Advertisement

Demography

, Volume 51, Issue 1, pp 317–340 | Cite as

The Effect of Same-Sex Marriage Laws on Different-Sex Marriage: Evidence From the Netherlands

Article

Abstract

It has long been argued that the legalization of same-sex marriage would have a negative impact on marriage. In this article, I examine how different-sex marriage in the Netherlands was affected by the enactment of two laws: a 1998 law that provided all couples with an institution almost identical to marriage (a “registered partnership”) and a 2001 law that legalized same-sex marriage for the first time in the world. I first construct a synthetic control for the Netherlands using OECD data for the period 1988–2005 and find that neither law had significant effects on either the overall or different-sex marriage rate. I next construct a unique individual-level data set covering the period 1995–2005 by combining the Dutch Labor Force Survey and official municipal records. The estimates from a discrete-time hazard model with unobserved heterogeneity for the first-marriage decision confirm the findings in the aggregate analysis. The effects of the two laws are heterogeneous, with presumably more-liberal individuals (as defined by their residence or ethnicity) marrying less after passage of both laws and potentially more-conservative individuals marrying more after passage of each law.

Keywords

Same-sex marriage Synthetic control Discrete-time hazard model 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I am indebted to Judy Hellerstein and Seth Sanders for their support and guidance throughout this project. I am also grateful for comments provided by Meltem Daysal, John Ham, Bas van der Klaauw, John Wallis, and seminar participants at the University of Maryland, Tinbergen Institute, Delft University of Technology, McGill University, Paris School of Economics, Population Association of America, the Society of Labor Economists, the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, and the Southern Economic Association. This article benefited from discussions with Kees Waaldijk and Boris Dittrich. Special thanks go to Gerhard Meinen, Ineke Brekelsman, and the Microdata Lab at Statistics Netherlands, and to Jaap Abbring, the Tinbergen Institute, and Tilburg University. Parts of this article were written while I completed my PhD degree at the University of Maryland with financial support from Seth Sanders and the Maryland Population Research Center, and while I visited the Tinbergen Institute and Tilburg University. All remaining errors are my own.

Supplementary material

13524_2013_248_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (4.4 mb)
ESM 1 (PDF 4474 kb)

References

  1. Abadie, A., Diamond, A., & Hainmueller, J. (2010). Synthetic control methods for comparative case studies: Estimating the effect of California’s tobacco control program. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 105, 493–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abadie, A., & Gardeazabal, J. (2003). The economic costs of conflict: A case study of the Basque country. American Economic Review, 93, 113–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Akerlof, G., & Kranton, R. (2000). Economics and identity. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115, 715–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allen, D., Pendakur, K., & Suen, W. (2006). No-fault divorce and the compression of marriage ages. Economic Inquiry, 44, 547–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Allgood, S., Harris, S., Skogrand, L., & Lee, T. (2008). Marital commitment and religiosity in a religiously homogenous population. Marriage & Family Review, 45, 52–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Alm, J., & Whittington, L. (1999). For love or money? The impact of income taxes on marriage. Economica, 66, 297–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Badgett, M. V. L. (2004a, May 20). Prenuptial jitters: Did gay marriage destroy heterosexual marriage in Scandinavia? Slate. Retrieved from http://www.slate.com/id/2100884
  8. Badgett, M. V. L. (2004b). Will providing marriage rights to same-sex couples undermine heterosexual marriage? Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 1(3), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Badgett, M. V. L. (2009). When gay people get married: What happens when societies legalize same-sex marriage. New York: NYU Press.Google Scholar
  10. Becker, G. S. (1973). A theory of marriage: Part I. Journal of Political Economy, 81, 813–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Becker, G. S. (1974). A theory of marriage: Part II. Journal of Political Economy, 82, S11–S26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Billmeier, A., & Nannicini, T. (2013). Assessing economic liberalization episodes: A synthetic control approach. Review of Economics and Statistics, 95, 983–1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bitler, M., Gelbach, J., Hoynes, H., & Zavodny, M. (2004). The impact of welfare reform on marriage and divorce. Demography, 41, 213–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Blank, R., Charles, K. K., & Sallee, J. (2009). A cautionary tale about the use of administrative data: Evidence from age of marriage laws. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 1, 128–149.Google Scholar
  15. Boele-Woelki, K., Curry-Sumner, I., Jansen, M., & Schrama, W. (2007). Huwelijk of geregistreerd partnerschap? [Marriage or registered partnership?]. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  16. Buckles, K., Guldi, M., & Price, J. (2011). Changing the price of marriage: Evidence from blood test requirements. Journal of Human Resources, 46, 539–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cahill, S. (2004). Same-sex marriage in the United States: Focus on the facts. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  18. Cavallo, E., Galiani, S., Noy, I., & Pantano, J. (2010). Catastrophic natural disasters and economic growth (IDB Working Paper No. IDB-WP-183). Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank.Google Scholar
  19. Cherlin, A. (2004). The deinstitutionalization of American marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 848–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Curry-Sumner, I. (2006). Private international law aspects of homosexual couples: The Netherlands report. In J. H. M. van Erp & L. P. W. van Vliet (Eds.), Netherlands reports to the Seventeenth International Congress of Comparative Law (pp. 147–175). Mortsel, Belgium: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  21. de Jong, A. (2003). Largest families in Urk (Report). Retrieved from http://www.cbs.nl/en-GB/menu/themas/bevolking/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2003/2003-1269-wm.htm
  22. Eberwein, C., Ham, J., & LaLonde, R. (2002). Alternative methods of estimating program effects in event history models. Labour Economics, 9, 249–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Eskridge, W., & Spedale, D. (2006). Gay marriage: For better or for worse? What we’ve learned from the evidence. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Gautier, P., Svarer, M., & Teulings, C. (2010). Marriage and the city: Search frictions and sorting of singles. Journal of Urban Economics, 67, 206–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goldin, C., & Katz, L. (2002). The power of the pill: Oral contraceptives and women’s career and marriage decisions. Journal of Political Economy, 110, 730–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Graham, J., & Barr, J. (2008). Assessing the geographic distribution of same sex and opposite sex couples across the United States: Implications for claims of causality between traditional marriage and same sex unions. Review of Economics of the Household, 6, 347–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ham, J., & Rea, S. (1987). Unemployment insurance and male unemployment duration in Canada. Journal of Labor Economics, 5, 325–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Heckman, J., & Singer, B. (1984). A method for minimizing the impact of distributional assumptions in econometric models for duration data. Econometrica, 52, 271–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kortmann Commissie. (1997). Commissie inzake openstelling van het burgerlijk huwelijk voor personen van hetzelfde geslacht [Committee on the opening of civil marriage to persons of the same sex]. The Hague, The Netherlands: Ministry of Justice.Google Scholar
  30. Kurtz, S. (2004a). Dutch debate. National Review Online. Retrieved from http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/81649/dutch-debate/stanley-kurtz
  31. Kurtz, S. (2004b). The end of marriage in Scandinavia. The Weekly Standard, 9(20), 26.Google Scholar
  32. Kurtz, S. (2004c). No explanation. National Review Online. Retrieved from http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/210906/no-explanation/stanley-kurtz
  33. Kurtz, S. (2006a). Avoidance strategy. National Review Online. Retrieved from http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/219091/avoidance-strategy/stanley-kurtz
  34. Kurtz, S. (2006b). Standing out. National Review Online. Retrieved from http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/216868/standing-out/stanley-kurtz
  35. Langbein, L., & Yost, M. (2009). Same-sex marriage and negative externalities. Social Science Quarterly, 90, 292–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lauer, S., & Yodanis, C. (2010). The deinstitutionalization of marriage revisited: A new institutional approach to marriage. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 2, 58–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lee, W.-S. (2011). Comparative case studies of the effects of inflation targeting in emerging economies. Oxford Economic Papers, 63, 375–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mahoney, A. (2010). Religion in families, 1999–2009: A relational spirituality framework. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 805–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mello, M. (2004). Legalizing gay marriage. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Merin, Y. (2002). Equality for same-sex couples: The legal recognition of gay partnerships in Europe and the United States. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mroz, T., & Zayats, Y. (2008). Arbitrarily normalized coefficients, information sets, and false reports of “biases” in binary outcome models. Review of Economics and Statistics, 90, 406–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nannicini, T., & Billmeier, A. (2011). Economies in transition: How important is trade openness for growth? Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 73, 287–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Narendranathan, W., & Stewart, M. (1993). How does the benefit effect vary as unemployment spells lengthen? Journal of Applied Econometrics, 8, 361–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nickell, S. (1979). Estimating the probability of leaving unemployment. Econometrica, 47, 1249–1266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nicoletti, C., & Rondinelli, C. (2010). The (mis)specification of discrete duration models with unobserved heterogeneity: A Monte Carlo study. Journal of Econometrics, 159, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rasul, I. (2006). Marriage markets and divorce laws. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 22, 30–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rauch, J. (2004). Gay marriage: Why it is good for gays, good for straights, and good for America. New York: Times Books.Google Scholar
  48. Safire, W. (2003, June 30). The bedroom door. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/30/opinion/the-bedroom-door.html
  49. Sobotka, T., & Adigüzel, F. (2002). Religiosity and spatial demographic differences in the Netherlands (SOM Research Report 02F65). Groningen, The Netherlands: University of Groningen.Google Scholar
  50. Stateline.org. (2009). State of the states 2009 (Report). Washington, DC: Pew Center on the states. Retrieved from http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_report_detail.aspx?id=48128
  51. van Huis, M. (2005). Flash annulments remain popular (Report). Den Haag: Statistics Netherlands. Retrieved from http://www.cbs.nl/en-GB/menu/themas/bevolking/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2005/2005-1704-wm.htm
  52. Village, A., Williams, E., & Francis, L. (2010). Living in sin? Religion and cohabitation in Britain 1985–2005. Marriage & Family Review, 46, 468–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Waaldijk, K. (2004). Major legal consequences of marriage, cohabitation and registered partnership for different-sex and same-sex partners in the Netherlands. In K. Waaldijk (Ed.), More or less together: Levels of legal consequences of marriage, cohabitation and registered partnerships for different-sex and same-sex partners. A comparative study of nine European countries (pp. 137–153). Paris, France: Institut National d’Études Démographiques.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Population Association of America 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Business and EconomicsUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdense MDenmark

Personalised recommendations