...i'm not getting this...so in the case of China's one child policy, a fine is considered 'coercive' and counter to the notion of individual choice, though individuals can still 'choose' to have the child, but at a price.

In india, parents' can 'choose' to expend resources only on male offspring, but at the (oppurtunity) cost of loosing out on state subsidies, which are 'coerced' in the form of tax dollars from other sectors of the economy.

What is the ethical difference? Or has Saletan ever taken an introductory econ class?

Here's your introductory econ text on fines, subsidies, abortion, and childbearing:

http://www.bearingright.com

Read Chapter 9.

Ah, yes, Microeconomics 101 : entities will act to maximize profits.

Including authors.

Saletan:

Here's your introductory econ text on fines, subsidies, abortion, and childbearing:

http://www.bearingright.com

Read Chapter 9.

To the poster above - the chapter is actually available online through google scholar.

To saletan: I'm still not seeing an explanation of a substantive difference in that chapter between a subsidy and a fine. The only difference is whether the non economic cost of the policy is borne by society as a whole or by the individual. In both cases government is imposing an economic cost on particular choices by the individual.

I think you are conflating the choice and gender equity issues in order to come up with your 'ecology of the family' meme.

Just to be clear, what I'm saying is that India is actually distorting individual choice in an attempt to boost the number of women. Thus there is actually a contradiction in this case between 'choice' and gender equity in terms of births, counter to Salaten's hypothesized policy dynamic where choice and gender equity go hand in hand.

It is not clear to me why market forces are not at least attenuating this problem in the absence of fines or subsidies.

If women are becoming scarce due to sex-selective abortions, parents of girls should have to pay smaller or no dowries )or even receive dowries) to men who are having difficulty finding wives. This should be especially true as the economic value of women becomes larger due to more women being in the workforce than in the past in these countries.

If the problem is more of a cultural issue that persists despite the economics of the situation, than subsidies may not be of much help.

"If the problem is more of a cultural issue that persists despite the economics of the situation, than subsidies may not be of much help."

Yes. Thanks for pointing this out. These cultures are truly misogynistic. Fines and incentives will not change this anytime soon, maybe not ever.

If, in a given culture, it is the first-born male child that takes care of you in your old age, why on earth would a onetime incentive of a few hundred bucks make a bit of difference???

These particular cultural- belief systems are thousands of years old.