Economists are debating the institution of marriage, which guarantees a monopoly in the relationship. Converting the 'bilateral monopoly' into a monopsony (single buyer, multiple sellers), as in the case of Muslims, has not improved the quality of life on both sides. Importantly, Muslim men are no happier with four wives than Western men are with one.
The new objective of economics is maximising 'happiness' rather than maximising 'utility'. This means that you maximise wealth up to a point, then you shift focus to relationships, then to community in a zigzag manner that economists are still trying to figure out. Actually, your choices are optimising your options rather than maximising anything, which makes life complicated for the economist to ever figure out with a simple linear equation.
So, if marriage is a place to exchange happiness, how does it compare with friendship, which seems to do a far better job? If a couple can be friends, we know it leads to happiness, but if they can't, is there an 'economic model' that can mitigate the resultant unhappiness? The British government is sponsoring research on 'alternate models' that can replace marriage and child-sharing agreements. 'Open marriages' have been considered. But until economists are able to answer the question 'how do you bring 'efficiency' and 'customer service' into a monopolistic arrangement', the search for an 'alternate model' will continue. At the heart of this question are some big sociological trends: 20 per cent of children are single-parent children, 55 per cent of first marriages under 30 end in divorce, more than half of London is single and the happiness co-efficient has never been lower. This is the loneliest city on Earth, despite having one of the highest GDP in per capita terms. Depending on how you set economic objectives, this is either the most successful city on the planet or the unhappiest.
The institution of marriage is breaking down. With rising freedom of choice, especially for women, it is impossible to keep a monopolistic relationship viable. The evolving character of a new society is difficult to guess, and the implications for child-rearing are impossible to accept. A mix of sociology and economics is needed, and in developed countries at least, this is driving government policy.
One area is the acceptance of gay rights, and the acceptability of homosexuality in sexual choice. Legal systems have started to accept these, and a big source of criminality has been removed from society.
Child-rearing has three distinct areas: as toddlers, for single parents with small children and teenage upkeep. Marketplaces are emerging for some areas, like crèches for children and how employers are stepping in to fund infrastructure. Generous maternity leave, child support, crèches and special employment terms all make up the elements of a child-care programme that supports the hapless parent.
One place where there seems to be a serious gap is in the care of the children of divorced parents. Courts need to get teeth to extract more from the recalcitrant 'other' parent who is going free. Child support settlements are getting ever more generous, but this is patchy. And since the ability to pay is suspect, the marketplace is unable to step in. As in the case of the 'poor man's disease', philanthropists have to step in to put money where the customer cannot. The state needs to find foster homes for children who are left without viable parenting.
The author teaches, trades and writes at spandiya.blogspot.com.
This column appeared in the November 2015 Issue of Wealth Insight.
This article was originally published on December 18, 2015.
Ask Value Research 
New episodes every Friday 
New Process Alert 
Seems like you've uploaded a wrong QR code. Please upload the QR code downloaded from MF Central platform.
