A negative component, which is a function of the additional overgrazing created hy one more animal But

since the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decision­ making herdsman is only a fraction of - 1.

Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to

pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another, and another ... But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing the commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked in a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit - in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination towards which all men rush, each purusing his own best interest in a society that believes in freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons bring ruin to all."

(Hardin, 1971: 169-170). Whilst Hardin's illustration does not completely approximate the real world situation,'* it has an underlying moral, namely that large numbers of children could simultaneously be advantageous to individual parents and disadvantageous to the economy as a whole. Individuals in a village environment think more in terms of wresting a living off their immediate surroundings than in terms of "the problems of national

balances of population and resources and so tend to maximize family or individual resources as best they can - a decision which often means expanding the family size" (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1974: 7).

Putting the analysis differently, Caldwell noted that "it may well be that national economies may benefit by the reduction in the

1. For one thing, men are not "herdsmen" nor children "herds" which could be bought or sold, nor society "commons" in the sense that there is freedom to exploit resources unrestrictedly - For

another, hardly have individuals in any society (excepting perhaps the Hutterites) been known to produce offspring without limit or reached the biological maximum (cf. Berelson, 1972; Eaton and Mayer, 1968).

3 9. a v e r a g e s i z e o f t h e n a t i o n ' s f a m i l i e s , a n d i t may w e l l be a l s o t h a t p e r c a p i t a i n c o m e s w i l l r i s e f a s t e r among p e a s a n t s i f i n t h e i r t o t a l i t y t h e i r f e r t i l i t y i s r e d u c e d . B u t t h i s i s n o t i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h a s i t u a t i o n w h e r e t h e i n d i v i d u a l f a r m e r who r e s t r i c t s h i s f a m i l y s i z e p r e s e n t s h i s f a m i l y w i t h p e r c a p i t a i n c o m e s w h i c h a r e no l a r g e r ( a n d p e r h a p s s m a l l e r ) t h a n t h o s e o f n e i g h b o u r i n g l a r g e f a m i l i e s " ( C a l d w e l l , 1 9 7 4 : 1 3 ) . The c o n f l i c t b e t w e e n t h e p u r s u i t o f i n d i v i d u a l s ' b e s t i n t e r e s t s a n d t h a t o f t h e i r g o v e r n m e n t i n i t s e f f o r t s t o p r o v i d e s o c i a l w e l f a r e c a l l s f o r t h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n " t h o s e e f f e c t s t h a t a r e e x t e r n a l i z e d a n d t h o s e t h a t a r e i n t e r n a l i z e d t o t h e f a m i l y " ( R o b i n s o n , 1 9 7 3 : 2 6 2 ) . 2 . 3 . 2 ______ The C a s e f o r M e a s u r i n g V a l u e o f C h i l d r e n a t t h e I n d i v i d u a l F a m i l y L e v e l R e c e n t l y s c h o l a r s h a v e t u r n e d t h e i r a t t e n t i o n t o w a r d s t h e m e a s u r e ­ m e n t o f t h e e c o n o m i c b e n e f i t s a n d c o s t o f c h i l d r e n t o i n d i v i d u a l f a m i l i e s . I n a r g u i n g t h e c a s e f o r t h i s a p p r o a c h , R o b i n s o n ( 1 9 7 3 : 2 6 2 ) n o t e d t h a t , " b y f o c u s i n g e x c l u s i v e l y o n t h e m o r e - o r - l e s s m e c h a n i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s b e t w e e n f e r t i l i t y a n d s u c h m a c r o m e a s u r e s a s o u t p u t p e r c a p i t a o r t o t a l i n v e s t m e n t , we o b s c u r e t h e many o t h e r w a ys i n w h i c h f e r t i l i t y a f f e c t s human w e l f a r e " . The r e c e n t e m p h a s i s i s , t h e r e f o r e , on t h e m e a s u r e m e n t o f " t h e r e a l c o s t s o f c h i l d r e n a n d t h e i r c a p a c i t y f o r p r o d u c t i o n a n d c o n s u m p t i o n " a t t h e l e v e l o f i n d i v i d u a l f a m i l i e s ( C a l d w e l l , 1 9 7 4 : 1 4) i n a n a t t e m p t t o a s s e s s t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h p a r e n t s w e i g h t t h e m a r g i n a l s a c r i f i c e s a n d b e n e f i t s ( i n c l u d i n g t h e p r o d u c t i v e s e r v i c e s t h e y e x p e c t f r o m c h i l d r e n ) i n a r r i v i n g a t t h e i r f a m i l y s i z e d e c i s i o n s . ( c f . L c i b e n s t e i n , 1 9 5 7 : 1 6 1 ; Demeny, 1 9 7 2 : J 8 ) . The b a s i c p o s t u l a t e s u n d e r ­ l y i n g t h i s a p p r o a c h h a v e b e e n t h e o r e t i c a l l y a n a l y z e d by s e v e r a l s c h o l a r s . T h u s , f o r i n s t a n c e , S p e n g l e r ( 1 9 6 6 : 1 2 3 ) n o t e d t h a t " w h a t e v e r r e d u c e s t h e u t i l i t y o r s a t i s f a c t i o n - y i e l d i n g p o w e r o f c h i l d r e n o p e r a t e s c e t e r i s

paribus to reduce fertility ... Whatever increases (decreases) the

input or the opportunity cost of children of a given quality is depressive

(stimulative) of fertility ceteris paribus".

Looking at the issue from a slightly different angle, T.P. Schultz

in his value of children model, made the point that "the time and

resources used in rearing a child may he considered an investment cost

applied towards the future reproductive capacity of a child ... A child

presumably consumes more than he can produce about the first decade of

life; at some time thereafter he is increasingly able to produce more

than he needs" (Schultz, 1972: 151). In regard to costs, Schultz argued

that, "parents decide how much to invest in their offspring, and later

the child himself may invest in the development of his productive

capacity" (p.153).

However, the process of empirical measurement of the direct costs

and returns of children is replete with difficulties in societies where

many child-services are not marketed and where both costs and benefits

are shared by persons other than biological parents.

Both Schultz and Spengler recognized these complexities in their

theoretical schemes. Thus, Schultz noted the difficulty involved in

"assessing the productive capacity of a child or woman who is not

engaged for pay in the full-time labour force" (1972: 151). Similarly,

Spengler, in his discussion of "means of goal-satisfaction", noted the

distinction between "means"that"are readily exchangeable in the market

for goods or factors" and those that are "essentially non-trasferable

and hence utilizable only within the reproductive economy (e.g. non-

saleable but utilizable services of household members)" (1966: 161).

In the context of most less developed economies, such "non-saleable but

utilizable services" are copiously supplied by children (as will be

shown in Chapter 10). Yet they are not easily measurable in terms of

that can he adopted as yardsticks for converting their value into money terms.* Spengler, however, categorized these forms of services as "immobile means" which "may be productive of mobile output and thus make possible increases in the proportion of means that are mobile"

(1966: 116ff).

2.3.3_____ Non-fertility-related Measurements of the "Value of Man" and the Costs of Raising a Child

Interest in the measurement of "the value of one man" is not new. D.ublin and Lotka (1946: 6-7) have pointed out that, even in the Greek and Roman Empires, slaves had a market value, and that "A crude attempt to evaluate human life in terms of money is found in the old Anglo-Saxon law and antedates the reign of Alfred the Great". However, this latter attempt was aimed at working out compensations to be paid to the relatives of a murdered person by his "slayer".

From the seventeenth to the late nineteenth centuries, attention was turned towards the measurement of the value of a man to society. Authors, including Petty, Pareto, and Engel were involved in this exercise. According to Sauvy (1969: 233) these earlier efforts to evaluate the "cost price of a man" approached the subject from a capitalist point of view. They were attempts to compute (a) the

;

financial cost (i.e. cost of food, industrial products, medical care and education) of a man as a levy on national revenue, (b) the drop in national income arising from motherhoood, and (c) the money equi­ valent of the excess labour input of mothers within the household over

1. The methodological issues relating to the measurement of the direct