An Economic Perspective on Selection, Optimization, and Compensation (SOC)

  • Jere R. Behrman
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter first presents and summarizes the standard economic model of individual human development and resource management. In this model, human development is viewed as a sequence of dynamic optimizing decisions under uncertainty that maximize the welfare of the decision maker period by period subject to the basic resource constraints (including outcomes of previous periods that were affected in part by the decision maker and resources that are given from the point of view of the decision maker including genetic endowments and the nature of the larger environment in which the decision maker operates), prices broadly defined (past, present, and expected), the distribution of future shocks including those related to health and mortality as well as to resource availability, and other aspects of the market, cultural, social, and policy environments in which the individual operates. Some attention is paid to important aspects of this formulation, such as whether individual preferences are assumed to be given or determined in these processes, how individual preferences are aggregated within collectives such as households, lifecycle aspects of such development including changes in the relevant decision makers who affect an individual (such as parents when children are very young, collective decisions between parents and children as the children age, primarily the adult children when they are prime-age adults, and their children and the broader society as they become elderly), information problems, when stochastic processes are resolved, and the role of characteristics such as risk aversion. The chapter then considers selection, compensation, and optimization with regard to three basic questions: (1) How do these concepts relate to the standard economic approach to lifespan human developmental processes and resource management? (2) Do these concepts raise questions regarding the formulation of the standard economic approach to lifespan human developmental processes and resource management? (3) Does the standard economic approach to lifespan human developmental processes and resource management raise questions about usefully modifying the use of these concepts?

Keywords

Marginal Cost Human Development Production Function Marginal Benefit Marriage Market 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ashenfelter, O., & Krueger, A. (1994). Estimates of the economic return to schooling from a new sample of twins. American Economic Review, 84, 1157–1174.Google Scholar
  2. Baltes, P. B. (1997). On the incomplete architecture of human ontogeny: Selection, optimization, and compensation as foundation of development theory. American Psychologist, 32, 366–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baltes, P. B., Lindenberger, U., & Staudinger, U. M. (1998). Life-span theory in developmental psychology. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 1, Theoretical Models of Human Development (5th ed., pp. 1029–1143). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. Becker, G. S. (1967). Human capital and the personal distribution of income: An analytical approach. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Woytinsky Lecture. Republished in G. S. Becker, Human capital (2nd ed., pp. 94–117). (New York: NBER, 1975).Google Scholar
  5. Becker, G. S. (1975). Human capital (2nd ed.). New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  6. Becker, G. S. (1991). A treatise on the family (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Becker, G. S. (1993). Nobel lecture: The economic way of looking at behavior. Journal of Political Economy, 101, 385–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Behrman, J. R. (1997). Intrahousehold distribution and the family. In M. R. Rosenzweig & O. Stark (Eds.), Handbook of population and family economics (pp. 107–168). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  9. Behrman, J. R. (1999). Labor markets in developing countries. In O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (Eds.), Handbook of labor economics (Vol. 3, pp. 2859–2939). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  10. Behrman, J. R., Foster, A., Rosenzweig, M. R., & Vashishtha, P. (1999). Women*s schooling, home teaching, and economic growth. Journal of Political Economy, 107, 682–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Behrman, J. R., Hrubec, Z., Taubman, P., & Wales, T. J. (1980). Socioeconomic success: A study of the effects of genetic endowments, family environment, and schooling. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  12. Behrman, J. R., Pollak, R. A., & Taubman, P. (1982). Parental preferences and provision for progeny. Journal of Political Economy, 90, 52–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Behrman, J. R., Pollak, R. A., & Taubman, P. (1995). The wealth model: Efficiency in education and equity in the family. In J. R. Behrman, R. A. Pollak, & P. Taubman (Eds.), From parent to child: Intrahousehold allocations and intergenerational relations in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Behrman, J. R., Rosenzweig, M. R., & Taubman, P. (1994). Endowments and the allocation of schooling in the family and in the marriage market: The twins experiment. Journal of Political Economy, 102, 1131–1174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Behrman, J. R., & Taubman, P. (1976). Intergenerational transmission of income and wealth. American Economic Review, 66, 436–440.Google Scholar
  16. Chiappori, P.-A. (1988). Rational household labor supply. Econometrica, 56, 63–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chiappori, P.-A. (1992). Collective labor supply and welfare. Journal of Political Economy, 100, 437–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Devarajan, S., Squire L., & Suthiwart-Nameput, S. (1997). Beyond rate of return: Reorienting project appraisal. World Bank Research Observer, 12, 35–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Haddad, L., Hoddinott, J., & Alderman, H. (Eds.). (1996). Intrahousehold resource allocation: Methods, models, and policy. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press for the International Food Policy Research Institute.Google Scholar
  20. Lundberg, S., & Pollak, R. A. (1993). Separate spheres bargaining and the marriage market. Journal of Political Economy, 6, 988–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lundberg, S., & Pollak, R. A. (1996). Bargaining and distribution in marriage. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10, 139–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Manser, M., & Brown, M. (1980). Marriage and household decision-making: A bargaining analysis. International Economic Review, 21, 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McElroy, M. B., & Homey, M. J. (1981). Nash-bargained household decisions: Toward a generalization of the theory of demand. International Economic Review, 22, 333–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mincer, J. B. (1974). Schooling, experience, and earnings. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  25. Rao, V. (1993). The rising price of husbands: A hedonic analysis of dowry increases in rural India. Journal of Political Economy, 101, 666–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rosenzweig, M. R., & Wolpin, K. J. (1986). Evaluating the effects of optimally distributed public programs. American Economic Review, 76, 470–487.Google Scholar
  27. Rosenzweig, M. R., & Wolpin, K. J. (1988). Migration selectivity and the effects of public programs. Journal of Public Economics, 37, 265–289.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schultz, T. W. (1961). Investment in human capital. American Economic Review, 51, 1–17.Google Scholar
  29. Schultz, T. W. (1963). The economic value of education. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Udry, C. (1996). Gender, agricultural production and the theory of the household. Journal of Political Economy, 104, 1010–1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jere R. Behrman
    • 1
  1. 1.University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations