Friday, April 02, 2004
The surprising consequences of no-fault divorce
Divorce is a quick path to all sorts of social ills, including behavior problems and other childrearing challenges in children of divorced parents and a drastic decline in the standard of living of the parties, particularly women. I have therefore long thought that it would be a good thing to make it more difficult to get a divorce. But is there in fact a connection between the ease of divorce and the frequency of divorce? Perhaps not. Steve Chapman has a fascinating article in the Chicago Tribune that points toward the opposite conclusion:
The first surprise is that looser divorce laws have actually had little effect on the number of marriages that fall apart. Economist Justin Wolfers of Stanford University, in a study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, found that when California passed a no-fault divorce law in 1970, the divorce rate jumped, then fell back to its old level--and then fell some more.
That was also the pattern in other states that loosened their laws. Over time, he estimates, the chance that a first marriage would break up rose by just one-fourth of 1 percentage point, which is next to nothing.
In short, nothing bad happened. But in another NBER paper, Wolfers and fellow economist Betsey Stevenson, who will soon be associated with the University of Pennsylvania, report that in states that relaxed their divorce laws, some very good things happened: Fewer women committed suicide, and fewer were murdered by husbands or other "intimate" partners. In addition, both men and women suffered less domestic violence, compared to states that didn't change their laws.
Why didn't unilateral divorce increase divorce rates?
A change in divorce laws alters the balance of power in a marriage, giving more leverage to the weaker or more vulnerable spouse.
If either partner can demand a divorce, each has a greater incentive to keep the other content. If an abused spouse has an open exit, some abusers--and potential abusers--will find it possible to behave themselves.
TigerHawk insight: Remind you of anything? Mutual Assured Destruction! Nothing keeps the peace like equally destructive and credible mutual threats.
If this is a subject that interests you, read the whole thing.
The first surprise is that looser divorce laws have actually had little effect on the number of marriages that fall apart. Economist Justin Wolfers of Stanford University, in a study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, found that when California passed a no-fault divorce law in 1970, the divorce rate jumped, then fell back to its old level--and then fell some more.
That was also the pattern in other states that loosened their laws. Over time, he estimates, the chance that a first marriage would break up rose by just one-fourth of 1 percentage point, which is next to nothing.
In short, nothing bad happened. But in another NBER paper, Wolfers and fellow economist Betsey Stevenson, who will soon be associated with the University of Pennsylvania, report that in states that relaxed their divorce laws, some very good things happened: Fewer women committed suicide, and fewer were murdered by husbands or other "intimate" partners. In addition, both men and women suffered less domestic violence, compared to states that didn't change their laws.
Why didn't unilateral divorce increase divorce rates?
A change in divorce laws alters the balance of power in a marriage, giving more leverage to the weaker or more vulnerable spouse.
If either partner can demand a divorce, each has a greater incentive to keep the other content. If an abused spouse has an open exit, some abusers--and potential abusers--will find it possible to behave themselves.
TigerHawk insight: Remind you of anything? Mutual Assured Destruction! Nothing keeps the peace like equally destructive and credible mutual threats.
If this is a subject that interests you, read the whole thing.
0 Comments:
