Dubner and Levitt have written quite a bit about parenting, both in Freakonomics and on this blog. In particular, they’ve focused on what parents can do to help produce “successful” offspring. The key, they’ve found, is this: be well-educated and successful yourself, and your children are more likely to follow suit.
But what about children from impoverished backgrounds? What steps can poor parents take to counterbalance the effects of poverty?
According to Rajeev Dehejia, an economics professor at Tufts University, one answer may be to join a church. Dehejia, along with Thomas DeLeire, an economics professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and Erzo Luttmer and Josh Mitchell, from the Harvard economics department, have written a new working paper called “The Role of Religious and Social Organizations in the Lives of Disadvantaged Youth.” In it, they test the impact of religion on more than 20,000 children raised by “disadvantaged” families, as defined by factors like family income, the parents’ levels of education, and “child characteristics including parental assessments of the child.” Using the National Survey of Families and Households, they questioned each child on the amount of involvement his or her parent had with a religious organization, then observed the child’s outcome 13 to 15 years later, as measured by education, income, and levels of health and psychological well-being.
Their findings are summarized as follows:
Overall, we find strong evidence that youth with religiously active parents are less affected later in life by childhood disadvantage than youth whose parents did not frequently attend religious services. These buffering effects of religious organizations are most pronounced when outcomes are measured by high school graduation or non-smoking and when disadvantage is measured by family resources or maternal education, but we also find buffering effects for a number of other outcome-disadvantage pairs. We generally find much weaker buffering effects for other social organizations.
Of course, a parent’s decision to practice a religion may coincide with other traits like self-discipline, community involvement, and mentoring skills, all of which will likely affect a child’s upbringing. Not to mention the fact that the authors offer no analysis of whether a parent’s including the child in the religion has any effect:
Our data do not allow us to determine to what extent the buffering effects are driven by religious organizations actively intervening in the lives of disadvantaged youth (through tutoring, mentoring, or financial assistance) as opposed to providing the youth with motivation, values, or attitudes that lead to better outcomes.
Still, it appears that, particularly where education and smoking habits are concerned, a parent’s heading to a church, synagogue, or mosque might be useful in counteracting the negative effects of child poverty.
Assuming, of course, the parents aren’t also stocking their child’s bedroom with copies of Richard Dawkins.
and 
. You can also watch it on 
@David,
To look at just the Christian religion for a moment, one of the central claims of Jesus and the writers of the New Testament is that the followers of Christ a) turned away from “sin” and turned toward a holy lifestyle and b) were brought together into a supportive, redemptive community. See Acts 2:42-28 for just one passage among many that make this claim.
More broadly, I think virtually all religious leaders would agree that their religion provides “a supportive community that reinforces abstinence from some of the more destructive vices.” If “rationality” leads to the opposite (a destructive individualism that encourages vice?), then who’s being irrational here?
@David,
To look at just the Christian religion for a moment, one of the central claims of Jesus and the writers of the New Testament is that the followers of Christ a) turned away from “sin” and turned toward a holy lifestyle and b) were brought together into a supportive, redemptive community. See Acts 2:42-28 for just one passage among many that make this claim.
More broadly, I think virtually all religious leaders would agree that their religion provides “a supportive community that reinforces abstinence from some of the more destructive vices.” If “rationality” leads to the opposite (a destructive individualism that encourages vice?), then who’s being irrational here?
Could it be that in these crummy countries the church is the only institution that has enough funding to support families? Back when you needed to be a member of a religion to go to a hospital, being religious meant better health. All this points out is that in the absence of a properly funded secular support structure, some religious institutions are better than nothing.
Could it be that in these crummy countries the church is the only institution that has enough funding to support families? Back when you needed to be a member of a religion to go to a hospital, being religious meant better health. All this points out is that in the absence of a properly funded secular support structure, some religious institutions are better than nothing.
If a church provides a stable, supportive community that provides children with moral friends and educational resources, it seems hardly surprising that it would improve their lives. Even a wicked athiest like myself can see the value in a building where people go to be nice to one another and get help with their kids!
If a church provides a stable, supportive community that provides children with moral friends and educational resources, it seems hardly surprising that it would improve their lives. Even a wicked athiest like myself can see the value in a building where people go to be nice to one another and get help with their kids!
Could it be that the researchers are merely using statistical analysis to prove their prior ideological biases?
http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2007/10/fooling-ourselv.html
(url references Levitt, Ayres, and Lott)
I’d like to see research that compares going to church Sunday mornings with reading and/or exercising instead. My ideological bias is that the latter alternatives would greatly benefit most Americans.
Could it be that the researchers are merely using statistical analysis to prove their prior ideological biases?
http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2007/10/fooling-ourselv.html
(url references Levitt, Ayres, and Lott)
I’d like to see research that compares going to church Sunday mornings with reading and/or exercising instead. My ideological bias is that the latter alternatives would greatly benefit most Americans.