This week's links include the cost-benefit implications of climate action, what the mother-in-law means for policy, an Econ 101 explainer for India's GDP, and why Indian men live with their parents. I also bring to you a set of memes that may cut too close to the bone, and a blog that asks if the pandemic will leave us scarred for life.
The GDP Nosedives: You may have heard that India’s GDP has contracted by 23.9% in the first quarter. Read this for a good Econ 101 explainer. The decline is not for the year or since the preceding quarter – but when compared to the same quarter in the last year.
"In other words, the total value of goods and services produced in India in April, May and June this year is 24% less than the total value of goods and services produced in India in the same three months last year."
Except agriculture, all major sectors have taken a nosedive. Some estimates say that this will translate into a 7% annual decline. SBI’s Chief Economist thinks we’re looking at 10.9%.
If you don’t like looking at GDP numbers, here’s a more fun way to understand the economic impact of C-19: World Bank economists show that electricity consumption and the intensity of nighttime lights observed from space make for good proxies to monitor India’s economic activity.
They also use these to assess the impact of the pandemic on India’s economy. They argue that based on the observed relationship between economic activity and electricity consumption in India in the past (1 unit of additional economic activity is associated with 1.3 units additional electricity consumption), the declines in electricity consumption and lights data tell us that the economic impact of the pandemic has already been between $160 billion to $175 billion, or between 5.6% to 6% of India’s GDP.
Even the economics makes sense: An good piece here on the economic rationale for a well-funded government response to climate change. It argues that global climate action need not come at the expense of sustained economic growth. And that not taking any action will "most certainly" block growth.
The benefits of implementing the Paris Agreement on climate change far outweigh its costs – the health benefits alone could exceed investment costs 1.5-2.5 times.
Read also the Economist on how Covid-19 has created opportunities to flatten the climate curve. And if horror is a genre you enjoy, read this by the FT.
If academic arguments and data don't speak to you, read these real-life stories on the impact of climate change on communities, businesses, and people in India. These present excellent reportage on a range of climate-change issues including Yamuna’s dead fish, how cotton cultivation in Odisha is sowing the seeds of a climate crisis, and the impact of the rain going rogue in Thane. Also know that SUVs were the second largest contributor to the increase in global carbon emissions from 2010 to 2018.
Why do Indian men live with their parents?: Dr. Alice Evans has a very good, data-led piece on why most Indian men live with their parents. It created a bit of a mini Twitterstorm, getting everyone’s hackles up about India’s culture and family values.
To be clear, she is not making a moral argument, but analysing why is it that India’s rapid economic growth (remember that?) since the 1980s did not lead to dissolving extended families? Like it did in East Asia, for example.
Dr. Evans finds that the answer lies in the kind of economic development India has experienced. Most Indians tend to work for small family-owned businesses, which strengthens multigenerational households.
I recommend you read the post. It is a masterclass in how to weave diverse pieces of evidence into one narrative and make a case. It will also give you lots of interesting facts to pepper your dinner party conversations with. For instance, did you know that joint families in the north of India are 4 times more common than the south? Or that female employment in South Asia is associated with deprivation so women gain status by withdrawing from the labour market?
I’ll admit the title of her post did irk me a little bit – why frame it as an aberration and the alternative as the norm? The actual piece does not do that. But I was mollified when she promised that she will soon look into another equally important question: "Why is the West weird?"
The Mother in Law: Based on a survey in Jaunpur (Uttar Pradesh), a study by Dr. S. Anukriti and others shows that a young, married woman who lives with her mother in law has 36% fewer close peers outside the home – when compared to one who does not. Why does it matter? As far as I am concerned, it should matter solely because adult women should be able to make their own choices.
But if you must have a more development-y reason, the research finds this inability to make friends reduces young women's access to, and utilisation of reproductive health services.
Having an additional close outside peer increases a woman’s likelihood of visiting a family planning clinic by 67 percentage points, and her likelihood of using modern contraceptive methods by 11 percentage points.
So what's the policy implication?: When MILs act as "gatekeepers", government initiatives that rely on tapping women’s social networks to spread messages and information around family planning are meaningless.
The research also points to a "potential misalignment of fertility preferences, and asymmetry of information and bargaining power between the MIL and DIL" - which loosely translates into one-wants-many-grandchildren-while-the-other-wants-to-just-get-on-with-her-life.
It is proposed that family planning programmes take note of this intra-household dynamic, like they do in the case of spousal conflict over contraception.
Finally, my favourite people at India Development Review have put together a really fun set of memes on pandemic induced breakdowns that may feel all too familiar. Also read Tim Harford using economics to explain whether a young girl of 15 should focus on her looks or her brain.