparing to that you live/work in? What would you count as a *good* life for them? How do these decisions affect other children?
2. The book's thesis is that changing parenting styles (the authoritarian Greatest Generation to the permissive Boomers to the Authoritarian millennials and X-ers) are influenced by--and can be given causal explanations in terms of--changing economic circumstances. In particular, the increasing time/energy parents devote to "authoritative" parenting is partially explicable in terms of increasing inequality and increasing returns to education. Basically, if you care about your children (and the authors' assumption is that parents in all times and places generally have), it simply matters *much more than it used to* that they "succeed" (i.e., beat out others) in educational settings.
3. The authors' thesis (and their presentation of it) seems generally plausible to me, so I don't have any substantive bone to pick with it. That being said, I'm inherently leery of being *too* certain about anything in this general domain (e.g., on trying to figure out the causes/effects of parenting style, or of education, etc.). I realize that observational studies + multiple regression might be the best we have to go on, but my sense (based on reading plenty of studies that seems to *contradict* various parts of the story here) is that it's *much, much, much* more difficult to identify causal mechanisms of interest in this way than social scientists have usually hoped/believed (in other words: we can certainly pick up on interesting correlations; however, describing them in a way that actually leads to the formulation of workable political interventions is often beyond us). However, this could just be my inner pessimist. In any case, I thought the book was worth reading.
1. It's much more interesting than most parenting books (and than most economics books). And while it is most definitely *not* a book on how to parent (see below for more on the actual content), I actually think there's some good food for thought here, in its presentation on the empirical relationships between the parenting styles people adopt and the incentives they have. In particular, the book helps locate decisions about parenting style in a larger, social context--how do you see the world your child will live/work in comparing to that you live/work in? What would you count as a *good* life for them? How do these decisions affect other children?
2. The book's thesis is that changing parenting styles (the authoritarian Greatest Generation to the permissive Boomers to the Authoritarian millennials and X-ers) are influenced by--and can be given causal explanations in terms of--changing economic circumstances. In particular, the increasing time/energy parents devote to "authoritative" parenting is partially explicable in terms of increasing inequality and increasing returns to education. Basically, if you care about your children (and the authors' assumption is that parents in all times and places generally have), it simply matters *much more than it used to* that they "succeed" (i.e., beat out others) in educational settings.
3. The authors' thesis (and their presentation of it) seems generally plausible to me, so I don't have any substantive bone to pick with it. That being said, I'm inherently leery of being *too* certain about anything in this general domain (e.g., on trying to figure out the causes/effects of parenting style, or of education, etc.). I realize that observational studies + multiple regression might be the best we have to go on, but my sense (based on reading plenty of studies that seems to *contradict* various parts of the story here) is that it's *much, much, much* more difficult to identify causal mechanisms of interest in this way than social scientists have usually hoped/believed (in other words: we can certainly pick up on interesting correlations; however, describing them in a way that actually leads to the formulation of workable political interventions is often beyond us). However, this could just be my inner pessimist. In any case, I thought the book was worth reading.
March 18, 2019
Strong arguments and validations. However, not as a leisurely read. It's a good material for the university perhaps? A powerful revelation of how economics shape parenting methods and in turn future of our children.
April 4, 2022
I listened to the audiobook version and made it 2/3 of the way through before giving up on it. What I found most useful were the descriptions and traits of the three dominate parenting styles the book refers to again and again and again in making its point about how economics determines which parenting styles are picked by families — authoritarian, authoritative, or permissive. After the first few chapters, I found the subject matter getting repetitive and me tuning out for much of the book. Though I did like that they sampled data from all over the world and not just the West to come up with their conclusions. Overall, this could have been a very long and in-depth Atlantic feature, but was too academic and repetitive as a book.
October 5, 2019
Academic goodness, succeeding in analysing a particular topic - parenting styles and economics, whilst skilfully keeping aspects of history, religion and culture as a backdrop. Appropriately enough, you get the entire picture; and thus, a deeper understanding of the choices that parents make and need to make in relation to their children. While the writing can sometimes feel dry, I loved how thorough the analysis was, up until the very end.
March 19, 2019
A bit repetitive in parts, but wholly useful, this book looks at the ways in which we're subtly (and not so subtly) influenced by economic incentives as we parent our children. An interesting cross-cultural perspective on this, as well as the various education sectors in countries.
May 2, 2021
Loved this book that helped me understand the dynamics of parenting from an economic angle. The author’s argument that inequality is a driving factor in parents’ approach to parenting is thought provoking. This book has helped me see the world around me in a new way.
June 1, 2023
* We parent differently than our parents because it's a different world. Also, there are differences between countries.
* Economics is about decisions and fits very well with parenting which is full of decisions
* Matthias grew up in Germany on a farm
* Fabrizio grew up in Italy
* Swedish kids raised with few corrections with stress and anxiety main things to avoid. Don't start school until 7 and grades at 11 or 12. Switzerland kids more strict. Test at 12 years old determines professional / academic track (Gimnasium)
* Inequality on the rise in China where it once was more egalitarian. Sweden more egalitarian now but was quite unequal in the past.
* Economic conditions have impact on parenting and what constitutes good parenting.
* Income inequality more determinant than overall economic development of country
* Kids mined in early 1800s and there was a high fertility rate in mining areas
* Schooling rose in second half of 1800s when it became more economically beneficial compared to labor. This was before compulsory schooling.
* Time saving appliances (clothes washer) and groceries so meals aren't made from scratch help drive up fertility during Baby Boom.
* Independence and self-reliance were in high regard for children during authors' childhoods
* Germany and Italy had free college and all colleges roughly were equal so parents did not push hard
* Policy choices create landscape in which parents raise kids and the world they envision their kids entering as young adults
* Selection (tests) can hinge on family background over ability
Ch. 1 Economics of Parenting Style
* Economics assumes people doing best they can in the environment they find themselves
* Parent objectives - kids be happy and do well and coldly provide care in old age
* Parent constraints - budget, time, capabilities
* Economics is about how people make choices; sociology is about people not having an choices to make
* Parenting styles - authoritarian (aim is best for kids but demand obedience and not questioning their goals), permissive (let kids make their own choices but not neglectful), authoritative (blend of two trying to influence choices with back and forth)
* Authoritative parented kids do better in school are healthier and make better choices. Better at confronting challenges. Authoritarian kids do worse with challenges.
* What incentives drive parenting styles?
* Weigh current and future well being of kids. Altruism (parents take hit financial etc. at the moment for the future doing things they may dislike) and paternalism (deny children something they want) guide each. Neither is neglectful.
* Parents think of future and kids instant gratification. More competitive society leads to paternalism and vice versa.
* Parents coerce and / or persuade
* Nature vs. nurture... nature gives but nurture can shape non-cognitive skills (risk tolerance, patience). Personality is very nature centric.
* Why did the anti-authoritarian kids of the 70s become helicopter parents?
Ch. 2
* Amy Chua wrote Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother argues the start is always hard and that's where Western culture often lefts kids quit
* Increase in parenting between late 70s and 2005 time spent per week went up by 6 hours per week parents spent with their kid and even more because fertility dropped nearly in half but maybe quality is down due to smart phones etc.
* Free play time down, time on homework doubled, less walk / bike to school
* In 70s 80s nearly everything is opposite of today... grades didn't determine next phase of education nearly like today. Peak equality phase was in the 70s.
* 80s became hippies vs yuppies. Conservatism rise. PJII, Thatcher, Reagan. Inequality rise. College grad and post grad salary increase rise. Technological change biggest reason for inequality's rise and politics amplified it.
* Intensive parenting style improves test scores typically
* Authoritative parenting seems to have best chances for college degrees and higher but Asian origin is much higher signifier seemingly due to culture
* Parenting styles affect risky behaviors... authoritative parented kids take less risk
Ch. 3
* Economic inequality better indicator of parenting style than culture around the world
* Authoritarian parents want obedience, authoritative hard work, permissive creativity
* American (unequal) parents want hard work and Nordic (more equal) want independence
* Dutch kids ranked as happiest in the world and US 26th... GDP doesn't dictate happiness
* Dutch saying, "Just be normal. That's already crazy enough."
* Sweden incentivizes parenthood with subsidized childcare and parental leave. Dutch don't start homework until 10 years old. Swedes let kids sort out their own conflicts. Sweden has lowest child mortality.
* Britian has more helicopter parenting than other European countries. '98 reform increased education costs 9x.
* Chinese parents drill academics 10x more than Western parents.
* "Let the beloved child travel alone" Japanese saying
* France and Spain more authoritarian and corporal punishment persists. Catholicism may have something to do with it which also typically seeks obedience.
* Progressive taxation helps lower intense parenting
* Return on education lowers permissiveness and it's very high in Spain and France hence more authoritarian
* Political institutions affect parental styles as well (better civil rights = less authoritarian parents, critical thinking can get you in mortal danger)
Ch. 4
* Manhattan most unequal county in US and comparable to 5 highest unequal countries in world
* Increase in parenting gap (limits growing on options for poorer kids)
* Time constraints easier in 2 parent, better off homes
* Authoritative mother has greater impact than authoritative father
* Single parents don't have time to be intensive but places like Sweden with safety nets soften the blow
* College towns have large gaps achievement gaps because of the economic diversity of the towns (well to do professionals and lower educated others)
* Expensive colleges have gender balance and colleges serving less advantaged have many more women
* Monotonous work of blue collar can encourage authoritative parenting although more and more of the most repetitive work has been automated
* Segregation and inequality lower chance of marrying up
* Redistributive fiscal policies can avoid the parenting gap and trap. Childcare coming from such policies can lower crime and increase odds for success leading to lower overall cost considering such benefits.
Ch. 5
* Big move away from corporal punishment in the last 2 generations or so. History full of such practice but Plutarch recommended otherwise.
* Rousseau said childhood was an important phase and should be respected while also abandoning his own children to orphanages. Locke, founder of liberalism, said to be strict with kids.
* Horace Mann pushed for universal public education in America in 1800s
* Did economic incentives change corporal punishment views so rapidly? Life was quite similar for centuries until the rapid changes from the Industrial Revolution on... strong sense of independence became more stressed... child must succeed in a different world than their parents.
* Expansion of higher education in 20th century changed parenting away from authoritarian. Also, a waining advantage to working in the same field as parents.
* Poor countries often more authoritarian than rich countries.
* Modern thinking is change is constant. Fundamentalist religion thinks of Bible etc. as wholly truthful and all you need to know including in child rearing. Creativity, authority questioning etc. is not desired.
* European Catholics and Evangelical Protestants in US are both conservative
Ch. 6 Boys Vs Girls
* Boys do act in violence more often than girls among other differences
* Education starting to treat boys and girls the same way
* Plow requires strength and was used in N. America and Europe. Men did the farming in those societies setting up gender roles.
* Post Industrial Rev. gender roles were enhanced. Home and work space separated.
* Marriage bars from 1900s-1950s required women to quit work once married in professions like teaching
* Polygamy leads families to think of daughters as investments because sons in law pay to marry which grows increases population growth in poor countries. In other countries where daughter's family pays a dowry make girls less economically desirable. Estimated 100M missing million due to sex based abortions.
* Male politicians voted for women's rights eventually to protect their daughters. Privilege of men takes back seat to needs of children.
Ch. 7 Fertility and Child Labor
* Lower fertility rates because of more effective birth control. Parents want less kids because either cost of kids went up and or benefits of having kids went down.
* Before 1800 improved living standards led to more kids. Malthus observed increased food production led to better quality of life but then population growth returning to original per capita production level
* Demographic transition brought by dropping mortality breaks Malthus' growth model
* Child quality (like paying more for education because there's more of a return) becomes more desirable over quantity
* Baby boom happened from time saving technology and cheaper cost of having babies and women being pushed out of labor after WWII
* Where women work more have more babies
* Having children is one of the biggest economic decisions someone can make
Ch. 8 Parenting and Class
* Education was important from early on in middle class (artisans etc. hundreds of years ago)
* Aristocrats made money off land and rent... instilling work ethic was not their focus like working class. Parents didn't raise their kids typically... often saw their kids for one hour a day
* Patience, long term thinking, and education important to middle class and today's upper middle class.
* Industrialization requires accumulation of capital which requires patience. The middle class went over the aristocrats because they were built for such endeavors like Andrew Carnegie who advocated not passing on wealth due to making the children lazy.
* Democratic society can push against inequality
Ch. 9 Organization of School System
* Extracurriculars just for fun in Scandinavia... schools are relatively equal and high quality. Extracurriculars in inequal society seen as way into world class universities
* In loco parentis letting schools be like parents (and do corporal punishment) hung on in English speaking countries well into the 20th century and is still legal in 19 states
* China have long history of competitive exams and no Western country comes close to Chinese students' math skills but rural kids much less likely to pass the gaokao test to get into best colleges
* Chinese students also score very low on stress levels due to such high stakes tests
* 15 hours after school homework in China vs. 3 hours in Western countries
* Japanese students do 240 school days a year vs. 180 in America
* Independence in Japan means children learning to act responsibly and with self-reliance (doing chores, walking to school etc)
* Nordic countries emphasize team work. Finnish students do well on tests despite low pressure but standardized tests are not given which pushes students away from competition.
* Test results in Finland typically go to teacher to improve lessons and not even to parents or students. Ratings go from "very good" to "needs work"
* Finland has strong criteria requirements for teachers but pays them similar amounts to other countries. There is high social status to teachers there.
* Swedish students spend 3 hours a week on homework but teachers aren't as satisfied as in Finland
* Sweden used vouchers and education quality dropped and now there are 800 "independent schools". Also grade inflation arose.
* Horizontal teaching in Scandinavia, England, US. Stresses teamwork.
* Vertical teaching in China, Germany, France etc.
* French see childhood as ignorant not innocent. There are private schools and highly selective schools leading to parents stressing hard work.
* Authoritarian parenting is in decline and authoritative on the rise
* Current push is for boys and girls to be treated the same
* Hollowing of the middle class phenomenon and middle class seen as society's cohesion
* Parents need money and time to raise children
* Keynes predicted people would have more time for learning and leisure thanks to more efficient technology freeing up people but maybe he was too optimistic that society would let people free through technological progress in yardstick competition
* Authors do not call for end to inequality but some intervention is necessary
* Equal access education system is worth striving worth to turn down the pressure parents feel to push their kids. Intervention during early years 0-4 pay tremendous dividends.
* Authors confident they are happy to be fathers now despite all the ramped up pressure because they are more involved in their kids' lives than they probably would have been a generation or more ago
* Economics is about decisions and fits very well with parenting which is full of decisions
* Matthias grew up in Germany on a farm
* Fabrizio grew up in Italy
* Swedish kids raised with few corrections with stress and anxiety main things to avoid. Don't start school until 7 and grades at 11 or 12. Switzerland kids more strict. Test at 12 years old determines professional / academic track (Gimnasium)
* Inequality on the rise in China where it once was more egalitarian. Sweden more egalitarian now but was quite unequal in the past.
* Economic conditions have impact on parenting and what constitutes good parenting.
* Income inequality more determinant than overall economic development of country
* Kids mined in early 1800s and there was a high fertility rate in mining areas
* Schooling rose in second half of 1800s when it became more economically beneficial compared to labor. This was before compulsory schooling.
* Time saving appliances (clothes washer) and groceries so meals aren't made from scratch help drive up fertility during Baby Boom.
* Independence and self-reliance were in high regard for children during authors' childhoods
* Germany and Italy had free college and all colleges roughly were equal so parents did not push hard
* Policy choices create landscape in which parents raise kids and the world they envision their kids entering as young adults
* Selection (tests) can hinge on family background over ability
Ch. 1 Economics of Parenting Style
* Economics assumes people doing best they can in the environment they find themselves
* Parent objectives - kids be happy and do well and coldly provide care in old age
* Parent constraints - budget, time, capabilities
* Economics is about how people make choices; sociology is about people not having an choices to make
* Parenting styles - authoritarian (aim is best for kids but demand obedience and not questioning their goals), permissive (let kids make their own choices but not neglectful), authoritative (blend of two trying to influence choices with back and forth)
* Authoritative parented kids do better in school are healthier and make better choices. Better at confronting challenges. Authoritarian kids do worse with challenges.
* What incentives drive parenting styles?
* Weigh current and future well being of kids. Altruism (parents take hit financial etc. at the moment for the future doing things they may dislike) and paternalism (deny children something they want) guide each. Neither is neglectful.
* Parents think of future and kids instant gratification. More competitive society leads to paternalism and vice versa.
* Parents coerce and / or persuade
* Nature vs. nurture... nature gives but nurture can shape non-cognitive skills (risk tolerance, patience). Personality is very nature centric.
* Why did the anti-authoritarian kids of the 70s become helicopter parents?
Ch. 2
* Amy Chua wrote Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother argues the start is always hard and that's where Western culture often lefts kids quit
* Increase in parenting between late 70s and 2005 time spent per week went up by 6 hours per week parents spent with their kid and even more because fertility dropped nearly in half but maybe quality is down due to smart phones etc.
* Free play time down, time on homework doubled, less walk / bike to school
* In 70s 80s nearly everything is opposite of today... grades didn't determine next phase of education nearly like today. Peak equality phase was in the 70s.
* 80s became hippies vs yuppies. Conservatism rise. PJII, Thatcher, Reagan. Inequality rise. College grad and post grad salary increase rise. Technological change biggest reason for inequality's rise and politics amplified it.
* Intensive parenting style improves test scores typically
* Authoritative parenting seems to have best chances for college degrees and higher but Asian origin is much higher signifier seemingly due to culture
* Parenting styles affect risky behaviors... authoritative parented kids take less risk
Ch. 3
* Economic inequality better indicator of parenting style than culture around the world
* Authoritarian parents want obedience, authoritative hard work, permissive creativity
* American (unequal) parents want hard work and Nordic (more equal) want independence
* Dutch kids ranked as happiest in the world and US 26th... GDP doesn't dictate happiness
* Dutch saying, "Just be normal. That's already crazy enough."
* Sweden incentivizes parenthood with subsidized childcare and parental leave. Dutch don't start homework until 10 years old. Swedes let kids sort out their own conflicts. Sweden has lowest child mortality.
* Britian has more helicopter parenting than other European countries. '98 reform increased education costs 9x.
* Chinese parents drill academics 10x more than Western parents.
* "Let the beloved child travel alone" Japanese saying
* France and Spain more authoritarian and corporal punishment persists. Catholicism may have something to do with it which also typically seeks obedience.
* Progressive taxation helps lower intense parenting
* Return on education lowers permissiveness and it's very high in Spain and France hence more authoritarian
* Political institutions affect parental styles as well (better civil rights = less authoritarian parents, critical thinking can get you in mortal danger)
Ch. 4
* Manhattan most unequal county in US and comparable to 5 highest unequal countries in world
* Increase in parenting gap (limits growing on options for poorer kids)
* Time constraints easier in 2 parent, better off homes
* Authoritative mother has greater impact than authoritative father
* Single parents don't have time to be intensive but places like Sweden with safety nets soften the blow
* College towns have large gaps achievement gaps because of the economic diversity of the towns (well to do professionals and lower educated others)
* Expensive colleges have gender balance and colleges serving less advantaged have many more women
* Monotonous work of blue collar can encourage authoritative parenting although more and more of the most repetitive work has been automated
* Segregation and inequality lower chance of marrying up
* Redistributive fiscal policies can avoid the parenting gap and trap. Childcare coming from such policies can lower crime and increase odds for success leading to lower overall cost considering such benefits.
Ch. 5
* Big move away from corporal punishment in the last 2 generations or so. History full of such practice but Plutarch recommended otherwise.
* Rousseau said childhood was an important phase and should be respected while also abandoning his own children to orphanages. Locke, founder of liberalism, said to be strict with kids.
* Horace Mann pushed for universal public education in America in 1800s
* Did economic incentives change corporal punishment views so rapidly? Life was quite similar for centuries until the rapid changes from the Industrial Revolution on... strong sense of independence became more stressed... child must succeed in a different world than their parents.
* Expansion of higher education in 20th century changed parenting away from authoritarian. Also, a waining advantage to working in the same field as parents.
* Poor countries often more authoritarian than rich countries.
* Modern thinking is change is constant. Fundamentalist religion thinks of Bible etc. as wholly truthful and all you need to know including in child rearing. Creativity, authority questioning etc. is not desired.
* European Catholics and Evangelical Protestants in US are both conservative
Ch. 6 Boys Vs Girls
* Boys do act in violence more often than girls among other differences
* Education starting to treat boys and girls the same way
* Plow requires strength and was used in N. America and Europe. Men did the farming in those societies setting up gender roles.
* Post Industrial Rev. gender roles were enhanced. Home and work space separated.
* Marriage bars from 1900s-1950s required women to quit work once married in professions like teaching
* Polygamy leads families to think of daughters as investments because sons in law pay to marry which grows increases population growth in poor countries. In other countries where daughter's family pays a dowry make girls less economically desirable. Estimated 100M missing million due to sex based abortions.
* Male politicians voted for women's rights eventually to protect their daughters. Privilege of men takes back seat to needs of children.
Ch. 7 Fertility and Child Labor
* Lower fertility rates because of more effective birth control. Parents want less kids because either cost of kids went up and or benefits of having kids went down.
* Before 1800 improved living standards led to more kids. Malthus observed increased food production led to better quality of life but then population growth returning to original per capita production level
* Demographic transition brought by dropping mortality breaks Malthus' growth model
* Child quality (like paying more for education because there's more of a return) becomes more desirable over quantity
* Baby boom happened from time saving technology and cheaper cost of having babies and women being pushed out of labor after WWII
* Where women work more have more babies
* Having children is one of the biggest economic decisions someone can make
Ch. 8 Parenting and Class
* Education was important from early on in middle class (artisans etc. hundreds of years ago)
* Aristocrats made money off land and rent... instilling work ethic was not their focus like working class. Parents didn't raise their kids typically... often saw their kids for one hour a day
* Patience, long term thinking, and education important to middle class and today's upper middle class.
* Industrialization requires accumulation of capital which requires patience. The middle class went over the aristocrats because they were built for such endeavors like Andrew Carnegie who advocated not passing on wealth due to making the children lazy.
* Democratic society can push against inequality
Ch. 9 Organization of School System
* Extracurriculars just for fun in Scandinavia... schools are relatively equal and high quality. Extracurriculars in inequal society seen as way into world class universities
* In loco parentis letting schools be like parents (and do corporal punishment) hung on in English speaking countries well into the 20th century and is still legal in 19 states
* China have long history of competitive exams and no Western country comes close to Chinese students' math skills but rural kids much less likely to pass the gaokao test to get into best colleges
* Chinese students also score very low on stress levels due to such high stakes tests
* 15 hours after school homework in China vs. 3 hours in Western countries
* Japanese students do 240 school days a year vs. 180 in America
* Independence in Japan means children learning to act responsibly and with self-reliance (doing chores, walking to school etc)
* Nordic countries emphasize team work. Finnish students do well on tests despite low pressure but standardized tests are not given which pushes students away from competition.
* Test results in Finland typically go to teacher to improve lessons and not even to parents or students. Ratings go from "very good" to "needs work"
* Finland has strong criteria requirements for teachers but pays them similar amounts to other countries. There is high social status to teachers there.
* Swedish students spend 3 hours a week on homework but teachers aren't as satisfied as in Finland
* Sweden used vouchers and education quality dropped and now there are 800 "independent schools". Also grade inflation arose.
* Horizontal teaching in Scandinavia, England, US. Stresses teamwork.
* Vertical teaching in China, Germany, France etc.
* French see childhood as ignorant not innocent. There are private schools and highly selective schools leading to parents stressing hard work.
* Authoritarian parenting is in decline and authoritative on the rise
* Current push is for boys and girls to be treated the same
* Hollowing of the middle class phenomenon and middle class seen as society's cohesion
* Parents need money and time to raise children
* Keynes predicted people would have more time for learning and leisure thanks to more efficient technology freeing up people but maybe he was too optimistic that society would let people free through technological progress in yardstick competition
* Authors do not call for end to inequality but some intervention is necessary
* Equal access education system is worth striving worth to turn down the pressure parents feel to push their kids. Intervention during early years 0-4 pay tremendous dividends.
* Authors confident they are happy to be fathers now despite all the ramped up pressure because they are more involved in their kids' lives than they probably would have been a generation or more ago
December 7, 2024
This book is written by two economists, Doepke and Zilibotti, who attempt to use economics to try and understand why and how parenting styles and practices have vastly changed through time. However, the book is on love, money and parenting, and the link towards these three are not always drawn in this book. To me, it seems apparent that this book has been written by economists, as they fail to acknowledge many behavioural aspects and choose to draw into economics more by drawing in general observations.
To begin with, the authors define the objective of having children as not just for financial reasons, but also love and other similar factors. They then dive into parenting styles as developed by psychologist Diana Baumrind: authoritarian, permissive, and authoritative.
Authoritarian parents exercise control over their children’s lives and expect them to obey, often involving corporal punishment therefore to this; Permissive parents have a relaxed approach and let their children make decisions over their lives; Authoritative parents influence their children’s decisions in order to shape their values but do not use punishment as a consequence. According to the authors, the choice of these parenting styles ultimately comes down to costs and benefits, for example permissive parenting being less costly and authoritarian being more. They explain that authoritarian parents want what’s best for their children of course, with their parenting style often pushing children to the maximum potential and may involve tutoring or admission to private school education. However, this is not always the case: another factor to be considered with why parents choose certain parenting styles is due to social backgrounds, such as following in the same parenting pattern as others. If one parent adopts one style in a community, it would be fair to say that this may influence other parents to choose this route. Therefore, it seems like a generalisation to say that certain parenting styles may be more costly than others, and instead behaviour and social background play a bigger part.
Additionally, another key generalisation is that parents only fit into one parenting style, which again is not always the case. Many parents may choose to adopt certain characteristics from each parenting style, yet it seems the authors fail to acknowledge this and only categorise based on Baumrind’s three parenting styles. Further into the book, the authors seem to generalise that the authoritarian style seems to have better effect on children’s education, as seen by the PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) evidence, specifically in South Korea. PISA tests 15-year-olds on maths, science and reading every three years, with more than 70 countries participating. South Korea are one of the top performers, with the data showcasing a distinction between intensive parents where the average score is 563, to non-intensive, 540. Based on this data, the authors categorise intensive parenting styles with higher marks, however this seems like a generalisation. In the case of South Korea, there is no doubt that intensive or authoritarian parenting styles are used by most parents. Although, what should also be considered is the education within each country – South Korea is known to have intensive education, with average pupils starting from 8am to finishing almost 9pm at times. This is a factor that should be considered alongside PISA scores, as it is not just intensive parenting styles that are a drive to such high numbers. The downsides of intensive parenting styles are often missed by the authors also, including detrimental effects to mental health – South Korea has a large amount of suicide rates within young adults, particularly due to test results and examinations.
These are a few examples of the hit-and-miss the authors mention, as there should be no surprise that the study of economic tools are used throughout this book. In addition to this however, the authors seem to dismiss other factors and draw distinctions throughout this book based on such generalisations. Alongside generalisations, the book seems to become repetitive after the first two chapters, drawing on previous points already made and including irrelevant information in such extensive detail, for example the history of child labour, education or class systems, and they do not draw comparison to modern day. When reading these parts of the book, it seemed confusing as there is not a large emphasis to class systems in modern day, as well as child labour being banned in most countries and no mention or evidence from countries where it is still ongoing. In other words, most parts of the book seemed to be filler for the chapters, and the book should not have been as long as it should have.
Besides the book being too long and consisting of page fillers most of the time, one of the key problems with the book I found were the generalisations as mentioned previously. Although some generalisations were based on data (such as drawing on the PISA evidence), one thing that should be known is that such data does not speak for all parents or children. Just because South Korea as an example have high scores with parents who adopt intensive parenting styles, does not entirely mean that children who have intensive parents will automatically gain higher test results. Moreover, the authors also generalise on Asian children performing better in school – a large known stereotype that is once again not always true in some cases. Secondly, data cannot always be reliable as there can be flukes or errors and should not always be relied on. This should be apparent for economists who create data.
A key problem I found as a reader was that the authors mentioned from the start that this was not a ‘how to’ parenting guide, nor are they here to render any judgement, however throughout the entire book there was no mention of how difficult parenting can be. This is ironic, given that both authors are parents themselves and draw on their own personal experiences, which felt almost like a blatant disregard to how hard parenting can get for some.
Overall, this book was an interesting read, starting strong in the first few chapters to then becoming repetitive and largely explaining things based on generalisations or stereotypes. I would give this book a 2.5 out of 5 stars.
To begin with, the authors define the objective of having children as not just for financial reasons, but also love and other similar factors. They then dive into parenting styles as developed by psychologist Diana Baumrind: authoritarian, permissive, and authoritative.
Authoritarian parents exercise control over their children’s lives and expect them to obey, often involving corporal punishment therefore to this; Permissive parents have a relaxed approach and let their children make decisions over their lives; Authoritative parents influence their children’s decisions in order to shape their values but do not use punishment as a consequence. According to the authors, the choice of these parenting styles ultimately comes down to costs and benefits, for example permissive parenting being less costly and authoritarian being more. They explain that authoritarian parents want what’s best for their children of course, with their parenting style often pushing children to the maximum potential and may involve tutoring or admission to private school education. However, this is not always the case: another factor to be considered with why parents choose certain parenting styles is due to social backgrounds, such as following in the same parenting pattern as others. If one parent adopts one style in a community, it would be fair to say that this may influence other parents to choose this route. Therefore, it seems like a generalisation to say that certain parenting styles may be more costly than others, and instead behaviour and social background play a bigger part.
Additionally, another key generalisation is that parents only fit into one parenting style, which again is not always the case. Many parents may choose to adopt certain characteristics from each parenting style, yet it seems the authors fail to acknowledge this and only categorise based on Baumrind’s three parenting styles. Further into the book, the authors seem to generalise that the authoritarian style seems to have better effect on children’s education, as seen by the PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) evidence, specifically in South Korea. PISA tests 15-year-olds on maths, science and reading every three years, with more than 70 countries participating. South Korea are one of the top performers, with the data showcasing a distinction between intensive parents where the average score is 563, to non-intensive, 540. Based on this data, the authors categorise intensive parenting styles with higher marks, however this seems like a generalisation. In the case of South Korea, there is no doubt that intensive or authoritarian parenting styles are used by most parents. Although, what should also be considered is the education within each country – South Korea is known to have intensive education, with average pupils starting from 8am to finishing almost 9pm at times. This is a factor that should be considered alongside PISA scores, as it is not just intensive parenting styles that are a drive to such high numbers. The downsides of intensive parenting styles are often missed by the authors also, including detrimental effects to mental health – South Korea has a large amount of suicide rates within young adults, particularly due to test results and examinations.
These are a few examples of the hit-and-miss the authors mention, as there should be no surprise that the study of economic tools are used throughout this book. In addition to this however, the authors seem to dismiss other factors and draw distinctions throughout this book based on such generalisations. Alongside generalisations, the book seems to become repetitive after the first two chapters, drawing on previous points already made and including irrelevant information in such extensive detail, for example the history of child labour, education or class systems, and they do not draw comparison to modern day. When reading these parts of the book, it seemed confusing as there is not a large emphasis to class systems in modern day, as well as child labour being banned in most countries and no mention or evidence from countries where it is still ongoing. In other words, most parts of the book seemed to be filler for the chapters, and the book should not have been as long as it should have.
Besides the book being too long and consisting of page fillers most of the time, one of the key problems with the book I found were the generalisations as mentioned previously. Although some generalisations were based on data (such as drawing on the PISA evidence), one thing that should be known is that such data does not speak for all parents or children. Just because South Korea as an example have high scores with parents who adopt intensive parenting styles, does not entirely mean that children who have intensive parents will automatically gain higher test results. Moreover, the authors also generalise on Asian children performing better in school – a large known stereotype that is once again not always true in some cases. Secondly, data cannot always be reliable as there can be flukes or errors and should not always be relied on. This should be apparent for economists who create data.
A key problem I found as a reader was that the authors mentioned from the start that this was not a ‘how to’ parenting guide, nor are they here to render any judgement, however throughout the entire book there was no mention of how difficult parenting can be. This is ironic, given that both authors are parents themselves and draw on their own personal experiences, which felt almost like a blatant disregard to how hard parenting can get for some.
Overall, this book was an interesting read, starting strong in the first few chapters to then becoming repetitive and largely explaining things based on generalisations or stereotypes. I would give this book a 2.5 out of 5 stars.
May 4, 2019
I read it on audible and I just so happened to be taking a university course on class inequality so this gave me lots of food for thought, or maybe that course did lol anywho, a very entertaining listen. Apart from pointing some obvious things, which I find to be a very productive practice, the authors draw on their varied experiences as parents in different countries and this brings a wonderful cultural aspect to the subject and In my case sparked alot of curiosity. It becomes apparent parenting is not merely about ideals, it has to do with the country one lives in, peer pressure, money, resources, culture, and history. It is not abnormal to have a parent behave in a way different than they themselves expect because the cultures, institutions and other parents leave little room for alternatives. A practical read for anyone wanting to be a parent or wanting to understand cultural patterns in a deeper way. Best listened to unless your doing research on the topic. It's a very technical book.
August 16, 2019
This ranks up there with "The Anthropology of Childhood" as one of my favorite parenting books. The mostly academic work looks at how people parent as a product of their social and economic milieu, and it's very convincing. For all the teeth-gnashing about helicopter parents and other perceived generational failures, the authors show that these things mainly come down to people making the best choices they can in the environment they have to navigate, and the changes in that environment over time are much more responsible for the shift in how we parent than any individual decisions.
Some of the chapters delve too far into conjecture and superficial analysis - the bits about race are particularly cringeworthy and call for a more nuanced study - but overall this is solid and informative.. and we might as well relax and toss out the how to manuals, since we're probably going to parent the way we need to without even thinking about it.
Some of the chapters delve too far into conjecture and superficial analysis - the bits about race are particularly cringeworthy and call for a more nuanced study - but overall this is solid and informative.. and we might as well relax and toss out the how to manuals, since we're probably going to parent the way we need to without even thinking about it.
June 2, 2019
I liked this book a lot. It is an academic read, so it included some very in depth analysis of certain statistics that I personally didn't need to know on as deep a level as the book discussed, but overall the topic is important in terms of thinking about overall social policy and how it relates on a micro level to how we tend to parent our children. It was striking to realize that a huge factor in differing parenting styles (across both countries and in time) is income inequality and how larger disparities in income inequality, particularly when combined with very high returns to education create parents who tend to be stricter, and this is responsible for the rise in "helicopter parenting." This was a good read with a lot of food for thought, although it's not for everyone.
September 7, 2019
A bit dry, fundamentally solid but doesn't need 300 pages to make these arguments.
September 4, 2019
This provides a really compelling argument about the relationship between parenting styles and income inequality across countries and over time.
December 6, 2019
Long. Designed more for the academic professional. Informative and interesting but not for parental light reading.
April 12, 2020
Did you know that in countries with widespread polygyny, people tend to have less investments and savings? Did you know that boycotting products made with child labor can actually delay the banning of the practice?
Penned by two professors, Love, Money & Parenting analyzes parenting choices economically.
Although the authors organize their analysis using a more complex structure, I will be dividing their findings using two simpler (and somewhat overlapping and correlative) factors: individualistic and societal.
Individualistic determinants include factors such as the parents’ education, socioeconomic status, marital status, gender bias, etc. They mostly function the way we think they would: as the parents’ circumstances become “better” (highly educated, wealthier, married, etc) the parents are more likely to incline towards the authoritative teaching method (teaching and guiding children instead of forcing/ overly permitting/ neglecting them).
Societal factors are more complex. While the economy, policies, inequity and others matter greatly, culture actually matters less than we think. Unfortunately, the increase in helicopter/intensive parenting in countries such as the U.S. is a reaction to the widening socioeconomic gap.
I really appreciate this book’s scientific rigor. For instance, when it mentioned a survey that studied the relationship between a child’s academic performance and parental strictness by asking the child to rank the latter on a scale, I wondered how it was going to eliminate inaccuracy of subjectivity. However, the authors immediately addressed this problem and even discussed a few other potential objections I had not thought of. Gotta love authors who recognize the limitations of their own conclusions!
Overall, this is a book that intersects economics and education. Recommended for people interested in these fields.
For more book and movie reviews, visit me on Instagram @ RandomStuffIRead :)
Penned by two professors, Love, Money & Parenting analyzes parenting choices economically.
Although the authors organize their analysis using a more complex structure, I will be dividing their findings using two simpler (and somewhat overlapping and correlative) factors: individualistic and societal.
Individualistic determinants include factors such as the parents’ education, socioeconomic status, marital status, gender bias, etc. They mostly function the way we think they would: as the parents’ circumstances become “better” (highly educated, wealthier, married, etc) the parents are more likely to incline towards the authoritative teaching method (teaching and guiding children instead of forcing/ overly permitting/ neglecting them).
Societal factors are more complex. While the economy, policies, inequity and others matter greatly, culture actually matters less than we think. Unfortunately, the increase in helicopter/intensive parenting in countries such as the U.S. is a reaction to the widening socioeconomic gap.
I really appreciate this book’s scientific rigor. For instance, when it mentioned a survey that studied the relationship between a child’s academic performance and parental strictness by asking the child to rank the latter on a scale, I wondered how it was going to eliminate inaccuracy of subjectivity. However, the authors immediately addressed this problem and even discussed a few other potential objections I had not thought of. Gotta love authors who recognize the limitations of their own conclusions!
Overall, this is a book that intersects economics and education. Recommended for people interested in these fields.
For more book and movie reviews, visit me on Instagram @ RandomStuffIRead :)
February 10, 2023
If you have any interesting in economics and are a parent, you'll enjoy this book. If you don't already have an interest in economics, this book is not going to bring you into the fold--it will bore you to death. The style is not captivating, so you must go into it wanting this knowledge.
Honestly, if you're just curious, read the last chapter that summarizes everything, as long as you don't care about seeing the proof/data backing it up. The last chapter is a good summary of everything they prove throughout the book.
Pros: I love learning how economics affects the way parents raise their kids and the parenting styles that are predominant based on economic factors. The book compares both parenting styles and more interestingly different educational systems around the world. Learning about the education system in other countries was eye-opening, as we only know the way ours is here.
Cons: You can definitely tell it was written by economists. Most of the book has A LOT of data, which is good, as it backs up their theories with hard data. However, it doesn't always make for an interesting read.
Honestly, if you're just curious, read the last chapter that summarizes everything, as long as you don't care about seeing the proof/data backing it up. The last chapter is a good summary of everything they prove throughout the book.
Pros: I love learning how economics affects the way parents raise their kids and the parenting styles that are predominant based on economic factors. The book compares both parenting styles and more interestingly different educational systems around the world. Learning about the education system in other countries was eye-opening, as we only know the way ours is here.
Cons: You can definitely tell it was written by economists. Most of the book has A LOT of data, which is good, as it backs up their theories with hard data. However, it doesn't always make for an interesting read.
December 3, 2024
Quite a fascinating look at parenting and the numbers behind the phenomena.
Why are there so many helicopter parents today compared to the 70s and 80s? And why were parents so permissive then? And why did the baby boom even occur? It is quite evident when looking at the data. The rise in inequality will likely exacerbate the helicopter mom/ tiger mom mentality. But at the same time, as we saw in the past, when middle class people try to get ahead, they end up acting very differently from the leisure class (I wish they had discussed the implications of this latest one a bit further).
Highly recommended.
https://4201mass.blogspot.com/
Why are there so many helicopter parents today compared to the 70s and 80s? And why were parents so permissive then? And why did the baby boom even occur? It is quite evident when looking at the data. The rise in inequality will likely exacerbate the helicopter mom/ tiger mom mentality. But at the same time, as we saw in the past, when middle class people try to get ahead, they end up acting very differently from the leisure class (I wish they had discussed the implications of this latest one a bit further).
Highly recommended.
https://4201mass.blogspot.com/
June 20, 2019
This is a very insightful book that uses economic data to explain the evolution in parenting styles over time in different countries. Doepke and Zilibotti discuss how economic uncertainty and widening socioeconomic disparities around the world have led to a rise in authoritative (or helicopter) parenting. I liked the clear-eyed, research-based approach they used in presenting and discussing these topics. While some of the information presented could seem redundant, I found this a valuable book overall.
December 19, 2019
I feel that this book is very informative and give you insight to how other cultures/countries have different parenting styles and what influences them. This book went into depth about the history of the countries, economic development, whether the government was conservative or liberal, the intensity in east Asia because of entrance exams, how working class families stress hard work & obedience, and upper class families stress business connections and networking and passive income. It’s really insightful
November 26, 2022
[Reading while expecting 7/6 (oops, forgot about this one)] Less about raising a children and more about why we (perhaps) raise the children the way we do.
Really enjoyed the premise and recommended for people interested in the topic, but be aware that it's one of those "This could have been a single article/blog post instead" books. Been coming back to this over a few months so in the end did not mind the deeper dissection.
Though I'm not fit to judge how much of an ad-hoc hypotheses the whole idea is.
Really enjoyed the premise and recommended for people interested in the topic, but be aware that it's one of those "This could have been a single article/blog post instead" books. Been coming back to this over a few months so in the end did not mind the deeper dissection.
Though I'm not fit to judge how much of an ad-hoc hypotheses the whole idea is.
August 18, 2025
Fantastic on all accounts - informative, interesting, illuminating. The main idea is that economic forces shape parenting decisions, and that in countries with high inequality (ie USA) parents are more likely to adapt intensive parenting practices because doing so increases the likelihood of their children achieving financial success. In countries with low inequality (Sweden), parents are more likely to adapt a permissive parenting style because there’s not so much pressure to invest in human capital.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 51 reviews