Disciplinary Gap Research Articles

Economic Preconceptions and Demographic Research: A Comment

The author comments on Paul Schultzs review of THE FERTILITY REVOLUTION which he co-authered with Eileen M. Crimmins. The review is presented as a critique of statistical methodology but it actually illustrates how disciplinary preconceptions affect ones theoretical viewpoint and judgments of admissable evidence. The book was a collaborative research undertaking by a demographer and an economist. In seeking to bridge the disciplinary gap the authors violated 3 preconceptions held by a number of economists that are in conflict with views common among demographers: 1) all behavior is a matter of conscious choice; 2) one can never measure demand by asking people how much they want; and 3) statements relating to subjective states of mind and especially motivations are inadmissable evidence in model construction. If one accepts the plausibility of natural fertility a desired-family-size measure of demand and the admissibility of subjective evidence--notions that demographers would generally consider reasonable--then analyses like that in THE FERTILITY REVOLUTION of data obtained in fertility and family planning surveys become possible. The Easterlin-Crimmins model can be estimated from existing fertility and family planning data sets--indeed the model was partly formulated with a view to realizing the potential of these surveys. The Schultz model requires new and possibly voluminous data. It also suffers from a fundamental ambiguity--the lack of a criterion for distinguishing between variables endogenous and exogenous to the fertility decision. This conflict reflects fundamental differences between economists and demographers that would benefit from more explicit recognition and confrontation.