June 2001
For Better or For Worse? The Impact of Divorce on Children
by Martin Zelder
Among the public policies that may affect children, one of the most unfortunately neglected areas has been that governing marriage and divorce. Given the pervasiveness of divorce and of births outside of marriage, and the large number of children involved, such neglect is potentially serious. To be precise, according to Statistics Canada, 21 percent of Canadian children reside in single-parent homes (Neighbourhood Insights), and this fraction has more than doubled since 1961 (Family Studies Kit). That the impact of divorce (and single-parenting) on children has not featured centrally in current debate is undoubtedly due to confusion as to whether there is any impact at all, and if so, whether that impact is negative. In fact, the received wisdom from the experts is that "divorce is usually the best answer for kids when a marriage becomes unhappy" (Waite and Gallagher, p. 4).
Unfortunately, this received wisdom is wrong, according to a provocative new book by University of Chicago sociologist Linda Waite and think-tank scholar Maggie Gallagher. Waite and Gallagher, who exhaustively and dispassionately review the social-scientific evidence regarding the implications of single-parenthood for children, find that, "on average, children of married parents are physically and mentally healthier, better educated, and later in life, enjoy more career success than children in other family settings" (Waite and Gallagher, p. 124).
Particularly alarming are the magnitude and persistence of these effects. Consider the health effects. Children of unmarried mothers suffer substantially higher infant mortality: increases of 40 percent for blacks, 70 percent for whites (Bennett, et al.). For those children born into an intact marriage, subsequent divorce increases the likelihood of future health problems by 50 percent (Mauldon). Perhaps most shocking, divorce has significant implications for life expectancy. A study that tracked "highly advantaged" divorced children— white, middle class, IQ of 135 or better— past age 70 found that their life expectancy was reduced 4 years by divorce, and that their mortality rate at age 40 was 3 times that for children from intact marriages (Tucker, et al.). In addition, mental and emotional health is impaired for most children of divorce. Among children whose parents were in marriages which did not involve "high conflict," those children whose parents divorced experienced a significantly higher frequency of behavioral and psychological problems, even into early adulthood, than did those children whose parents remained married (Amato and Booth). In contrast, while psychological benefits were received by those whose parents ended "high conflict" marriages, these breakups constituted less than a third of all divorces (Amato and Booth).
Children in single-parent families also exhibit greater problems in school, and more often participate in illegal activities. Compared to children from two-parent families, they are twice as likely to be suspended or expelled (Zill) and twice as likely to drop out of high school (McLanahan and Sandefur). As well, children from single-parent families are one-third less likely to graduate from university (McLanahan and Sandefur). Consequently, compared to children from intact marriages, these children are more likely to be unemployed in their early 20s, and thus earn lower incomes (Amato and Booth). Moreover, boys raised in single-parent homes were twice as likely to have committed crimes leading to incarceration by their early thirties (Harper and McLanahan).
Given this new and compelling evidence, Waite and Gallagher conclude that "[t]he absence of a stable marriage is a risk factor in a child's life, not a prophecy of certain doom," but that "[w]hen parents divorce, they do put their children at risk of long-lasting damage" (Waite and Gallagher, pp. 139-140). Consequently, how, if at all, should policymakers respond to these demonstrated harms to children of non-intact families?
Given the magnitude of the harms reported by Waite and Gallagher regarding health, education, and criminal activity, among others, it is at least possible that in some divorces (or single-parent situations), the costs borne by children exceed the benefits to their parents. In such cases, divorce or single-parenthood are inefficient. This means that, in economic efficiency terms, the lesser costs of staying (or getting) together are justified by the greater benefits to children from providing them with two parents in an intact marriage. Consequently, "We need to debate and discuss the ways that we... support—or undermine— marriage as an institution, through tax policy, government assistance, legislation and the courts, school policies and programs ..." (Waite and Gallagher, p. 188).
Specifically, Waite and Gallagher recommend reducing or removing the marriage penalty contained in the tax code, particularly for low-income couples,1 introducing "long" waiting periods for contested no-fault divorces, especially for couples with children who are minors, and, more generally, an examination of "the incentives for unmarried childbearing and divorce embedded within a variety of public policies" (Waite and Gallagher, p. 199). Of course, knowledge that current policies may be inefficient does not necessarily translate into their efficient reform, given the special-interest pressures that constrain lawmaking. (Specifically, I refer here to the general problem of public choice, i.e., that laws might be changed at the urgings of particular groups in ways that are inefficient.)
For this reason, and two others, another option may be to make no changes in some policies. In an efficiency sense, this minimalist response could be justified if cost-benefit calculus indicated that any costs to children emanating from the decision to divorce (or to raise children alone) were outweighed by the corresponding benefits to the parents. In this case, harms suffered by children due to living with a single parent would be viewed as justifiable in an efficiency sense. Moreover, to the extent that some reforms were perceived to restrict individual freedom (e.g., making access to divorce more difficult), then those reforms could be rejected as offending libertarian principles.
Nevertheless, because the consequences for children are so serious, laws that influence the tendency of their parents to get together and stay together should should henceforth be scrutinized with a new eye. Without such scrutiny, responsible public policy towards our children is impossible.
Notes
1 In Canada, however, Zelder and Basham (2000) found that the tax code subsidized marriage. But their analysis focused on those couples who were liable for some tax, i.e., not couples with especially low incomes. Hence, while Waite and Gallagher's general point regarding marriage penalties may not be relevant for Canada, their point regarding low-income couples may well be.
References
Amato, Paul R., and Alan Booth (1997). A Generation at Risk: Growing Up in an Era of Family Upheaval. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bennett, Trude, Paula Braverman, Susan Egerter, and John L. Kiely (1994). "Maternal Marital Status as a Risk Factor for Infant Mortality." Family Planning Perspectives 26:252-256.
Family Studies Kit (2001). Statistics Canada. Digital document: www.statcan.ca/english/kits/FAMILY/HTML/Fam1_5.htm
Harper, Cynthia, and Sara McLanahan (1998). "Father Absence and Youth Incarceration." Presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association.
Mauldon, Jane (1990). "The Effects of Marital Disruption on Children's Health." Demography 27:431-436.
McLanahan, Sara, and Gary D. Sandefur (1994). Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Neighbourhood Insights (2001). Statistics Canada, Catalogue #17-507-XIE.
Tucker, Joan S., Howard S. Friedman, Joseph E. Schwartz, Michael H. Criqui, et al. (1997). "Parental Divorce: Effects on Individual Behavior and Longevity." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73:381-391.
Waite, Linda J., and Maggie Gallagher (2000). The Case for Marriage: Why Married People are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially. New York: Doubleday.
Zelder, Martin, and Patrick Basham (2000). "Does Revenue Canada Play Matchmaker?" Fraser Forum (March).
Zill, Nicholas (1994). "Understanding Why Children in Stepfamilies Have More Learning and Behavior Problems than Children in Nuclear Families." In Alan Booth and Judy Dunn, eds. Stepfamilies: Who Benefits? Who Does Not? (pp. 97-106). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Martin Zelder is Director of Health Policy Research at The Fraser Institute. He has a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Chicago.
info@fraserinstitute.ca
4th Floor, 1770 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6J 3G7
Tel: (604) 688-0221 Fax: (604) 688-8539 Book Orders: 1-800-665-3558 ext. 580
You can contact us at the above email address for any comments or information requests. Please report any dead links or technical problems.