Government Incentives to Overcook Babies

Australia has a baby bonus.  The birth rate shot up on the day the bonus first went into effect, July 1, 2004.  As Andrew Leigh and Joshua Gans explained, over 1000 births were delayed from June to July and about 300 births were delayed by more than two weeks.

The bonus is scheduled to rise from $4,187 to $5,000 this July 1 and Leigh and Gans have pleaded with the government to phase it in order to prevent too much birth delay which they think could be unhealthy for the child.  Alas, the government has declined.

All of which leads Andrew to denounce, in delightful Aussie-speak, the bonus as an "unhealthy incentive for women to over-cook their babies."

I couldn’t agree more.  As a libertarian and a humanist I join with Andrew to denounce all government incentives to overcook babies.

Hat tip to Dave Undis.


I agree this is a strange act on the part of government.

However, the welfare state's disincentivizing of child birth has a significant bit to do with the plunging child birth rate. Now the welfare state is trying to undo what it has caused over the last century.

Thomas E. Woods has done some good writing on this front tying plunging international birthrates to the expansion of social safety-net programs world-wide.

If a parent is worried about the damage that leaving a child
in the womb for an extra two weeks or more will cause, then
perhaps they should be responsible and not worry about the
extra money, as nothing is more valuable than a healthy child.

We may be seeing various delaying - or accelerating - tactics in use in America, this time involving the other end of the lifespan, when the federal estate tax will be repealed for 2010 and reinstated the following year.

It's late December 2009 and Granny's circling the drain? Do whatever is necessary to keep her alive and kicking (okay, not necessarily kicking) until you hear "Happy New Year," and it could save a lot of $$$. On the other hand, if it's late in December 2010 and she's in a similarly distressed state, well, nobody will mind a little plug-pulling.

I thought more time in the womb was a good thing?

I'll give Alex his self-proclaimed "libertarian" label. But "humanist?" I've read the posts here - seems like a reach.

But if consenting adults want to overcook their babies, is it really appropriate for the state to prevent them?

uhhh, this is stupid? Why doesn't australia just import enterprising immigrants from all the countries that are, ahem, totally fucked?

TitaniumDreads: Because they absolutely hate immigrants. To the point where if you make it to the mainland you'll be interned, and in the case of one set of refugees, they had them interned on a foreign island in the pacific.

It was my understanding they are desperate for immigrants and encourage immigration. Skilled immigration, anyway.

APGAR isn't everything, or, really, very much, in the long term. And A $742(AU) incentive to keep babies in isn't much compared to the US incentives to pop 'em out before the new year. The back-of-envelope calculation which induced (ultimately) the birth of a child I know (at 9:45 PM on Dec. 31, 2006) put the value of his tax incentive at about $3000 US. And early is almost always less good than late.

we should make a deep think of this topic

thank you for this information.sis jarMy local telecom is a monopoly, and it is out-of-control as far as wiretapping, eavesdropping, hacking, controling e-mail programs, phishing, spoof websites, etc.
No company should be immune from law suits and especially companies that control our communications.To give telecoms immunity will make "big brother"free nokia 6600 games"In this paper, we compare the incidence and extent of formal coauthorship observed in economics against that observed in biology and discuss the causes and consequences of formal coauthorship in both disciplines. We then investigate the economic value (to authors) of informal comments offered by colleagues. This investigation leads us naturally into a discussion of the degree to which formal collaboration through coauthorship serves as a substitute for informal collaboration through collegial commentary. Data on manuscript submissions to the Journal of PolzticalEconomy permit us to shed additional empirical light on this subject. Finally, we demonstrate that while the incidence and extent of formal intellectual collaboration through coauthorship are greater in biology than in economics, the incidence and extent of informal intellectual collaboration are greater in economics than in biology. This leads us to search for evidence (which we find) of quids pro quo offered by authors to suppliers of free nokia n70 games

Comments for this post are closed