11 comments

• 

  April

  1 year ago

  I love this entry Will.
  I'm wondering what a "Heckmanesque" early childhood program intervention looks like, compared to, well, the others.
  I think I'm going to start referring to myself as a liberaltarian too (will cite you).
  reply
• 

  James A. Donald

  1 year ago

  Australia has a long and sometimes sordid past of drastic childhood interventions. They had disturbingly limited success, and frequently were carried out with alarming brutality.
  
  There were two problems:
  
  1. Children failed to benefit from a supposedly enriched environment.
  
  2. The state provided a dreadful environment.
  
  On the one hand, this long and horrifying past provides ample evidence that the swiftly reproducing poor really are genetically inferior, on the other hand, it also provides ample evidence that government bureaucrats are even worse for children than incompetent and neglectful parents.
  reply
• 

  TGGP

  1 year ago

  The extreme anti-nurture side (perhaps represented by Judith Harris) also argues against conservatives (who do so love the family) and libertarians that blame government intervention for poor development. I have been shifting towards that from my previous anti-government conservative libertarianism.
  reply
• 

  Dain

  1 year ago

  TGGP,
  
  But Harris said that it was peer groups that influenced children more than parents. Peer groups are a manifestation of policy too, thus leading to yet another conservative libertarian oriented criticism.
  reply
• 

  Dain

  1 year ago

  Social Justice and Social Control are linked at the hip. If anything, a failure of pure "social justice" will entice "social control" on behalf conservative policy wonks. A good reason for leftists to eschew the state and organize grassroots and voluntary associations. That way, they can have their cake (concern for the reproduction of poverty) and eat it (concern for social control) too.
  reply
• 

  mk

  1 year ago

  The point about elitism (really paternalism) is an important one.
  
  One way to try to avoid being too paternalist about interventions would be to ask poor people what they want out of life. My guess is, most crappy parents are inept, but not malevolent. They have some vision for the good life, they just don't know how to get there. If you take care to make interventions that align with and support their broad vision, you can alleviate poverty without undercutting or denigrating the judgement of the parents.
  
  These approaches mirror recent thinking in international development. See, e.g. William Easterly's "White Man's Burden." In a sense he addresses just the same problem: how do you help people without presuming what's best for them?
  
  The answer in both cases is to see that the goals of efficacy (bringing people out of poverty) and self-determination (don't do everything for the person) are really the same goal. Self-determination has to be woven into the DNA of whatever intervention is being proposed.
  
  I think the early childhood interventions mentioned in the post probably pass this test. A simple question is: if you asked parents whether they would accept this "boost" for their child, would they say yes? My guess is most parents would say yes.
  reply
• 

  Bill Gardner

  1 year ago

  The Heckman reference is Science 30 June 2006: Vol. 312. no. 5782, pp. 1900 - 1902. His point is that the marginal benefit of social investment in human capital is very high in utero and falls quickly and consistently thereafter. You get a dollar's return for a dollar spent sometime in early childhood. He isn't arguing against spending money on adolescents or high schools. His point is that we are missing huge opportunities for improving human capital by not investing more in preventing prematurity, screening for developmental delays, and the like.
  reply
• 

  Dain

  1 year ago

  There would seem to be some tension between early childhood intervention and libertarian (and radical leftist) fear of life planning and regimentation for the most vulnerable.
  
  Setting benchmarks for the level of, say, reading comprehension and math proficiency for all of the nation's children seems rather No Child Left Behind-ish to me, and totally at odds with a citizenry in control of its own life.
  
  Brink Lindsey has discussed the way that upper middle class childrens' lives are meticulously planned for them from their earliest years on through to young adulthood. For poor parents, it's more "do your own thing". I fear that liberaltarianism might be another Jane Addams like scheme to reign in the relatively freewheeling lower classes and set them on the track to respectability.
  reply
• 

  bjk

  1 year ago

  What's wrong with poverty again? Why do we have to work so hard to get rid of it? Not saving money is one way that people prefer to avoid thinking about the future, and death. That's real diversity. And if you really want to reduce poverty, stop importing more poor people. That's guaranteed to work, instead of jerry-rigged fantasy schemes.
  reply
• 

  Dain

  1 year ago

  bjk,
  
  do you personally prefer a reduction in relative or absolute poverty?
  reply
• 

  bjk

  1 year ago

  Poverty is remarkably stubborn, and one reason is that the poor are very stubborn. That's why all of the schemes have failed so far. The poor have gotten in the way. Wilkinson favors the sociological theories of poverty, but what if the biggest factor turned out to be genetic? Would genetic solutions be appropriate? Once poverty turns into a problem--and this is a relatively recent phenomena--it's arbitrary to put a limit on the solutions. I'd suggest rethinking the idea that it's a problem.
  
  This also suggests the problem with liberaltarianism. Libertarianism is a genuine political doctrine, and freedom is a political concept. Liberaltarianism, I submit, is an engineer's conception of politics, with no guiding political concept. Is poverty a problem? The liberaltarian will engineer a solution, so much the worse for freedom or justice or whatever political concept happens to get in the way.
  reply