« Bittergate | Main | Financial Compensation for Organ Donors is Working »
The economics of the male pill
Might there soon be a pill for men? Standard theories of tax incidence (borrowing from the Coase theorem) say that if so, it shouldn't much affect the quantity of intercourse. Either the gains from trade are there or they are not. The initial burden of taking the pill might change the distribution of those gains across the sexes, but at the end of the night the final result should still be the same.
Only not!
If you are a man who can credibly signal he is taking such a pill, it is like paying the woman for that final result you so desired. The woman no longer has to perform the costly pill-taking action herself. And indeed the typical equilibrium is in fact that the man does the paying. But with the male pill you are paying her in a way that will flatter her, not insult her. Nice, eh?
The funny thing is, I don't expect the male pill to be popular at all. The key question is to figure out which assumption of the basic model is not satisfied.
One possibility is that women will infer that a man taking the pill is essentially paying other women for sex and she values him less highly.
Another possibility has to do with credibility combined with lags. If it's focal for the woman to be taking the pill, the woman is in any case taking her pill in advance. The male pill would have impact, at the margin, only on women who weren't really planning on having sex at all. And what kind of man spends his energy targeting such women? Yes, some men indeed do target such women, but then we're back to the male pill not really being so popular.
A third possibility is that women in any case want the man to use a condom, if only to prevent STDs. If the man is on the pill, it is harder to make that request without insulting him and thus a woman doesn't want her new paramour to be on the male pill.
Addendum: Megan McArdle adds a fourth explanation.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on April 14, 2008 at 07:37 AM in Economics | Permalink
Comments
I suspect the male pill will be an issue mostly in marriages and long-term committed relationships and won't have much effect on the casual hookup market. And the economics of sex in committed relationships are different.
If there are no health concerns, though, might not the male pill turn out to be popular among single males with multiple sex partners as an insurance policy against financially ruinous paternity suits?
Posted by: Slocum at Apr 14, 2008 7:55:41 AM
A male pill is a good defense from paternity suits.
Posted by: P_Rank at Apr 14, 2008 7:57:55 AM
...if it doesn't affect moods like the female pill does (and sex drive), I know of two families who will be using just that.
Posted by: shawn at Apr 14, 2008 8:02:09 AM
If you are a man who can credibly signal he is taking such a pill . . .
How?
Posted by: James Grimmelmann at Apr 14, 2008 8:06:23 AM
It'll be popular among celebrities and athletes at least ...
Re: #3, would women really believe men who say they're on the male pill? If you're the woman, would you take that chance?
Posted by: Hei Lun Chan at Apr 14, 2008 8:13:39 AM
james: if you're even nominally wealthy, why would you lie?
Posted by: shawn at Apr 14, 2008 8:20:53 AM
Scenarios in the two-pill world:
A woman hoping for an entrapment marriage tells a man she's on the pill. But he's secretly on the other pill to avoid being entrapped. Lucky thing there are DNA tests to back him up later!
A nice sweet girl convinces herself she'll always remain a virgin, but one night in a fit of passion, she gives in -- it's safe, the man says, because he's taken the other pill. But it's only a line he's giving her.
Posted by: anon at Apr 14, 2008 8:26:44 AM
Hello,
Here, I think you're thinking a bit too much. I doubt people put such calculations into their situations here.
Women can trust men being on the pill the same ways men can trust women being on the pill.
Just like a woman, a man can presumably take the pill just for one woman.
As for the impact, women can of course decide to have sex "on impulse," or in the heat of passion, not just by planning in advance. And in any case, women may value men who are willing to make some sacrifices themselves for birth control. Right now, all contraceptive methods except the condom are things women have to take or do - and probably spend money on. I suspect many women would like to change that.
As for STDs, presumably that can be handled the same way it's handled when women take the pill, IUD, sponges, vaginal rings, patches and/or diaphragms. Presumably there are enough couplings in which the partners either don't care about the risks or are able to discuss and eliminate them that the condom hasn't exactly driven any of these (generally more expensive and more time-consuming to obtain and use) methods off the market.
I think the male pill won't drive them off the market either, but it will certainly have its niche.
Jeff Deutsch
PS: Heck, why can't we have a male Norplant?
Posted by: Jeffrey Deutsch at Apr 14, 2008 8:29:52 AM
The main problem with the male pill is sheer practicality. In women, one egg cell is released per month, according to a fairly precise set of hormonal events. So, dead easy to throw a spanner in the works of this system and stop the egg being released. Men, by contrast don't have this precise hormonal sequence in sperm cell production; we just churn out sperm by the millions each day and every day. So, for the male pill to be effective, you've got to disrupt a far more robust mechanism and do so with better than 99.99% effectiveness or else a few sperm could get past the process and fertilize the woman. This isn't easy; so far nobody's been able to do it, and frankly since doctors and biologists aren't fools and know a very hard challenge with few payoffs when they see one, not many have even attempted it. Besides, what's the market going to be like for the pill, anyway? For couples who want sex but no kids, female pills are much more effective. For the bloke out for a casual shag, the main problem isn't that of siring a bastard somewhere but the chance of picking up one of the myriad varieties of STDs that are about these days. With this in mind, exploring the range of modern condoms is a much better option, since these protect against disease as well as unwanted parentage.
Posted by: Dr Dan H. at Apr 14, 2008 8:38:53 AM
Signaling that you take the pill before you generally agree on having sex would be hard because it's awkward to talk about these things as long as you haven't. I've never heard the chat-up line "What's your policy on using condoms during one-night-stands?"
Posted by: LemmusLemmus at Apr 14, 2008 8:59:09 AM
A male pill is a good defense from paternity suits.
It might be easy to prove that the pill was prescribed to the man, but it could be pretty difficult to prove that the pills were consistently taken at the appropriate times. DNA tests would still be needed to disprove paternity.
I still think the male pill could be popular with men who seek more options for personal control over pregnancy. (I know I took the pill versus she says she did.)
Posted by: Todd at Apr 14, 2008 9:41:34 AM
It seems that generally speaking insurance is purchased by those that have the most to loose or can insure most cheaply. Even with the male pill, the former will still be women, although the latter will shift in the direction of more men providing the insurance.
Posted by: OneEyedMan at Apr 14, 2008 9:50:26 AM
Actually, Megan's "explanation" violates a fundamental (but glossed over) assumption in this scenario: "If you are a man who can credibly signal he is taking such a pill"
So "trust" can not be an issue, or the man is not credibly signaling.
Of course, the only way this scenario makes much sense is if this pill has visible side effects, such as turning the corneas of the man purple.
Posted by: jens fiederer at Apr 14, 2008 9:51:40 AM
The scenario the male pill can protect against is the woman pulling a used condom out of the trash and impregnating herself as a way to pressure the man into marrying her. It happens. The man doesn't have to want to signal anything, he just has to not want to get a woman pregnant.
Posted by: Alex J. at Apr 14, 2008 10:25:46 AM
I think the quantity of sex will decrease because women's chances of trapping a man or securing 18 years of child support payments with an unwanted-by-him pregnancy will decrease, thus lowering the expected value of sex for many women.
Posted by: Jacqueline at Apr 14, 2008 10:30:06 AM
What's the most pointless thing in the world?
A booth selling the male Pill at a Star Trek or D&D convention.
Posted by: Peter at Apr 14, 2008 10:38:50 AM
Why would men be taking it in pill form anyways? Considering you just need a constant dose of the drug there are far better ways to do this besides taking a pill. I'd take it right now if I could. My wife and I don't want to have kids right now, and an extra layer of protection against that would be welcome. My friends would take it as well as protection against casual hook-ups (not necessarily one night stands) from turning into 18 years of child support.
In all reality I've seen the most vigorous objections to male birth control from women, because it takes a lot of power out of their hands.
Posted by: JordanT at Apr 14, 2008 10:48:18 AM
I've *never* heard women object to male birth control -- can you please provide some examples or links?
Posted by: Jacqueline at Apr 14, 2008 11:01:23 AM
A male pill is a good defense from paternity suits.
Back in my day, I would have taken this in a heartbeat, simply to avoid the downside risks of paternity, which are most certainly not limited to paternity suits. Whether I told my partners or not, and how they reacted, would be completely incidental to the intrinsic utility of it.
Market it (slyly) as child support insurance, and it'll fly off the shelves.
Posted by: Dave at Apr 14, 2008 12:04:23 PM
Tyler and Megan are missing the point, and many of the commenters here are dead-on correct.
Advertise this thing not as a failsafe contraceptive, but as sperm-count-reducing paternity-risk mitigation (you can probably cut your R&D costs significantly if it's not expected to be foolproof). Use an aggressive marketing campaign similar to those for beer commercials or for male deodorant sprays such as Axe (marketed as Lynx in some countries). Market it to young men as an aspirational product -- for guys who aspire to get laid a lot. The advertising copy could emphasize empowerment along the lines of "take charge and be in control of your sex life". Some edgy commercials might feature obnoxious whiny children (some European condom makers have already done this) and conniving gold-digging women, with the man getting the last laugh (unlike most commercials nowadays, which tend to portray men unfavorably). Advertise heavily in "lad magazines", sponsor extreme sports and X-Games sporting events, etc.
I predict someone will make a fortune from this.
Posted by: at Apr 14, 2008 1:07:05 PM
Yeah, I'm with Comment #3. How can a man credibly signal he is taking the pill? Taking pills are costly, and most of the costs of not taking the pill are incurred by the female. While I could imagine men and women in a marriage or cohabiting relationship doing this (because then the costs of monitoring are lower), I suspect for casual sexual encounters the signalling story is much weaker.
Posted by: jason voorhees at Apr 14, 2008 1:14:51 PM
The female pill is popular because women do not want to get pregnant. Could they stop taking it because their man is? Even if he is earnest, is he reliable? (When do men refill the gas tank? Women?). More at my other blog.
Posted by: David Zetland at Apr 14, 2008 1:21:20 PM
That condom commercial is great. I'm totally there.
Posted by: liberty at Apr 14, 2008 1:29:39 PM
maybe it's different in the US than in Germany, but what is the big "price tag" everybody attaches to taking the pill?
are we actually talking about the price (which is something like 5 euro/month, which is probably less than for the same amount of condoms) or about taking the thing? or about side-effects?
i still think a male pill is a good idea - just to be sure.
(by the way, @lemmuslemmus: maybe not as the first thing to say - but if you go far enough, this question definitely comes up...)
Posted by: Finja at Apr 14, 2008 1:40:45 PM
As for STDs, presumably that can be handled the same way it's handled when women take the pill, IUD, sponges, vaginal rings, patches and/or diaphragms.
Jeffrey Deutsch,
You mean with a condom?
There are plenty of guys who would take this pill. Hell, I would now and probably would when I wasn't in a long term relationship. I, and many of my friends, am paranoid about getting "trapped" with a baby. Not to mention, this would act as a nice second form of BC (depending on the side effects), which would further reduce the odds of pregnancy. The pill isn't 100% effective, so combining two forms of BC makes it less likely. Not to mention marketing it to couples where the pill causes negative side effects to the woman (weight gain, modd swings, nausea, etc.).
Plus, as costly as the male pill would be, it would probably only cost a co-pay, as it would likely be covered by health insurance.
Posted by: Mo at Apr 14, 2008 1:41:48 PM
I agree wholeheartedly with Mo. I'd buy it in a second and take it daily. I've never understood why there's even a debate about whether men would take it. As a 24 year old single guy, there's no way in hell I'd want to get a girl pregnant right now, and I've always been annoyed and uneasy that most birth control methods (particularly the pill) are under the control of women (condoms the obvious exception). This would be a blessing.
Posted by: Jay at Apr 14, 2008 3:00:43 PM
As for STDs, presumably that can be handled the same way it's handled when women take the pill, IUD, sponges, vaginal rings, patches and/or diaphragms.
Jeffrey Deutsch,
You mean with a condom?
Hello Mo,
No my point is that the STD-related problem (basically, how do you express the desire to use a condom with someone who's already covered in terms of birth control) would seem no worse with a male pill than with any of the many other non-condom birth control methods already in use.
You'll get no argument from me about the desirability of the male pill.
Jeff Deutsch
Posted by: Jeffrey Deutsch at Apr 14, 2008 3:14:47 PM
How do women credibly signal that they are taking the pill properly? With both people controlling their fertility, there would be no need to trust other person. A woman who doesn't want to get pregnant takes the pill and men who don't want to get someone pregnant also takes the pill. For couples it could be an extra layer of protection, so they wouldn't feel the need to use condoms. Or as a way for couples to decide that the man would take it because of a poor reaction to female birth control. I'll be the first in line to purchase it when available btw.
With both people having the power, it will remove one person from being able to unilaterally decide that she wants a baby and to "forget" to take the pill.
Posted by: JordanT at Apr 14, 2008 3:47:04 PM
"thus lowering the expected value of sex for many women"
You seriously think that most women find getting court orders for child support from unwilling men a more rewarding activity than having orgasms? Those are some really strange women you know.
I do agree, thought, with the nameless commenter who says that the thing could be marketable as "sperm-count-reducing paternity-risk mitigation." Pregnancy may be more of risk than child support, because a woman's odds of getting pregnant are usually higher than a man's odds of actually being obliged to pay child support. But that doesn't mean paternity suits are a risk that's off the radar low, especially for men who have more money.
I don't see where it would greatly affect the quantity of casual intercourse, though, given that it's hard for casual partners (male or female) to trust each other to take pills, and that, in a world of limited trust, the pill would mainly affect the behavior of the sex that's already taking less risk and therefore on average more willing to have casual sex. Not that that's a problem. More power to prevent unwanted pregnancies is a good thing, in any form.
Posted by: Lynn Gazis-Sax at Apr 14, 2008 3:54:20 PM
Remember, it's likely to be the man who argues for not using a condom. Male birth control gives him the ability to do this and almost eliminate his most probable risk.
Also, the idea that women on average have more to lose by getting pregnant is almost completely irrelevant. When a man hooks up with a woman, he is not hooking up with a representative of the average attitudes of women, he is hooking up with a specific woman who's views could be almost anywhere along the distribution (in terms of both whether she would carry the child to term and whether she is honest about her own contraceptive use). Thus, he can trust himself, but not her. Control seems to be the real selling point, at least for single men.
Posted by: Psychohistorian at Apr 14, 2008 5:30:27 PM
"You seriously think that most women find getting court orders for child support from unwilling men a more rewarding activity than having orgasms? Those are some really strange women you know."
Many women don't have orgasms, or enjoy sex much at all -- IIRC, various surveys have reported that around 10-30% of women never have orgasms and/or don't enjoy sex. Most of these women still want children and financial support to raise these children.
There are also many women who, regardless of whether they enjoy sex or not, want children but can't find a man willing to have children with them when the women want to start having them. Many of these women thus "forget" to take their birth control pills because they decide that they want a baby now whether their men want one or not. Or they think that getting pregnant will get an ambivalent man to marry or otherwise commit to them.
"Deadbeat dad" laws in the US have really been strengthened in recent years, so unless you work in the underground economy, you will eventually have to pay child support for any children you father (or, sometimes, for any children born to a woman you had a sexual relationship with, even if the children are not actually genetically yours!).
My warning to all my young male friends has been that the average woman's drive to have babies seems to be as strong as the average man's drive to have sex, and that women will lie to and otherwise manipulate men to get pregnant as much as men will lie to and manipulate women to get laid. Hopefully this has scared a few of them into always wearing condoms until they're ready to become fathers.
Unfortunately, though, as a contraceptive, condoms have a very high failure rate (10-18% with "typical use" -- very few people achieve the "perfect use" 2-3% failure rate), so I think the availability of a more reliable, male-controlled contraception option like a male birth control pill would be a great thing.
Posted by: Jacqueline at Apr 14, 2008 5:43:25 PM
"Male birth control gives him the ability to do this and almost eliminate his most probable risk."
But does it really? Don't rather more men get STDs than wind up paying child support?
"Also, the idea that women on average have more to lose by getting pregnant is almost completely irrelevant."
Almost completely irrelevant to the man's risk assessment in deciding whether to use the pill, I agree. But very much relevant to the quantity of casual hook ups being had, since the major factor limiting the number of casual hook ups for the population as a whole is the risk averseness of the average woman.
"IIRC, various surveys have reported that around 10-30% of women never have orgasms and/or don't enjoy sex."
At least 10% of all women don't want children at all, and surely more than 30% don't want children with a reluctant father who will be nowhere around for hands on parenting.
"My warning to all my young male friends has been that the average woman's drive to have babies seems to be as strong as the average man's drive to have sex"
I would say not, actually, since the average woman wants only a couple of babies in a lifetime, while the average man would be happy to have sex his whole life long. Nevertheless, the average man would be well advised not to rely on multiple casual sex partners to all remember to consistently take their pills every day, as remembering to consistently take medications, even ones vital to one's health, is actually something that people, male and female alike, tend to be pretty bad at. Another good reason for a male pill. Two people trying to remember to take their pill are less likely to simultaneously forget than either one is to forget individually.
Posted by: Lynn Gazis-Sax at Apr 14, 2008 6:02:55 PM
What are the potential side-effects, and how effective is the method? If the drug is safe, the side-effects are minor, and the effectiveness is very high, this is a big winner. But I highly doubt those are all the case.
Posted by: Anthony at Apr 14, 2008 6:46:49 PM
"Don't rather more men get STDs than wind up paying child support?"
The most common STDs aren't that bad, especially for men. I think most men would rather get chlamydia, trichomoniasis, gonorrhea, or syphallis (all curable with antibiotics) than pay 18 years of child support.
HPV is incurable, but most strains of HPV don't affect men so their only concern there would be a future partner's cancer risk (but their future partners can get immunized against the most common cancer-causing strains now, so in a generation this will probably no longer be a concern).
Herpes is yucky but controllable with medication and so many people have it now that there are even personal ad sites for dating other people with herpes.
Hepatitis is nasty and I doubt that many men would rather have it than pay child support, but you can get vaccinated against A and B. C is only very rarely transmitted via sex.
I think all (or almost all) men would rather pay child support than be infected with HIV/AIDS, but even with that, if you can afford the new drugs, HIV/AIDS isn't that bad anymore -- it's becoming more of a controllable lifetime medical condition (like diabetes) than a death sentence. Also, it's relatively difficult for a man to catch HIV from heterosexual intercourse, both because of the mechanics of the act (most of the fluid is going the other way, so unless the man has open sores from another STD it's difficult for the virus to infect him) and because relatively few women are infected. If you don't have sex with black women, prostitutes, or intravenous drug users, your chances of having sex with an HIV-infected woman who doesn't know she's infected or doesn't tell you are pretty low in the US.
Whether a man should fear STDs or an unwanted (by him) pregnancy more is probably dependent on his income level. Higher income men are more attractive targets for would be "oopsers", are less able to work in the underground economy (if they want to maintain their income level) and thus are more likely to be forced to pay child support, and will have to pay more money in child support because of their higher income, so the cost of an unwanted (by them) pregnancy is a lot higher. On the flipside, they can better afford the medical treatment for any STDs they risk catching, so the cost of an STD is lower. So I think that middle and higher income men probably need to worry about unwanted pregnancy more. Whereas lower income men have already demonstrated that most of them won't financially support or parent their children (wanted or unwanted) anyway, so they probably need to worry more about catching expensive diseases.
Posted by: Jacqueline at Apr 14, 2008 7:56:17 PM
"the average woman wants only a couple of babies in a lifetime, while the average man would be happy to have sex his whole life long"
What I mean is, a woman's drive to have a baby, when she wants one, is as strong as a man's drive to have sex when he wants sex. Men want to have sex more often than women want to have babies, but when a woman does want to have one, her drive to get pregnant is just as strong (possibly stronger!). I've definitely seen equal levels of unethical or self-destructive behavior from each gender in pursuit of their respective desires.
Posted by: Jacqueline at Apr 14, 2008 8:05:47 PM
You apparently know some crazy women, Jaq. I think your perspective is skewed. You are suggesting that a significant number of women want to knock up a man and (probably) be a single mom, considering he doesn't want the baby. The vast majority of women do not want this. Meanwhile most men (and women) do want sex. The comparison is ludicrous.
Posted by: liberty at Apr 14, 2008 10:14:16 PM
I agree with Jacqueline. I was one of those guys who was trapped by a woman, we ended up marrying. I love my daughter, things didn't work out between us, we are getting a divorce. I have temp custody of my daughter but still its rare for guys getting custody. The family courts are heavily biased towards women (b00b factor).
Posted by: jay at Apr 14, 2008 11:27:14 PM
A couple of thoughts.
How about the situation where the couple trades off taking the pill. Him for a year, her for a year?
I also think that analyzing this in pure economic terms is laughable. People don't make such decisions in such a manner.
You also don't take into account the committed couple who has been through the shot, the IUD, the ring and the pill. With varying worsening side-effects. IUD was expelled and ripped through stuff in the process. The hormonal stuff brought on blood clots and the hospital bills were not cheap.
They'd like kids, in about 5 years. Vasectomies are iffy for that, so? The male pill looks wonderful. In fact, when she was on the pill HE was the one who asked and reminded her every night to take her pill. She thanked him for that. They made their decisions together, supportively, because they knew the emotions involved in abortion, supporting a child they couldn't afford etc.
The male pill looks beautiful from their perspective. Maybe rare, maybe a small market, but they can't wait.
Posted by: Veronica at Apr 16, 2008 11:59:47 AM
“ I also think that analyzing this in pure economic terms is laughable. People don't make such decisions in such a manner.” - Veronica
I don’t know what country or planet you come from, but here on the planet earth in the United States child support is not some trivial little one-time payment that can easily be ignored by the people (which are over 90% men) that have to pay it.
I work with young inner-city men that are barely making minimum-wage and paying out half of that to women that make a living having babies to qualify for food stamps, free housing and child support.
The need for this male contraceptive in my African American community where the out of wedlock birth rate is over 70% is paramount.
And your hypothetical scenario where the guy “trades off” using the only contraceptive that he can truly verify sounds like just another feminist recipe for disaster in a war zone that’s already been bombed.
All that being said I do agree with you that there are honest people in this world. But the use of an undetectable contraceptive (be it male or female) is a very personal issue that should not have to be negotiated or even disclosed unless the two people are actively trying to conceive a child.
My body my choice! Don't you remember that rally call.
Posted by: Larry Brown at Apr 16, 2008 5:06:14 PM
Exactly who in this thread, Larry, is suggesting that men be prevented from using the pill? I see a lot of people saying that it would be a great option for men to have, and no one saying women should get veto power over men using it.
As for Veronica's hypothetical "trade off" scenario, presumably it would only happen in the case where a) the couple trust each other, b) they both don't want kids, and c) neither of them likes taking the pill, so they'd prefer a break. Otherwise, why ever would they do it? There's a cost to trading off, given that, for at least the female pill that we already know about, a) it takes time to become effective, so the hypothetical couple would need some overlapping of pills, and b) some women experience side effects (such as breakthrough bleeding) mainly at start up, which may be reduced as they continue (a common thing with any medication - some side effects you're stuck with, and some go away, and individual people's mileage varies). But, however small the set of couples who'd want to do this, they should certainly have the option.
Posted by: Lynn Gazis-Sax at Apr 18, 2008 9:47:15 AM
"Exactly who in this thread, Larry, is suggesting that men be prevented from using the pill? I see a lot of people saying that it would be a great option for men to have, and no one saying women should get veto power over men using it."- Lynn Gazis-Sax
Nice try, but all this conciliatory talk on the eve of the release of the first undetectable male contraceptive makes me a little bit leery. And I’m just not buying it. And any man that does will most likely meet with his appropriate fate according to the latest U.S. census Bureau's out of wedlock births data statistics.
So never mind your golden stamp of approval ladies I think I’ll just stay alert and sober (just to be on the safe side) during this historical transition. And I’ll warn any and all other men (that will listen) to do the same. Because for all we know there could be a Trojan horse awaiting us at the gate to the promise land of reproductive equality.
The bottom line here is,
"Sexual partner beware! Because there are no exchanges or refunds when it comes to the very valuable commodity of sperm. So never trust any female that says she’s using anything that you can not see with your own eyes. Unless you want her to be the mother of your next child."
That’s what I tell the young dudes that are (court ordered) to come to our community center because they missed two or more child support payments and the judge doesn’t want to throw them in jail- yet.
And it’s also what I tell the ten to fourteen year old boys I coach in summer league. And it’s the best advice I can offer to the men on the net.
In closing let me say I do apologize if I've said anything inappropriate or offensive on a personal level. But I'm on the front lines of this biased anti-male child support system. And I've just seen to many broken men with shattered dreams.
Posted by: Larry Brown at Apr 19, 2008 12:12:15 AM
Can't wait for the male BCP! Women will no longer be calling the shots on the next generation.
Posted by: Winky at May 23, 2008 5:56:12 AM
