Robert J. Stonebraker, Winthrop University
The Joy of
Economics: Making Sense out of Life
Robert J. Stonebraker, Winthrop
University
Moral Decay
Give me chastity, but not just now.
....Saint Augustine
Not long ago a young co-ed approached me to explain that she would miss Monday’s class. “I’m getting married that day,” she bubbled. Before I could inject my congratulations, she continued. “And I’ll be missing class at the end of next month as well. I’m having a baby.”
Economists have strong math skills. I could quickly calculate that "the end of next month” was less than nine months from her wedding. Why, this woman had engaged in pre-marital sex.
A few generations ago such admissions would have been scorned. Pregnancies of unmarried women were concealed. The couple involved rushed to the altar as quickly as possible, hoping that the birth could later be explained as “premature.” No longer. Not only are such marriages often postponed, many never occur at all.
In 1960 fewer than one out ten births were to single mothers. By the year 2000 that number had rocketed to one-third of all births. Among women under twenty years of age, 70 percent of all births are to single mothers. Unfortunately, a considerable body of evidence indicates that children born out of wedlock are more likely to suffer a variety of ills. Out-of-wedlock birth seems to increase a child's propensity for ill health, for poverty, for criminal activity, for being a school dropout, for being a welfare recipient, and for being a single parent him/herself. In short, out-of-wedlock births often create spillover costs for both society and for the children themselves.
What is causing this trend? The demagoguery of the day blames moral decay. The conservative Wall Street Journal once dubbed the out-of-wedlock birth rate as the most accurate indicator of our nation's moral deterioration. But such explanations do not wash with economists. Moral decay, if it has occurred, is a symptom, not a cause. Economists assume people have always pursued self-interest. If people's behavioral patterns shift, there must be an underlying shift in costs and benefits that caused such a shift. Morals do not spontaneously combust.
Besides, the rise in out-of-wedlock births is not confined to Americans. It is a broad trend that has occurred across countries, across classes, across ages, and across religious and ethnic groups. While out-of-wedlock birth rates in some countries such as Japan are lower than ours, the rates in others are higher. For example, more than 50 percent of births in Sweden are out-of-wedlock while rates in Canada and Great Britain mirror our own. Moral decay furnishes great sound bites for the media, but it is scientifically empty.
Possible causes
How about welfare? Can we pin the blame for out-of-wedlock births on handouts to the poor? The argument is plausible. Welfare payments do make it easier for unmarried women to support themselves and their children without marriage. But the data do not cooperate. If welfare is a major culprit, changes in out-of-wedlock birth rates should mimic changes in the real value of welfare payments. They do not. The real value of welfare payments has been falling steadily since 1975, the same period in which out-of-wedlock birth rates have soared. More surprisingly, although out-of-wedlock births still are disproportionately common among low-income women, the greatest rate of increase has occurred among relatively affluent women, not among welfare recipients.
Interestingly, the increase in out-of-wedlock births is apparently not the result of increased births. The change is in marriage patterns, not fertility patterns. When single women found themselves pregnant in the past, they typically demanded -- and got -- a shotgun wedding. No more. Shotgun marriage rates for both whites and blacks have fallen quickly over the last three decades. According to economists George Akerlof, Janet Yellen and Michael Katz (AYK hereafter), nearly 2/3 of the increase in out-of-wedlock births is attributable to this decrease in shotgun marriages.1
Why? One explanation is changing job opportunities for women. As the economy shifts from muscle-power to brainpower occupations, women have found more lucrative employment opportunities. With the ability to earn high wages and salaries themselves, women are less dependent upon men. They can afford to raise children without a husband. Similarly, knowing that their monetary contributions are less crucial, men are more apt to duck their responsibilities and skip out.
Although changing employment roles are a likely factor, AYK identify a second culprit: technology. They finger contraception and abortion. They argue that the very technologies intended to lower the incidence of unplanned births paradoxically has led to more. According to AYK, the ready availability of contraception and abortion transformed the competitive nature of the market for sex.
Competition and sex
Prior to the 1960's, most women refused to engage in pre-marital sex without an explicit or implicit promise of marriage in the event of pregnancy. With women presenting a united front, men were willing to make and hold to such promises of marriage; they had few competitive alternatives. Shotgun weddings were expected and were common.
Easily available contraception and abortions dramatically altered this process. With new technology to lessen the threat of unwanted children, the cost of pre-marital sex to women fell rapidly. When costs drop, prices should follow suit. And they did. Without the threat of unwanted children, many women no longer demanded promises of marriage in the event of pregnancy. In essence, they lowered the price charged to men for pre-marital sex. Not surprisingly, when the price went down, the quantity demanded by men went up.
But not all women embraced these changes. What happened to those women who tried to cling to the earlier technology; those who wanted marriage and/or who opposed contraception or abortion? Just what an economist would predict in a competitive market -- they were undersold and driven out of business. They lost their bargaining power. With pre-marital sex readily available elsewhere, they no longer could extract promises of marriage in the event of pregnancy. Many responded exactly as any other competitor trying to protect market share; they lowered their prices to compete. When unplanned pregnancies did occur, they absorbed the loss. They bore children out of wedlock.
Men's reactions reinforced the trend. Many men reasoned that they were not to blame for unwanted births. After all, women had access to contraceptives and to abortions. If women choose not to avail themselves of contraceptives or abortions, they should bear the consequences of that choice. Many men felt absolved of guilt, absolved of responsibility. When pregnancies occurred, they walked away.
Once a dam begins to leak, floods are not far behind. As out-of-wedlock births began to increase, the social stigma associated with them started to ease. When the unwed mother is your sister or your daughter or your close friend, it becomes far more difficult to cast her out of polite society. As the stigma eased, so did the cost to women of bearing children out of wedlock. Lower costs meant more such births, which meant less stigma, which meant more such births, et cetera.
What now? Should we roll back the technology? Probably not. The technology has increased choices and options for millions of men and women. Denying access to it at this point would probably increase the number of unwanted births significantly. Cuts in welfare benefits are not likely to have much impact either. Despite their political pizzazz, such cuts will do little other than to further impoverish the recipients.
A more appropriate policy would reverse the competitive position of men and women in the market for sex. If the new technology disadvantaged "women of virtue," policies that disadvantage men could restore balance in the market. For example, heavy taxes on men for fathering children and/or aggressive child-support programs might alter the terms of trade and change male behavior.
________________________________________
Notes:
1. The original study appeared as Akerlof, George A., Yellen, Janet L. and Katz, Michael L, "An Analysis of Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing in the United States", Quarterly Journal of Economics, volume 111, number 2, May 1996, p.271 (41). A less technical synopsis subsequently appeared as Akerlof and Yellen, "New Mothers, Not Married," Brookings Review, Fall 1996, volume 4, number 4, p. 18(4). The analysis and data used in this article are largely derived from these sources.
_________________________
Testing Yourself
To test your understanding of the major concepts in this reading, try answering the following:
1. Discuss why many economists are reluctant to blame the increase in out-of-wedlock births on moral decay in America and/or our welfare system.
2. Explain how growing employment opportunities might impact the quantity of out-of-wedlock births.
3. Explain how increasing access to contraception and abortion impacts the quantity of out-of-wedlock births; discuss the impacts on both women and men.