Thaler & Sunstein believe that marriage should be separate from government law. The current legal status of marriage entitles participants to several benefits, some economic and noneconomic.
These benefits relate to:
- Taxes
- Entitlements (such as FMLA)
- Inheritance & Death Benefits
- Ownership Benefits
- Surrogate Decision Making
- Evidentiary Privileges (spousal testimony)
Thaler & Sunstein suggest treating this partnership like any other business partnership and privatizing the marriage industry.
The history of marriage in the U.S. has been discriminatory against certain racial and sexual groups. Marriage was initially used as government licensing for both having sexual relationships and child rearing. People are frequently doing both of these activities outside of marriage in today's society, making the role of the government less important in regards to marriage. Official marriages were most important for controlling a person's ability to leave a marriage. Women and children were often very vulnerable when a man, especially if the only earner, exited a marriage. Thaler and Sunstein suggest that good choice architecture is critical for supporting the victims of an abandoned marriage. Some potential solutions Thaler & Sunstein offer include:
- Prenuptial Agreements for All (default for those who don't make active choices)
- Establish a Standard Practice by the Law
- Primary caretaker will continue as such, and receive financial assistance.
- Joint Custody
- Automatic Enrollment in Child Support (no opt-out option).
These policies will help prevent disputes among divorcees. With an anchor or range of options, couples are likely to come to a fair outcome for both parties more efficiently.
A. The authors have an accurate and fair depiction of human behavior when analyzing economic decision-making. Many couples entering a marriage are unrealistically optimistic about their risk of divorce; therefore, they don't plan for this potential risk. With the right level of planning at the beginning of a marriage, the ending of a marriage will end more amicably with less time and money wasted. The choice architecture provided by the authors gives everyone an anchor, with the choice to develop their own or choose a frequently used alternative.
B. Libertarian paternalism does apply to this situation, as the authors suggest preserving the choice of the individuals. They also provide a default option for everyone and flexibility to find the choice that works best within each individual marriage for those individuals not interested in the default option. Decisions related to divorce are difficult and currently offer an enormous amount of alternatives. These decisions are difficult for humans to make, and with a little nudging, the divorce process can be made easier, speedier, and cheaper for all parties involved.
Thanks for your summary. It sounds like an interesting chapter. Your post brought up a two issues for me. One, I was wondering if Thaler and Sunstein further addressed the discriminatory aspect of marriage? How could privatization be used to make marriage a more inclusive institution, or do they see this as an issue that doesn't need to be addressed?
ReplyDeleteSecond, because marriage can be both a direct and indirect means of trapping a person in an abusive relationship, I think there is a need to make divorce easier to obtain and more economically fair to all parties involved. In part can be addressed through smart pre-marriage counseling and pre-nuptial agreements. But to play devils advocate, by making divorce speedier, cheaper, and easier – without providing alternatives that help people work on their relationships (i.e. default marriage counseling or something like that) - aren’t Thaler and Sunstein adding to a problem, pushing already high divorce rate even higher? However one can question if this is truly a bad thing. In theory, our society places the life long commitment of marriage on a pedestal, but in reality, perhaps more fluidity in relationships is the new norm and policies should reflect that.
The authors believe in separation of church and state, and thus religious marriages should not be legal matters. They suggest any institution - a church, a gay rights group, etc - has the right to issue marriage to anyone, but can also discriminate as they please. This could potentially lead to more racial and homosexual discrimination.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to your second issue, apparently a covenant marriage is offered to citizens. It is harder to exit, and almost no one chooses it currently, suggesting Americans aren't that interested in being bound to one another for an extended period of time. I can see this argument going both ways. With many humans living with the status quo, there are probably plenty of people that want to be divorced but are too lazy to take action or fear the consequences of separating into two households and continuing to support the family.
As I read your post, I was reminded of an article written this February in the New York Times about the economics of marriage as it relates to DOMA and same-sex marriage. In the article, the author also argues that marriage should be a private matter but emphasizes that there needs to be some federal, legal acknowledgment of those marriages. Marriage participants, the author argues, should have access to the 1,000+ rights “bestow[ed]…on legally married couples” as defined by federal law. (Because of DOMA, same-sex couples whose marriages are acknowledged at the state level do not have their marriages acknowledged at the federal level. This discrepancy, as is widely known, has lead to many consequences, including the rise of what some call the gay tax.) This author suggests modifying DOMA so that wherever marriage appears, it is replaced with “domestic partnership between two people valid under the laws of the state where is was obtained.” This makes for an interesting comparison to the chapter you summarized, Stephanie, particularly because the author of the New York Times article was Richard Thaler himself. Replacing marriage with domestic partnership seems consistent with what Thaler and Sunstein outlined in 2008/9, but the 2012 Thaler seems less concerned with separating marriage/domestic partnership from governmental law (particularly because a couple’s domestic partnership would need to be acknowledged by the home state). I wonder what accounts for these differences—is it Sunstein or was there something else that persuaded Thaler? Potentially, I am also misunderstanding Thaler/Sunstein’s 2008/9 argument as outlined here, which seems to eschew any governmental recognition of marriage.
ReplyDeleteHere is the 2012 Thaler article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/business/gay-marriage-debate-is-about-money-too.html?_r=1
In the chapter, they really emphasize eliminating government from deciding who is entitled to get married and issuing the licenses, but the government obviouslynwould have to play a part in their proposal of have predetermined laws for how to exit a marriage equitably. Government would also be necessary for ensuring benefits are equally distributed among couples. If a catholic organization (let's say a hospital) doesn't acknowledge gay marriage, they might not want to offer the employees partner health insurance. This would probably need to be enforced by law. I see parallels to the current issue of catholic hospitals not wanting to provide birth control for employees. Interesting article, thank you!
ReplyDelete