Journal of Economic Growth

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 235–262 | Cite as

Pacifying monogamy



This paper proposes a theory of institutionally imposed monogamy. In a society where many women are allocated to the elite, there are high returns for the non-elite men to rebel. Monogamy, or “constrained” polygyny, can pacify non-elite men, and thus serve the elite’s reproductive interests. The more unequal is the society, the stricter constraints the elite want to impose on themselves. This suggests how monogamy might have arisen in response to rising class cleavages, e.g., in the wake of the introduction of agriculture. Another result is that, if the elite can write a law that commits not only themselves but also any group that would come to replace them in a rebellion, then polygyny will be more constrained than if they cannot. We speculate that the Church in Europe may have facilitated the imposition of such binding constraints.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Acemoglu D., Robinson J. (2000) Democracy and repression. European Economic Review Papers and Proceedings 44: 683–693Google Scholar
  2. Acemoglu D., Robinson J. (2000) Why did the west extend the franchise? Democracy, inequality, and growth in a historical perspective. Quarterly Journal of Economics 115: 1167–1199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Acemoglu D., Robinson J. (2000) Political losers as a barrier to economic development. American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings 90: 126–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Acemoglu D., Robinson J. (2001) A theory of political transitions. American Economic Review 91: 938–963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alexander R. (1979) Darwinism and human affairs. University of Washington Press, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  6. Anderson G. M., Tollison R. D. (1998) Celestial marriage and earthly rents: Interests and the prohibition of polygamy. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 37: 169–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Becker G. (1991) A treatise on the family. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Bergstrom, T. C. (1994a). On the economics of polygyny, manuscript. University of Michigan and University of California Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
  9. Bergstrom, T. C. (1994b). Primogeniture, monogamy, and reproductive success in a stratified society, manuscript. University of Michigan and University of California Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
  10. Bertocchi G. (2006) The law of primogeniture and the transition from landed aristocracy to industrial democracy. Journal of Economic Growth 11: 43–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Betzig L. L. (1986) Despotism and differential reproduction: A Darwinian view of history. Aldine Publishing Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Betzig L. L. (1993) Sex, succession, and stratification in the first six civilizations. In: Ellis L. (eds) Social stratification and socioeconomic inequality, volume 1: A comparative biosocial analysis. Praeger Publishers, Westport, CTGoogle Scholar
  13. Betzig L. L. (1995) Medieval monogamy. Journal of Family History 20: 181–216Google Scholar
  14. Bourguignon F., Verdier T. (2000) Oligarchy, democracy, inequality and growth. Journal of Development Economics 62: 285–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Diamond J. (1997) Guns, germs, and steal—The fates of human societies. Norton and Company, London and New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Doepke M., Zillibotti F. (2008) Occupational choice and the spirit of capitalism. Quarterly Journal of Economics 123: 747–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dupanloup I., Pereira L., Bertorelle G., Calafell F., Prata M. J., Amorim A., Barbujani G. (2003) A recent shift from polygyny to monogamy in humans is suggested by the analysis of worldwide Y-chromosome diversity. Journal of Molecular Evolution 58: 85–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Edlund L., Lagerlöf N.-P. (2004) Implications of marriage institutions for redistribution and growth. Columbia University, MimeoGoogle Scholar
  19. Edlund L., Lagerlöf N.-P. (2006) Individual versus parental consent in marriage: Implications for intra-household resource allocation and growth. American Economic Review Papers & Proceedings 96: 304–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Edlund L., Lagerlöf N.-P. (2010) Polygyny, paternal age, technological change and growth. Columbia University, MimeoGoogle Scholar
  21. Edlund, L., Li, H., Yi, J., & Zhang, J. (2007). Sex ratios and crime: Evidence from China’s one-child policy. IZA Discussion Paper No. 3214.Google Scholar
  22. Elton G. R. (1991) England under the Tudors. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Fenske J. (2010) Does land abundance explain African institutions?. Yale University, MimeoGoogle Scholar
  24. Flannery K. V. (1972) The cultural evolution of civilizations. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 3: 399–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Galor O., Moav O. (2004) From physical to human capital accumulation: Inequality and the process of development. Review of Economic Studies 71: 1001–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Galor O., Moav O. (2006) Das Human-Kapital: A theory of the demise of the class structure. Review of Economic Studies 73: 85–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gould E. D., Moav O., Simhon A. (2008) The mystery of monogamy. American Economic Review 98: 333–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Grossbard-Shechtman S. A. (1986) Economic behavior, marriage and fertility: Two lessons from polygyny. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 7: 415–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Guner, N. (1999). An economic analysis of family structure: Inheritance rules and marriage systems, manuscript. Universidad Carlos III de Madrid.Google Scholar
  30. Hudson V., Den Boer A. M. (2004) Bare branches: The security implications of Asia’s surplus male population. MIT Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  31. Jacoby H. G. (1995) The economics of polygyny in sub-Saharan Africa: Female productivity and the demand for wives in Côte D’Ivoire. Journal of Political Economy 103: 938–971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kanazawa S., Still M. C. (1999) Why monogamy?. Social Forces 78: 25–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lagerlöf N.-P. (2005) Sex, equality, and growth. Canadian Journal of Economics 38: 807–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lagerlöf N.-P. (2009) Slavery and other property rights. Review of Economic Studies 76: 319–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lagerlöf N.-P. (2010) Patterns in the standard cross-cultural sample: Supplementary notes to pacifying monogamy. York University, MimeoGoogle Scholar
  36. MacDonald K. (1990) Mechanisms of sexual egalitarianism in Western Europe. Ethology and Sociobiology 11: 195–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. MacDonald K. (1995) The establishment and maintenance of socially imposed monogamy in Western Europe. Politics and the Life Sciences 14: 3–23Google Scholar
  38. Mazur A., Michalek J. (1998) Marriage, divorce, and male testosterone. Social Forces 77: 315–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Robson A. J. (1996) A biological basis for expected and non-expected utility. Journal of Economic Theory 68: 397–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sanderson S. K. (2001) The evolution of human sociality—A Darwinian conflict perspective. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Service E. R. (1975) Origins of the state and civilization: The process of cultural evolution. W.W. Norton & Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. Siow A. (2006) Monogamy implies positive assortative matching. University of Toronto, MimeoGoogle Scholar
  43. Tertilt M. (2005) Polygyny, fertility, and savings. Journal of Political Economy 113: 1341–1371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wilson M., Daly M. (1985) Competitiveness, risk taking, and violence: The young male syndrome. Ethology and Sociobiology 6: 59–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wright R. E. (1994) The moral animal, why we are the way we are: The new science of evolutionary psychology. Vintage Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsYork UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations