ERIC EJ795854: Why Don't They Just Get Married? Barriers to Marriage among the Disadvantaged

2005·0.12 MB·English

by  ERIC

07 FOC 15-2 fall05 Edin-Reed.qxp 8/4/2005 12:16 PM Page 117
Why Don’t They Just Get Married?
Barriers to Marriage among the
Disadvantaged
Kathryn Edin and Joanna M. Reed
Summary
Kathryn Edin and Joanna Reed review recent research on social and economic barriers to mar-
riage among the poor and discuss the efficacy of efforts by federal and state policymakers to
promote marriage among poor unmarried couples, especially those with children, in light of
these findings.
Social barriers include marital aspirations and expectations, norms about childbearing, financial
standards for marriage, the quality of relationships, an aversion to divorce, and children by other
partners. Edin and Reed note that disadvantaged men and women highly value marriage but be-
lieve they are currently unable to meet the high standards of relationship quality and financial
stability they believe are necessary to sustain a marriage and avoid divorce. Despite their regard
for marriage, however, poor Americans do not view it as a prerequisite for childbearing, and it is
typical for either or both parents in an unmarried-couple family to have a child by another part-
ner. Economic barriers include men’s low earnings, women’s earnings, and the marriage tax.
In view of these findings, Edin and Reed argue that public campaigns to convince poor Amer-
icans of the value of marriage are preaching to the choir. Instead, campaigns should emphasize
the benefits for children of living with both biological parents and stress the harmful effects for
children of high-conflict parental relationships. Programs to improve relationship quality must
address head-on the significant problems many couple face. Because disadvantaged men and
women view some degree of financial stability as a prerequisite for marriage, policymakers
must address the instability and low pay of the jobs they typically hold as well as devise ways to
promote homeownership and other asset development to encourage marriage. Moreover, pro-
grams need to help couples meet the challenges of parenting families where children are some
combination of his, hers, and theirs. Encouraging more low-income couples to marry without
giving them tools to help their marriages thrive may simply increase the divorce rate.
www.futureofchildren.org
Kathryn Edin is associate professor of sociology in the Department of Sociology and the Population Studies Center, University of Pennsylva-
nia. Joanna M. Reed is a graduate student in sociology at Northwestern University. The authors wish to thank Kristen Harknett, Maria Ke-
falas, Timothy Nelson, and Sharon Sassler for their comments and suggestions.
VOL. 15 / NO. 2 / FALL 2005 117
07 FOC 15-2 fall05 Edin-Reed.qxp 8/4/2005 12:16 PM Page 118
Kathryn Edin and Joanna M. Reed
H
alf a century ago, Ameri- evaluated scientifically, will do much to re-
cans, whether poor or well- store marriage, especially healthy and endur-
to-do, all married at roughly ing marriage, among the poor. They question
the same rate. But by the whether these programs can effectively ad-
mid-1980s, poor women dress the realities—both social and eco-
were only about three-quarters as likely to nomic—that keep poor couples from getting
marry as women who were not poor. And married. Some on the political left have been
marriage rates among the disadvantaged have sharply critical of such programs. One ob-
continued to decline.1 Today, poor men and server editorializes, “It’s impossible to justify
women are only about half as likely to be spending $1.5 billion on unproven marriage
married as those with incomes at three or programs when there’s not enough to pay
more times the poverty level.2 for back-to-work basicslike child care.”4
For those concerned with child well-being, We review findings from an emerging field of
the most worrisome aspect of the decline in research that investigates the reasons why
marriage among the poor is the increase in low-income couples, particularly those who
nonmarital childbearing. Though the share of share children, refrain from marriage. We
first births within marriage has fallen dramat- begin by sorting the evidence into two types:
ically for the nation as a whole—down from economic and social. Social barriers to mar-
more than 90 percent in the 1940s to only riage include marital attitudes, childbearing
about 60 percent today—nearly a third of attitudes, norms about the standard of living
poor women aged twenty-five or older have required for marriage, relationship quality, an
had a child outside marriage, compared with aversion to divorce, and the tendency of both
only 5 percent of women who are not poor.3 men and women to bring children from pre-
vious partners to the new relationship. The
In an attempt to promote marriage among economic barriers that, at least in theory, af-
poor unmarried couples who are expecting a fect the marriage rates of the poor include
baby, federal and state policymakers are of- low earnings and employment among un-
fering an extensive array of services around skilled men, increasing employment among
the time of the baby’s birth—which many re- unskilled women, and the welfare state,
gard as a “magic moment” within these rela- which imposes a significant “tax” on marriage
tionships. State and local agencies are re- for low-income populations.
cruiting expectant or new unmarried parents
into innovative programs to improve their re- As we assess the evidence offered by this new
lationship skills, adapting curriculums tradi- research, we focus primarily on couples cop-
tionally used to improve the relationships of ing with economic disadvantage, rather than
middle-class married couples. By teaching with other forms of disadvantage such as race
such skills to these unwed couples, most of or ethnicity. Whenever possible, we review
whom are poor and minority, policymakers qualitative as well as quantitative data.5While
hope both to boost their marriage rates and quantitative data show whether and under
to make their marriages last. what conditions a belief is held or an event
occurs, qualitative data can reveal the mecha-
Many observers, however, are skeptical that nisms and social processes that underlie these
these new programs, which have not been statistical relationships. Several new qualita-
118 THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN
07 FOC 15-2 fall05 Edin-Reed.qxp 8/4/2005 12:16 PM Page 119
Why Don’t They Just Get Married? Barriers to Marriage among the Disadvantaged
tive studies are especially valuable because Richard and Kris Bulcroft analyze the same
they offer insight into how low-income cou- data and also find no significant differences in
ples, particularly those with shared children, marital aspirations by income or employ-
view marriage. We begin with social factors ment, by education, or by the receipt of pub-
because the financial barriers we review can lic assistance.9 Sharon Sassler and Robert
be better understood in light of the social and Schoen find an interesting difference by race,
cultural expectations that underlie them. but not in the direction one might expect: sin-
gle black women are substantially more likely
Social Barriers than single white women to believe their lives
In this section, we investigate six possible so- would be better if they were married.10
cial barriers to marriage among disadvan-
taged Americans: their marital aspirations More recently Daniel Lichter, Christine Bat-
and expectations, their norms about child- son, and J. Brian Brown analyzed data on non-
bearing, their financial standards for mar- cohabiting unmarried individuals from the
riage, the quality of their relationships, their 1995 wave of the National Longitudinal Sur-
aversion to divorce, and their children by vey of Youth. They focus specifically on the
other partners. marital aspirations of a variety of disadvan-
taged respondents, including those with low
Marital Aspirations and Expectations incomes, those from poor backgrounds, mem-
If, as social psychologists have posited, one bers of racial and ethnic minorities, recipients
can predict an action based on an individual’s of public assistance, and women with children
intent to engage in it, then perhaps the poor born outside marriage.11 Although unmarried
are marrying at a low rate because they no mothers are the least likely to aspire to mar-
longer aspire to matrimony.6 Indeed, several riage, nearly 70 percent report that they would
survey analyses show that unmarried Ameri- like to marry eventually. And similar studies
cans who see marriage as important are more show that single mothers, welfare recipients,
likely to wed than those who do not.7 During and black Americans have the same marital as-
the 1990s, a number of leading family re- pirations as other women (though education
searchers used national surveys to measure boosts these aspirations somewhat).12
respondents’ marital aspirations (whether
they hope to marry) and expectations Marital aspirations—the overall desire to
(whether they think they will get married) to marry “someday”—are less concrete, and
see whether and how they vary. These studies therefore presumably less useful in predict-
uniformly show that marital aspirations are ing behavior, than are marital expectations.
quite high among all Americans, including Two nationally representative surveys have
the economically disadvantaged. For exam- measured marital expectations, although in
ple, Scott South, using the 1988–99 waves of somewhat different ways. In the National
the National Survey of Families and House- Survey of Family Growth, noncohabiting un-
holds, finds little variation in marital aspira- married women were asked, “Do you expect
tions by employment or earnings, relatively to marry (again) at some time in the future?”
little by race, and only slightly more variation A large majority of those surveyed across a
by education (better-educated respondents variety of disadvantaged groups reported that
have only slightly higher aspirations to marry they do expect to marry, though women who
than their less well-educated counterparts).8 were not single mothers reported higher ex-
VOL. 15 / NO. 2 / FALL 2005 119
07 FOC 15-2 fall05 Edin-Reed.qxp 8/4/2005 12:16 PM Page 120
Kathryn Edin and Joanna M. Reed
pectations of marriage than did single moth- their chances were at least 50-50, and 75 per-
ers. In addition, women from disadvantaged cent felt they were good or almost certain.17
family backgrounds, those with little educa-
tion, and those on welfare have lower expec- Some researchers doubt the validity of these
tations for marriage.13 The survey also asked findings because the couples were inter-
cohabiting women if they expected to marry viewed just hours after their child’s birth.
their current boyfriend. Here, the results However, the Time, Love, and Cash in Cou-
show that men’s economic disadvantage does ples with Children study (TLC3) conducted
deter their partner’s marital expectations.14 intensive qualitative interviews with a sub-
Nonetheless, both sets of survey findings sample of forty-nine unmarried couples from
the Fragile Families Study two to three
months after the births.18 At this point, the
The notion that marriage
euphoria of the new birth had presumably
succumbed to sleepless nights and other
profoundly changes the
strains of parenting a newborn, but inter-
meaning of a relationship
viewers found that these couples were nearly
as optimistic about marriage as they had been
and is suitable only for those
just hours after their babies were born.19
who can meet these high
There are several conclusions to be drawn.
standards speaks to its
The first is that although marital aspirations
strong symbolic value.
do not vary much along most dimensions of
disadvantage, marital expectations do. One
possible reason for this discrepancy is that
show that marital expectations among the questions about marital aspirations are value
disadvantaged are still very high. laden and thus subject to what methodolo-
gists call “social desirability bias,” the ten-
The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing dency for respondents to answer survey ques-
Study, a large nationally representative study tions according to prevailing societal norms.
of an urban birth cohort of just under 3,800 Questions about marital expectations are
children of unmarried parents, documented more concrete and reflect specific situations
that the vast majority (83 percent) of all out- and potential partners rather than overall val-
of-wedlock births to adult women are to ro- ues and attitudes. Another interpretation is
mantically involved couples, about half of that although disadvantaged men and women
whom are living together at the time the want to marry, they face more formidable
child is born.15 When these couples were barriers than do members of the middle
asked, “How would you rate your chances of class. Recognizing these barriers may, in
marrying your baby’s mother/father?” in the turn, lower expectations of marriage in spite
hours immediately following their child’s of high aspirations. Whichever interpretation
birth, nearly three-quarters of the mothers one chooses, the second conclusion we draw
rated their chances as at least 50-50, and al- from these findings is that both marital aspi-
most six in ten believed their chances were rations and expectations are still quite high
good or almost certain.16 Fathers are even among disadvantaged groups, including un-
more optimistic: a stunning 90 percent felt married parents.
120 THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN
07 FOC 15-2 fall05 Edin-Reed.qxp 8/4/2005 12:16 PM Page 121
Why Don’t They Just Get Married? Barriers to Marriage among the Disadvantaged
Yet these high hopes and expectations are Edin and Maria Kefalas argue that as a result
hard to square with the findings on marital of this transformation in the meaning of mar-
behavior. For example, Lichter, Batson, and riage, both poor and more advantaged Amer-
Brown find that only 20 percent of all women icans now have strikingly similar expectations
who aspire to marriage realize that goal regarding a marriage partner and an ideal
within four years.20 Among unwed new par- marital relationship.28 The same couples in
ents in the Fragile Families Study, only about the TLC3 study who believed their day-to-
15 percent marry by the time their child day lives would not change at all if they mar-
turns three.21 Lichter, Batson, and Brown ried went on to say that getting married
pose the obvious question, “Why is the transi- would profoundly transform the meaning of
tion to marriage so low among single women their relationship, in no small part because
who want to marry?”22 they believe that marriage carries with it
much higher expectations about relationship
Recent research suggests that Americans, quality and financial stability than does co-
rich and poor alike, have adopted a new defi- habitation—a point to which we will return.
nition of marriage and that new notions of The notion that marriage profoundly changes
what marriage means may be part of the an- the meaning of a relationship and is suitable
swer.23 In particular, marriage seems to have only for those who can meet these high stan-
lost much of its instrumental value. That is, dards speaks to its strong symbolic value. If
society has become much more accepting of this interpretation is correct, the poor may
premarital sexual activity, cohabitation, and marry at a lower rate simply because they are
nonmarital childbearing than it once was.24 not able to meet this higher marital standard.
When a wedding is no longer a prerequisite
for open sexual activity, cohabitation, and Attitudes about Childbearing
childbearing; when abortion and birth con- Policymakers care most about promoting
trol are widely available; and when a gold marriage as a setting for raising children. Yet
wedding band is no longer necessary for despite their high regard for marriage, poor
American women to claim social personhood, Americans do not view it as a prerequisite for
the practical value of marriage is severely di- childbearing.29 Indeed, qualitative studies of
minished. In the TLC3 qualitative study, un- low-income unmarried parents suggest that
married parents were asked how they felt for the disadvantaged, childbearing and mar-
their lives would change if they were to riage no longer necessarily “go together.”30
marry. Not surprisingly, both mothers and fa- The TLC3 study asked new unmarried par-
thers, most of whom were already living to- ents an extensive set of open-ended ques-
gether, typically said that marriage would not tions about their beliefs about marriage and
change their day-to-day lives at all.25 their marriage aspirations and plans. Though
most couples reported having had many con-
Yet this same research also suggests that the versations about marriage and were eager to
symbolic value of marriage may still be quite share their marital views and plans with in-
high. In fact, it may even have increased, pre- terviewers, the subject of children almost
cisely because of marriage’s diminishing in- never came up in these conversations, except
strumental value.26 Marriage has become a for the frequent assertion that merely having
luxury rather than a necessity, a status symbol a child together is not a sufficient reason to
in the true meaning of the phrase.27 Kathryn marry.31 In stark contrast, in-depth inter-
VOL. 15 / NO. 2 / FALL 2005 121
07 FOC 15-2 fall05 Edin-Reed.qxp 8/4/2005 12:16 PM Page 122
Kathryn Edin and Joanna M. Reed
views with a college-based sample of twenty- nances together” is a crucial prerequisite for
five cohabiting women and men living in marriage.35 But marriageability is not merely
New York City revealed that most saw mar- about having funds to set up a common
riage as a crucial prerequisite for childbear- household. Indeed, many couples are already
ing. In fact, many could not imagine having cohabiting. Rather, these mothers believe
children outside marriage.32 that marriage ought to be reserved for cou-
ples who can support what some of them
Ethnographic research by Edin and Kefalas term a “white picket fence” lifestyle—a stan-
in eight low-income Philadelphia-area neigh- dard of living that generally includes two or
borhoods between 1995 and 2001, along with more of the following: a mortgage on a mod-
repeated in-depth interviews with a racially est row home, a car and some furniture, some
diverse group of 162 single mothers in these savings in the bank, and enough money left
neighborhoods, uncovered complex attitudes over to pay for a “decent” wedding.36
toward children and marriage.33 Though
these mothers generally believe that having During the early to mid-1990s, Edin carried
children before marriage is not the ideal way out in-depth interviews with a racially diverse
of doing things, they must calculate the risks group of 292 low-income single mothers in
and rewards of the partnerships available to Chicago; Camden, New Jersey; and Charles-
them and balance their marital aspirations ton, South Carolina. She found that most be-
with their strong moral views about the con- lieved a poor but happy marriage has virtually
ditions under which it is right and proper to no chance of survival and that the daily stress
marry, a theme that recurs throughout this of living “paycheck to paycheck” would put
review. undue pressure on a marital relationship.
These mothers believed that couples who
Economic Standards for Marriage wish to marry must demonstrate to the com-
We discuss the importance of men’s employ- munity—their family, friends, and neigh-
ment and earnings later. Here, we focus on a bors—that they have “arrived” financially.37
related topic: norms and values about the To meet this goal, they said, couples must ac-
standard of living required for marriage. The- cumulate the common assets that visibly
ories about the connection between marriage demonstrate their fiscal responsibility and
rates and men’s earnings assume the exis- long-term planning skills.
tence of a financial “floor” below which mar-
riage is not viewed as practical. One survey Interviewers for the TLC3 study of unmar-
analysis shows that men and women who be- ried couples asked those who aspired to mar-
lieve that it is necessary to be financially es- riage to identify barriers to marriage. In 74
tablished before marriage are less likely to percent of the couples, either the father or
marry than those who do not.34 the mother, or both, saw their financial situa-
tion as standing in the way, even though 77
Qualitative evidence supports the notion that percent of the couples were living together at
poor couples’ beliefs about what constitutes the time, almost all in independent house-
the proper financial position for marriage holds.38 Joanna Reed analyzed the TLC3
may pose a barrier to marriage. Edin and Ke- study’s fourteen-, twenty-six-, and fifty-
falas’s work with single mothers in Philadel- month waves and found that almost all the
phia (noted above) shows that “getting the fi- couples who stayed together over the whole
122 THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN
07 FOC 15-2 fall05 Edin-Reed.qxp 8/4/2005 12:16 PM Page 123
Why Don’t They Just Get Married? Barriers to Marriage among the Disadvantaged
four-year period were unwavering in their relate positively to one another, and the Frag-
commitment to these economic goals, nor ile Families Survey shows that unmarried
did they lower their standards to fit their cur- parents face many challenging circumstances
rent circumstances.39 Those who broke up around the time of their child’s birth.44 Be-
and formed new partnerships almost univer- yond their typically low levels of education,
sally adopted a similar set of goals in their employment, and financial stability (roughly
new relationships, as did their new partners. 40 percent of both mothers and fathers had
If these high economic standards were not graduated from high school, and 20 per-
merely paying lip service to middle-class cent of fathers were jobless when the child
ideals—a socially acceptable way to mask a was born), an alarmingly high share of new
reluctance to marry for other reasons—cou- fathers had already spent time in jail or
ples who achieved the goals would have still
held off on marriage. But most couples who
Several quantitative studies
met their economic goals and did not have
serious relationship problems did indeed
lend credence to the idea that
marry one another during the four-year win-
dow of the study.40 low relationship quality is a
barrier to marriage.
Relationship Quality
Recent federal and state marriage initiatives
have focused on teaching low-income unmar- prison, indicating a high rate of past criminal
ried couples how to build relationship skills involvement.45In addition, their family situa-
that will lead to healthy marriage relation- tions posed unusual challenges: in more than
ships, and several quantitative studies lend 60 percent of these couples, one or both part-
credence to the idea that low relationship ners already had at least one child from a pre-
quality is a barrier to marriage.41 One such vious relationship.46
study uses two waves of the National Survey
of Families and Households and finds that Edin and Kefalas asked each of the Philadel-
among cohabiting couples, higher relation- phia-area single mothers they interviewed to
ship quality does increase the odds of a tran- chronicle their most recent breakup. They
sition to marriage.42 Marcia Carlson, Sara asked them to identify why their relationship
McLanahan, and Paula England’s analysis of had failed, allowing them to cite problems on
the baseline and twelve-month waves of the their own rather than prompting them with a
Fragile Families Survey also finds that per- list of potential difficulties. Nearly half the
ceived relationship quality—specifically, mothers cited a chronic pattern of domestic
partner’s supportiveness—and mothers’ trust violence, while four in ten blamed repeated
of men are both significant predictors of mar- and often flagrant infidelities of their partner.
riage. In a simulation, they show that higher About a third named their partner’s ongoing
relationship quality would boost marriage involvement with crime and the imprison-
rates more than would a significant increase ment that so often followed. More than a
in fathers’ earnings.43 third cited drug and alcohol abuse.47 These
problems are also rife in the relationships of
Psychologists have long held that stressful the unmarried couples in the TLC3 study,
events may interfere with couples’ ability to and though both mothers and fathers report
VOL. 15 / NO. 2 / FALL 2005 123
07 FOC 15-2 fall05 Edin-Reed.qxp 8/4/2005 12:16 PM Page 124
Kathryn Edin and Joanna M. Reed
such problems with their partners, women for a good marriage, most men and women
are far more likely to do so than men.48 responded with an almost identical litany:
“Communication, honesty, and trust.”54 The
Many disadvantaged women, it appears, have issue of trust is particularly salient for rela-
children in the context of romantic relation- tionships frequently threatened by episodes
ships of perilously low quality.49 Yet these of domestic violence and rampant infidelity.
same women hold a marriage relationship to Indeed, Frank Furstenberg’s qualitative in-
high standards. What may be tolerable be- terviews among a group of low-income Balti-
havior in a boyfriend, at least for a time, is more residents uncovered a “culture of dis-
completely unacceptable in a husband. Fur- trust” between men and women. This
ther, it is foolish even to consider marriage pervasive lack of trust keeps couples continu-
until a man has shown that he is ready and ally vigilant for signs of relational trouble and
able to meet these higher standards.50 The makes them quick to exit the relationship as
TLC3 study finds that in 57 percent of un- soon as such signs appear.55 The theme of
married couples with a newborn, either he or distrust is also evident in Edin and Kefalas’s
she, or both, point to problems in their rela- ethnographic work in Philadelphia, as well as
tionship that they would have to resolve be- in Edin’s interviews with mothers from
fore they could marry. The TLC3 study also Chicago, Camden, and Charleston.56
shows that most unmarried couples believe
they are not close to meeting these higher re- Aversion to Divorce
lationship standards at the time their child is Although Americans as a whole have grown
born.51 much more accepting of divorce over the
past half-century, poorly educated men and
Why are these couples so insistent that mar- women have been slower to shed their nega-
riage requires a much higher level of rela- tive views than their better-educated coun-
tionship quality than living together while terparts.57 This divergence of opinion is
sharing parenting tasks for their mutual chil- ironic, because marriages among college-
dren? First, their relationships are usually educated adults have grown more stable
relatively new. The typical TLC3 couple had since 1980: the divorce rate of this group has
been together less than a year before con- been falling as the divorce rate for the least
ceiving their first child together (very similar educated has increased.58
to what Edin and Kefalas’s Philadelphia-area
single mothers reported).52 Second, few of We know of no analysis that directly assesses
these conceptions were the result of a clearly whether fear of divorce is affecting marriage
articulated plan.53 The emphasis that these rates. But one analysis using two waves of the
new unmarried parents place on relationship Fragile Families Survey finds that couples
quality (and on the need to test the relation- with characteristics that make them more
ship for several more years) is thus quite un- likely to divorce (being younger or less edu-
derstandable: the couples do not know each cated, reporting serious relational conflict or
other well and did not typically plan to have a abuse) are less likely to marry, even if they
child together when they did. have other characteristics that are strongly as-
sociated with entry into marriage. Christina
When the TLC3 interviewers asked respon- Gibson-Davis, Kathryn Edin, and Sara
dents to describe the qualities most important McLanahan write, “Based on this evidence,
124 THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN
07 FOC 15-2 fall05 Edin-Reed.qxp 8/4/2005 12:16 PM Page 125
Why Don’t They Just Get Married? Barriers to Marriage among the Disadvantaged
we conclude that unmarried parents delay Men may be less willing to marry a woman
marriage when they perceive a high risk of di- who must care for another man’s child, and
vorce.”59Data from several qualitative studies women may hesitate to marry a man with
support the hypothesis that the poor may be child support obligations. Only one study, an
reluctant to marry precisely because of a per- analysis of the baseline and twelve-month
ception that the risk of divorce is high. The waves of the Fragile Families Survey, has
single mothers in Philadelphia studied by looked at the effect of children by other part-
Edin and Kefalas reported that the stigma of a ners on marriage transitions. It finds that a
failed marriage was far worse than that of an father’s children by other partners do affect
out-of-wedlock birth.60 Edin’s interviews in
Chicago, Camden, and Charleston show that
most low-income single mothers believe mar- One analysis of these data
riage is “sacred” and that divorce makes a
concludes that “at the heart
mockery of the institution they revere.61
of marital hesitancy is a deep
In 53 percent of the unmarried TLC3 cou-
respect for the institution of
ples, one or both partners say their fear of di-
vorce is part of what is keeping them from marriage.”
getting married. In one memorable inter-
view, a mother quipped, “I don’t believe in
divorce. That’s why none of the women in my transitions to marriage somewhat, while a
family are married!” One analysis of these mother’s children by other partners do not.64
data concludes that “at the heart of marital
hesitancy is a deep respect for the institution Qualitative evidence of the baseline wave of
of marriage.”62 On a practical level, these the TLC3 study offers one reason why this
couples fear subjecting a relationship that may be so. Unmarried fathers typically live
does not meet these standards to the norma- with the mother and her other children,
tive expectations of marriage prematurely, as whereas unmarried mothers almost never
doing so might put the relationship in jeop- live with the children from their partner’s
ardy. In the meantime, cohabitation allows past relationships; these children generally
enough flexibility for the couple to stay to- live with their biological mother. Although fa-
gether even in the face of financial trouble thers in this situation are obligated to provide
and relationship problems. child support, potentially a source of financial
strain for the couple, mothers in this study
Children by Other Partners seldom complained about the flow of eco-
The typical nonmarital birth is to a couple in nomic resources out of the household and to-
which the father, the mother, or both already ward the care of a partner’s other children. In
have a child by another partner. Because part they viewed fathers who paid support as
multiple partner fertility is more common acting responsibly—a quality they much ad-
among disadvantaged groups, and poor mired. Their approval may also contain an el-
women and men who marry are much more ement of self-interest, as they may be eager
likely to do so after already having a child, to ensure that they can count on such contri-
children by other partners may pose a special butions if their own relationship with him
barrier to marriage among these groups.63 dissolves.
VOL. 15 / NO. 2 / FALL 2005 125
07 FOC 15-2 fall05 Edin-Reed.qxp 8/4/2005 12:16 PM Page 126
Kathryn Edin and Joanna M. Reed
Mothers are not so sanguine about the time of disadvantaged men’s entry into full-time
fathers spend with their other children: com- stable employment.68 Because our task is to
plaints in this area were more frequent than identify current barriers to marriage, we ig-
complaints about child support. Mothers nore the debate about the causes of the de-
generally feel that time spent with other chil- cline in marriage over time, beyond noting
dren detracts from the time spent with the that changes in men’s economic position do
new baby, and they express some unease not explain much of the trend.69 Instead, we
about the circumstances under which fathers focus on research examining the current ef-
spent time with these children—usually in fects of men’s economic position on entry
the home of the children’s own mother.65 At into marriage.
the root of some of these complaints is the
fear that the father will become reinvolved In nearly all analyses of surveys, stable male
sexually with her. That fear is not unreason- employment and earnings boost marriage
able, given Heather Hill’s finding that by the rates for the population as a whole, though
study’s end, more than one-third of the cou- there is some debate over their effect on co-
ples experienced at least one spell of infi- habiters.70 Stable male employment and
delity, sometimes with a former boyfriend or earnings also increase marriage rates among
girlfriend.66 new, unmarried parents.71 Conversely, em-
ployment instability and low educational at-
Fathers, too, presumably weigh the costs and tainment usually discourage marriage.72In all
benefits of marriage differently when the these analyses, however, the effect of men’s
woman has a custodial child by another part- employment and earnings on marital transi-
ner, but no male respondent in the TLC3 tions is surprisingly small. To assess the role
study cited his partner’s other children as a of employment and earnings among unmar-
barrier, a finding consistent with the survey ried parents with children—the target popu-
results. lation of the new marriage initiatives—Carl-
son, McLanahan, and England conducted a
Economic Barriers simulation to predict the share of unmarried
We now turn to economic barriers to mar- parents who would have gotten married if
riage. In this section, we consider the effect men’s earnings increased by 1 standard devia-
of men’s low earnings, women’s compara- tion. In this model, marriage rates increase
tively high earnings, and the marriage tax. only about 1.9 percentage points—an 18 per-
cent increase—within one year of the child’s
Low Male Earnings birth (from 9 to 10.6 percent).73
Declines in men’s employment and earnings
have long been regarded as a primary expla- In sum, the quantitative data show that men’s
nation for the falling marriage rate among the education, employment, job stability, and in-
poor. William Julius Wilson argues that lower come do make a difference in transitions to
wages and higher unemployment among un- marriage, but not as much as one might ex-
skilled urban minority men translates into pect. Edin’s qualitative study of single moth-
fewer marriageable males for women seeking ers in Chicago, Camden, and Charleston
husbands.67 Valerie Oppenheimer blames shows that men’s income matters enormously
marital delay among the poor on the uncer- in mothers’ calculations about whether their
tainty engendered by the substantial slowing male partners are worth marrying or even
126 THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN