Common Law Marriage and Teen Births
Whether common law marriage (CLM) in the US affects teen birth rates is the central question we address. CLM effects were identified through cross-state and time variation, as four states repealed the law over the period of study. Using microdata from Current Population Survey Fertility supplements 1990–2010 and state-level data from CDC Vital Statistics 1988–2012 we found that, in the states where CLM was first available but then repealed, the odds that teens would become new mothers increased. Births to teens younger than 18 were more responsive to availability of CLM than those to teens aged 18 or 19 or to women in their early twenties. The likelihood of becoming a mother increased where CLM was available in the years prior to its repeal. Teens were more responsive to information about availability of CLM about three years later than to knowing that it is available at the time of potential conception. To the extent that they reduce teen births CLM laws are socially desirable and states that still have CLM may be better off by not repealing the law.
KeywordsMarriage Common law marriage Adolescents Births Fertility
We thank the editor, anonymous referees and participants in the Demography seminar at the University of Chicago (especially Ioana Marinescu and Ofer Malamud) and in the IZA SOLE Transatlantic Meetings (especially David Neumark) for valuable comments.
- Becker, G. S. (1960). An economic analysis of fertility. In Demographic and economic change in developed countries, a Conference of the Universities–National Bureau Committee for Economic Research. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Grossbard, S. (2015). The marriage motive: aA price theory of marriage; how marriage markets affect employment, consumption, and savings. New York: Springer. ISBN 978-1-4614-1623-4.Google Scholar
- Hamilton, B. E., Martin, J. A., Osterman, M. J. K., & Curtin, S. C. (2014). Births: Preliminary data for 2013. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_02.pdf.
- Hoffman, S. D. & Maynard, R. A. (Eds.). (2008). Kids having kids: economic costs and social consequences of teen pregnancy (2nd ed.) Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press. Retrieved from http://works.bepress.com/rebecca_maynard/6/.
- Martin, J. A., Hamilton, B. E., & Osterman, M. J. K. (2014). Births in the United States, 2013. NCHS Data Brief No. 175, December. Hyattsville, MD. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db175.htm.
- Martinez, G., Copen, C. E., & Abma, J. C. (2011). Teenagers in the United States: Sexual activity, contraceptive use, and childbearing, 2006–2010 National Survey of Family Growth. Washington, DC: National Center for Health Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_031.pdf.
- Mincer, J. (1963). Market prices, opportunity costs, and income effects. In C. Christ (Ed.), Measurement in economics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
- Mincy, R., Grossbard, S. & Huang, C. (2005). An economic analysis of co-parenting choices: single parent, visiting father, cohabitation, marriage. EconWPA papers in Labor and Demography #0505004, May. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23746785_An_Economic_Analysis_of_Co-Parenting_Choices_Single_Parent_Visiting_Father_Cohabitation_Marriage.
- Moore, K., Sacks, V., Manlove, J., & Sawhill, I. (2014). What if you earned a diploma and delayed parenthood? Bethesda, MD: Child Trends. Retrieved from http://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/2014-27SocialGenomeDelayChildbearing.pdf.
- United Nations (2013). 2012 Demographic yearbook. New York, New York. Retrieved from http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/dyb/dybsets/2012.pdf.
- Vespa, J., Lewis, J. M. & Kreider, R.M. (2013). America’s families and living arrangements 2012. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p20-570.pdf.