IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberhi/0080.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Long Term Marriage Patterns in the United States from Colonial Times tothe Present

Author

Listed:
  • Michael R. Haines

Abstract

Marriage in colonial North America was notable for being early (for women) and marked by low percentages never marrying. This was different from the distinctive northwest European pattern of late marriage and high proportions never married late in life. But the underlying neolocal family formation behavior was the same in both colonial North America and the areas of origin of this population. Thus, Malthus was correct. Abundant resources rather than basic behavioral differences made early and extensive marriage possible in the colonies. Between 1800 and the present there have been long cycles in nuptiality. Since about 1800, female age at first marriage rose from relatively low levels to a peak around 1900. Thereupon a gradual decline commenced with a trough being reached about 1960 at the height of the baby boom. There then began another rapid upswing in female marriage age. Proportions never married at ages 45-54 replicated these cycles with a lag of about 20-30 years. Since 1880 (when comprehensive census data became available), male nuptiality patterns have generally paralleled those of women. Male marriage ages were higher than those of females with proportions never marrying also usually higher. Considerations of differentials by race and ethnicity are important in looking at the American experience over time. Black ages at marriage have, for example, moved from being lower to being higher than those for whites. More work is needed in the period 1800 to 1880 when we lack comprehensive census, vital, and other data.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael R. Haines, 1996. "Long Term Marriage Patterns in the United States from Colonial Times tothe Present," NBER Historical Working Papers 0080, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberhi:0080
    Note: DAE
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/h0080.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Warren Sanderson, 1979. "Quantitative aspects of marriage, fertility and family limitation in nineteenth century America: Another application of the coale specifications," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 16(3), pages 339-358, August.
    2. Michael R. Haines & Avery M. Guest, 1995. "Fertility and Marriage in New York State in the Era of the Civil War," NBER Historical Working Papers 0070, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Sundstrom, William A. & David, Paul A., 1988. "Old-age security motives, labor markets, and farm family fertility in antebellum American," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 164-197, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jelnov, Pavel, 2023. "The marriage age U-shape," Journal of Demographic Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 89(2), pages 211-252, June.
    2. Charles Wetherell & Andrejs Plakans, 1997. "Fertility and Culture in Eastern Europe: A Case Study of Riga, Latvia, 1867–1881," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 13(3), pages 243-268, September.
    3. Gillian Hamilton & Aloysius Siow, 1999. "Marriage and Fertility in a Catholic Society: Eighteenth-Century Quebec," Working Papers siow-99-01, University of Toronto, Department of Economics.
    4. Olivetti, Claudia & Paserman, Daniele, 2013. "In the Name of the Son (and the Daughter): Intergenerational Mobility in the United States, 1850-1930," CEPR Discussion Papers 9372, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    5. Jeanne Lafortune, 2013. "Making Yourself Attractive: Pre-marital Investments and the Returns to Education in the Marriage Market," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 5(2), pages 151-178, April.
    6. Michael R. Haines & J. David Hacker, 2006. "The Puzzle of the Antebellum Fertility Decline in the United States: New Evidence and Reconsideration," NBER Working Papers 12571, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Aloysius Siow, 1998. "Differential Fecundity, Markets, and Gender Roles," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 106(2), pages 334-354, April.
    8. Ho-Po Crystal Wong, 2014. "The Effects of Endogamous Marriage on Family Outcomes: Evidence from Exogenous Variation in Immigrant Flows During 1900-1930 in the United States," Working Papers 14-31, Department of Economics, West Virginia University.
    9. Cvrcek, Tomas, 2012. "America's settling down: How better jobs and falling immigration led to a rise in marriage, 1880–1930," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 335-351.
    10. Salisbury, Laura, 2017. "Women's Income and Marriage Markets in the United States: Evidence from the Civil War Pension," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 77(1), pages 1-38, March.
    11. David S. Loughran, 2000. "Does Variance Matter? The Effect of Rising Male Inequality on Female Age at First Marriage," Working Papers 00-12, RAND Corporation.
    12. Aloysius Siow & Xiaodong Zhu, 2002. "Differential Fecundity and Gender-Biased Parental Investments in Health," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 5(4), pages 999-1024, October.
    13. Oded Galor & David N. Weil, 1998. "Population, Technology, and Growth: From the Malthusian Regime to the Demographic Transition and Beyond," NBER Working Papers 6811, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Daniela Vidart, 2024. "Revisiting the Link Between Electrification and Fertility: Evidence from the Early 20th Century United States," Working papers 2024-03, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
    15. Josh Angrist, 2002. "How Do Sex Ratios Affect Marriage and Labor Markets? Evidence from America's Second Generation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 117(3), pages 997-1038.
    16. Gillian Hamilton & Aloysius Siow, 2007. "Class, Gender and Marriage," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 10(4), pages 549-575, October.
    17. Matthew J. Hill, 2014. "Love in the time of the depression: The effect of economic conditions on marriage in the Great Depression," Economics Working Papers 1454, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    18. Maria Stanfors & Frances Goldscheider, 2017. "The forest and the trees: Industrialization, demographic change, and the ongoing gender revolution in Sweden and the United States, 1870-2010," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 36(6), pages 173-226.
    19. Tamás Faragó, 2003. "Different household formation systems in one country at the end of the eighteenth century: Variations on John Hajnal's thesis," Demográfia English Edition, Hungarian Demographic Research Institute, vol. 48(5), pages 144-178.
    20. Josh Angrist, 2000. "Consequences of Imbalanced Sex Ratios: Evidence from America's Second Generation," NBER Working Papers 8042, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michael R. Haines & Avery M. Guest, 2010. "Fertility in New York State in the Civil War Era," NBER Working Papers 16135, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Joanna Lahey, 2014. "The Effect of Anti-Abortion Legislation on Nineteenth Century Fertility," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 51(3), pages 939-948, June.
    3. Michael Haines & Avery Guest, 2008. "Fertility in New York state in the pre-civil war era," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 45(2), pages 345-361, May.
    4. Michael R. Haines & Avery M. Guest, 1995. "Fertility and Marriage in New York State in the Era of the Civil War," NBER Historical Working Papers 0070, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Ager, Philipp & Brueckner, Markus & Herz, Benedikt, 2017. "Structural Change and the Fertility Transition in the American South," Discussion Papers on Economics 6/2017, University of Southern Denmark, Department of Economics.
    6. Michael Haines, 1989. "American fertility in transition: New estimates of birth rates in the United States, 1900–1910," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 26(1), pages 137-148, February.
    7. Robinson, James A. & Srinivasan, T.N., 1993. "Long-term consequences of population growth: Technological change, natural resources, and the environment," Handbook of Population and Family Economics, in: M. R. Rosenzweig & Stark, O. (ed.), Handbook of Population and Family Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 21, pages 1175-1298, Elsevier.
    8. Michael R. Haines & J. David Hacker, 2006. "The Puzzle of the Antebellum Fertility Decline in the United States: New Evidence and Reconsideration," NBER Working Papers 12571, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Azariadis, Costas, 1996. "The Economics of Poverty Traps: Part One: Complete Markets," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 1(4), pages 449-496, December.
    10. Jenny Wahl, 1986. "New Results on the Decline in Household Fertility in the United States from 1750 to 1900," NBER Chapters, in: Long-Term Factors in American Economic Growth, pages 391-438, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Murat F. Iyigun, 1996. "Timing of childbearing, family size and economic growth," International Finance Discussion Papers 573, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    12. Richard C. Barnett & Joydeep Bhattacharya & Mikko Puhakka, 2018. "Private versus public old-age security," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 31(3), pages 703-746, July.
    13. Américo Mendes, 2005. "Intergenerational transfers in rural households: A game theoretical approach," Labor and Demography 0503004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Michael Grimm, 2021. "Rainfall risk, fertility and development: evidence from farm settlements during the American demographic transition," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(4), pages 593-618.
    15. Philipp Ager & Benedikt Herz & Markus Brueckner, 2020. "Structural Change and the Fertility Transition," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 102(4), pages 806-822, October.
    16. Thomas N. Maloney & Heidi Hanson & Ken Smith, 2014. "Occupation and fertility on the frontier," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 30(29), pages 853-886.
    17. Iyigun, Murat F., 2000. "Timing of childbearing and economic growth," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 255-269, February.
    18. Polak, Ben & Williamson, Jeffrey G., 1991. "Poverty, policy, and industrialization : lessons from the distant past," Policy Research Working Paper Series 645, The World Bank.
    19. Paul David & Warren Sanderson, 1986. "Rudimentary Contraceptive Methods and the American Transition to Marital Fertility Control, 1855-1915," NBER Chapters, in: Long-Term Factors in American Economic Growth, pages 307-390, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Nancy Landale, 1989. "Agricultural Opportunity and Marriage: The United States at the Turn of the Century," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 26(2), pages 203-218, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberhi:0080. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.