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
Show Hide image

Theresa May's cabinet regroups: 11 things we know about Brexit negotiations so far

The new PM wants a debate on social mobility and Brexit. 

This was the summer of the Phony Brexit. But on Wednesday, the new Tory cabinet emerged from their holiday hideaways to discuss how Britain will negotiate its exit from the EU. 

The new prime minister Theresa May is hosting a meeting that includes Brexiteers like David Davis, now minister for Brexit, Boris Johnson, the new Foreign secretary, and Liam Fox.

For now, their views on negotiations are taking place behind closed doors at the PM’s country retreat, Chequers. But here is what we know so far:

1. Talks won’t begin this year

May said in July that official negotiations would not start in 2016. Instead, she pledged to take the time to secure “a sensible and orderly departure”. 

2. But forget a second referendum

In her opening speech to cabinet, May said: “We must continue to be very clear that ‘Brexit means Brexit’, that we’re going to make a success of it. That means there’s no second referendum; no attempts to sort of stay in the EU by the back door; that we’re actually going to deliver on this.”

3. And Article 50 remains mysterious

A No.10 spokesman has confirmed that Parliament will “have its say” but did not clarify whether this would be before or after Article 50 is triggered. According to The Telegraph, May has been told she has the authority to invoke it without a vote in Parliament, although she has confirmed she will not do so this eyar.

4. The cabinet need to speak up

May’s “you break it, you fix it” approach to cabinet appointments means that key Brexiteers are now in charge of overseeing affected areas, such as farming and international relations. According to the BBC, the PM is asking each minister to report back on opportunities for their departments. 

5. Brexit comes with social mobility

As well as Brexit, May is discussing social reform with her cabinet. She told them: “We want to be a government and a country that works for everyone.” The PM already performed some social mobility of her own, when she ditched public school boy Chancellor George Osborne in favour of state school Philip Hammond. 

6. All eyes will be on DExEU

Davis, aka Brexit minister, heads up the Department for Exiting the EU, a new ministerial department. According to Oliver Ilott, from the Institute for Government, this department will be responsible for setting the ground rules across Whitehall. He  said: “DExEu needs to make sure that there is a shared understanding of the parameters of future negotiations before Whitehall departments go too far down their own rabbit holes.”

7. May wants to keep it friendly

The PM talked to Prime Minister Sipilä of Finland and Prime Minister Solberg of Norway on the morning of the cabinet meeting. She pledged Britain would "live up to our obligations" in the EU while it remained a member and "maintain a good relationship with the EU as well as individual European countries".

8. But everything's on the table

May also told the Finnish and Norwegian prime ministers that negotiators should consider what is going to work best for the UK and what is going to work for the European Union, rather than necessarily pursuing an existing model. This suggests she may not be aiming to join Norway in the European Economic Area. 

9. She gets on with Angela Merkel

While all 27 remaining EU countries will have a say in Brexit negotiations, Germany is Europe’s economic powerhouse. May’s first meeting appeared amiable, with the PM telling reporters: “We have two women here who have got on and had a very constructive discussion, two women who, I may say, get on with the job.” The German Chancellor responded: “Exactly. I completely agree with that.”

10. But less so with Francoise Hollande

The French president said Brexit negotiations should start “the sooner the better” and argued that freedom of labour could not be separated from other aspects of the single market. 

11. Britain wants to hold onto its EU banking passports

The “passporting system” which makes it easier for banks based in London to operate on the Continent, is now in jeopardy. We know the UK Government will be fighting to keep passports, because a paper on that very issue was accidentally shown to camera.