Pets as substitutes for children: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
# Substitution in the sense that reduced costs of one of the two (pets and children) would lead to increased consumption of that one and ''reduced'' consumption of the other. For instance, making a place more pet-friendly could lead to a reduction in the number of children people have. | # Substitution in the sense that reduced costs of one of the two (pets and children) would lead to increased consumption of that one and ''reduced'' consumption of the other. For instance, making a place more pet-friendly could lead to a reduction in the number of children people have. | ||
While the truth of the theory in sense (1) strongly suggests its truth in sense (2), the implication is not certain, and its strength is unclear, because people's decision to have children may be sufficiently inelastic with respect to the consumption benefits that are substituted that it does not affect their fertility decisions | While the truth of the theory in sense (1) strongly suggests its truth in sense (2), the implication is not certain, and its strength is unclear, because people's decision to have children may be sufficiently inelastic with respect to the consumption benefits that are substituted that it does not affect their fertility decisions much. | ||
Revision as of 01:12, 30 November 2013
Definition
Pets as substitutes for children refers to the theory that pets may substitute for children in terms of consumption value, i.e., potential parents may use pets to obtain some of the consumption benefits of having children.
Note that the term substitutes could be used in either of two senses:
- Substitution in the sense that people derive similar forms of consumption value from pets and children.
- Substitution in the sense that reduced costs of one of the two (pets and children) would lead to increased consumption of that one and reduced consumption of the other. For instance, making a place more pet-friendly could lead to a reduction in the number of children people have.
While the truth of the theory in sense (1) strongly suggests its truth in sense (2), the implication is not certain, and its strength is unclear, because people's decision to have children may be sufficiently inelastic with respect to the consumption benefits that are substituted that it does not affect their fertility decisions much.