Nonresident parents pay a small proportion of the total pecuniary costs of raising children in Jamaica. This paper uses household survey data to identify conditions that promote cash support by absent parents. The paper highlights several ways in which gender influences Jamaican child support decisions. Absent fathers contribute cash support more consistently than absent mothers do, and absent fathers support their daughters more consistently than they support sons. Gendered norms of resource transfer in adult relationships help explain low levels of paternal support for children. But results from Jamaica cast doubt on the argument that male poverty explains most paternal default on child support obligations.

This essay uses the example of child support theory and Jamaican childsupport practices to argue that greater attention to local contexts and meaning systems can improve the explanatory and predictive power of economic models and their usefulness to policy-makers. The essay summarizes how neoclassical economists have (and have not) incorporated cultural differences into models of child support behavior. It then sketches two alternative approaches to taking cultural differences more seriously. The first approach maintains the logic and basic assumptions of the neoclassical model but accounts for specifically Jamaican constraints on child support behavior. The second approach considers how Jamaicans themselves might model their own child support practices. The essay identifies strengths of these two culturally sensitive child support models but also argues that both models disadvantage women andchildren by obscuring the opportunity costs of rearing children and helping to rationalize paternal child support default.Jamaican Households, Culture, Gender, Child Support,

No abstract

There is no shortage of Jamaican women with relatively high educational levels, extensive workforce experience, and strong records of community service. In spite of this, few Jamaican women are found among top government and business leaders. In response, Jamaica's 51 % Coalition has proposed using gender quotas to increase the number of Jamaican women in Parliament and on public and private sector boards of directors. My focus in this article is the private sector. I evaluate both the desirability of Jamaican corporate gender quotas and the merits of using “Business Case” arguments to promote Jamaican quotas. Advocates of political gender quotas justify them on grounds of women's rights and representative democracy. Proponents of corporate gender quotas, on the other hand, tend to promulgate Business Case arguments, which promote gender equity as a way to boost corporate efficiency and profitability. I conclude that Jamaican gender quotas deserve recognition as one potential strategy among many required to build a gender-just and prosperous economy. The Business Case is a powerful strategic resource for the 51 % Coalition but the Coalition should not exaggerate potential efficiency gains from gender-diverse boards. Furthermore, quota advocates must deploy the Business Case carefully to avoid the pitfalls of instrumentalism, essentialism, and depoliticization that are often associated with these arguments.