top of page

Recently, things have been rocky. Piles of unfinished translation and school works coupled with family functions drove me kinda insane. Through tough moments, I realized the importance of family. To have someone love you unconditionally is treasure. In Happiness: A revolution in economics, Frey (2008) found marriage is one of the factors to improve happiness. Which I tend to agree with.


Through economics perspective, marriage increases productivity given better labour allocation between spouses. Higher earning spouse focuses in the production of market goods and service, while his/her partner with lower wage specialized in the production of non-market goods and services. Given love exists, both players in marriage want to increase his/her partner's utility. The transaction cost aka the sacrifice is viewed as lower from both parties leaving family (as an economic unit) with higher productivity (Becker, 1973).


Marriage contract guarantees both parties with better trust acknowledge by the legal system. Comparing to cohabiting couples, married couples tend to invest and plan for future with higher savings in their mutual fund. Jay Zagorsky (2005) found that the wealth of married respondents increased by around 14 percent for each year they were wed.


Finally, the couple also earns economies of scale given their shared usage of car, house, and utility. Marriage also serves as a signal of "better physical and mental health, lower mortality, lower rates of violence, and higher productivity in jobs". Since Spence (1973) views education as a costly "signaling tool", marriage status is becoming a more powerful signal where married people benefit from the assumption made about them.


All in all, in economic terms, marriage is BENEFICIAL. I would love to end my post today by an extract from court ruling over the iconic case of Obergefell v. Hodges (2015):

 

"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were."

 



Reference:

1. Becker, Gary S. (1973) “A theory of marriage: part 1”, Journal of Political Economy, 81, 813-846

2. Elizabeth Peters & Claire M. Kamp Dush (2009) "Marriage and Family: Perspectives and Complexities"

3. Kennedy (2015) Opinion of the court, Obergefell v. Hodges (2015):, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/14-556

574 views0 comments

I'm very tired today. Not because of anything but the world I live in. So much burden from the family. Parents expect kids to get married, to eat to look apart to get married (again!) so I turned to my book as a safe haven.



This is a letter Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie wrote for a newborn daughter of her friend with the ultimate goal: To raise her a feminist.


1st: Be a full person. Motherhood does not define you. You are already full before the baby and she/he benefits from it.


2nd: Do it together (with your partner).


3rd: Gender roles are nonsense. Your vagina does not pre-install your roles within the household. Marriage is not the prize of a woman so she does not have to learn to cook to get the "prize". "Gender roles are so deeply conditioned in us that we will often follow them even when they chafe against our true desires, our needs, our happiness." Instead of letting her internalize gender roles, teach her self reliance first.


4th: Reject Feminism Lite which believes “men are naturally superior but should be expected to ‘treat women well”. No! Spot in the media, we still find something like the husband allows his wife be in the spot life. Meanwhile, if the wife is always in the position to support a successful husband.


5th: Read


6th: To question language as it is the repository of our prejudices, our beliefs, our assumptions. Start to use words that empower women and question what doesn't.


7th: Marriage is not an achievement. Be a Ms. instead of Mrs. and keep you name.


8th: Reject like-ability. Instead of teaching one to be likeable, teach her to be honest and kind.


9th: Have a sense of identity. Know your roots.


10th: Aware the role of physical appearance. Don't link it with morality, mainstream taste yet personal preference.


11th: Question the usage of biology to explain for social norms.


12th: Talk about sex early and don't link it with shame.


13th: Romance will happen. Love is the act of giving and taking. There is not one sided scarification. Take the initiative if one can.

 

“I was recently in a roomful of young women and was struck by how much of the conversation was about men – what terrible things men had done to them, this man cheated, this man lied, this man promised marriage and disappeared, this husband did this and that.


And I realized, sadly, that the reverse is not true. A roomful of men do not invariably end up talking about women – and if they do, it is more likely to be in flippant terms rather than as lamentations of life. Why?”

 

Is it because man is supposed to "promise" marriage but the woman isn't? Woman is playing victim in love game? Is it because us women consider marriage as an achievement while men don't.


14th: Learn about oppression.


15th: Value difference. Never to universalize your own standards or experiences.



20 views0 comments

Updated: Jan 3, 2022


At the event of International Women's Day, I would like to pay tribute to another woman I adore in the field of Economics: Elinor Ostrom - the first and (till now) only female Nobel recipient in economics.


The longer I stayed in academia, the larger respect I give to people who are simple. What comes from within is what keeps me excited. Ostrom is no exception. She looks like any other woman yet her contribution was beyond substantial. Ostrom worked till the last breath (a life I would love to have a similar life for myself). Her Hayek Lecture is delivered 11 weeks before her death. On the day of her death, she published her last article on Project Syndicate "Green from the Grassroots". Ostrom taught in Indiana University where I earned my master degree. Well, very wish I could make Bloomington proud one day!


During the span of one's life, she studies management practices on common-pool resources. Ostrom researches derived from the classic Tragedy of the Commons developed by Garrett Hardin in 1968. Hardin argued that shared resources are depleted by self-interested users. Common goods, therefore, should be either managed by the government or privates stipulated by property rights.

 

“Picture a pasture that is open to all. Each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons…the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy.”


Garrett Hardin, The Tragedy of the Commons 1968

 

Ostrom provided an alternative to avoid Tragedy of the commons. Decades of research show a variety of overlapping policies at city, subnational, national, and international levels is more likely to succeed than are single, overarching binding agreements (Ostrom, 2012).


She argued that the state would be too big to manage small and medium common resources. State is not given adequate information and financial incentives to manage local common goods without corruption. A poly-centric management approach should be utilized. This is where systems exist at multiple levels, with some autonomy at each level.


State should provide general information, assist local levels during the enforcement process such as conflict resolution, monitor the performance to cope with larger scale resources. At the same time, micro-situational agency need ample leeway to practice its power and allow to own the resources. There is not a correct way to manage resources effectively. The practices vary from cultures to cultures as well as different physical conditions of various ecology systems.


So generally, what attribute towards a more sustainable solution to avoid Tragedy of commons: Trust. The trust can built given the following 8 design principles (Stein Holden and Mesfin Tilahun, 2018):


 

"The attributes of the users that are conducive to their self-organising and managing a resource sustainably include that the users ask questions and that they view the resource as highly salient. They then usually have a relatively low discount rate in terms of the benefits obtained from the resource so that they are not over-exploiting the resource in the current time period. Over time, the users have developed high levels of trust and reciprocity and have the autonomy to determine at least some of their own rules. They are nested in complementary, multiple-tier systems. Usually in these kinds of settings, those organising the system have prior organisational experience; they have well-developed social capital and they have local leaders who are able to take on that very tough job. They also share some common understanding about the resource. These are the attributes that we are finding in systems that are sustainable."


Ostrom, Hayek Lecture, 2012

 

The underlying messages throughout her studies is: "Complex problems need complex solutions. Instead of rejecting the complexity, one should find a way to deal with it". The spirit of her message also shown in her enduring research process. Given the lack of theoretical backups, Ostrom had to collected large case studies in the world from Nigeria, Nepal, Indonesia, the Philippines, Japan, Bolivia, Australia, Mexico, Spain, Poland, Switzerland and Sweden within the long period of time to test the model's effectiveness. The endurance also shown as she continued working against cancer until the last breath. Isn't it very woman? Endurance. And I strive to learn from the greatest.




Reference:


1. Elinor Ostrom (2012) ,Hayek Lecture, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xta1vPkSjk4&t=159s

2. Stein Holden and Mesfin Tilahun (2018), The importance of Ostrom's Design principles, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305750X17303728

3. Nicholas Amendolare, What is the tragedy of the commons?, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxC161GvMPc

148 views0 comments
bottom of page