Family Law Why is marriage? Why has marriage become less common, less stable? Why have out of wedlock births greatly increased? 19th century seduction law Should we legalize the baby market? The future of marriage and reproduction

Why is marriage? Family as a unit to exploit division of labor makes sense, but … Why traditionally as a lifetime contract? Why do long term contracts exist in general? –Firm specific sunk costs create a bilateral monopoly –With opportunities for bargaining cost etc. –So specify the terms in advance Marriage as an example –Relationship specific sunk costs in Specializing in being X ’ s spouse, and … Shared children –Permanent contract as one solution. Still room for bargaining within marriage Partly controlled by traditional roles –Penalties for breach another, but … Hard to know who is breaching, since … Quality of performance hard to observe. Al-Tanukhi story.

What has changed? Divorce more common because such sunk costs reduced by … –Lower infant mortality and … –Division of labor taking much household production out of the house. But divorce on demand raises a new problem of opportunistic breach, because … –Women perform early, men late, aka –Women depreciate faster than men on the marriage market –So if on demand without penalty, men can engage in opportunistic breach –And women respond by adjusting the timing of performance Later child-bearing Less specialization in household production Both of which have happened Analogous to my house building story in the previous chapter.

Out of Wedlock Births Have increased enormously over past 40 years –Not only in the U.S. –And not only among the poor –Why? Welfare? Perhaps. –But that does not explain the increase among the not poor –Perhaps several simultaneous causes? Gender ratio –More war, less death in childbirth –Shifts the market against women? But not by very much in the U.S. Rising income? –Why put up with a husband –If you can afford to do without one? Akerlof Yellin argument — effect of birth control and abortion. –Joint product link — implication. Marriage or commitment if … –Breaking the link improves opportunities for women who like sex and don ’ t want children, but … –But their competition worsens the opportunity for women who want children. –Men have more opportunity for sex without long term commitment

Glittering Bonds The puzzle: Why the custom of engagement rings The problem –How can women have sex before marriage without –Risking being seduced and abandoned? –Which badly hurts her value on the marriage market The legal solution –The tort action for breach of promise –Which was gradually abandoned by U.S. courts The private solution –The man gives the woman a valuable ring when they get engaged –Sex after engagement is permitted –If the man jilts her, the ring forfeits. A performance bond The custom declined as –Increasing acceptance of non-marital sex –And better contraception –Reduced the risk

Byways of seduction law 19th c. English and American law –Adult daughter is seduced and pregnant –Father sues, as –Master collecting damages for injury to a servant The legal explanation –Daughter cannot sue, because fornication is illegal –And she participated –So use the fiction of master servant instead My explanation –“ Seduction ” might be a way of evading paternal control over who she married –If she controlled the action, makes tactic work better –If father controls it, makes it work worse

Law, sex and markets The baby market Why is it illegal for adoptive parents to pay the mother? –She can transfer parental rights –Why can ’ t she sell them? Why the strong feeling against it? –Anyone not share it? –Can anyone explain it? Prostitution To prevent competition with marriage? Because it “ commodifies ” sex? More generalized puzzle about attitudes towards money To varying degrees taboo In social interactions. Friends might owe me a dinner, but can ’ t pay with cash We give gift cards when cash would be easier for both sides

Are babies a good thing? Over population argument, econ version –Children produce negative externalities –So people have too many of them –So we need to limit population increase What are the negative externalities? –Use scarce land, resources? As long as those are private property Consuming them is a cost, but not an external cost –Pollute, commit crime, go on welfare, … But there are also positive externalities –Make new discoveries from which others benefit –Pay taxes--perhaps to pay for welfare To make the argument, you need to somehow estimate all of these well enough to sign the sum