Pierre André Chiappori (Columbia) "Family Economics" - Cemmap

More documents

Recommendations

Info

11. Marriage, Divorce, Children 485 the mother, because for a small p his expense on child support, s ∗ (p), is about the same as he would spend himself on the child, c ∗ , and the potential gain from the mother contribution of time exceeds the gains that the father has from sharing adult consumption with the child. However, if γ
486 11. Marriage, Divorce, Children a remarried mother, who still may be forced to work part time to comply with the interest of her new husband. As long as the courts cannot interfere with within-household allocations (that are hard to verify) and the father cannot transfer directly to the child, because his money transfer is fungible and can be consumed by the mother and her new husband, it is hard to expect that the child interests will be maintained simply by mandating a money transfer. There is, however, one notable exception. If the mother has sufficient bargaining power to take all the gains from marriage, then she would solve the mirror image of problem (11.13) and maximize her utility subject to the constraint that the new husband is just indifferent between remaining single and remarriage. Formally, this problem is the same as problem (11.7) that the mother solves as single and setting s = c ∗ would indeed induce her to maintain the efficient outcome when she remarries. 26 This brief discussion illustrates that in search markets with rents that are subject to bargaining, it is important to specify the relative bargaining power of the parties that determines the share of the surplus that each party gets. In the Nash bargaining model this is determined by considerations such as impatience and risk aversion that, of course, need not be equal across genders. More broadly, social norms such as egalitarianism and sex roles may also affect the bargaining outcome. Another, and potentially more fruitful, direction is to enlarge the set of contracts that the courts are willing to enforce. In principle, child support payments should depend on the marital status of both parents, because the costs and benefits of post divorce transfers depend on these states. 27 In practice, child support is not contingent on marital status but there are other payments such as alimony that are often contingent on the marital status of the mother. Because we assume that all transfers are fungible, the name attached to these payments does not really matter, but it does matter how flexible they are and to what contingences they respond. Now imagine that a father can pay different amounts to the custodial mother depending upon whether or not she is remarried. Suppose further that the father is forced by law to pay a fixed amount of child support s = c ∗ but can augment it by an additional payment σ that he pays the custodial mother only if she is single. Then, the efficient allocation within the remarried household is determined by max E(a|σ, σ 0 )= hm,c wmhm + wf − c − (1 − p)σ 0 (11.44) 26 Aiyagari et al. (2000) also discuss mandatory child support payments in a general equilibrium framework. They show that an increase in such payments raises welfare of parents and children. 27 In theory, the transfers should depend on the marital status of all agents that participate in the marriage market. But this, of course, is highly impractical.
Page 1:
Family Economics Martin Browning Pi
Page 4 and 5:
iv 3.2 Householdproduction ........
Page 6 and 7:
vi 6.4 IntertemporalBehavior ......
Page 8 and 9:
viii 11 Marriage, Divorce, Children
Page 11 and 12:
List of Figures 1.1 Marriage Rates
Page 13 and 14:
xiii 4.2 Apotentiallycompensatingva
Page 16 and 17:
Introduction The existence of a nuc
Page 18 and 19:
two distinct solution concepts; one
Page 20 and 21:
were affectedbytherisinginvestments
Page 22 and 23:
Murat Iyigun, Guy Lacroix, Valérie
Page 24:
Part I Models of Household Behavior
Page 27 and 28:
14 1. Facts there appear to be age,
Page 29 and 30:
16 1. Facts 1.1.4 Transitions The m
Page 31 and 32:
18 1. Facts sumption goods within h
Page 33 and 34:
20 1. Facts may not capture the ful
Page 35 and 36:
22 1. Facts This process is driven
Page 37 and 38:
24 1. Facts 1.4 Children Children a
Page 39 and 40:
26 1. Facts a major policy concern
Page 41 and 42:
28 1. Facts have means for, say, hi
Page 43 and 44:
30 1. Facts [21] Michael, Robert,
Page 45 and 46:
32 1. Facts Age group USA Denmark 1
Page 47 and 48:
34 1. Facts Birth cohort 1931-36 19
Page 49 and 50:
36 1. Facts USA Canada UK Norway Ye
Page 51 and 52:
38 1. Facts Country Male Participat
Page 53 and 54:
40 1. Facts Mother’s Age 20-30 31
Page 55 and 56:
42 1. Facts rate per 1000, 20+ 18 1
Page 57 and 58:
44 1. Facts Marriage rate per 1000
Page 59 and 60:
46 1. Facts percent entering first
Page 61 and 62:
48 1. Facts percent entering divorc
Page 63 and 64:
50 1. Facts 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50
Page 65 and 66:
52 1. Facts 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 23
Page 67 and 68:
54 1. Facts 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 23 25
Page 69 and 70:
56 1. Facts 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 1968
Page 71 and 72:
58 1. Facts 6.8 6.6 6.4 6.2 6 5.8 2
Page 73 and 74:
60 1. Facts 0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4 196
Page 75 and 76:
62 1. Facts 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 1968 1970
Page 77 and 78:
64 1. Facts FIGURE 1.23. Age Pyrami
Page 79 and 80:
66 1. Facts 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 1930 1933
Page 81 and 82:
68 1. Facts 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
Page 83 and 84:
70 1. Facts 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15
Page 85 and 86:
72 1. Facts 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
Page 87 and 88:
74 1. Facts Average number of child
Page 89 and 90:
76 1. Facts Age 28 27 26 25 24 23 1
Page 91 and 92:
78 1. Facts FIGURE 1.37. Consumptio
Page 93 and 94:
80 1. Facts
Page 95 and 96:
82 2. The gains from marriage for o
Page 97 and 98:
84 2. The gains from marriage Q 2 y
Page 99 and 100:
86 2. The gains from marriage this
Page 101 and 102:
88 2. The gains from marriage as wh
Page 103 and 104:
90 2. The gains from marriage ing a
Page 105 and 106:
92 2. The gains from marriage absen
Page 107 and 108:
94 2. The gains from marriage 2.5 C
Page 109 and 110:
96 2. The gains from marriage 2.5.3
Page 111 and 112:
98 2. The gains from marriage This
Page 113 and 114:
100 2. The gains from marriage [14]
Page 115 and 116:
102 2. The gains from marriage
Page 117 and 118:
104 3. Preferences and decision mak
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
158 4. The collective model: a form
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
200 5. Empirical issues for the col
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
244 6. Uncertainty and Dynamics in
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
Page 293 and 294:
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297 and 298:
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
292
Page 307 and 308:
294 7. Matching on the Marriage Mar
Page 309 and 310:
Page 311 and 312:
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Page 317 and 318:
Page 319 and 320:
Page 321 and 322:
Page 323 and 324:
Page 325 and 326:
Page 327 and 328:
Page 329 and 330:
Page 331 and 332:
Page 333 and 334:
Page 335 and 336:
Page 337 and 338:
Page 339 and 340:
Page 341 and 342:
Page 343 and 344:
Page 345 and 346:
Page 347 and 348:
334 8. Sharing the gains from marri
Page 349 and 350:
Page 351 and 352:
Page 353 and 354:
Page 355 and 356:
Page 357 and 358:
Page 359 and 360:
Page 361 and 362:
Page 363 and 364:
Page 365 and 366:
Page 367 and 368:
Page 369 and 370:
Page 371 and 372:
Page 373 and 374:
Page 375 and 376:
Page 377 and 378:
Page 379 and 380:
Page 381 and 382:
Page 383 and 384:
Page 385 and 386:
Page 387 and 388:
Page 389 and 390:
Page 391 and 392:
Page 393 and 394:
Page 395 and 396:
Page 397 and 398:
Page 399 and 400:
Page 401 and 402:
Page 403 and 404:
Page 405 and 406:
392 9. Investment in Schooling and
Page 407 and 408:
Page 409 and 410:
Page 411 and 412:
Page 413 and 414:
Page 415 and 416:
Page 417 and 418:
Page 419 and 420:
Page 421 and 422:
Page 423 and 424:
Page 425 and 426:
Page 427 and 428:
Page 429 and 430:
Page 431 and 432:
Page 433 and 434:
Page 435 and 436:
Page 437 and 438:
Page 439 and 440:
Page 441 and 442:
Page 443 and 444:
Page 445 and 446:
Page 447 and 448: 434 9. Investment in Schooling and
Page 449 and 450: 436 10. An equilibrium model of mar
Page 473 and 474: 460 11. Marriage, Divorce, Children
Page 497: 484 11. Marriage, Divorce, Children
Page 525: 512 11. Marriage, Divorce, Children
show all

Pierre André Chiappori (Columbia) "Family Economics" - Cemmap

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?