|
FIRST, let me apologize for the stupid error I made
last week. I wrote about the battle for the Presidency of the United
States in 1960 between the Vice President Richard Nixon and
“Robert” Kennedy. Mr. Nixon’s opponent, of course, was John F.
Kennedy.
Now let me also say that
l’affaire Joc Joc Bolante appears to have run its course. The
Senate probers appear to have succeeded in making their point that
corruption and fraud may have attended the distribution of the
so-called “fertilizer” fund. On the other hand, Bolante also
exhibited a light fantastic toe in dancing round the
cross-examination. At many points, Bolante and his probers found
themselves directly in conflict about certain questions. Bolante
insisted that the fund was a legitimate expense in the face of the
probers’ insistence to the contrary. In the end only a higher
authority can resolve the impasse. Say, the courts? The public, of
course can come to its own conclusion.
But since some of the probers
must have their moment stride upon the television, there had to be
some circular questioning—same questions kept being repeated to
help fill up the allocated time. Joc Joc Bolante appeared to have
done his homework—and well. Unlike the other senators, he came
prepared for all types of questions. The other senators were simply
there for the show—“their” show.
___
But now I would like to revisit
an aspect of controversy which is economics.
Basically economics is making the
most of scarce resources. This involves choices. We try to choose
those decisions that will maximize our utility, pleasure, profit or
minimize loses and pain.
But today we are more
concerned with costs, expenses and the bottom line rather than the
idea of pleasure and utility per se. Stephen D. Levitt in
Freakono-mics, is trying to bring back the concerns of economics
back nearer to philosophy rather than business and production.
Adam Smith one of the earliest of
modern economists was a philosopher and wrote a book on the Theory
of Moral Sentiments years before he wrote the Wealth of Nations.
Many of our practicing economists today studied their earlier
forbears in The Worldy Philosophers by Robert Heilbronner.
Economics is a social science and
used to be very concerned with human behavior but beha–vioral
studies gave way to concerns of the bottomline. Today, Levitt
underscores the confusion that we could meet if without realizing
it, we mix moral and/or behavioral decisions with that of material
considerations.
He cites the example of several
elementary schools in a city where parents take their children to
school and pick them up after classes. Because some parents do pass
by their children promptly after class, the schools have to hire
special “sitters” to watch them until they are picked up.
To encourage punctuality in the
pick up of children, the schools decided to charge delinquent
parents a fine that would cover the cost of hiring the sitter.
However, instead of reducing the number of parents who come late for
their children, the “fine” actually increased their number. When
this phenomenon was looked into, it turned out that some parents
found that paying the “fine” allowed them to extend their
“play time” with a clear conscience because they were sure that
someone was looking after their children. As Levitt put the monetary
fine became a salve for the conscience of delinquent parents*.
But Levitt also mentions a case
study warning against taking two events relating to each other. He
said that one must be careful in concluding a cause and effect
between two related events. Consider:
In the late 1980s, crime
statistics in the US show a growing number of teen-age crime and
pregnancies. And social welfare and organizations warned that if
that trend continues, the teenage crime statistics will double.
However, when the statistics were checked 15 years later in 1995,
teenage crime actually were reduced by half. What happened? Was
there a quantum change in the morality of American teenagers during
the period?
When a second look was made on
the numbers, teenage crime statistics actually started stabilizing
and moderating in the 1980s. One of the landmark events at that time
was US Supreme Court decision of the Roe vs. Wade case which
legalizes abortion.
It is conventional wisdom that
children born of economically disadvantaged mothers generally end up
delinquents and prone to committing teen-age crime. One conclusion
is that the pro-choice decision allowing disadvantaged mothers to
abort children they could not afford to raise, reduced the source of
crime—and delinquency-prone teenagers.
While indeed there is a
correlaton between the advent of legalized abortion and the drop in
teenage crime and delinquency, Levitt says it is not an open and
shut cause and effect relationship. But at the moment, it is a very
logical conclusion.
It’s a freak situation but you
take your choice.
opinion@manilatimes.net
|
