Can Crossnational Theories of Nonmarital Childbearing Explain Nonmarital Childbearing
Patterns Across Observed Across U.S. States?
Working Paper/PCS, November 10, 2009
Celeste Benson
Can Crossnational Theories of Nonmarital Childbearing Explain Nonmarital Childbearing
Patterns Across Observed Across U.S. States?
Perhaps the biggest trend in fertility behavior in Western industrialized countries 1 over the last
several decades is the rise in non-marital childbearing. Up until the mid-1960s, marriage and
childbearing were closely linked across these countries. Marriage occurred in early adulthood,
and nonmarital childbearing was rare. But by the close of the twentieth century this was
increasingly not the case. Today, in a handful of Western European countries, a child is more
likely to be born to unmarried than to married parents (Ventura 2009). In the United States, this
proportion is slightly less, with one in every 2.5 children born outside of marriage 2 (Hamilton et al.
2009).
While in Europe unmarried parenthood has become progressively accepted as an alternative
family form, in the United States nonmarital childbearing has sparked great controversy and
attention has overwhelmingly centered on discouraging its growth, particularly through the
promotion of marriage for unmarried parents (Kiernan 2004). Behind this emphasis is the
argument that nonmarital childbearing is associated with higher family instability and long-term
disadvantages for children than marital childbearing—due to a greater likelihood of relationship
dissolution for cohabiting parents as well as a lower likelihood of single non-cohabiting birth
mothers establishing long term stable unions (Heuveline 2003; Bumpass and Lu 2000; Graefe
and Lichter 2002; Bennett et al. 1995; Bennett et al. 1989). However, with respect to
cohabitation, studies have also shown that its meaning for childbearing is not fixed and that the
stability of cohabiting unions varies notably across countries and social contexts (Heuveline 2003,
2004; Thomson 2005; Sigle Rushton and McLanahan 2002).
1
In this paper, Western industrialized countries are considered to be all of Western and Northern Europe as
well as the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom and Ireland, but excludes
countries of the former Soviet Union (including former East Germany).
2
In 1950, 4%, or 1 in 25 births in the U.S. were nonmarital. By 2007, this proportion had risen to
approximately 40%, or 1 in every 2.5 children (Ventura and Bachrach 2000; Hamilton et al. 2009).
2
Crossnational researchers point out that across Western countries, cohabitation has taken on
different meanings, especially with respect to family formation—reflecting an alternative or
equivalent to marriage and an acceptable setting for childbearing in some countries, while acting
largely as a childless prelude to marriage in others (Heuveline et al. 2004; Thomson 2005;
Jensen and Clausen 2003). Such research indicates that the United States does not follow an
identifiable pattern and shows little signs of convergence with other Western countries in any
cohabitation and childbearing trend (Raley 2001; Heuveline et al. 2004). Using national
longitudinal survey data from the late 1980s and mid-1990s, Raley (2001) concluded that the U.S.
did not appear to be following the same path as European countries with respect to its patterns of
childbearing within cohabitation due to the high level of instability for cohabiting unions in the
U.S.3 as well as persistently high fertility rates for single mothers who did not cohabit following a
nonmarital conception (Raley 2001). This resonates with other U.S. research by Lichter et al.
(2006) which tracked the union status of cohabiting couples over the period of 1979 to 2000 using
national survey data and found that half of all cohabiting unions in the United States ended within
one year and over 90% ended by the fifth year—the large majority ending is dissolution rather
than marriage. In a crossnational study using U.S. data from the early 1990s, Heuveline and
Timberlake made a similar judgment to Raley (2001), basing their reasoning on the comparatively
short median duration of cohabitation in the U.S., as well as the high likelihood of cohabiting
union dissolution in the U.S. relative to other developed countries (Heuveline and Timberlake
2004). Based on their findings they suggested that the best characterization of cohabitation with
respect to family formation in the United States is “an alternative to being single” a term which
captures the low level of commitment and stability it implies on average for U.S. couples
(Heuveline and Timberlake 2004). This conclusion is consistent with the findings of a separate
3
Using national longitudinal survey data from 1979-2000, Lichter, Qian and Mellott (2006) found that
cohabiting unions in the U.S. tend to be short-lived, with approximately 50% ending within one year, and
over 90% ending by the fifth year, with most ending in dissolution rather than marriage. This contrasts with
other Western countries, where cohabitation tends to be longer and more stable (Heuveline and Timberlake
2004). In addition, Heuveline, Timberlake and Furstenburg found that in the early 1990s, over threequarters of all U.S. parents who were cohabiting at the time of their child’s birth had split by the time their
child was 15 (Heuveline, Timberlake and Furstenburg 2003).
3
study by Heuveline, Timberlake and Furstenburg (2003) found that 76% of all children born to
cohabiting parents in the United States experienced parental separation by the age of 15.
Such studies suggest that due to the strong likelihood of separation for cohabiting parents in the
United States (Heuveline et al 2003), children born to cohabiting unions may differ little from
those born to single mothers. This interpretation is largely consistent with traditional economic
models of marriage4, which understand all childbearing outside of marriage as equivalent,
whether a child is born to a single mother or to cohabiting parents (Becker 1973, 1974, 1981,
1991). However, research also indicates that in the United States, important diversity in family
and childbearing patterns exists across socioeconomic groups, across U.S. states and regions,
between racial/ethnic groups, and with respect to individual cohabiting couples (Manning 2001;
Musick et al. 2007; Lesthaeghe and Neidert 2006; Goldin and Katz 2002; Sigle-Rushton and
McLanahan 2002). Survey data reveals that over the last several decades in the United States,
social acceptance of cohabitation has increased significantly, that the proportion of women who
have ever cohabitated continues to rise, and that the duration of cohabitation has been increasing
as well (Thornton and Young-DeMarco 2001; Bumpass and Lu 2000; Kennedy and Bumpass
2008). Evidence also suggests that cohabiting couples in the United States have become
somewhat more likely to plan or intend pregnancy and childbearing outside of marriage over time,
and also indicates that single and cohabating mothers differ significantly in their childbearing
intentions (Manning 2001; Musick 2007; Finer and Henshaw 2006). For example, in 2001, Finer
and Henshaw found that while rates of unintended pregnancy for cohabiting women were quite
high, rates of intended childbearing for cohabiting women were much more comparable to
married than to single women (Finer and Henshaw 2006). In addition, using mid-1990s data,
Musick (2002) found that planned childbearing was significantly more likely for cohabiting than for
single women, at least for non-Hispanic whites and Hispanics. Longitudinal data also shows that
as childbearing within cohabitation has become more common, the strength of its association with
4
Such models understand marriage as the optimal environment for investing in children and assume that
marriage and childbearing rationally go together. For this reason they understand all nonmarital births as
indistinguishable.
4
low socioeconomic status has weakened as well. While it is still quite rare among women with 4year college degrees, it has grown noticeably for working class women with some college
education in recent decades (Sassler and Cunningham 2008; Sassler et al. 2009). Between the
early 1980s and 2001, the proportion of all births among women who reported themselves as
having “some college”, and also cohabiting rose from 3 to 15 percent (Kennedy and Lu 2000;
Kennedy and Bumpass 2008). These findings imply that cohabitation may increasingly serve as
a stable alternative to marriage for some couples.
While these trends point to increasing institutionalization of cohabitation as an alternative family
form in the U.S., important confounds remain. Despite the rising share of unmarried births to
cohabiting mothers, births to single noncohabiting mothers in the U.S. remain strikingly high.
While having a child outside any union is uncommon across most of continental and northern
Europe5 (Kiernan 1999; 2002; Andersson 2002), in the United States half of all nonmarital births
are to non-cohabiting mothers (Kennedy and Bumpass 2008) 6. In addition, by international
standards, Americans also have an unusually high incidence of births resulting from unintended
pregnancy (Jones et al. 1989; Ranjit et al 2001; Frejka and Kinkade 2003; Quesnel-Vallée and
Morgan 2003; Musick et al. 2007) and data indicates that in recent years in the U.S., single
mothers have increasingly cohabited as a response to pregnancy (Raley 2001; Kefalas et al
2005; Reed 2006)7. The stronger prevalence of unintended pregnancy and childbearing in the
U.S. might indicate that relative to Europe, cohabitation in the U.S. may be host to a less stable
element due to these couples’ lower intent and preparation for parenthood. In addition, the United
5
Notable exceptions are Great Britain, Austria and the former East Germany (see Kiernan 2002; Konietzka and.
Kreyenfeld. 2001; Heuveline et al. 2003).
6
In the mid-1990s, 60% of all nonmarital births in the United States were to single non-cohabiting mothers
(Bumpass and Lu 2000; De Vaus 2002; Heuveline et al. 2003). Based on data from the early to mid 1990s,
Heuveline et al. (2003) found that especially high birth rates for single mothers along with low parental
union stability for both cohabiting and marital unions contributes to particularly high rates of exposure to
single parenthood within the United States relative to other developed countries. Using rates of parental
union dissolution for both cohabiting and marital unions along with births to single mothers, they
calculated that one out of every two children in the U.S. (51%) was exposed to single parenthood by age
15, a figure 34% higher than its closest European counterpart (Heuveline et al. 2003).
7
While a trend toward so-called “shotgun cohabitation” has been recognized in the European context as
well as the U.S. (Jensen and Clausen 2003), especially high rates of unintended pregnancy and persistently
high levels of single and young mother births in the United States suggest that the U.S. pattern of nonmarital childbearing is distinct from the pattern observed in most of Europe.
5
States also has significantly higher poverty levels than other developed countries (OECD 2008),
another factor associated with lower union formation and higher relationship instability,
particularly when measured in terms of male wages (Goldscheider and Waite 1986; Teachman et
al. 1987; Oppenheimer et al. 1997; Smock and Manning 1997; Sassler and Schoen 1999;
Oppenheimer 2000; Sweeney 2002; Xie et al. 2003 Clarkberg 1999; Smock and Manning 1997).
Other findings suggest that measures of equality rather than individual wages may play an
important role in shaping nonmarital childbearing patterns. Thomson for example found that
across developed countries, measures of gender equity were positively associated with higher
childbearing within cohabitation, but had no relationship to single motherhood. However, she
found that levels of single motherhood were consistently associated with levels of economic
inequality across countries once a threshold of nonmarital childbearing was reached. While
economic or social inequality are rarely explored as a predictor of unmarried childbearing patterns
in U.S. research, as Blossfeld and Timm point out, because inequality uniquely shapes marriage
markets, and because marriage in return shapes inequality, the two should be understood as
closely interconnected (Blossfeld and Timm 2003). Compared with other developed countries, the
implications of inequality may be particularly important for the United States, as levels of
inequality in the United States are unusually high (OECD 2008).
Theories of Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States
In the United States, non-marital childbearing and unmarried parent families have received
significant scholarly attention. However, despite this attention, researchers admit that the
reasons for their rise and rapid growth in recent decades remain little understood (Jencks and
Ellwood 2002). Since the 1970s, explanations have been largely dominated by traditional
economic models of marriage, derived from Becker’s theory of marriage (Becker 1973, 1974,
1981). Becker’s theory of marriage argues that marriage is a matter of individual utility
maximization whereby individuals compete for partners in what Becker refers to as a “marriage
market” and marry only when the expected gains from marriage exceed the expected costs of not
marrying. Because the process of marriage is essentially a process of exchange, Becker posits
6
that a higher inequality in role specialization for the sexes predicts a higher likelihood of marriage,
as it ensures greater “gains from trade” for each partner. This conclusion is also built on the
assumption that the chief purpose of marriage is the production of biological children, which are
viewed as the primary form of marriage specific capital. Due to these two factors, Becker claims
that traditional marriage, with its reliance on a sharp role division between husband and wife,
whereby a woman specializes in reproduction and household labor in exchange for a man’s wage
earnings in the labor market, represents an optimal market exchange, and thus the most stable
formula for marriage. Any imbalance to this equilibrium in the form of increased wages or
contributions from either partner that is not able to be offset by the other partner decreases the
likelihood of marriage formation and has the potential to induce marital instability for married
couples (Becker 1973, 1974, 1977). While Becker recognized nonmarital childbearing as lying
outside the bounds of his formal marriage model, in laying out his theory of marital instability, he
suggested that as women’s labor market earnings rose and more women entered the labor
market, prospects for marital instability would rise not only due to women’s individual earnings
offsetting their gains to marriage, but also as a byproduct of changes in the marriage market
caused by the increased availability of new partners due to increased divorce (Becker 1977). The
overall impact of this shifting context, Becker suggested, could be a rise in nonmarital births,
particularly for economically advantaged women who would be more able to opt out of marriage
under low returns and unstable conditions (Becker 1977).
Becker’s marriage model understood marriage and childbearing as indistinguishable, making no
allowances for nonmarital births, prompting Becker to note its non-suitability for explaining
nonmarital births (Becker 1977). However, despite the fact that Becker did not see his theory as
appropriate for explaining nonmarital childbearing, economists have subsequently extended and
employed it in various ways to do so, spawning an extensive research literature. The majority of
this attention has centered on two areas, wages and welfare. Early applications of these models
posited that nonmarital childbearing was a byproduct of women’s increased labor market position
resulting in women’s declining gains to marriage; while later extensions explained it as either a
7
rational response to government welfare (see Moffitt 1998 and Rosenzweig 1995) or a rationale
response to low male wages and constrained marriage markets (Willis 1996, 1999). As Ellwood
and Jencks (2004) note, while traditional economic models have received some support in the
area of welfare8 and especially male wages and marriage markets (see Harknett and McLanahan
2004 for review), overall they have performed rather poorly in explaining nonmarital childbearing
patterns in the United States. This has prompted researchers in the United States to turn to noneconomic explanations such as the role of social norms and values, gender role conflict, personal
and interpersonal efficacy and the importance of effective contraception and abortion (Ellwood
and Jencks 2004). Today, while these areas stand at the forefront of research on nonmarital
childbearing, the influence of each is not well understood.
The Question of Single and Cohabiting Births in the United States: How Much Difference?
As Wu points out, nonmarital fertility in the United States and Europe differs in several important
respects, the most important of which is arguably the high prevalence of births to single noncohabiting mothers in the United States (Wu 2001). In the United States, unmarried childbearing
has been largely framed as equivalent to single mother childbearing, while in Europe unmarried
childbearing, as it is more likely to occur within cohabitation, is considered broadly equivalent to
marriage (Kiernan 2004). The American way of understanding unmarried childbearing is also
consistent with traditional economic models of marriage, which consider all nonmarital births as
equivalent, and has focused U.S. research on the unmarried childbearing patterns of teen and
non-white mothers, which have both predominantly been to single rather than cohabiting mothers
(Wu 2001). However, the rate of childbearing to teens has declined significantly in the United
States since the early 1990s9 while adult women have experienced a strong general trend
towards higher nonmarital childbearing overall (Ventura and Bachrach 2000; Finer and Henshaw
8
Intensive literature reviews on the impact of welfare on female family headship and nonmarital
childbearing through the mid-1990s concluded that while welfare benefits in the U.S. may have accounted
for slight increases in nonmarital fertility, this impact was so entangled with variations in state-based
contextual factors, that welfare itself could not be considered largely responsible for increased rates
(Moffitt 1995; Rosenzweig 1995; Bumpass and Brandon 1996).
9
This trend reversed in 2005-7 (Hamilton et al. 2009).
8
2006; Martin et al. 2009; Kennedy and Bumpass 2008). Moreover, this trend has been strongly
concentrated within cohabitation and the trend towards childbearing within cohabitation has
occurred not just for whites but across racial groups (Kennedy and Bumpass 2008). Data
suggests that today in the United States, single and cohabiting mothers differ little with respect to
one another in terms of socioeconomic background, but are both much more likely to be come
from lower socioeconomic backgrounds than married mothers (Kennedy and Bumpass 2008).
The primary difference between single and cohabiting mothers remains age and race, with single
mothers being somewhat more likely to be adolescents as well as black 10, while cohabiting
mothers are more likely to be older and non-Hispanic white or Hispanic (Kennedy and Bumpass
2008). In 2001, 59% of women under the age of 20 gave birth as single mothers compared with
44-46% of women over the age of 20; in addition, 60% of black women gave birth as single
mothers compared with 45% for non-Hispanic whites and 38% for Hispanics (Kennedy and
Bumpass 2008).
Manning and Smock (2005) point out that the distinction between single and cohabiting presents
problems for researchers, who like to assume a clear differentiation exists between the two.
Instead, research suggests that unlike the onset of marriage which tends to be clear cut,
cohabitation in the U.S. is much more fluid, and couples may move back and forth between living
apart and cohabitating, or they may simply “evolve” or “drift” into cohabitation status over time
(Manning and Smock 2005). This complexity is compounded by the diversity of cohabitation at
the household level in the U.S. as well. Research indicates that relative to married couples,
cohabiting couples in the U.S. are more likely to have complex living arrangements, living with
parents, relatives or other adults rather than in a nuclear family household 11 (Sigle-Rushton and
McLanahan 2002). Data from the recent Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing study 12, a large-
10
In 2001, 41% of women under the age of 20 gave birth as cohabiting mothers compared with 54-56% of
women over the age of 20; In addition, 40% of black women gave birth as cohabiting mothers compared
with 55% for non-Hispanic whites and 62% for Hispanics (Kennedy and Bumpass 2008).
11
Nuclear family defined as mother, father and biological child or children, but no other adults.
12
The baseline sample of the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study was collected between 1998 and
2000 and contained information on 3,712 births to unmarried parents in 20 U.S. cities with populations
greater than 200,000. A small comparison group of married parents was also interviewed, and the data
9
scale study of unmarried parents with children in 20 large cities across the United States,
revealed that 30% of couples who indicated they were cohabiting at the time of their child’s birth
were not living in nuclear family households, but were living as cohabitors with other adults (SigleRushton and McLanahan 2002). Relative to nuclear family cohabitors, these women were
younger and less educated and were more likely to be Hispanic than non-Hispanic white or Black.
As noted, diversity in household arrangements for unmarried parents maps loosely onto
racial/ethnic patterns of family formation. A relationship between cohabitation and childbearing is
particularly recognizable for Hispanics, and a number of researchers have found that cohabitation
has a stronger effect on planned childbearing for Hispanic women than for non-Hispanic whites
and blacks, suggesting that cohabitation may be more likely to be considered acceptable as an
alternative to marriage for Hispanics (Landale and Forste 1991; Landale and Fennelly 1992;
Manning 2001; Landale and Oropesa 2007; Phillips and Sweeney 2005; Wildsmith and Raley
2006)13. However, as pointed out previously, Sigle-Rushton and McLanahan (2002) found that
cohabitation for Hispanics is considerably more likely to be with other adults than in nuclear family
households, although both types of cohabitation occur. For Non-Hispanic whites, data indicates
contain information on another 1,188 births to married parents. The 20 cities are Oakland, CA; San Jose,
CA; Jacksonville, FL; Chicago; Indianapolis, IN; Boston; Baltimore, MD; Detroit, MI; Newark, NJ; New
York; Toledo, OH; Philadelphia; Pittsburgh, PA; Nashville, TN; Austin, TX; Corpus Christi, TX; San
Antonio, TX; Norfolk, VA; Richmond, VA; and Milwaukee, WI. In each city, mothers' first interviews
took place within 48 hours of the birth. Fathers were interviewed either within 48 hours or a short time
later. Follow-up interviews took place when the child was 12, 30, and 48 months old.
13
Castro Martin (2004) and del Castillo (1984) have suggested that in the case of Mexican-Americans (by
far the largest Hispanic subgroup in the U.S.), acceptance of cohabitation as an alternative to marriage may
be attributable to cultural retention carried over from Mexico, where consensual unions have long been
accepted as traditional analogs to formal marriage. Manning and Landale (1996) make a similar argument
in the case of Puerto Ricans. They point out that in 1900 in Puerto Rico, one-third of all unions were
unmarried (Vasquez Calzada 1986) and such unions typically produced children. Wildsmith and Raley
(2006) agree that cultural retention may be an important component of the unique orientation to
childbearing within cohabitation for Hispanics, but suggest that, at least in the case of Mexican Americans,
their consistently low socioeconomic status in the United States should be considered as well. Kiernan
points out that going back several centuries in European history, while nonmarital unions were not
necessarily common, they were often visible enough to attract the attention of observers and to surface in
public or parish records (Kiernan 2001). For example, historical research indicates that across a number of
countries, including Sweden, Great Britain, France and Germany, nonmarital unions have historically
served as an alternative to marriage for those with few resources to facilitate or justify a legal union, even
while they may not have been considered the cultural ideal (see Kiernan 2001). Together these findings
suggest that a relationship between economic standing and marriage transcends cultures and may be more
mediated than produced by cultural acceptance.
10
cohabiting parents are more likely to live in nuclear as opposed to extended family/other adult
households (Sigle-Rushton and McLanahan 2002). It also suggests that Non-Hispanic white
cohabitation is more often linked to future marriage than for blacks and Hispanics (Manning 2001;
Musick 2002). For blacks, data indicates black cohabiting parents are also more likely to live in
nuclear family settings than in extended family/other adult households (Sigle-Rushton and
McLanahan 2002). However, black women are more likely to live as single than as cohabiting
mothers and that black mothers who live in extended family/other adult households are less likely
to also live with their child’s father than non-Hispanic white and Hispanic women (Sigle-Rushton
and McLanahan 2002). Such findings are consistent with evidence that indicates that the stigma
of single parenthood is weaker for blacks than it is for non-Hispanic whites and Hispanics
(Bumpass, Sweet and Cherlin 1991; Graefe and Lichter 2002), that black women have lower
expectations of marrying than non-Hispanic white and Hispanic women (Manning and Smock
2002) and that black women are more likely to plan childbearing as single mothers than nonHispanic whites and Hispanic women (Musick 2002) 14
14
One explanation for the stronger orientation of blacks to nonmarital childbearing is cultural adaptation to
an undersupply “marriageable” black males, particularly in inner cities. Both high rates of incarceration
and unemployment, as well as imbalanced sex ratios at birth and higher rates of mortality for young black
males, has meant that black women face a significant shortage of men than women in other racial/ethnic
groups (Wilson 1987; Harknett and McLanahan 2004; Tucker and Mitchell-Kernan 1995; Kiecolt and
Fossett 1995; Sampson and Wilson 2005). Research findings have consistently supported that imbalanced
sex ratios impact marriage behavior for blacks in particular (Mare and Winship 1991; Willis 1999; Harknett
and McLanahan 2004; Manning and Smock 2002)
Another explanation for the lower orientation of black women to marriage and marital
childbearing, advanced by Patterson (1998), contends that the institution of slavery produced lasting effects
on marriage formation patterns among blacks. Others suggest that family formation patterns among blacks
may reflect values rooted in African heritage (Billingsley 1968; Hill 1999; Johnson 2000). Observers have
pointed out that for black women in particular, kinship networks have historically served as important
resources for childcare, a factor which may further offset the perceived necessity of a union with a male
partner for childbearing (Stack 1974; Hogan et al. 1990; Roschelle 1997). Although it is difficult to
determine whether the use of kinship networks for childcare is simply an adaptation to socioeconomic
disadvantage (as evidence suggests it is across all disadvantaged groups regardless of race) or uniquely
tied to racial experiences that have structured behavior, such as historical barriers to public childcare
access, low cost of relative care due to lower labor market opportunities, fewer marriageable males,
slavery, African past, etc—a number of studies have found evidence that even after controlling for
economic status and family structure, black women are somewhat more likely to both value and utilize
kinship based childcare (see Udall 1999; Brayfield and Hofferth 1995; Sarkisian and Gerstel 2002). At the
same time however, the proportion of births to single black mothers has decreased notably in recent years
and evidence that black women are increasingly cohabiting with their male partners for the purposes of
childrearing suggests that some of these patterns are shifting (Martin et al. 2009; Bumpass and Kennedy
2008). Furthermore, as Sarkisian and Gerstel find with respect to diversity of family formation patterns
11
Crossnational Approaches to Unmarried Childbearing Patterns
Research findings make clear that unmarried parenthood in the U.S. reflects a diversity of
relationships and family forms, and points to the need to differentiate between types of unmarried
parent families and their underlying conditions across groups. One important variation of interest
is the distinction between cohabiting and non-cohabiting or “single mother” relationships,
something that has received little attention in U.S. research. Up until the mid-1990s in the United
States, births to single and cohabiting mothers were considered identical, and were merged
together into one single “out of wedlock” birth category by researchers of U.S. family patterns (Le
Bourdais and Juby 2002). For this reason, research has been largely constrained by the inability
to identify parents’ union status in existing sources of data and the large majority of research on
the patterns and causes of nonmarital childbearing in the United States has made little effort to
discern between single mothers and cohabiting unions. However, as cohabitation has become
more common and as childbearing within cohabitation has grown, this practice has been
recognized as problematic and increasingly called into question, particularly by demographers
and family sociologists and new data sources with the capacity to identify cohabitation status
have become recently available15. In the context of this new data, crossnational research, which
on the whole has paid much closer attention to cohabitation and variations of unmarried
parenthood, provides important theoretical entry points for exploring these questions using new
data sources.
Lesthaeghe and Moors (2000). Childless Cohabitation and Second Demographic Transition
among blacks (2002), to the extent that variation exists between racial/ethnic groups, within group variation
may be equally strong or stronger.
15
Most importantly these include the Fragile Familes and Childwellbeing Study as well as U.S. Census and
American Community Survey data which tracks unmarried partner status at the household level for both
childless couples as well as women who have given birth within the last year.
12
Arguably the most important crossnational framework for exploring patterns of unmarried
childbearing across social contexts is offered by Second Demographic Transition Theory
(Lesthaeghe and vanDe kaa 1986). This orientation sees the rise of nonmarital childbearing
across Western developed countries as a byproduct of macro-level economic change in
combination with a critical ideational shift towards values prioritizing individual self-realization,
which are conditioned by the adoption of secular values and the rising economic and educational
position of men and women16. This perspective, laid out most comprehensively by Lesthaeghe
and vanDe kaa (1986), retains the assumption that individual behavior is driven by micro-level
rational calculus, but recognizes ideational shift as a non-redundant outcome of macro-level
change which has the capacity to reorient how costs and benefits are assessed. This ideational
shift, they argue, is responsible for conditioning the changes in marriage and fertility behavior
observed across developed countries over the last several decades. In addition to nonmarital
childbearing, other trends associated with SDT include later marriage, the rise in pre and
postmarital cohabitation, the rise in single living and divorce, low remarriage, higher contraceptive
control and higher childlessness (Lesthaeghe et al. 2006).
Drawing off of Maslow’s theory of changing needs (1954) and strongly resonant with Inglehart’s
theory of postmaterialist value change (Inglehart 1977, 1990), Second Demographic Transition
(SDT) theory argues that shifts in marriage and fertility behavior 17 observed across Western
developed countries are rooted in a broader shift within the mass consciousness and culture of
wealthier and more educated societies away from basic survival, material security and social
solidarity and towards individual self-realization, diversity of expression, educational values and
broader life style options (Lesthaeghe and vanDe kaa 1986). Like the rational choice economists,
SDT theory recognizes the rising economic and educational position of women in the last half of
16
From this orientation, processes of modernization (industrialization, urbanization, universal education,
technological progress, changes in the nature of jobs and the economy, etc.) experienced across Western
developed countries over the course of the twentieth century are considered the necessary macrostructural
preconditions for cultural and ideational shift, but ideational shift is not synonymous with economic change
and has the capacity to influence behavior independent of economic change and recession once in motion.
13
the twentieth century as an important factor behind changing marriage and fertility patterns and
also retains the assumption that individual behavior is driven by micro-level rational calculus.
However, it suggests that that rapid prolongation of education for both sexes after the 1950s is a
critical factor behind broader value change.
SDT Theory and Patterns of Nonmarital Childbearing
In later work, Lesthaeghe and Moors (2000) draw off of Second Demographic Transition theory to
develop a more comprehensive theory of nonmarital childbearing. They suggest that in the case
of SDT adoption in Europe, high levels of premarital childless cohabitation largely act as a
precursor to rising childbearing within cohabitation 18. In addition to increased tolerance for
diverse lifestyles, the rise of more libertarian values and rising educational levels for both sexes,
they associate the growth of premarital childless cohabitation with three other factors: 1) the
expansion of the welfare state in ways which have allowed young people greater freedom to live
independently of their parents; 2) the intergenerational transfer of family instability (characterized
by divorce and postmarital cohabitation); and 3) access to efficient contraception and abortion
(Lesthaeghe and Moors 2000). From this perspective, childless cohabitation is seen both as a
byproduct of the rise in the average age at first marriage and as a rational adaptive response to
rising levels of, or presumably individual experience with, divorce. In addition, they point out that
across most developed countries these trends are also associated with a decline in the total
fertility rate due to both a higher likelihood of women choosing to remain childless as well as
fertility lost due to delayed childbearing (van de Kaa 1986; Lesthaeghe and van de Kaa 1987).
In addition to state support for independent living, Lesthaeghe and Moors (2000) also point to the
role of government and social support for the use of hormonal contraception and abortion as
18
It is important to note that Lesthaeghe and Moors (2000) study makes clear that the degree to which the
postponement of marriage and childbearing and levels of child-less cohabitation acts as a drivers of
nonmarital childbearing is not straightforward. In most of Western Europe, while postponement of
marriage and childbearing and levels of child-less cohabitation are relatively high, nonmarital childbearing
is considerably less so. In these countries, childbearing still mostly takes place within marriage but is
largely postponed to later ages.
14
necessary forces facilitating SDT adoption, and point out that crossnationally, countries with high
SDT adoption show high knowledge of and use of effective contraceptives while countries with
lower SDT adoption are noticeably associated with lower levels of contraceptive learning and use
(Lesthaeghe and Moors 2000; Lesthaeghe and Neidert 2006). In later work, Lesthaeghe, Surkyn
and Neidert (2006) identify legal access to and availability of contraception and abortion as a
critical limiting condition for the adoption of SDT by couples who are otherwise ready and willing
to adopt SDT family behaviors (Lesthaeghe, Surkyn and Neidert 2006).
Lesthaeghe and Moors (2000) argue that across developed countries the distribution of
unmarried parent families appear to be largely consistent with the adoption of SDT features of
family change and appear to follow two noticeable patterns. The first, they argue, is associated
with increased levels of childless cohabitation and the higher levels of Second Demographic
Transition adoption (SDT))19. The second is associated with a resistance or lack of SDT adoption
and an older or more traditional pattern of family formation. This pattern is characterized by
higher teen, single and young motherhood, is associated with the early onset of marriage and
childbearing, and tends to also be linked to higher levels of vulnerable motherhood as well as
higher rates of children living with grandparents or other extended family (Lesthaeghe and Moors
2000; Lesthaeghe and Neidert 2006; Lesthaeghe and Moors 2000). They point out that across
Europe, Northern and Western European countries have quite low levels of single mother births
19
As a theoretical framework, this is referred to as second demographic transition theory (SDT). SDT
theory argues that shifts in marriage and fertility behavior observed across Western developed countries in
the last half of the twentieth century are rooted in an ideational or value shift within the mass consciousness
of wealthier and more educated societies away from basic survival, material security and social solidarity
and towards individual self-realization, diversity of expression, educational values and broader life style
options. This value shift, it is argued, is rooted in economic change but is non synonymous with economic
change and has the capacity to take on a momentum of its own. It starts with the more educated and
economically advantaged, but once in motion sets in motion a shifting worldview which diffuses across
social classes and takes on its own social logic, conditioning many ideas and behaviors, including those
surrounding marriage and fertility. Lesthaeghe argues that adoption of SDT values is synonymous with a
restandardization of marriage and specifically, higher demands for relationship quality and matching
generated by a movement away from asymmetry in gender roles within marriage and towards a higher
value placed on egalitarianism (Lesthaeghe 1995). While rooted in the changes in socioeconomic
conditions that have occurred in these societies over the course of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries,
the ideational component of this shift is understood to have a momentum of its own. Thus, its relationship
to economic fluctuation or variation is not straightforward.
15
and reflect a dominant nonmarital childbearing pattern clearly consistent with cohabitation while
Eastern and Southern European countries are more likely to have higher single and adolescent
births, higher female and child poverty, early marriage and childbearing, and low levels of
cohabitation (Lesthaeghe and Moors 2000). Countries such as the United States, and possibly
the United Kingdom, fall into an intermediate category, with levels of nonmarital childbearing that
outpace what would be expected based on their levels of cohabitation, due to their relatively high
levels of single mother births (Lesthaeghe and Moors 2000).
Thomson (2005). The Importance of Equality: Gender and Economic Inequality.
A second approach to understanding patterns of unmarried childbearing from a crossnational
perspective, is presented by Thomson (2005). Like Lesthaeghe and Moors framework, Thomson
recognizes that unmarried childbearing is shaped by both economic and cultural forces. However,
Thomson focuses not on individualistic values or secularization, but on gender equity and family
norms. In examining countries with data available on both cohabiting and single mother births
Thomson found consistent evidence that countries with higher childbearing in cohabitation were
associated with greater gender equity on a number of measures, including female employment,
female-male wages, the rejection of traditional gender roles in the family, men’s average
participation in childrearing tasks, and the role of the state in promoting gender equity through
subsidizing paternal involvement in childrearing (Thomson 2005). In addition to gender equality,
Thomson also found an important equality measure associated with variation in patterns of
unmarried childbearing across countries. This was the role of economic inequality. While her
findings suggested cohabiting mother births were more prevalent under conditions of greater
equality (most notably gender equity), single mother births were clearly and positively associated
with higher income inequality. Visually graphing single and cohabiting mother birth levels against
two measures of income inequality, the ratio of income above the 90th percentile to that below the
16
10th percentile, and the country level Gini coefficient20, Thomson’s data clearly showed that once
countries reached a minimum threshold of nonmarital childbearing, a recognizable pattern
between income inequality and single mother births was evident (Thomson 2005).
Thomson’s findings resonate with Lesthaeghe and Moor’s framework, suggesting that single and
cohabiting births are causally distinct, and are conditioned by somewhat different structural and
normative factors. In addition, her work also highlights the role of states and markets in shaping
unmarried childbearing patterns and points to a potential implication of economic inequality. In
this way, Thomson’s findings supplement Lesthaeghe and Moors’ framework on how institutional
or policy factors may interact with second demographic transition adoption to influence nonmarital
childbearing patterns across countries. This is important because while Lesthaeghe and Moors
(2000) have identified nonmarital childbearing within cohabitation as a feature of second
demographic transition, their findings reveal that the degree to which the postponement of
marriage and childbearing and levels of childless cohabitation act as drivers of nonmarital
childbearing is not straightforward across countries. For example, they note that in most of the
more conservative countries of continental Western Europe, while postponement of marriage and
childbearing and levels of childless cohabitation are generally high, childbearing outside marriage
is considerably less so. Even while levels of nonmarital childbearing have risen in recent years, in
comparison with less conservative countries, childbearing still takes place mostly within marriage
but is largely postponed to later ages (Lesthaeghe and Moors 2000). As Heuveline et al. point
out, such variations may reflect deep historical roots underlying family systems that are arguably
shaped by differences in both cultural and political institutions oriented to shaping family and
fertility patterns across countries (Heuveline et al. 2004). In addition to religious based cultural
institutions, differences in the institutional design of welfare states across countries with respect
to how countries promote gender equity, prioritize women’s attachment to the labor force,
facilitate the balance of childrearing with employment, and channel childbearing towards marriage
20
The gini coefficient is an index which measures the dispersion of income levels across a given
population.
17
may also presumably work to mediate patterns of SDT adoption (Esping-Anderson 1990; Lewis
1992; Orloff 1993; McDonald 2000).
Lesthaeghe (1995). The Social Organization of Protestantism: Civic Egalitarianism
Finally, Thomson’s findings on egalitarian values, the role of the state and the significance of
gender relations resonate with an earlier work by Lesthaeghe, in which he identifies the
importance of a number of cultural and institutional factors associated with a country’s dominant
religious identification in conditioning nonmarital childbearing patterns across countries
(Lesthaeghe 1995). He argues that in European countries, the hierarchical role of the Catholic
Church retarded the pace of SDT adoption through its influence on both ideological debates and
policy outcomes across countries, which was achieved by forming coalitions with political parties
and labor unions and by negotiating control over educational systems. The social organization of
Protestantism on the other, he contends, fostered the spread of the SDT (Lesthaeghe 1995).
This was particularly the case of Scandinavian countries and was due, he suggests, not simply to
the absence of Catholic hierarchy in these countries, but to the unique nature of Scandinavian
Protestant political or civic culture. First, Lesthaeghe points out that Protestant country
governments fostered literacy and particularly female literacy in their populations, which
encouraged faster female emancipation from traditional gender roles. Second, Protestant
countries had a history of decentralized religious communities which encouraged and fostered
active civic participation of both men and women and in turn, a strong and egalitarian civic
culture. This non-hierarchical culture was in important contrast to a historically more authoritarian
and elite dominated culture of Catholic countries. Third, in addition to being largely homogeneous
racially and religiously which undergirded social stability and solidarity, these countries had a
history of being stable democracies with social-class rather than religiously oriented political
parties. Class-dominated parties, he argues, acted to defuse social conflict and advance the
development of welfare states, two factors which may have facilitated economic development and
18
likely helped these countries avoid the pillarization 21 and social conflict experienced by other
European countries.
As both Lesthaeghe (1995) and Thomson (2005) and point out, support for gender equality in
terms of women’s education and employment, along with the development of strong welfare
states in Protestant countries, may have shifted some of the burden of childrearing away from
marriage and toward the market and the state, permitting unpartnered women or women in
unstable relationships more freedom to raise a child alone or to cohabit rather than marry. This
suggests a religious effect of Protestantism on nonmarital fertility, albeit one that works largely
through the social organization of gender rather than specific religious teachings about unmarried
childbearing (Goldschneider 1971). In exploring his theory with respect to patterns of nonmarital
childbearing across Europe, Lesthaeghe found that between 1960 and 1970, historically
Protestant countries showed much larger increases in nonmarital childbearing than other
countries, even after controlling for a country’s wealth, female education and economic position
(Lestheaghe 1995). In fact Lesthaeghe (1995) found a country’s historical affiliation with
Protestantism to be the strongest predictor of non-marital childbearing levels in his model, and
was signficantly stronger than economic factors such as a country’s wealth or the structural
position of women in terms of education or employment.
Summarizing Crossnational Perspectives: Applicability to the U.S. Context
Compared with traditional economic models, which focus largely on economic and personal
factors measured at the level of the individual, crossnational theories of unmarried childbearing
recognize that economic and cultural-contextual forces interact and that the state may provide an
important mediating factor in shifting or advancing certain patterns of behavior. In the United
States, states are the primary actors responsible for those policies recognized by crossnational
21
Lesthaeghe refers to pillarization as the religious and political cleavages which structured social
organization and social services in a number of European countries in the 19 th century. Coalitions or pacts
between such “pillars” functioned to alleviate social tensions and helped to facilitate the unique
components of individual welfare states across countries..
19
theorists as important conditioning factors behind changing family and fertility patterns, including
both welfare and contraceptive and abortion access policies. In addition, religious and cultural
forces also vary strongly across states and regions, particularly with respect to levels of religiosity
and denominational affiliation (Gallup 2009; Pew 2008).
Whether the U.S. reflects family behavior patterns consistent with crossnational theory is an
important but mostly unexplored question. In a somewhat preliminary study of SDT adoption
across U.S. states, Lesthaeghe and Neidert (2006) found some evidence that some U.S. states
exhibited patterns of marriage and childbearing postponement in line with European trends and
that most U.S. states showed some signs of convergence with these trends, at least for nonHispanic whites. This suggests that the U.S. and European family patterns may be more similar
than generally recognized, at least for non-Hispanic whites in a proportion of U.S. states. While
their study provided some suggestion that patterns of childbearing in cohabitation in the U.S.
might be associated with adoption of other SDT behaviors across some U.S. states, data
limitations left this connection mostly undetermined.
However, in addition to findings of SDT adoption, Lesthaeghe and Neidert (2006) also found
evidence that some states and geographic regions of the United States were associated with
limited adoption of SDT family behaviors, at least with respect to marriage and childbearing
postponement and cohabitation. Consistent with Lesthaeghe and Moors’ (2000) theory of
unmarried childbearing patterns and SDT adoption, these areas were associated with high rates
of teen and young single mother childbearing, vulnerable women and children, and children living
with grandparents. This pattern was particularly notable in areas with high proportions of white
Evangelical Christians, a religious group that stresses the maintenance of traditional family
behaviors (Xu et al. 2005) and has been especially active in pushing for policy changes that
promote the return to traditional family and fertility behavior (Kantor et al. 2008). This suggests
that certain states or regions in the U.S. may be characterized by resistance to SDT adoption. In
line with Lesthaeghe’s theory of limiting conditions to SDT adoption, Cohen points out that by
20
constraining access to contraception and abortion and promoting contraceptive behaviors that are
increasingly out of sync with shifting demographic patterns, traditional values movements in the
United States may be on a crash course with the broader societal trend towards delayed
marriage (Cohen 2004). As a result the movement may generate increased risk of unintended
pregnancy and in turn, higher nonmarital childbearing (Cohen 2004). This possibility resonates
with a handful of recent studies which have found that poor birth control use, nonmarital sex and
nonmarital childbearing may be more likely for Conservative or Evangelical Protestants than for
members of other religious groups in the United States. This group has been associated with a
lower likelihood of effective contraceptive use in general (Medoff 1993), lower support for family
planning among clergy (Goodson and Ellison 1997), a high tendency to avoid discussions of
contraception in parental conversations with their children regarding sex (Regnerus 2005), lower
community presence of reproductive health and family planning services (Wald et al. 2001), and a
strong support for abstinence until marriage as well as abstinence-only education in public
schools (Kantor et al. 2008). In addition, Adamczyk and Felson (2008) found that relative to
members of other religious groups in the United States, conservative Protestant women who
became pregnant with an unintended pregnancy but did not marry, were more likely to carry to
term than have an abortion (Adamczyk and Felson 2008).
Trust and Inequality: Implications for Union Formation for Unmarried Parents
For single mother births outside culturally religious contexts, the implications of crossnational
theories are less straightforward, particularly with respect to childbearing patterns of blacks. In
current U.S. research, one orientation to thinking about childbearing outside any union draws
from qualitative research on the implications of gender distrust on union formation for unmarried
low-income couples. As Carlson (2004) points out, numerous authors have commented on the
high level of gender distrust in poor, particularly black, communities. The implications of trust on
family formation processes have been consistently highlighted by scholars, who have found
gender distrust to be a critical factor behind reduced odds of marriage for low-income parents,
particularly from the perspective of women (Furstenburg 2001; Waller 2001; Carlson et al. 2004;
21
Osborne 2005; Edin and Kefalas 2005; Edin 2000; McLanahan 2004b; Usdansky and
McLanahan 2003; Waller and McLanahan 2005; Harknett and McLanahan 2004; Carlson 2007).
One perspective on gender distrust suggests that cultural lag on the part of poor and workingclass men with respect to the acquisition of more liberal gender role views has led poor and
working-class women to distrust men, making marriage less attractive to these women (Cherlin
2000; Waller 2001; Jencks and Ellwood 2004). Furstenburg for example attributes problems of
union formation to a breakdown in consensus regarding appropriate gender roles for men and
women (1996, 2001). Indeed, research findings indicate that a feeling that the division of
household labor is significantly unfair has often been noted as a relationship issue for unmarried
couples, particularly by women (Reed 2006; Brown 2000; Sanchez 1998). As Ellwood and Jencks
(2004) point out, the rise in women’s employment requires that men and women change the way
they think about their expectations and obligations within marriage; however, such issues are
likely to raise issues of power and control, particularly for whoever’s status is challenged or least
secure. Survey evidence indicates that women have adopted non-traditional gender role attitudes
more quickly and more completely than men (Thornton and Young-DeMarco 2001). Among
younger generations however, Elwood and Jencks found that college educated men and women
have come to share largely identical gender attitudes. But for those with less than a college
degree, men were significantly less egalitarian than women (Elwood and Jencks 2004).
Presumably, they suggest, this incompatibility of views could be undermining union formation and
stability and contributing to the spread of nonmarital childbearing among women at lower
education levels.
The theory that gender role conflict contributes to unmarried childbearing conflicts with
Thomson’s findings (2005) which found significant evidence that stronger gender egalitarianism
and equity in gender roles was associated with higher levels of unmarried childbearing across
countries, at least for childbearing within cohabitation. The possibility that gender equality may
act as a mediator of union formation for unmarried parents, increasing the likelihood of
22
cohabitation as opposed to independent living is one possible explanation. Of course,
relationship problems between men and women may suffer not only from distrust arising from
conflict over gender roles but from a low capacity to trust in general, and high levels of social
distrust in low-income and particularly inner-city communities are well documented (Furstenberg
1993; Anderson 2000; Halpern 1995; Rankin 2000). Interview based data collected from a subsample of the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study revealed that while the large majority of
couples cited economic problems as central destabilizing factors, they also noted such factors as
“infidelity, mistrust and jealousy, frequent arguments, substance abuse, jail and domestic
violence” as prominent relationship problems undermining union stability and inhibiting transitions
to marriage (Reed 2006; p. 1123). As Reed notes, 73% of all couples cited at least one of these
problems as significant in their relationship, with the most common problem being mistrust at 54%
(Reed 2006). Research suggests that trust issues rooted in broader social and economic
problems often translate to gender conflict for low-income couples. While one orientation to
thinking about socioeconomic differences in gender distrust suggests that because poor and
working class men are less able to derive status from the labor market, they resist the acquisition
of more liberal gender roles in order to retain a level of authority over women, another suggests
that poor labor market success for men undermines their sense of personal efficacy,
compromising relationship quality and outcomes. Furstenburg for example, points out that lowerincome women, particularly women in especially economically distressed situations, tend to
regard men suspiciously; while men in these settings often have low confidence in their abilities to
make a relationship work (2001). From the perspective of women, research highlights not only
distrust arising from suspicions of infidelity but also from experiences of domestic violence and
from fear that men will try to exert dominance or control over them or their children (Edin 2000;
Dion 2005; Cherlin et al. 2004; Edin & Kefalas 2005; Furstenberg 2001; Carlson et al. 2004).
Other studies note trust issues around past partners with whom a male partner had another child
(Reed 2006); physical violence (Carlson et al. 2004), and problems with alcohol and drugs
(Carlson et al. 2004).
23
Presumably, trust issues associated with social factors map onto broader patterns of social trust.
How social trust relates to patterns of nonmarital childbearing, or how either corresponds with
structural features of communities has not been explored. Across countries however, research
suggests that levels of social trust are strongly associated with low economic inequality, an
important factor found by Thomson to be associated with single mother childbearing across
countries (Thomson 2005). Using a dataset of 63 countries, Rothstein and Uslaner found that the
most significant predictors of social trust were economic equality as well as equality of
opportunity, defined specifically as “public policies intended to create equal conditions for citizens
regardless of their income, ethnic/religious background, sex and race” (Rothstein and Uslaner
2005; p. 42)22. In a separate crossnational study examining 60 countries, Delney and Newton
found high social trust to be part of “an integral system of social, political and economic
conditions” (p. 311), the most significant markers of which are ethnic homogeneity, a history of
Protestantism as the dominant religious tradition, good government, wealth (measured as gross
domestic product per capita), and income inequality (Delney and Newton 2005).
A focus on inequality resonates with the emphases of marriage market theories of nonmarital
childbearing, which tend to suggest that a particularly weak marriage market for black women
may be a decisive factor in explaining longstanding differences in marriage patterns between
blacks and whites. Both high rates of incarceration and unemployment, as well as imbalanced
sex ratios at birth and higher rates of mortality for young black males, has meant that black
women face a significant shortage of marriage partners (Wilson 1987; Harknett and McLanahan
2004a; Tucker and Mitchell-Kernan 1995; Kiecolt and Fossett 1995). This shortage is particularly
notable in inner cities due to high rates of incarceration, mortality and unemployment for black
men in these settings (Wilson 1987; Sampson and Wilson 2005). Wilson was the first to suggest
that the decline in black marriage rates from the 1960s to the 1980s was a response to the
shortage of “marriageable” black men and particularly the decreased employment of young black
22
Rothstein and Uslaner argue that equality fosters social solidarity which leads to a sense of group
membership and sense of shared fate, which generates more inclusive social welfare programs. Social
welfare programs in turn help to further foster both greater equality as well as material and symbolic
solidarity in their defense, promoting a continuous feedback loop.
24
men during that same time period due to poor labor market conditions (Wilson 1987). Moreover,
he argued that despite economic improvements for some blacks since the 1960s, a primary
reason for the decline in employment of young black men beginning in the 1970s was the
intensification of urban poverty in that period (Wilson 1987; Jargowsky 1994, 1997). While
researchers differ on which factors should be considered most important to this outcome, as
Massey argued that the most important factor in driving greater spatial concentration of poverty
by race beginning in the 1970s, was an interaction between the existing level of racial
segregation in a given area and change in the structure of the income distribution in that location
(Massey 1990). Specifically, he found that already racially segregated locations which
experienced a downward shift in the income distribution experienced the most dramatic rise in the
concentration of poverty. Although this effect worked primarily through racial discrimination in the
housing market, Massey argues that its impacts were magnified throughout communities,
because as poverty became more spatially and racially concentrated, behaviors associated with
high poverty such as family disruption, crime and dependency became increasingly linked to
black race in the minds of whites, thus hardening racial prejudice and reinforcing the motivation
for discrimination and segregation. Massey points out that this impact was particularly severe in
large urban areas23 where residential segregation by race was highest before the 1970s, and that
several decades later levels of black segregation in these areas still remain high.
Over the last several decades in the United States, arguably the single most important area
where the concentration of poverty and inequality has been reflected in the lives of black men is
incarceration24. Combining a variety of different types of data in order to obtain a nationally
representative sample of men born between 1965 and 1969, Petit and Western (2004) found that
as of 1999, black men were almost seven times more likely to spend time in prison by their early
23
Massey points specifically to New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Newark, Detroit and Baltimore as urban
areas where poverty is most concentrated and racially segregated.
24
Between 1972 and 2000, the U.S. prison population increased six fold and by the end of the century, 1.3
million men were being held in state and federal prisons (Pettit and Western 2004). While this rise in
incarceration impacted low income men across racial groups, it disproportionately affected racial minorities
and was most severe for blacks. As Sampson and Wilson point out, this was particularly the case for much
of the surge in the U.S. prison population associated with the so-called drug war beginning the 1980s
(Sampson and Wilson 1995).
25
30s than white men. In addition, they estimated that 30 percent of black men born in this period
who had no college education, and almost 60 percent of those without a high school degree had
been to prison (Pettit and Western 2004). In combining their imprisonment calculations with
mortality rates, they estimated that a shocking one-third of all black men without a high school
degree would either die or go to prison by their early thirties. Petit and Western point out that
imprisonment has become so common among young black men that it arguably acts as a marker
of young adulthood more than other event, differentiating the life course these young men from
that of other racial groups: ““More strikingly than patterns of military enlistment, marriage, or
college graduation, prison time differentiates the young adulthood of black men from the life
course of most others. Convict status inheres now, not in individual offenders, but in entire
demographic categories” (Petit and Western 2004; p. 165). In addition to removing young black
men from the marriage pool, evidence suggests that going to prison may have significant
consequences for both career and family formation options of black men over the long term.
Pager for example (2003) found strong evidence that having a marked or criminal record lowers
the likelihood of securing employment upon release from prison, a factor which arguably reduces
a man’s ability to support a family and his attractiveness to women as a marriage partner.
Research Agenda
The remainder of this paper will test and summarize how well crossnational theories of
nonmarital childbearing reviewed here explain patterns of nonmarital childbearing to
single and cohabiting birth mothers across U.S. states (data and findings will be reviewed
in powerpoint presentation).
26