April 17, 2008
Will Brazilian soap operas save (or doom) the planet?
The Centre for Economic Policy Research reports that:
Soap operas (novelas) are watched by the vast majority of the population in Brazil, and often portray families that are much smaller that the reality for the country. The authors of CEPR DP6785 use this to examine the effects of television, and of role models portrayed in these novelas, on individual behaviour, specifically fertility choices.
Rede Globo has a virtual monopoly on the production of novelas, and an analysis of differences in the timings of Globo’s entry into areas of the country, coupled with census data, reveals that areas reached by the Globo signal had significantly lower fertility than comparable areas not reached by Globo. The magnitude of the effect is about one tenth of the effect of being married on fertility, and is comparable to that associated with an increase of 1 doctor or nurse per 1,000 people.
The authors find that the effect is strongest for women of lower socioeconomic status, and (a) is insignificant for women aged 15-24; (b) leads to an 8% decrease in the mean probability of giving birth for women aged 25-34; and (c) leads to an 11% decrease in the mean probability for women aged 35-44.
Further evidence from naming patterns and the impact of the introduction of foreign soap operas that are not seen as realistic portraits of Brazilian life indicates that it is novelas, not just televisions per se, that are behind the results.
Question - is this good news or bad news? Steve Landsburg would say bad news.
Would he? As I understand it his hypothesis is that human ingenuity will solve any problem created by population pressure so more people equal more solutions.
It’s a compelling idea, but it relies on the extra people having the training, facilities and leisure to grapple with the problem. Additional children born into the Brazilian favellas seem amongst the least likely to fall into that category, unless the standards of social mobility amongst the Brazilian poor undergoes a dramatic improvement.
Posted by: Seamus McCauley | April 17th, 2008 at 10:13 am | Report this commentLet’s assume that conclusion is correct, that Globo programming directly influences the family choices made by the viewer, in the quoted example to reduce family size. Due to undoubtedly limited “natural” resource, the common dream of land of one’s own, I think on balance that is a good thing.
But again if that conclusion is correct then be afraid. If family size is emulated then I would guess that infidelity rates, paternity disputes, petty violence, and many other things would also be copied from soap to reality … think of the consequences.
Posted by: R N B | April 17th, 2008 at 5:56 pm | Report this commentWhen I lived in Costa Rica, they would say of families with lots of kids in the rural areas “no hay tele” or “no tv”.
Perhaps with no TV there is less of a substitute for other evening entertainment options.
Posted by: Seth | April 18th, 2008 at 5:01 pm | Report this commentI think the solution to Landsberg’s dilemma is pretty simple. He thinks he has underproduced children, because his first child would bear the costs and the benefits would be dispersed.
So he should sponsor one or more children in foreign countries. Very little chance of the costs coming back to haunt him: a child in a developing economy is far cheaper than one in his country, and a sponsored child won’t inherit from him. Meanwhile, the benefits are still dispersed. He even gets a (much reduced) version of the personal emotional benefits of parenthood.
Posted by: SteveJ | April 25th, 2008 at 10:44 am | Report this comment