« Health care: a science fiction story | Main | China fact of the day »
Why divorce is good for marriage
Here is my latest New York Times column, featuring the work of Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers (and here); excerpt:
In the United States, the availability of divorce has increased with unilateral divorce, which allows either member of the couple to dissolve the union. The change has been associated with lower rates of female suicide and domestic violence, and fewer wives murdered by their husbands. Unilateral divorce shifts the bargaining power to the person who is getting less out of the marriage and thus is most likely to leave. The partner getting more from the marriage has to work harder to keep the other person around, which can be good for the marriage and good for the couple. In other words, unilateral divorce benefits victims and potential victims.
...Unilateral divorce does make for less committed marriages. In states that allow unilateral divorce, a spouse is 10 percent less likely to be putting the partner through school. The obvious fear is that once the costly education is over, the beneficiary will leave the marriage. In states with unilateral divorce, adjusting for the relevant demographics, a couple is 6 percent less likely to have a child. Again, couples seem to be making decisions with the prospect of divorce in the back (or the front) of their minds.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on April 19, 2007 at 08:20 AM in Economics | Permalink
Comments
There are significant externalities involved, partcularly for children of couples who get divorced. I agree there are benefits
to easy diovorce, but I don't think they outweigh the costs.
Posted by: bastiat at Apr 19, 2007 8:44:51 AM
The government should not be in the business of enforcing the commitment of marriage. If a couple wants to use a commitment strategy to improve their relationship, there are plenty of ways to do that beside making divorce universally legally difficult. Social approbation and prenuptual contracts can provide incentives to stay together; they also allow each couple to decide for themselves how binding they want their commitment to be - and to increase it or (with some difficulty) decrease it over time as they jointly desire.
That does raise an interesting question, though: do all marriage-related commitment strategies increase the risk of domestic violence, spousal murder, and suicide? My guess is no, at least not significantly. I suspect that self-chosen commitment mechanisms (as opposed to the default mechanism provided by the government, i.e. "if you get married you're stuck with them"), while they may increase some kinds of victimization and abuse on the margin, would not create such high barriers to disolving a marriage that the truly dangerous and violent kinds of abuse would be tolerated.
But even if I'm wrong and any kind of commitment did increase the risk of violence, I suspect that self-chosen commitment mechanisms would be less risky than government-imposed ones.
Posted by: eddie at Apr 19, 2007 9:25:28 AM
"In other words, modern marriage is more fun."
Thanks for reminding me!
Posted by: Mike at Apr 19, 2007 9:32:37 AM
An easy way for couples in a quickie-divorce state to increase their commitment is to create a "marriage trust fund". The trustee will manage the assets in the fund on their behalf and to their joint benefit, including paying out dividends - as long as the couple is still together. In the event of a divorce, the trustee will donate the entirety of the trust fund to some person, group, entity, or cause that both of the spouses find loathsome. The couple can add to the assets of the trust at any time thereby increasing their commitment to each other. Use of such trust funds might improve the rates of spouses supporting one another through school and of couples having children.
We have something like this today, whereby couples getting a divorce have to give away a significant chunk of their assets to loathsome creatures known as "divorce attorneys". Marriage trust funds would break up the monopoly rents the attorneys are currently getting and disperse them amongst a wider variety of miscreants.
Posted by: eddie at Apr 19, 2007 9:54:05 AM
As usual a fascinating and thought provoking piece from Dr. Cowan. I am still working through it in my mind.
I am reminded though of another recent post from TC, the post that addressed, tangentially, the tragedy at Virginia Tech. TC wrote...
… I see weaker social and family constraints, whatever their other benefits, as having dangerous effects on the psychotic outliers.
Does easier divorce strengthen or weaken family constraints? Weaker constraints have implications that are not immediately obvious.
Posted by: martin kennedy at Apr 19, 2007 10:27:05 AM
If the function of marriage is to ensure that parents fully fulfil their duties to their kids, it's certainly not good for that:
http://www.nber.org/digest/feb01/w7968.html
Posted by: Chris at Apr 19, 2007 10:31:38 AM
Where is Good-Tyler? It's all well and good to point out the benefits, but the cost of divorce is virtually ignored here. Perhaps because it's not easily framed in economic terms?
Posted by: John Goes at Apr 19, 2007 10:38:26 AM
AFAIKT, the government is not, nor ever was, 'in the businuess of enforcing the commitment of marriage'. They have been in the business of creating incentives for men and women to 1) procreate to expand the population, and thus the economic base; 2) raise children that are indoctrinated into the national social norms and work ethic; etc. It just happens that marriage has been the most effective way of achieving these goals. Like others, I can see these benefits, and certainly do not favor a return to systems of fault-only divorce, but I do think that there are societal costs involved with divorce that need to be addressed somehow.
Posted by: Darin London at Apr 19, 2007 11:06:21 AM
The same is true for de facto couples.In Latinamerica men behave better with women when they "live in sin".You have to work harder in the relationship as the easier is the way out.
Posted by: jcm at Apr 19, 2007 11:15:15 AM
At least it makes people who read the NYTimes feel happy.
Given the majority of divorces are initiated by women, how many men aren't getting married because they know that the woman can leave them unilaterally and take the kids, and then have the courts force the man to pay her alimony?
Posted by: Matt at Apr 19, 2007 11:31:27 AM
Very well said. I wish that people were more open to concepts such as divorce in my part of the world as well...really, it is just rational that one should be allowed to nullify an unhappy relationship..
The perception that people have, specially in India/Asia is that the children suffer due to a divorce. I personally feel that they suffer more if they have to constantly deal with fighting parents and sometimes with the knowledge that the only reason their parents are continuing with their unhappy life is them...
anyway, do check out my blog at http://freedomnoodles.blogspot.com/ - its a commentary on daily happenings in India and the world, with a bit of a libertarian flavor...
Posted by: Sahil Bajaj at Apr 19, 2007 11:56:11 AM
I often wonder why people get married at all if they don't want children.
Posted by: Yan Li at Apr 19, 2007 12:08:06 PM
Enough with the slamming of all divorce lawyers.
If anyone in Northern VA needs an excellent, and experienced, family lawyer, one who will attempt to reach a fair settlement and will be civil and courteous to all parties throughout, I give my highest recommendation to Kelly Hite, now located in Fairfax. Outstanding attorney.
Her fees were fair, and she was civil and respectful to my ex and her lawyer and to me throughout. (And she is not afraid to go to trial if necessary.)
It is easy to slam divorce attorneys and criminal defense attorneys, until, God forbid, you need one. If you do need one, I hope you find a good one. See "Three Cheers for Lawyers: Don't think a good defense attorney matters? Think again." by Randy Barnett, WSJ April 17, 2007
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009952
Posted by: Chug at Apr 19, 2007 1:33:06 PM
In the United States, the availability of divorce has increased with unilateral divorce, which allows either member of the couple to dissolve the union. The change has been associated with lower rates of female suicide and domestic violence, and fewer wives murdered by their husbands.
OK, but what do you mean by this? Do you simply mean that their has been a historical correlation between the decline of domestic violence and the rise of divorce? Is their any actual evidence for causality? Is there any evidence that the reduced number of wives murdered by their husbands is anything beyond women simply being single more often and for a longer period in their earlier lives and, consequently, their potentially violent husbands' earlier lives also?
Posted by: mike at Apr 19, 2007 1:37:33 PM
Mike wrote
Do you simply mean that their has been a historical correlation between the decline of domestic violence and the rise of divorce? Is their any actual evidence for causality? Is there any evidence that the reduced number of wives murdered by their husbands is anything beyond women simply being single more often and for a longer period in their earlier lives and, consequently, their potentially violent husbands' earlier lives also?
to answer your questions - yes. See Wolfers and Stevenson's February 2006 QJE paper, "Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law" which details the evidence to support the claims in Cowen's piece. The authors use state passings of unilateral divorce laws to identify the effect on the outcomes mentioned.
Posted by: Jason Voorhees at Apr 19, 2007 1:50:31 PM
"I often wonder why people get married at all if they don't want children." - Yan
I know quite a few people (including me) who either waited a decade to have children or chose not to have them at all. If you're married to the right person, marriage is FUN!! Plus, there are legal benefits. Here’s one example: if a spouse dies intestate the other spouse automatically inherits the couples’ wealth without taxes or hassle. There are also religious and moral issues and personal preference. Mostly, though, marriage is more fun without the hassle of kids.
Posted by: Methinks at Apr 19, 2007 2:47:39 PM
Hey Tyler:
In the United States, the availability of divorce has increased with unilateral divorce, which allows either member of the couple to dissolve the union. The change has been associated with lower rates of female suicide and domestic violence, and fewer wives murdered by their husbands.
What's been the trend in male suicide and female-on-male murders? Just a minor issue of ommission here.
THIS abstract seemed pretty interesting.
Posted by: Aaron at Apr 19, 2007 5:21:17 PM
The argument as to whether it is better on the kids for unhappily married couples to divorce vs. being forced to stay together by religion or law will probably not be answered in my lifetime. I can only say, having seen the War of the Roses that my (undivorcing) grandparents carried out with each other using their children as ammunition, I'm all in favor of divorce.
There was a reason why my father had no contact with his family for 40 years.
Posted by: grumpy realist at Apr 19, 2007 6:10:10 PM
I have read that in the US, married men are better off that single men. Does the research include single men in committed relationships: gay or straight, but not married? If marriage is so beneficial for men, why does it appear that there are more widowers than widows...at least in some parts of Florida and Arizona?
SJ
Posted by: STEVE JACOBSON at Apr 19, 2007 6:14:13 PM
African-Americans provide a test case of Tyler's theory.
The marriage rate has fallen fastest among African-Americans, and we see, indeed, that black women are being murdered and are murdering at a relatively lower rate than several decades ago, probably, as Tyler would suggest, because of the decline of marriage among blacks.
On the other hand, the increase in the number of black males murdered by other black males during this era of collapse in black marriage rates was enormous, and most realistic observers see a connection between the decline in marriage and the rise in crime among black males after about 1963.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Apr 20, 2007 2:25:51 AM
Steve - is it increased crime or increased scarcity of men that is causing the decreased marraige among Black women? See Charles and Luoh. Bruce Western argues that rising imprisonment is not being driven by rising crime rates, since among the least educated Black Americans, crime was falling as imprisonment was rising. Most observers argue the increased imprisonment is due to changes in federal and state prison policies - war on drugs, minimum sentencing, three strikes, etc.
Posted by: Jason Voorhees at Apr 20, 2007 10:38:12 AM
I think a big contributor to current divorce rates is the fact that many people who have cold feet before their wedding go through with them anyway because of the HUGE deposits they would be forfeiting. America has developed an odd anthropological quirk of being the rare society that places almost no value on premarital abstinence, and still carries out extravagent weddings.
Posted by: Christina at Apr 20, 2007 11:54:53 AM
I've always been interested in the mechanism by which people consider things like their state divorce laws (or other laws, particularly criminal laws, really). I doubt most people actually know these laws to any degree of specificity. And yet people act differently in different states in ways that usually seem to line up with the incentives those laws (of which they are unaware)would be expected to produce.
Its probably some nebulous understanding of what is or is not a good idea, based on the experiences of those around them. In law school, whenever someone mentioned that a particular law incentivized certain behavior, the immediate response from someone was always "but the public doesn't know the details of this obscure law anyways." It always seemed a poor response to me. Surely general cultural trends and attitudes respond to these laws over time. But its so hard to trace the actual cause and effect process.
Posted by: Patrick at Apr 20, 2007 1:44:59 PM
Aaron, quickly looking at the paper I find:"Stevenson and Wolfers (2006) find that female suicide and domestic violence fell in states that adopted unilateral divorce laws. They interpret these findings as suggesting that unilateral divorce laws shift bargaining power to women."
Presumably male "suicide and domestic violence" rose.
Total "suicide and domestic violence" might well have gone up.
There exist institutions and ideologies designed to favour women. There are no such institutions to favour men. Public Choice theory suggests that whenever mens intrests conflict with womens, the state will always intervene to favour women.
Hence divorce laws that favour women, and women complaining that men are reluctant to marry.
There is a suggestion that the terms of divorce laws be extended to cover cohabiting couples, thus closing off an escape route for men.
Posted by: anon at Apr 20, 2007 2:05:24 PM
Anon,
Since marriage already favours men and women in a marriage are often further hampered by children, is it not correct for the law to protect women with divorce laws that favour them?
Posted by: Kat at Apr 20, 2007 5:12:08 PM
