From the Rt Hon Balneus comes an interesting proposition to reduce teenage pregnancies: simply offer a cash incentive for not getting pregnant.

This came about from a post about population reduction being the answer to reducing carbon emissions. As i noted in my previous post population growth, especially in developing countries, is putting severe pressure on all resources.

China has been on to this well in advance with its one child per couple policy.  For developed countries teenage pregnancies have been a bit of a problem and something that has not been adequately addressed. This idea fits in neatly with the premise of the “Logic of Life” by Tim Harford.

Tim notes that people make complicated  calculations about potential trade offs every day whether its to have unprotected sex or park illegally. He argues cogently that we do respond to incentives and change behaviour when the pay offs look in our favour.

For example he notes research which showed juvenile crime lower or falling in US states where the age for adult criminality was lower than in states where it was higher. The reason was simple: the payoffs were worse for juvenile criminals in states where they would be tried in the adult system. Juveniles were simply responding to the market.

So for teenage pregnancies it is a similar story. Where welfare benefits are good for both mother and baby, there is no disincentive to get pregnant. So the payoffs for riskier behaviour are ok. That’s because as a society we value the rights of the baby and choose to provide for it regardless of how it arrived.

Now imagine we said to all teenage girls that for every year until a certain age (whether 18 or 21) they would receive $200 in a savings account for not getting pregnant. That would be an interesting idea to model.

Now I am sure there are many pros and cons to this but I like the idea of policymaking taking into account how people behave rather than what officials deem to be a good or right thing to do.

We are currently enmeshed in a debate about the role of smacking in society here. A piece of legislation currently in Parliament is calling for the abolition of the right for parents to use “reasonable force” on their children. Of course how does one define reasonable force. New Zealand struggles with a culture of violence towards children (adults also) and this legilsation has been seen as a way of saying no to any kind of violence.

http://www.greens.org.nz/campaigns/section59/

Now this has seen some people get pretty steamed up about the government interferring in their “right” to discipline their children as they see fit and the middle classes will be criminalised for just giving occasional smacks which hardly qualify as violence. It’s been quite a ding dong battle with Parliament passing the legislation against general public opinion which has been against it.

I had this letter published today in the Christchurch Press,

Dear Sir,

The response to the proposed Bradford legislation has been quite revealing about attitudes towards children in New Zealand. As John Tamihere eloquently expressed children are mere chattels to be dealt with as any parent sees fit. That used to be the way husbands viewed their wives and judging by the statistics on domestic assault some still do. It is only through legislation that real social changes have been able to take root and become embedded in society.

At first this legislation can seem invasive but as Pita Sharples exhorted it’s about saying no to any kind of violence within our families. There are many non-violent ways to discipline a child. Some don’t give instant results like a sharp smack but in the long run they have better results. We need to listen more to our children and find out why they are behaving inappropriately and then deal with it. Hitting someone and then telling them you love them is a lame excuse for a lazy and angry approach. Big respect to Pita Sharples for making a stand even though he knows it’s the harder road to take.

Yours Sincerely.

So what do people here think? As Pita Sharples said “how can we hit something we love”. But some would say a short sharp smack lets children know when they have stepped over the line (i’m just saying that for balance).

Parenting is damn hard work and parents need way more help and resources to bring up their children. Such irony…one of the easiest and most pleasureable things to create and one of the hardest to look after

I feel that resorting to any kind of violence is simply reinforcing a culture where violence is used as a method of resolving disputes whether at a basic interpersonal level or a geopolitical one.

The attraction is that violence usually gets you an immediate result but the long-term consequences are usually a disaster. So what can we do? What do we need to do to make a non-violent society. I have my own ideas but i would love to hear from others on this subject.

Peace and love to all.