The desperate attempt of ANTI-RH camp at name-dropping scientific scholars is outrageous! Sadly, they often cite two of my teachers in economics — Michael Spence and George Akerlof — devoid of accuracy, context and the specificities of their studies. Spence and Akerlof won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001 (together with Joseph Stiglitz) on the economics of information - specifically, "for their analyses of markets with asymmetric information". Their names, as well as God's, have been used irresponsibly for the church's and its fans' disinformation propaganda.
If Spence and Akerlof had studied the bill and the Philippine case closely, I have no doubts they would be in favour of the RH Bill. I believe that the task of convincingly answering all the criticisms against the RH Bill has essentially been completed. This is the prerequisite for it to be enacted asap!
 |
| The Rebel with the Nobelists Michael Spence and George Akerlof (I.S.E.O. Summer School, Iseo, Brescia, Italy, June 2010) |
Michael Spence is now Chair of the Commission on Growth and Development, or the 'Growth Commission'. Having been acquainted with his work, a participant in his lectures, and knowing his emphasis on the necessity of country-specific studies, my sense is that Spence will be in favour of the RH Bill. He would most likely remind implementors though of the importance of functioning 'institutions' and 'timing' in public health intervention. In the concluding remarks of the Growth Commission's study Health and Growth (2009), Spence wrote:
" Historically, progress in health owed much to adequate food and public health interventions, and those important relationships persist in the modern world. Chronic illness undermines current productivity and promises future losses in output. These deprivations can be passed on to the next generation if investments in children are not made in a targeted and timely fashion. Good health improves the capacity to learn and work, which dramatically improves income and welfare at the household level even if the effects at the aggregate level may be harder to discern. The methodological problems in capturing these gains deserve attention and further work. More attention also needs to be paid to upgrading healthcare institutions, as more of the same is neither affordable nor desirable. "
 |
| Certificate received from Robert Solow and George Akerlof "Learn Economics from Nobel Laureates", Iseo, Italy (2010) |
George Akerlof, together with his wife, Janet Yellen, studied out-of-wedlock childbearing specifically in the context of the US from the 1960s to the 1980s focussing on states with liberalised contraception and legal abortion — therefore, these are conditions and circumstances that do not apply in contemporary Philippine context (which is very important in Akerlof's recent work on 'identity economics') and the provisions of the RH Bill. Anyway, here's the concluding recommendation of Akerlof and Yellen (1996) in their short article, "Why Kids Have Kids: Don't blame welfare, blame 'technology shock'":
" What should be done? Even if possible, attempts to turn back the technological clock by restricting abortion and contraception would now be counterproductive. Besides denying reproductive freedom to women, such efforts would increase the number of children born and reared in impoverished single-parent families. Most children born out of wedlock are reported by their mothers to have been "wanted," but "not at that time." Some are reported as not having been wanted at all. Easier access to birth-control information and devices and to abortion could reduce the number of unwanted children and improve the timing of those whose mothers would have preferred to wait. "
See: George A. Akerlof and Janet L. Yellen (1996) "Why Kids Have Kids: Don't blame welfare, blame 'technology shock'"
The RH Bill is no panacea for all social ills. It was never envisioned or peddled as such, and never will it be. In fact, RH advocates are also strong proponents of other important measures for economic, political, social, cultural, institutional, and moral reforms towards a much more democratic, developed, humane, caring, and just Philippine society and a community of nations.
The RH Bill can and must be enacted as soon as possible!
No comments:
Post a Comment