Why is Sweden paying grandparents to babysit? It’s worth a try

At first glance, the policy sounds absurd, especially to many Americans: In Sweden, grandparents are now eligible for government subsidies to babysit their grandchildren. As a proud grandparent myself, I would be willing to pay to babysit my grandkids. (I don't have to, but I would.) It would feel wrong to accept government money for my services.

And even in the Swedish context, the program seems excessive. The country has long had first-rate and well-subsidized child-care facilities, which is another reason not to pay grandparents anything, and Sweden already has high levels of government spending and taxation. Is this additional benefit — and expenditure — really what it needs?

But sometimes even apparently foolish ideas have compelling rationales — so compelling, in fact, that you begin to rethink whether they're foolish at all. These are often the cases that require the hardest thinking.

If you look at Sweden's policy closely, it adheres pretty well to some basic economic principles: namely, the notion of Pareto improvements, which benefit all parties involved.

Start with the fact that Swedish parents currently receive extensive paid leave upon the birth of a child, and so it can be said they are already paid to look after their children. Whether or not you agree with that policy, it is longstanding and well-established. Take it as a given.

Now imagine that you are an ambitious Swedish doctor or lawyer, climbing the career ladder, and are self-aware enough to realize you do not always have entirely the right degree of natural patience necessary for parenting. In that case, you might prefer to go back to work following the birth of your child. Under the status quo ex ante, you could not work and draw your normal salary and still get the full child-care benefit, even though some child benefits are paid automatically.

There is thus a potential inefficiency in the system. You may stay at home just to get the money, even when an alternate arrangement might be better for everyone.

Now add grandparents to this equation. If the grandparents can be paid to take care of your child, all of a sudden the extended family as a whole doesn't lose the money by having the parent go back to work. Instead, that money is transferred to the grandparents, so the work disincentive is diminished.

And economists will tell you that the parents and grandparents can do their own settling up. If the grandparents are well-to-do, for instance, and eager to spend time with their grandkids, they might funnel some of that money back to the parents or the child, either directly or indirectly. In some cases, on net, the grandparents may not end up getting paid anything at all.

In essence, you can think of this policy as a model designed to maximize gains from trade.

One side effect is that, to the extent the parent who returns to work is a high earner, government tax revenue will increase. That will help pay for the policy, partially if not entirely.

The logic for this policy may hold all the more for single parents. In that case, the costs of giving up work may be even higher, since on a single income climbing the career ladder and investing in future earnings will be all the more important. Enlisting aid from grandparents may also be more necessary, given the higher burdens on a single caregiver. A defender of the policy would cite these accommodative benefits, whereas a critic might allege they encourage single parenthood too much.

More broadly, fiscal conservatives might point out that the policy still costs some money upfront, while social conservatives might argue that it commodifies family relationships. The policy's supporters, on the other hand, might note that it can help some people get back to work and also make the grandparents happier. The children might benefit too.

As for myself, I am still unsure whether this new policy is a good idea, though it has stronger virtues and benefits than I first thought. But I am all the more certain of one final lesson: Framing is everything. The very same policy, described in different terms, can sound eminently reasonable or badly out of whack. Keep that in mind next time you are tempted to render a quick verdict on someone else's idea.

(COMMENT, BELOW)

Cowen is a Bloomberg View columnist. He is a professor of economics at George Mason University and writes for the blog Marginal Revolution. His books include "The Complacent Class: The Self-Defeating Quest for the American Dream."

Previously:
• 07/03/24 Republicans are inventors, Dems are innovators
• 06/19/24 The real government conspiracy isn't about UFOs
• 01/23/24 Your child's favorite teacher may soon be a chatbot
• 01/03/24 Gold is no longer a good hedge against bad times
• 11/12/23 The hypocrisy at the core of America's elite universities
• 10/18/23 That other AI will increasingly become a uniquely human trait
• 10/11/23 US higher education needs a revolution. What's holding it back?
• 09/06/23 Kidfluencers are today's version of chimney sweeps
• 08/30/23 What Harvard can learn from Olive Garden
• 08/02/23 Why 'Barbie' tickets aren't more expensive
• 06/07/23 Would you let Elon Musk implant a device in your brain?
• 05/10/23 Second-guess AI 'experts'
• 03/14/23 Governments should compete for residents, not businesses
• 02/22/23 Economists finally have a good excuse for being wrong A land tax won't make cities more affordable
• 01/26/23 Economists finally have a good excuse for being wrong
• 01/24/23 AI is improving faster than most humans realize
• 12/27/22 Beware the dangers of crypto regulation
• 12/27/22 Americans have found their happy place
• 12/14/22 The real risk of higher inflation is lower wages
• 12/07/22 Fight poverty, not income inequality
• 10/10/22 A crisis is coming in Europe. The only question is, which kind?
• 09/06/22 What is the purpose of public policy?
• 08/15/22 The future of travel is less exotic
• 08/01/22 Welcome to the era of antisocial media
• 07/25/22 Biden's COVID diagnosis is a wake-up call for America
• 05/12/22 A nuclear strike might not prompt the reaction you expect
• 03/22/22 Doomscrolling has ruined our sense of time
• 01/22/22 Wokeism has peaked
• 01/31/22 The latest bias to worry about
• 01/17/22 America's loneliness epidemic
• 01/07/22 Some of America's top universities just revealed they're not morally serious
• 12/29/21 America would be more happy with more people
• 12/10/21 Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk . . . and Paul McCartney
• 12/08/21 The only two pieces of advice you'll ever need
• 11/29/21 Nuclear fusion is close enough to start dreaming
• 10/27/21 America's national mood disorder
• 06/10/21 Lifting of mask mandates poses a challenge for Libertarians
• 05/28/21 Why economics is failing us
• 04/19/21We need green energy. We don't need green jobs
• 04/14/21 Libertarianism isn't dead. It's just reinventing itself
• 04/05/21 What does the world need? More humans
• 02/10/21 If Biden goes big now, he may have to go small later
• 01/12/21 Covid improved how the world does science
• 12/07/20 How to make sure your complaint is heard
• 10/27/20 It's getting better and worse at the same time
• 09/14/20 How to be happy during a pandemic
• 09/04/20 Trump is winning the vaccine debate with public health experts
• 07/01/20 Why Americans are having an emotional reaction to masks
• 05/20/20 Covid-19 will expose the ghosts in the U.S. economy
• 05/07/20 Are aliens visiting us? US military seems to think so
• 05/06/20 America's reopening will depend on one thing --- trust
• 04/22/20 How the covid-19 recession is like World War II
• 04/15/20 America is returning to 1781
• 04/08/20 Covid-19 is is upending everything for status seekers
• 03/17/20 The coronavirus will usher in a new era of entertainment
• 01/28/20 Social Security isn't doomed for younger generations
• 01/08/20 Why 2020 is harder to predict than 2019 was
• 12/02/19 Equality is a mediocre goal so aim for progress
• 11/25/19 Inflation inequality creates winners and losers
• 11/09/19 OK kids. This boomer has had enough
• 10/20/19 Would you bet against Trump in 2020?
• 09/25/19 The right industrial policy for America
• 09/24/19 Harvard's legacies are nothing to be proud of
• 09/02/19 Yes, the Fed could still stop a recession
• 08/20/19 A trade deal with China wouldn't change much
• 07/29/19 How your personality traits affect your paycheck
• 07/16/19 Internet 101 should be a required class
• 05/28/19 How Dems actually are the ANTI-immigrant party
• 04/23/19 Want to help fight climate change? Have more children
• 03/22/19 America isn't as divided as it looks
• 03/12/19 The Twitter takeover of politics: You ain't seen nothing yet
• 03/04/19 How to tell which Dem dreams won't come true
• 02/07/19: Now the Dems want to end America's nuclear first strike option. How clueless is that?
• 01/29/19: The shutdown hit a lot of government workers --- hard. But, ultimately, who is responsible for their unfortunate circumstances?
• 12/12/18: The West is abusing its legal power to punish people or institutions that do things it doesn't like. It better stop
• 10/23/18: The US needs Saudi Arabia, and vice versa
• 10/19/18: The right finds the perfect weapon against the left
• 07/24/18: The drive for the perfect child gets a little scary
• 06/04/18: Side effects of the decline of men in labor market
• 05/14/18: Proving Marx's theories right
• 05/08/18: Holding up a mirror to intellectuals of the left
• 05/01/18: Virtual reality will make lives better ... mostly
• 04/16/18: It's hard to burst your political filter bubbleIt's hard to burst your political filter bubble
• 04/09/18: The missing key to grasping why American politics seems to have become more polarized, with no apparent end in sight
• 04/05/18: Two American power centers are about to clash
• 03/22/18: We fear what we can't control about Uber and Facebook
• 03/08/18: How to stop the licen$ing insanity
• 01/10/18: Polarized Congress needs to bring back earmarks
• 12/27/17: The year when the Internet collides with reality
• 11/07/17: Would you blame the phone for Russian interference?
• 10/23/17: North Korea is playing a longer game than the US
• 10/12/17: Why conservatives should celebrate Thaler's Nobel
• 08/02/17: Too many of today's innovations are focused on solving problems rather than creating something new