The Root Causes of Divorce: The Usual Suspects

Perhaps I'm being a bit pedantic, but I'm not sure that I can go along with any but 4 and 6 being a "root cause". I interpret "root cause" as being something exogenous to the mating model, but it seems to me that except for 4 and 6--which I take to be things that people are constrained from anticipating for some reason--all of these things arise endogenously given reasonable utility functions: 1,2, 3, and 5, taken as rates, are functions of the costliness of divorce because you invest less in getting along with your spouse and adhering to the contract when divorce is cheaper; as well, 3 ought to be determined by agents maximizing expected utility.

Looking at data elsewhere, it's true that the increase in divorce has been exaggerated, but I'd say the main reason for what we've seen is basically an income effect: as we've gotten wealthier, divorce is cheaper and cheaper (but not too marry at all is usually a better option).

What about when something tragic happens that changes the dynamical equilibrium, e.g., the birth of a kid with down syndrome, or the death of a child, etc...(exogenous shock?)

What about a non-culpable case of "you let yourself go"? I'm thinking of the mate whose obesity arises from genetic inheritance, the likelihood of which wasn't evident to the other mate at marriage. Is that a 4 or a 6?

What about the obvious case when one spouse falls in love with someone else (which may be both exogenous or, at least partly, endogenous)? It's not quite the same as no. 2 and not necessarily the same as no. 3. I guess as an economist you'd want to call that something like "Increase in opportunity cost of maintaining marriage".

Did you run this by your wife... or is she too busy at the gym :-)

KapKool:

That's more than just pedantic. It's a misguided application of models. You're presuming that we need to use a model to look at divorces and their causes, and that that model will comprise of these variables you describe. Yet divorce is a real phenomenon, not a model, and there's no reason to say that it has to comprise of 2 or 3 variables and that the only causes for divorce must be driven by variables outside of the model. That's just pure nonsense. A cause is a cause. Endogenous and exogenous are meaningless here because we're not looking at a model (at least, Kling didn't construct one, and you didn't either, just assumed one -- a model is an abstraction; it's a flawed representation of reality by definition).

Your assertion that divorce is caused by an "income effect" is similarly ridiculous. The rise of divorces correlates strongly with a decline in fertility. That, along with a more scrambled culture, and an emphasis on true love (because it's no longer just about having kids), have driven the divorce rates high. Study some sociology. The decline in fertility can be partly explained by an income effect, but more strongly explained by a rise in the cost of raising children.

I would say a large background "cause" is changing societal expectations about what level of violations should make divorce acceptable. Fifty years ago, you could have provided the same list, but the trigger point for divorce -- especially divorce without severe disapprobation -- would have been set at much higher levels.

Coupled to this is the perception that individual contentment/fulfillment is to be valued over an imperfect marriage.

As with monetary policy and inflation, think expectations.

See Lori Gottlieb's recent Atlantic piece, in which she chastises women for constantly seeking "the one," their "true soulmate" and similar bunkum, rather than making reasonable judgments about whether someone will make for a reasonable, acceptable mate, warts and all.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/single-marry

Those unrealizable, romanticized expectations (driven strongly by Hollywood romantic comedies and pablum self-help books) are arguably the among the greatest drivers of the high divorce rate.

Women usually gain weight from motherhood: pregnancy and the sleep deprivation, stress, and time expenditure due to nursing and childcare. Children benefit both partners, but the risks accrue primarily to the woman.

[Comment removed for supplying false email address. Email the webmaster@econlib.org to request restoring this comment. A valid email address is required to post comments on EconLog.--Econlib Ed.]

All the reasons 1-6 seem to assume people are rational utility-maximizers. I wonder if that assumption is warranted. Might people just be stupid, succumbing to the "grass is greener on the other side" fallacy?

It's one thing to be rational in the context of the market, where one engages in new transactions every day and has the opportunity to learn from one's mistakes. In marriage, the guess-and-check strategy is much costlier.

With relationships in particular, people ARE utility-maximisers. Men attempt to date the best woman available, and as most men in the tech industry can attest, the "best available" to a geek in high school is rather different than the "best available" to a thirty-something engineer with a six-figure salary or a forty-something corporate VP with a net worth in the millions. While definitions of "best" differ, for men, they revolve around physical attributes, sexual utility, and the "other half" of maintaining the desirable elements of their lifestyle... not having to cook and clean and do their own laundry being foremost among those elements, for most young single men.

Women are somewhat more pragmatic, and tend to consider the "best available" on less shallow characteristics: earning potential, emotional stability, forward motion in one's career, the inestimable quality of "respect"... does he appreciate that I cook and clean and do his laundry?... but in the end, all the qualities that make one a "best available" mate have one thing in common.

They are unreliably predictable.

Men have sudden changes in situation that may leave them psychologically damaged and emotionally unstable, or incapable of retaining and increasing salary, or unwilling to continue following a career path. Women may encounter health issues that cause them to gain weight, or lose interest in the same level of sexual frequency and variety they displayed in youth, or just plain get old and "lose their looks".

It may be productive to view marriage as a form of insurance: it makes the process of changing mates more difficult and expensive. When you determine that your available options are unlikely to improve and, indeed, likely to decline... you get married, thereby staking your claim on the "best available" mate you've managed to acquire. This doesn't prevent the mate from leaving, but it does discourage the process.

As an economic transaction, you make the implied promise with that you will lose value at a similar rate to your mate's loss of value. If you do not make a good-faith effort to honor this commitment, it might be productively argued that you are in breach of contract.