FOLBRE--CLARK

Something that was particularly interesting about this article to me is the concept that “Economists often pride themselves on practicing the most scientific of the social sciences” (249)—especially since I’ve never really considered economics a science in the first place. I have certainly never thought about economists in that light, but she certainly does make a strong argument for this in her article. It was also interesting how both neoclassical and Marxian theory, though in disagreement on several other issues, both “seem to be wedded to a rosy picture of the household as home, sweet home” (249). Are economists unique in that they see things differently, or are the social scientists the ones who are abnormal in their overly-rosy concept of the household?

Later in the article when Folbre discusses the feminization of poverty she notes, “In some countries women are so economically disadvantaged that raising sons becomes an indispensable survival strategy” (255). However, at what point are multiple children better economically than worse? Taking into account the fact that they can help with labor and often afford tax breaks (like in the Tuscan article), but they also cost money to feed, clothe, and care for. At what point are things economical? Is it better to have many children or few to none from an economic standpoint?