Throughout the 1960s to the 1980s, the family structure of black American households has undergone considerable reconstruction that has affected the living arrangements of their families. Specifically, the changing family trends included large declines in marriage, an increase in the number of female-headed households and a change in the relative fertility rates of married and unmarried women. To explain these changes, economists have argued that unemployment leads to the destabilization of black families. Some economists claim that the unemployment of males, who are typically the leader of the household, can have dramatic psychological effects on them, which can weaken the stability of the marriage. Additionally, there has been a rise in the number of female-headed households; however, unemployment has not been the single cause of this. Instead, economists also claim that the gradual increase in welfare payments has influenced unmarried mothers to bear more children. We will first examine the trends of black family structures from the 1960s to 1980s, before analyzing the influence unemployment and welfare has had on the family structure.
Since the 1960s to the 1980s, the structure of black families has endured three trends: a large decline in marriage rates, an increase in divorce rates, and changes in the fertility rates of unmarried women. In 1960, 51 percent of black women were married; but by 1988, the figure fell to 29 percent. Additionally, the percentage of women who never married rose from 28 percent in 1960 to 52 percent in 1988. Also, the divorce rate rose from .28 to .39. However, the decline in marriages and increase in divorce rates did not occur simultaneously. In the 1960s and 1970s, the percentage of black women who never married rose. Yet, the divorce rate only rose sharply between 1970 and 1980. Thus, the change in the 1960s and 1980s was caused mainly by the decline in marriage rates, while the 1970s experienced both a decline in marriage rates and an increase in divorce rates. Due to the unique increase in divorce rates, marriage rates had the greatest effect on the changing family structure between the 1960s to the 1980s.
As marriage rates declined, birth rates have also fallen for married and unmarried women. Between 1960 and 1987, the birth rate for married women fell from 186 per 1000 women to 82 per 1000 women. Additionally, the birth rate for unmarried women fell as well, but the decline was not as substantial, as it was for married women. Continually by 1984, the birth rate for unmarried women began to increase, while married women still declined. Consequently, the birth rate of unmarried women now exceeds that of married women, and society partially blames the increase in the number of births for destabilizing of black families.
Additionally, the declining marriage rates have also brought dramatic changes in the living arrangements of children. In 1960, 67 percent of black children lived with two parents; however, by 1988, the percent dropped to 38. Continually, the amount of black children living with a never-married parent rose excessively from 2 percent to 30 percent. The statistics exemplify how the change in the proportion of unmarried black females has contributed to the negative change in the black family structure.
The declining marriage rate for black families over the 1960s to 1980s has raised questions about the causes of this change. Economists have debated over the causes of these trends and two prevalent themes have emerged. Specifically, economists blame unemployment and welfare benefits, as influences that have effected the decision-making processes involved in the black families. By examining these two factors individually, one will understand how they influenced the change in the black family structure.
Before understanding the effects of unemployment on the black family structure, it is important to preface the rational behind marriages. From an economic standpoint, Gary Becker argued that two parities married, because it increased the utility of one or both of the parties. For instance, one party may have a comparative advantage in earning an income, while the other party might specialize in caring for children. It would make sense that these two parties would marry, because their union would increase the utility level of at least one of the parties. Unfortunately, if the marriage is solely based on improving one’s utility and not based on love, such factors as unemployment can cause strain of the stability of the marriage.
The effects of unemployment will cause stress on the stability of the marriage, because the family will face cost-cutting decisions. Consequently, families have to adjust their customary consumption habits, which could put more strain on a marriage, because the family would have to adjust to a new class of living. If a marriage based solely on utility, Becker believed that if man lost his job he would lose the comparative advantage he once had. Hence, his wife would experience less satisfaction with their marriage.[1] In 1960 the employment rate of black males aged 25-34 was 62 percent; however, by 1988, rate dropped to 40 percent. From a utilitarian point of view, this dramatic change in the employment rates of blacks helps explain the decline in the marriage rate of blacks, because the lower number of employed black men would mean women would look elsewhere for support.
Though unemployment of black males can have a destabilizing effect on the stability of a marriage, the social-psychological issues can have a greater effect in the break down of the family structure. The social-psychological theory argues that an unemployed male will feel inferior, because employment status nullifies his superiority in the family. The wife will question her husband’s failure and believe that he will be unable to provide for her. This can have a detrimental effect on the husband, because he will feel inferior to his wife, because he will not have the ability to provide as well for the family. In a society where men are judged on their ability as a provider, he will feel stressed, and eventually will want to leave the family, which will force the wife to be the main provider. Therefore the consequences of unemployment will not only affect the consumption habits of a family, but it can also have negative social-psychological effect on members of the family.
Continually, as unemployment of males increase, women will feel the burden to become more independent and will have to provide for themselves. If women had jobs, they will not feel the financial stress of having to find a provider, because they can survive on their own. In the 1960s, women had an employment rate of .45, however, by the end of the 1980s it grew to .65 by the end of the 1980s. These statistics exemplify how women had to seek employment to support their family. Additionally, this change could account for the decrease in the rate of marriages, during this time period. Though economists have not been able to gauge the exact influence the rise of female households has had on the marriage rate, they believe that the rise in the employment rate of women could have some affect on the declining marriage rates.
Overall, unemployment can have a destabilizing effect on marriage rates, because it can have detrimental psychological effects on men, which will make men less attractive to women. Consequently, women are forced to become more independent and be able to support themselves and sometimes their children. Unfortunately, some women do not have the means to support themselves and they depend upon welfare for support. Economists have argued that welfare has a negative effect on the stability of the marriage, because it does not create an incentive for women to try and get off it. Instead, women at times try harder to attain more benefits from the system.
Studies have proven that welfare; especially benefits such as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) have promoted the rise of female-headed household, which has had a negative effect on the family structure. Some economists claim that AFDC will encourage black females to have more children, because they well receive more support. Robins and Fronstin found, “For blacks, a US$25 increase in the monthly AFDC benefit increment for a second child increases the probability of having a second child by .04, a 10% effect 9the mean monthly increment for a second child is US$78 and the mean probability of having a second child is .41.”[2] The increasing benefit levels of AFDC give black females a greater incentive to have more children out of wedlock. Consequently, the goal of welfare and AFDC program is not accomplished; rather it influences unmarried black females to have more children.
Continually, the AFDC benefits have different effects on individuals with various levels of education. Economists believe that the welfare program could be an incentive for high school dropouts to have more children. Specifically, the evidence has shown that high school dropouts are more likely to receive AFDC benefits than graduates from high school. Robins and Fronstin stated, “For the first child, the results imply that a US$100 increase in the basic benefit level increases the probability of a high school dropout having a first child by 0.02, a 17% effect (the mean monthly basic benefit level is US$371 and the mean probability for having a first child is 0.11.”[3] The evidence proves that welfare program might influence high school dropouts to depend upon the benefit program and to have more children. To prevent this trend, economists have the developed the Learning, Earning, And Parenting (LEAP) program to help curb the birth rate of high school dropouts.
To give women an incentive to complete high school, Ohio developed the LEAP program. The new benefit system gave women an extra US$62 for finishing high school, and deducted US$62, for every month they are not in school. The goal of the program is to incite females to finish high school. The theory is that high school graduates will place themselves in a higher labor market, and will be more qualified to care for their children. Also, by having a higher level of education, women would be less likely to have more children, for the purpose of increasing their benefit payments. The incentive approach might be more efficient than cutting benefits payments for women, because it gives them defined goals to achieve.
From the 1960s to 1980s, the black marriages rates characterize the dramatic change in the black family structure. Ellwood and Crane (1990) analyzed the decreasing marriage rates and increasing divorce and separation rates, and came to the conclusion that the changing employment rates of both men and women have influenced this change. Starkey (1996) argued that higher unemployment rates not only affected families from a utilitarian point, but had a significant psychological affect on men. Men felt inferior to women, because they were not the sole provider. During this time, the employment rate of men dropped, and women had to become more independent to provide for their children. Continually, as females became more independent, they began having more children, as single parents. Unfortunately, some mothers were not able to adequately support their children, and women began to depend on welfare for aide. However, these programs did not have the desired effect. Robins and Fronstin (1996) argued that welfare programs such as AFDC gave single women a greater incentive to having more children. Consequently, they have cited effectiveness of such programs as LEAP that give women a greater incentive to stay in school, which could possible decrease the fertility rate. To help improve the family structure of blacks, it will be important to implement effective programs like LEAP. However, to improve the trends of black families, both the unemployment rates of blacks and the welfare program must be improve together to attain any significant achievements.
Elwood, David T. and Crane, Johnathan. “Family Change Among Black Americans:What Do We Know?”. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Volume 4, Number 4, Fall 1990, pp. 65-84.
Lichter, Danie, McLaughlin, Diane, and Ribar, David, “Welfare and the Rise in Female-Headed Families.” American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 103, No. 1, July 1997, pp.112-143.
Starkey, James L. “Face Differences in the Effect of Unemployment on Marital Instability: A Socio-economic Analysis,” Vol. 25, No. 6, 1996, pp683-720.
Robbins, Philip K., and Fronstin, Paul. “Welfare Benefits and Birth Decisions of Never Married Women.” Population Research and Policy Review. Vol. 15, February 1996, pp21-43.
[2] Philip K., Robins and Paul Fronstin. “Welfare Benefits and Birth Decisions of Never Married Women.” Population Research and Policy Review. Vol. 15. February 1996. p. 37.
[3] Ibid. p37.