Economists: "Losing both parents sucks"

Have you ever wondered whether losing both parents to a tragedy might be a bad thing or not? Well, economists did.

When life gives you lemons, you make lemonade. And when you're trying to study the effects of parental death on children, you need to get your victories where you can find them. For four economists writing a working paper for the US National Bureau of Economic Research (highlighted by the ASI's Ben Southwood), their break came from the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami.

The problem the researchers were faced with is that parents don't die randomly. Deaths by disease, violence and accidents are all highly correlated with other social factors – most obviously, wealth. Really, that's just another way of saying "rich people live longer".

But the tsunami offered a chance to see what happened when the chance of parents dying was equal across all classes. They write:

Survival was to large extent attributable to idiosyncratic factors revolving around the combination of where the waves hit and people’s precise locations at that moment. For these reasons, it is possible that parental death is independent of prior behaviors, including previous investments in children.

As it is, there were in fact a few differences between the group of children who lost parents and the group who didn't. The former group were slightly older, had slightly more boys in it, and the kids were "significantly better educated and significantly more likely to be enrolled in school prior to the tsunami."

But those differences are tiny compared to what they normally are between those two groups, which gave the researchers a chance to carefully examine the effect of losing one or both parents on children's wellbeing.

Unsurprisingly, it was negative.

A year after the tsunami, older children – between the ages of 15 and 17 – are less likely to be enrolled in school, especially if it were the father who died. Five years on, older male children who've lost both parents completed almost two years less schooling, but are more likely to be in work, indicating that doing so forced them to move into to role of "adult" earlier than similar young men. "These older male orphans are likely to carry the costs of the tsunami into adulthood and possibly through the rest of their lives."

A similar effect is found, reversed, in older girls. Losing just a father actually lead to higher rates of school enrolment in the short term, but losing both parents or a mother results in the opposite. And five years after the tsunami, the older girls – young women – are considerably more likely to be married if they lost both parents than if they lost none.

For younger children, there's a confounding factor: various scholarship programmes were instituted for kids who lost parents. Perhaps as a result, younger boys were no more or less likely to be enrolled in school, but they were 32 percentage points more likely to have received a scholarship if their father or both parents died. Perhaps surprisingly, "there is little evidence suggesting significant longer-term impacts of orphanhood on these younger male children apart from a slightly higher probability of helping with housework if either the mother or father died." And loss of both parents for young girls results in a 24 per cent increase in the probability that they'd be working five years later.

It may seem like an obvious conclusion, but research like this is crucial if we want to actually make the most of things like our emergency aid. For instance, focusing scholarships on younger children may have worked from a PR perspective; but it was actually the older children who were most at risk of dropping out of school, as suddenly-alone parents demanded help at home or in the labour market. God forbid anything like the 2004 tsunami happens again; but if it did, this research helps us narrow down who needs help in the long term, not just immediately.

The aftermath of the tsunami. Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

The continuity between Ed Miliband and Jeremy Corbyn

The left say that the former leader created crucial intellectual and political space for them.

One of the errors in the leaked list ranking Labour MPs by favourability to Jeremy Corbyn was the inclusion of Ed Miliband in the "negative" category. Most in the party believe the former leader is better described as sympathetic to his successor. In recent interviews he has defended his leadership more robustly than many shadow cabinet members and has offered him private advice.

Last year I reported on speculation that Miliband could return to the shadow cabinet (a rumour heard again this week). Those close to the former leader continue to dismiss the possibility but he will appear with Corbyn today at a pro-EU climate change rally in Doncaster - the first time the pair have shared a platform. "Ed's more engaged than he's been for a long time," a friend told me.

Though Miliband did not vote for Corbyn in last year's leadership election (sources say he backed Andy Burnham), there is notable continuity between their political projects. In interviews with me, shadow chancellor John McDonnell and Momentum chair Jon Lansman have spoken of how the former leader created crucial intellectual and political space for the left. Those on the party's right make the same point - if rather less positively. A former shadow cabinet member told me that "the left of the party was indulged for five years and wasn't challenged".

It was under Miliband that Labour first identified as an "anti-austerity" party, with the then leader addressing a 2011 anti-cuts march. Though this stance was later abandoned, as emphasis was put on the need for public spending reductions (with room left to borrow for investment), it provided Corbyn with an opening to exploit.

It was also Miliband who denounced the Iraq war and promised a new approach to foreign policy, declaring in his 2010 conference speech: "Our alliance with America is incredibly important to us but we must always remember that our values must shape the alliances that we form and any military action that we take." His refusal to support the government's proposed intervention in Syria in 2013 was hailed by him as preventing a "rush to war". By promising "a different kind of foreign policy - based on a new and more independent relationship with the rest of the world", and opposing all recent military actions, Corbyn has travelled further down a road taken by Miliband. 

The Labour leader's promise to give greater power to party members similarly follows Miliband's decision to give them the ultimate say over the leadership (the system that enabled Corbyn's victory). Rail renationalisation, limits on media ownership and opposition to privatisation were also stances either fully or partly embraced between 2010 and 2015. 

Many of those who voted for Corbyn backed Miliband in 2010 or joined after being attracted by his radical moments. For them, Corbyn, the only candidate to position himself to Miliband's left from the outset of the contest, was his natural successor. It was these left-leaning members, not Trotskyist entryists, who enabled his landslide victory. 

The continuity extends to personnel as well as policy. Simon Fletcher, Corbyn's director of campaigns and planning (formerly chief of staff), was Miliband's trade union liaison officer, while Jon Trickett, the shadow communities secretary (and key Corbyn ally), was a senior adviser. If Miliband is more open to the Labour leader's project than many other MPs, it may be because he recognises how much it has in common with his own.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.