The title of this post comes from the UCLA press release:
Poor people hold more traditional values toward marriage and divorce than people with moderate and higher incomes, UCLA psychologists report in the current issue of the Journal of Marriage and Family.
The findings are based on a large survey about marriage, relationships and values, analyzed across income groups. They raise questions about how effectively some $1billion in government spending to promote the value of marriage among the poor is being spent.
“A lot of government policy is based on the assumption that low-income people hold less traditional views about marriage,” said Benjamin Karney, a UCLA professor of psychology and senior author of the study. “However, the different income groups do not hold dramatically different views about marriage and divorce — and when the views are different, they are different in the opposite direction from what is commonly assumed. People of low income hold values that are at least as traditional toward marriage and divorce, if not more so.”
The study, What’s (Not) Wrong With Low-Income Marriages, is by Thomas E. Trail and Benjamin R. Karney. The abstract:
In the United States, low marriage rates and high divorce rates among the poor have led policymakers to target this group for skills- and values-based interventions. The current research evaluated the assumptions underlying these interventions; specifically, the authors examined whether low-income respondents held less traditional values toward marriage, had unrealistic standards for marriage, and had more problems managing relational problems than higher income respondents. They assessed these issues in a stratified random sample that oversampled low-income and non-White populations (N = 6,012). The results demonstrated that, relative to higher income respondents, low-income respondents held more traditional values toward marriage, had similar romantic standards for marriage, and experienced similar skills-based relationship problems. Low-income groups had higher economic standards for marriage and experienced more problems related to economic and social issues (e.g., money, drinking/drug use) than did higher income respondents. Thus, efforts to save low-income marriages should directly confront the economic and social realities these couples face.
And from a section in the paper in which they discuss the implications of their work for policy:
The relationship problems that low-income respondents do experience as more severe than higher income respondents included problems that are generally more common among low-income populations (e.g., problems with money, substance abuse)but also included problems with fidelity and friends. It is important to note that, as in previous research (Amato & Previti, 2003; Karney & Bradbury, 1995), these problems are largely related to external stressors (i.e., financial problems, friends) and problem behaviors (i.e., substance abuse) rather than relationship-centered problems, raising questions about the appropriateness of interventions targeting low-income couples that focus primarily on interpersonal processes (e.g., communication and problem solving).
To be sensitive to the unique challenges that may be associated with higher vulnerability in this population, interventions may need to expand their focus to how couples negotiate the demands and temptations of their circumstances. Some state programs have already instituted this type of comprehensive intervention program to improve marriage, incorporating drug and alcohol treatment as well as job training into their programs (Ooms et al., 2004). The current research suggests that this type of intervention should be the norm rather than the exception.
Similarly, programs that promote economic stability in low-income communities (e.g., programs to increase steady employment or assist with debt relief and housing) may have significant effects on marital outcomes in those communities, even if those programs never target marriages or relationships directly. Whatever bolsters the financial prospects of low-income couples may remove barriers to marriage and/or forestall divorce for couples struggling with financial problems (Levin-Epstein, Ooms, Parke, Roberts, & Turetsky, 2002).
Although the effect of financial assistance on marriage and divorce rates is a source of controversy in the literature (Gennetian & Knox, 2003), the current research suggests that these strategies would help relieve stress on low-income relationships, allowing low-income couples to better follow through with their desires for stable, healthy marriages.
Thoughts?
My feeling is that there’s now quite a lot of evidence showing that poor people already want to get married and value marriage, and it seems unlikely that any policy intervention aimed at this area is going to do any good.
At the same time, however, it also seems unlikely that policy interventions to help poor people’s economic prospects are going to happen, given our dysfunctional government and Americans’ notorious hatred of income transfer programs. So it’s hard to feel a lot of hope, when thinking about new government interventions to help marriage and/or alleviate poverty.
Income transfer programs are unlikely to incentivize marriage among the poor, not because such programs aren’t yet vast enough to satisfy liberals, but because they tend structurally to discourage legal formalization of pair bonds, if not pair bonds themselves. The study notes that poor people want marriage and value it, but have ‘higher economic standards’ for it – i.e., they want to be richer first. Duh; if you’re poor and you get married, you lose some of the help you’ve been getting. Obviously you need to get out of that situation before you tie the knot.
We could change the structural rules for income transfer programs so that they don’t discourage or penalize marriage. Some of those changes (TANF eligibility) would probably involve moral hazard, but others (tax treatment) wouldn’t. Eliminating such programs altogether – you’re on your own, suckers – would probably HUGELY incentivize marriage (and other private forms of economic cooperation) but at a very high cost, for example, to women who would be stuck in abusive marriages because there was no social assistance for them or their children if they divorced.
If I were wanting to use the Federal government to encourage marriage, and wanted buy-in from both liberal and conservative sides of the aisle, I’d propose an absolutely fucking enormous refundable tax credit for children – and I’d make it available only to married, cohabiting, bioparents, who were married for 12 months before the birth of the child in question.
But I don’t think it’s the Federal government’s business to get involved with such things, and our existing tax system ought to be revamped to make it neutral towards taxpayers with regards to marital or childrearing status.
What is the benefit to the US government of having more people in marriages? (The obvious question is then why they don’t want same-sex marriages, if marriage is a good thing, but aside from that!)
I don’t know about US statistics, but in Australia, the risk factors more prominent for children of de facto relationships (higher risk of suffering abuse, lower chance of finishing high school, higher chance of depression and other mental illnesses) are all more strongly related to poverty than to whether or not the parents are married. De facto and married relationships are identical for tax and benefit purposes.
This seems like an opportune moment to link to my post on how the government might actually go about supporting marriages, IMNSHO.
It seems to me like your program, Robert, encourages married people to have biological children rather than encouraging people to get married or encouraging married people to adopt children. Am I missing something?
It encourages people to get married once and not blend families.
Lilacgirl said:
“What is the benefit to the US government of having more people in marriages?”
Because people in marriages tend to support each other and any children that ensure more than people who are not married, as opposed to needing more support from the taxpayers. Because children whose parents are married are more likely to be in a household that can support education (not that single parents don’t support the concept of education – but they have fewer resources of time and money to actually do so). Because children whose parents are married are less likely to commit crimes. I can go on like this for a while ….
Ron F, those are definite good points, but based on this study in particular, I have to wonder how much of that is correlation and not cause. If poor people are delaying marriage until they’re better off, getting married sooner won’t make them better off (and therefore isn’t likely to make sure their kids are well educated and not committing crimes). Do you know if any of those statistics actually control for income or similar factors?
Kelly K, I don’t advocate that people get people get married earlier. I propose that they wait longer (and until they are married) to have kids. If that means they end up delaying getting married, fine. Let them also delay having kids until that point.
Okay, but the point still remains that correlation between marriage and good outcomes for children is not necessarily a cause, if people are delaying marriage for financial reasons.
Also, “delay having kids” is a lovely idea in general, but delay too long and the choice goes away all together. (I’m 31…hubby and I have been trying for seven months, and so far, no dice. I don’t regret waiting til we were ready, but in hindsight I’m starting to wish we’d been ready a couple years sooner.)
Also, “wait until you’re better off” only works if you ever actually *become* better off. I don’t really like the implication that the whole huge swath of people who spend their entire lives never making it to “well off” or “middle class” shouldn’t have kids at all.