Population Research and Policy Review

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 101–128 | Cite as

The Impact of the Earned Income Tax Credit on Marriage and Divorce: Evidence from Flow Data

  • Chris M. HerbstEmail author


While considerable research focuses on the anti-poverty and labor supply effects of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), relatively little is known about the program’s influence on marriage and divorce decisions. Furthermore, nearly all work in this area uses stock measures of marital status derived from survey data. In this paper, I draw upon Vital Statistics data between 1977 and 2004 to construct a transition-based measure of marriage and divorce rates. Flows into and out of marriage are advantageous because they are more likely to capture the immediate impact of policy changes. Controlling for state-level characteristics and sources of unobserved heterogeneity, I find that increases in the EITC are associated with reductions in new marriages, although the estimated effect is economically small. I find no relationship between the EITC and new divorces. These results are robust to alternative estimation strategies, data restrictions, and the inclusion of additional policy and demographic controls.


Earned Income Tax Credit Flow data Marriage penalties 


  1. Acs, G., & Maag, E. (2005). Irreconcilable differences? The conflict between marriage promotion initiatives for cohabitating couples with children and marriage penalties in the tax and transfer systems. Policy Brief No. B-66. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.Google Scholar
  2. Alm, J., & Whittington, L. (1995). Income taxes and the marriage decision. Applied Economics, 27, 25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alm, J., & Whittington, L. (1997). Income taxes and the timing of marital decisions. Journal of Public Economics, 64, 219–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baughman, R., & Dickert-Conlin, S. (2009). The earned income tax credit and fertility. Journal of Population Economics, 22, 537–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Becker, G. (1973). A theory of marriage: Part I. Journal of Political Economy, 81, 813–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bennett, N., Bloom, D., & Miller, C. (1995). The influence of nonmarital childbearing on the formation of first marriages. Demography, 32, 47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Besley, T., & Case, A. (2000). Unnatural experiments? Estimating the incidence of endogenous policies. The Economic Journal, 110, F672–F694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bitler, M., Gelbach, J., Hoynes, H., & Zavodny, M. (2004). The impact of welfare reform on marriage and divorce. Demography, 41, 213–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blackwell, D., & Lichter, D. (2000). Mate selection among married and cohabiting couples. Journal of Family Issues, 21, 275–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blank, R. (1999). Analyzing the length of welfare spells. Journal of Public Economics, 39, 245–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blank, R. (2002). Evaluating welfare reform in the U.S. Journal of Economic Literature, 40, 1105–1166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Blau, F. D., Kahn, L. M., & Waldfogel, J. (2000). Understanding young women’s marriage decisions: The role of labor and marriage market conditions. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 53, 624–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brien, M. J. (1997). Racial differences in marriage and the role of marriage markets. Journal of Human Resources, 32, 741–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cherlin, A. (1977). The effect of children on marital dissolution. Demography, 14, 265–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clarkberg, M., Stolzenberg, R. M., & Waite, L. J. (1995). Attitudes, values, and entrance into cohabitational versus marital unions. Social Forces, 74, 609–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Congressional Budget Office. (1997). For better or for worse: Marriage and the federal income tax.
  17. Crouse, G. (1999). State implementation of major changes to welfare policies 1992-1998. Retrieved September 1, 2006, from
  18. Dickert-Conlin, S. (1999). Taxes and transfers: Their effect on the decision to end a marriage. Journal of Public Economics, 73, 217–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dickert-Conlin, S., & Houser, S. (1998). Taxes and transfers: A new look at the marriage penalty. National Tax Journal, 51, 175–218.Google Scholar
  20. Dickert-Conlin, S., & Houser, S. (1999). EITC, AFDC, and the female headship decision. Discussion paper no. 1192-99. Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
  21. Dickert-Conlin, S., & Houser, S. (2002). EITC and marriage. National Tax Journal, LV, 25–40.Google Scholar
  22. Duchovny, N. (2001). The Earned Income Tax Credit and fertility. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Maryland, Department of Economics.Google Scholar
  23. Eissa, N., & Hoynes, H. (2004). Taxes and labor market participation of married couples: The Earned Income Tax Credit. Journal of Public Economics, 88, 1931–1958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ellwood, D. (2000). The impact of the earned income tax credit and social policy reforms on work, marriage, and living arrangements. National Tax Journal, 53, 1063–1105.Google Scholar
  25. Ellwood, D., & Jencks, C. (2001). The growing differences in family structure: What do we know? Where do we look for answers? Working paper. Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.Google Scholar
  26. Fang, H., & Keane, M. (2004). Assessing the impact of welfare reform on single mothers. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1, 1–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fitzgerald, J. M., & Ribar, D. (2004). Welfare reform and female headship. Demography, 41, 189–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Friedberg, L. (1998). Did unilateral divorce raise divorce rates? Evidence from panel data. American Economic Review, 88, 608–627.Google Scholar
  29. Gittleman, M. (2001). Declining caseloads: What do the dynamics of welfare participation reveal? Industrial Relations, 40, 537–570.Google Scholar
  30. Goldstein, J. (1999). The leveling of divorce in the United States. Demography, 36, 409–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gray, V. (1973). Innovation in the states: A diffusion study. American Political Science Review, 67, 1174–1185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Grogger, J. (2003). The effects of time limits, the EITC, and other policy changes on welfare use, work, and income among female-headed families. Review of Economics and Statistics, 85, 394–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hoffman, S. (2003). The EITC marriage tax and EITC reform. Working paper no. 2003-01. University of Delaware, Department of Economics.Google Scholar
  34. Holtzblatt, J., & Rebelein, R. (2000). Measuring the effect of the Earned Income Tax Credit on marriage penalties and bonuses. National Tax Journal, 53, 1107–1134.Google Scholar
  35. Horvath-Rose, A., & Peters, H. E. (2001). Welfare waivers and non-marital childbearing. In G. Duncan & L. Chase-Lansdale (Eds.), Welfare reform: For better, for worse. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  36. Hoynes, H. (1997). Does welfare play any role in female headship decisions? Journal of Public Economics, 65, 89–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Joyce, J., Pearce, W., I. I. I., & Rosenbloom, J. (2001). The effects of child-bearing on women’s marital status: Using twin births as a natural experiment. Economics Letters, 70, 133–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kaushal, N., & Kaestner, R. (2001). From welfare to work: Has welfare reform worked? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20, 699–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lichter, D. T., Anderson, R., & Wayward, M. (1995). Marriage markets and marital choice. Journal of Family Issues, 16, 412–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lichter, D. T., McLaughlin, D. K., & Ribar, D. C. (2002). Economic restructuring and the retreat from marriage. Social Science Research, 31, 230–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Looney, A. (2005). The effects of welfare reform and related policies on single mothers’ welfare use and employment in the 1990s. Working paper 2005-45. Finance and economics discussion series. Washington, DC: Federal Reserve Board.Google Scholar
  42. McCubbin, J. (2000). EITC noncompliance: The determinants of misreporting of children. National Tax Journal, 53, 1135–1164.Google Scholar
  43. Meyer, B., & Rosenbaum, D. (2001). Welfare, the earned income tax credit, and the labor supply of single mothers. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116, 1063–1114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Moffitt, R. (1994). Welfare effects on female headship with area effects. Journal of Human Resources, 29, 621–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Moffitt, R. (1998). The effect of welfare on marriage and fertility. In R. Moffitt (Ed.), Welfare, the family, and reproductive behavior. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  46. Moffitt, R., & Rendall, M. (1995). Cohort trends in the lifetime distribution of female family headship in the United States. Demography, 32, 407–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mooney, C., & Lee, M. (1995). Legislative morality in the American states: The case of pre-Roe abortion regulation reform. American Journal of Political Science, 39, 599–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nagle, A., & Johnson, N. (2006). A hand up: How state Earned Income Tax Credits help working families escape poverty in 2006. Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.Google Scholar
  49. Qian, Z., Lichter, D., & Mellott, L. (2005). Out-of-wedlock childbearing, marital prospects, and mate selection. Social Forces, 84, 473–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ressler, R. A., & Waters, M. S. (2000). Female earnings and the divorce rate: A Simultaneous equations model. Applied Economics, 32, 1889–1898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rosenbaum, D. (2000). Taxes, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and marriage. Working paper. University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Department of Economics.Google Scholar
  52. Schoeni, R., & Blank, R. (2000). What has welfare reform accomplished? Impacts on welfare participation, employment, income, poverty, and family structure. Working paper no. 7627. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  53. Scholz, J. K. (1994). The Earned Income Tax Credit: Participation, compliance, and anti-poverty effectiveness. National Tax Journal, 47, 63–87.Google Scholar
  54. Scholz, J. K. (1997). Deputy assistant secretary for tax analysis, U.S. Department of the Treasury. Testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means. Washington, DC, May, 1997.Google Scholar
  55. Shipan, C., & Volden, C. (2008). The mechanisms of policy diffusion. American Journal of Political Science, 52, 840–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Steele, F., Kallis, C., Goldstein, H., & Joshi, H. (2005). The relationship between childbearing and transitions from marriage and cohabitation in Britain. Demography, 42, 647–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Thorton, A., & Rodgers, W. (1987). The influence of individual and historical time on marital dissolution. Demography, 24, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. U.S. Census Bureau. (2004). Number, timing and duration of marriages and divorces, 2004.
  59. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (U.S. DHHS). (1997). Setting the baseline: A report on state welfare waivers. Retrieved September 1, 2006, from
  60. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service. (2002). Compliance estimates for Earned Income Tax Credit claimed on 1999 returns.
  61. U.S. General Accountability Office (U.S. GAO). (1997). Welfare reform: States’ early experiences with benefit termination. Report No. HEHS-97-74. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accountability Office.Google Scholar
  62. U.S. General Accounting Office (U.S. GAO). (1992). Earned Income Tax Credit: Advance payment option is not widely known or understood by the public. GAO/GGD-92-26. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office.Google Scholar
  63. U.S. General Accounting Office (U.S. GAO). (1996). Income tax treatment of married and single individuals. Report No. GAO/GGD-96-175. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office.Google Scholar
  64. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means (2004). Green book, background on material and data on programs within the jurisdiction of the committee on ways and means. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  65. Whittington, L. (1992). Taxes and the family: The impact of the tax exemption for dependents on marital fertility. Demography, 29, 215–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Whittington, L., & Alm, J. (1997). Till death or taxes do us part: The effect of income taxation on divorce. Journal of Human Resources, 32, 388–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Whittington, L., Alm, J., & Peters, E. (1990). Fertility and the personal exemption: Implicit pronatalist policy in the United States. American Economic Review, 80, 545–556.Google Scholar
  68. Wolfers, J. (2006). Did unilateral divorce laws raise divorce rates? A reconciliation and new results. American Economic Review, 96, 1802–1820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wooldridge, J. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Public AffairsArizona State UniversityPhoenixUSA

Personalised recommendations