« Paris advice | Main | Would W.H. Auden have enjoyed blogging? »
In defense of polygamy
I'm not convinced by Tyler's arguments against polygamy. Let's clear away some misconceptions.
First, it's important to note that polygamy (specifically polygny) not monogamy is the norm in human society - some 75% of the known human societies have approved of polygny.
Second, we sometimes look around the world, note that polygny is approved of in societies such as Saudi Arabia that are not exactly women-friendly and conclude that polygny must be against the interests of women. The problem with this argument is that most societies with monogamous marriage have also not been women-friendly. Women can't drive in polygnous Saudi Arabia but they couldn't vote in monogamous United States until circa 1920, nor could they easily get a credit card in their own names or easily go to law school as late as the 1960s.
The basic economic argument that polygny increases the demand for women - under polygny Bill Gates can have two wives which by demonstrated preferences makes at least the second wife better off - suggests, but does not prove, that polygny can favor women. (Consider polyandry - would men complain if Angelina Jolie could have two husbands?)
Third, let's consider Tyler's argument that polgyny reduces investment in children. It is true that to the extent that polygny increases the number of any particular man's children that his attention will be divided. But there are two counter effects. First, there is a selection effect. The men with more children will be the wealthier and healthier men - the better providers. If polygny increases the number of children that Bill Gates (oh what the hell my wife doesn't always read the blog, or me!) has then average child quality over society as a whole will increase.
Moreover, if child quantity is the problem then that problem ought to be addressed directly. Does Tyler support a tax on children ala China?
Also, Tyler puts too much attention on the man. Polygny probably increases the fertility of the polygnous man but it also decreases the fertility of the polygnous woman (not by as much as it increases the fertility of the man because women are already much closer to the physical limit on children than are men but by an appreciable amount), thus the attention of mothers will increase.
Aside: Tertilt argues that polgyny decreases investment but on the basis of a model which combines polygny with many other factors such as brideprice being paid to the bride's male relatives - this would not apply in the contemporary United States. (It also appears to me on a quick reading that the Tertilt argument may commit the Junker fallacy.)
Polygny could be very well suited to a modern society in which women work. Working women already contract out child care services - a second, stay at home wife, is not that different.
Polygny will be bad for poor men who lose out in the competition for first wives to rich men who are on their second. This already happens, by the way, because of serial polygamy - older men divorce their older wives and marry younger ones leaving older women unmarried and some younger men without young wives. Bad for the young men but not necessarily bad for the young wives. For this reason it's probably true that polygny cannot be countenanced in a democracy. At least not until the supply of young men is reduced enough so that every many can have at least one wife even if some can have two.
On the whole, therefore, I see no strong arguments that banning polygamy (either polygny or polyandry) is socially optimal but due to the power of the patriarchy I don't expect polygny to be approved of in the United States any time soon.
Comments are open.
Posted by Alex Tabarrok on February 25, 2006 at 07:15 AM in Current Affairs, Economics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c66b253ef00e5509799888834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference In defense of polygamy:
» Are Polygynist Societies Worse for Women? from Burtonia Blogs
Marginal Revolution has had a couple of interesting posts discussing the advantages/disadvantages of polygamy (specifically polygyny - men having multiple wives). In the second post Alex Tabarrok responds to Tyler Cowen's post, arguing that polygyny migh [Read More]
Tracked on Feb 25, 2006 8:42:03 AM
» Arbitrage opportunity from Lagniappe: an unserious blog
WSJ: Some collecting groups have created unstated policies. The 650-member National Milk Glass Collectors Society a group devoted to opaque g... [Read More]
Tracked on Feb 25, 2006 11:02:47 AM
» Poligamia from De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum
Tyler e Alex discordam sobre os efeitos da poligamia. O argumento deste é a aplicação direta da Teoria Econômica: se a poligenia for autorizada (um homem com mais de uma mulher), aumentará a disputa por mulheres e sua situação melhora.... [Read More]
Tracked on Feb 26, 2006 6:49:57 AM
» Poligamia from De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum
Tyler e Alex discordam sobre os efeitos da poligamia. O argumento deste é a aplicação direta da Teoria Econômica: se a poligenia for autorizada (um homem com mais de uma mulher), aumentará a disputa por mulheres e sua situação melhora.... [Read More]
Tracked on Feb 26, 2006 6:55:13 AM
» POLITICS: Some Numbers For You, Georgie from disaster of Hurricane
public has a dismal assessment of Bush’s policies across the board:
– 30 percent approve of Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq — an all-time [Read More]
Tracked on Mar 1, 2006 8:47:33 AM
» Missing The Big Love Boat from No Treason
The HBO series Big Love is of course provoking considerable debate on polygamy. I expect most libertarians to miss the boat on this by focusing on polygamy as a matter of public policy.
I see something far more interesting here: Polygamists simply do... [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 7, 2006 5:10:43 PM
Comments
You're not considering the ultimate case, the one in which any individual can have many spouses, or various genders, at the same time.
"Have you met my 4 wifes and 2 husbands and our 10 lovely children?"
Ha ha!
Posted by: Gabriel Mihalache at Feb 25, 2006 7:46:35 AM
I've never understood the problem with polyndry as it seems like no one's business but the consenting adults.
Posted by: Raw Data at Feb 25, 2006 8:26:40 AM
The idea that successful women would be okay with a second wife who could focus on child-rearing makes the mistake that they would prefer a second wife to a fulltime employee who doesn't have sexual and spending privileges. Maybe Melinda Gates or Mrs. Trump would make this compromise for lack of bargaining power, but I can't envision any Washington power couples agreeing to it.
Men couldn't easily get credit cards until the 1960s or 1970s, so I'm not sure that credit cards really tell us much about gender relationships.
With respect to the male-surplus problem, sociologically, one might look at the modern African-American community, which already effectively has a shortage of men. The result is a race to the bottom where many women effectively trade sexual services and child-rearing without commitment from the fathers. Would polygamy improve the situation there, or make it worse?
But I don't think there would be a male-surplus problem in a Westernized country that adopted polygamy. What would really happen is that men inclined to have more than two spouses would likely import a good number of Second- and Third-World participants.
It's also a mistake to consider solely the effects of a change from monogamy to polygamy by itself. If the switch were combined with a legalization of prostitution, this would reduce the excess demand for wives. Cf. Posner on the subject of sexual marketplace competition.
The reason why polygamy isn't considered woman-friendly is because of other legal rules. How does one resolve questions of divorce? Community property? Child custody? There's no polygamous society that answers these questions in a manner that favors women. Other than prenuptial contracting, there's no legal regime that answers these questions in favor of wives that makes polygamy economically attractive to the vast majority of men, and a woman who could freely bargain for a prenuptial contract isn't likely to agree to a polygamous arrangement except in the rare instances of the multi-millionaires. (Certainly, none of my modal wives would've tolerated sharing!)
Aside from the fact that a deeply religious country is never going to approve of legalizing polygamy for the sake of the fraction of a percent of men who could afford a second wife (and the multiple women who would benefit from it), one hardly needs a formalized polygamy regime to keep mistresses and love-children on the side in twenty-first century America: witness the stereotype of the NBA star with seven children by five mothers.
There's also the issue of assortative mating. My generation of successful professional men, notwithstanding Maureen Dowd's claims, want highly educated spouses, often with high-powered careers, with whom they truly partner. I would be thrilled if my girlfriend takes a job offer to make 50% more than I do, as she's capable of doing. It's not clear that many would want to trade this model of marriage in for a loveless one where they have a harem of Filipino mail-order brides.
Posted by: Ted at Feb 25, 2006 8:39:28 AM
Why it so difficult for people to imagine, say, one man and two women living together? With some sort of long term agreement? We have a failure of imagination here.
Posted by: Raw Data at Feb 25, 2006 9:13:22 AM
I think the question in reguards to modern america is kind of moot. We're very unlikely to see a resurgance in polygamy...and I also suspect we're unlikely to see a resurgance in hard core monogomy. Mostly I think the concepts of long term permanent relationships are going the way of the dinosaur if looking at the divorce rate is any clue. Expect more fluid contractural personal relationships in general.
Personally though, I like the idea of a line marriage. Makes good economic sense if you ask me.
Posted by: UberIcarus at Feb 25, 2006 9:27:20 AM
"Why it so difficult for people to imagine, say, one man and two women living together? With some sort of long term agreement? We have a failure of imagination here."
I think plenty of people are perfectly capable of IMAGINING this sort of scenario. But given how difficult it is to negiotiate the shoals of one marital relationship, and keep things working well for both partners, I think it is pretty optimistic to assume that a marriage with multiple parties would be as stable. And I have to side with those who value stability in marriage over massive turnover in familial arrangements. As for what arrangements should be legally preferred, I will defer to Dickins: "The Law is an Ass".
Posted by: Matthew Cromer at Feb 25, 2006 9:44:24 AM
I am not suggesting that I either favor polygamy for myself or for others. What I find interesting is the concern about it and (usually) the conclusion that it is a bad idea for everyone. The practical problems (if you really want to get serious about scenarios) such as child custody and community property are solvable by applying the same set of rules. Custody? It's the best interest of the child. Community property? You change the divisior.
As to stability: considering the divorce rate, our current bi-polar situation is hardly a model for what works.
Having two women is not something which appeals to me -- ok, a little --but I can't really see that it is anyone's business.
Posted by: Raw Data at Feb 25, 2006 10:17:41 AM
AT: Women can't drive in polygnous Saudi Arabia
If the US was really hellbent on establishing democracies in the Middle East, why didn't we start with the kingdom of Saudi Arabia?
Posted by: DF at Feb 25, 2006 10:32:15 AM
Community property? You change the divisior.
Do you change it to three, or to four? And if you change it to four, who gets the two shares: the husband or the first wife, who may not want to have her 50% rights to community property reduced by the addition of a second wife who may not have the same income levels? Most polygamous marriages will be sequential, rather than simultaneous.
Posted by: Ted at Feb 25, 2006 11:01:27 AM
It's hard enough already to be a non-Alpha male in the United States. Ever notice the fact that bars and nightclubs catering to a singles crowd incessantly have to offer "ladies' night" specials in order to get enough women? Or that sites such as e-harmony.com and lavalife.com have a huge surplus of males among their members, at least up to age 40? Legalizing polygamy in the United States would be an utterly idiotic idea, leading to huge numbers of men left out in the cold, unable to find women. That's a recipe for all sorts of trouble.
Posted by: Peter at Feb 25, 2006 12:27:35 PM
Alex - A couple of thoughts.
First, polygamy has been embraced either by cultures that can be characterized as being overpopulated, or by cultures that desire more widespread population. The quality of the population may be debated.
Second, it is not clear that polygamous societies promote economic growth, but this is an empirical question. Would the industrial revolution have taken place in the West had the Church not been successful in promoting the Christian ideal of marriage and nuclear families? Remember, one of the defining characteristics of Christians in pagan Rome was their desire to remain with a single spouse, something that the Romans found weird. Since then, that Rome is no more, while civilization took root wherever the Christian ideal of marriage took root. Why?
I think it comes down to the emotional and human capital that is more likely to be assured when one grows up with a single mother and father.
Ted - Legalizing polygamy is going to happen, because the same arguments that make gay marriage legal will apply to other forms of marriage. So if you want one, you will get the other. In my view, the state should get out of the marriage business altogether. Let private institutions define marriage again, allow competition, and let individuals enter into contracts that make sense to them.
Posted by: john at Feb 25, 2006 12:59:27 PM
The unstated premise here is that "banning" polygamy matters. I don't think this is true -- IMHO if the economic benefits of polygamy are sufficiently great, then we should expect to see poly-relationships occur in fact if not in law. As several people have pointed out above, we _do_ see a lot of poly-behavior: Hugh Hefner, Kevin Federline, many NBA stars, rich men who rotate wives or keep mistresses, the weirder parts of Craigslist, and the occasional HBO "Real Sex" special. I haven't noticed any law enforcement efforts to stop any of that, as long as no one involved has a security clearance.
I suggest, therefore, that we split this debate into several interrelated questions:
1. Do some people's utility functions prefer open poly- relationships? Clearly, yes, although the revealed-preference examples are few in number, and some (Federline) are seen as objects of derision rather than attraction.
2. Do affairs and remarriage/serial monogamy reveal a more widespread preference for polygamy? This is debatable, but I think not. The secrecy and forbidden-fruit aspects of an affair may be part of the attraction. Maybe HBO's "Big Love" will have three bored wives, getting together to complain that their husband won't take out the trash for any of them. Maybe rich polygamists would divorce all of their wives to remarry 3 or 4 of their secretaries.
3. Would many single or stably married people who don't get involved in affairs prefer poly if it were available? Perhaps, but you have to argue against revealed preferences to claim so. Every single person today prefers to be single to both his/her currently available dating options and to the cost of expanding his/her dating pool. Polygamy might increase the search costs.
4. For those people who are practicing polygamy, would giving them the tax breaks, improved immigration status, and health benefits of legalized marriage improve general welfare? Probably not, as they are already disproportionately rich and thus don't need subsidies. If Bill Gates were to have a mistress, I doubt she would lack health insurance.
Posted by: DK at Feb 25, 2006 1:22:26 PM
Ted, why do you ask such easy economics questions?
>With respect to the male-surplus problem, sociologically, one might look at the modern African-American >community, which already effectively has a shortage of men. The result is a race to the bottom where many >women effectively trade sexual services and child-rearing without commitment from the fathers. Would polygamy >improve the situation there, or make it worse?
This is the textbook example of a case where we should all be able to agree that polygamy would improve the situation. The problem, essentially, is a shortage of men relative to women reducing the bargaining power of women. If polygamy increases woman's bargaining power, this would make the situation better.
>> Community property? You change the divisior.
>Do you change it to three, or to four? And if you change it to four, who gets the two shares: the husband or >the first wife, who may not want to have her 50% rights to community property reduced by the addition of a >second wife who may not have the same income levels? Most polygamous marriages will be sequential, rather >than simultaneous.
We already have business partnerships and joint stock companies of all sorts. This isn't any different conceptually and economically. Typically, assuming marriages start out as 50/50 partnerships if the first wife doesn't want her stock diluted she can prevent the merger. If her initial stock is less than 50%, she chose not to ppurchase a controlling share in the first place.
I suspect that poly-marriage and improved immigration status are conceptually incompatible. In fairness, there are weak general arguments against legal poly based on the excess cost to undesirable males, and strong ones based on transition costs, which I generally feel should be more emphasized in economics.
Posted by: michael vassar at Feb 25, 2006 2:25:15 PM
Please note, the relavent populations are the 'marriagable' men and women in a society. If you look at the college attendance gender ratios, it would appear that we can expect a steep decline in the ratio of marriagable men to marriagable women. This leaves women with three options:
1) Marry down. Yes, you may be a college educated sophisticated professional, but you are going to have to settle for marrying a gas station attendant.
2) Don't marry. Spinsterhood isn't as bad as it once was. Do you really want to do the single parent thing?
3) Enter into a polygamous relationship with an appropriately high quality man and his other mate.
Of course, one could always get lucky and snag a high quality fellow with no polygamous tendencies at all... but the odds are bad and getting worse.
Posted by: quadrupole at Feb 25, 2006 4:05:44 PM
"Please note, the relavent populations are the 'marriagable' men and women in a society. If you look at the college attendance gender ratios, it would appear that we can expect a steep decline in the ratio of marriagable men to marriagable women."
Or simply a decline in the ratio of marriagable college educated men to all marriagable men. There's no law that says that a college education will always and everywhere show a profit. As time goes on and the economy evolves, one can expect new routes to success to open up if college doesn't cut it anymore. It's not like the men all become stupid just because they don't go to college.
Posted by: Ken at Feb 25, 2006 4:30:45 PM
What's interesting is that the Evil Monotheistic Religion cause can't be invoked here. The Patriarchs of the Old Testament enjoyed their polygyny. Jesus didn't speak out against it, so why did it vanish in Christendom? Technically it is still legal in Judaism, but Jews are directed to obey the laws of the lands in which they are in. Presumably the Socialist elements of Israel prevented the issue from arising there. And finally, how common is it really practiced in Islamic countries?
Posted by: Charles Hope at Feb 25, 2006 5:41:32 PM
Re: Charles Hope's comment on religion -- there are some Christian, non-Mormon churches today which practice polygamy. In particular, some of the same African Anglican/Episcopalian churches which are angry about the U.S. Episcopal church accepting gays allow their local followers to practice polygamy. This is in large part due to these churches competing with Islam and traditional African religions for converts; you pretty much have to let your converts bring their wives with them. For the same reason, the Roman Catholic Church has a loophole where sometimes Episcopal priests can convert to Roman Catholic and keep their (single) wives.
Alex has previously posted about religions "evolving" to cope with socioeconomic needs such as lending money with interest. As an Episcopalian, I think the same thing would happen here -- mainline/liberal churches and Western legal systems are already evolving to embrace gay unions, as they evolved many years ago to embrace divorce in spite of Jesus specifically condemning it. If polygamy offered significant utility benefits, the mainline churches and European laws would or will evolve to allow it as well. The fact that they have not done so is IMHO evidence that the demand for polygamy is not that great.
Posted by: DK at Feb 25, 2006 6:38:54 PM
I joked (?) to Alex today that the real problem with polygamy is that men end up having too much sex. Not enough sublimation, etc.
Posted by: Tyler Cowen at Feb 25, 2006 9:04:31 PM
so why did it vanish in Christendom?
This is from the Imagining Australia blog
"The church had an interest in emphasising monogamous marriage - it gained a greater share of inheritances (broad clans mean little is left for the church). But a side-effect of banning polygamy and consanguineous marriage was to reduce loyalties to clan, and increase affiliation with the nation-state."
Link
Posted by: still working it out at Feb 25, 2006 9:23:11 PM
I rather doubt that the Christian church picked monogamy out of a calculation of the resulting bequests!
Most of what I could find on this suggests that monogamy was a Roman, pre-Christian idea, and entered our culture via Rome and possibly Greece, not through a fit of religious zeal or donation-mongering. See for example http//www.pogodesigns.com/JP/weddings/romanwed.html#ideal
and http://victorian.fortunecity.com/lion/373/roman/romarriage.html
And Plato's Symposium talks about love arising from two halves searching for each other, not from three or four parts searching for each other. I have tried to find more on when the Christian church adopted the idea, but unfortunately if you google polygamy + Christianity, you mostly get pro-polygamy propaganda sites.
Of course, the Romans did allow slaves/concubines in addition to wives. If you count that as polygamy, though, you probably have to count Thomas Jefferson as a polygamist.
Posted by: DK at Feb 25, 2006 10:27:24 PM
My impression is that deep down people don't really like each other that much. That as people become wealthier they have less to do with each other. We have gone from extended families to nuclear families to a combination of nuclear families, divorced families and single mothers and fathers. I think this trend will continue. Currently I see people buying larger and larger houses so each member can have more privacy and more and more families split between two or more dwellings even while their marriage or other relationship remains intact. I think that in the future we will see more people living alone and visiting people for social interaction rather than living with them. Although children will live with a parent they will spend much more time interacting with electronic devices than people, a trend that started with the introduction of radio and TV. So while there will be highly sociable people who will want to live and love in groups, regardless of whether or not the law recognizes their relationships as "marriages," I think most people will live alone and some will have on going sexual relationships with several people and some will have several on going parenting type relationships, just as nowadays many people have multiple friendship type relations. Living alone will also become more popular as technology’s ability to provide sexual satisfaction and social interaction increases.
Posted by: Ronald Brak at Feb 25, 2006 10:47:56 PM
The reason no advanced society practices polygny is not that advanced societies choose not to, but that it prevents a society form becoming advanced. Polygny leads causally to backward societies due to the deleterious effects of increased inbreeding, which is known to depress IQ, and probably has negative effects on character as well.
I noticed several years ago that in a photo of a group of Tikriti Iraqi army officers the men looked so similar one could have thought them all brothers.
Posted by: jm at Feb 26, 2006 3:00:34 AM
Entirely trivial question.
Polygny or polygyny? My dictionary says the latter: is this another one of those mysterious differences between English and American?
Posted by: Tim Worstall at Feb 26, 2006 6:30:30 AM
Jm.....you're an ass.
Posted by: UberIcarus at Feb 26, 2006 6:32:39 AM
"First, it's important to note that polygamy (specifically polygny) not monogamy is the norm in human society - some 75% of the known human societies have approved of polygny."
But even in those societies, only a small percentage of men have more than one wife. Even there, one man/one wife is the norm, and always has been. Polygyny (even where legal) is very much the exception, not the norm. And 'approve of polygyny' is not the right phrasing. 'Tolerate' would be more apt, I think.
Also, it's not the case that we don't permit polygyny or polyandry in the U.S. or elsewhere in the west. It's just that it is not legally sanctioned. One can live with and have sex and children with any assortment of adults one chooses, but the state will not officially endorse more than one of those relationships (at a time).
Posted by: Slocum at Feb 26, 2006 7:07:15 AM
