IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/prs/rvofce/ofce_0751-6614_1986_num_16_1_1068.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Le recul du mariage

Author

Listed:
  • Michel Forsé

Abstract

[eng] The decline of marriage, both massive and historically unprecedented goes with an important rise of cohabitation, illegitimate births, celibacy and divorces, in fact less and less followed by a remarriage. Thus a marked increase in the number of single-headed families. Is married couple be condemned eventually to disappear ? So far nothing allows to think so. It is more a diversification of conjugal life styles. . Values and norms changes, tending to give the priority to the autonomy of individuals in the couple, and the generalization of the women's work are partly responsable for the decline of marriage. . In fact the meaning of marriage has changed. Traditionnally feelings and institution have been distinct ; marriage standed to assure the stability of couples and to bequeath patrimony. Today couples are founded upon affection but the strong homogamy of married or cohabitant couples are at least as strong as in the past. The patrimonial stakes have simply become more « cultural » and from this point of view the decline of marriage does not alter the bequest and the reproduction of wealth between generations. . The socio-economic consequences are others : a decline of natality, a more stable labor supply, a demand for more dwellings, a welfare system more or less costly according to cases, a loss of tax receipts, etc. but above all the appearance of new life styles which affect consumption patterns. [fre] Le recul du mariage, à la fois massif et inédit dans notre histoire, s'accompagne d'une montée importante du concubinage, des naissances illégitimes, du célibat et des divorces d'ailleurs de moins en moins suivis de remariages. D'où une forte augmentation du nombre des familles monoparentales. Le couple s'en trouve-t-il pour autant condamné à terme ? Rien ne permet de l'affirmer aujourd'hui. Il faut voir là davantage une diversification des modes de vie conjugale. . Les changements de valeurs et de normes, tendant à accorder la priorité à l'autonomie des conjoints au sein du couple, et la généralisation de l'activité professionnelle des femmes sont pour une part responsables de cette désaffection à l'égard du mariage. . Celui-ci a d'ailleurs changé de sens. La tradition dissociait le sentiment de l'institution, il s'agissait d'assurer la stabilité des unions et de régler la transmission patrimoniale. Aujourd'hui les unions se fondent sur l'affection, mais la forte homogamie actuelle des couples mariés ou concubins n'a rien à envier à celle du passé. Les enjeux patrimoniaux sont seulement devenus plus « culturels » et de ce point de vue le recul du mariage ne remet pas en cause la transmission et la reproduction des richesses entre lignées et générations. . Les conséquences socio-économiques sont ailleurs : baisse de la natalité, demande de travail plus stable, de logements plus nombreux, coût supplémentaire ou moindre selon le cas pour la protection sociale, manque à gagner fiscal, etc. et surtout apparition de nouveaux modes de vie qui se traduisent par des changements de modes de consommation.

Suggested Citation

  • Michel Forsé, 1986. "Le recul du mariage," Revue de l'OFCE, Programme National Persée, vol. 16(1), pages 217-234.
  • Handle: RePEc:prs:rvofce:ofce_0751-6614_1986_num_16_1_1068
    DOI: 10.3406/ofce.1986.1068
    Note: DOI:10.3406/ofce.1986.1068
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.3406/ofce.1986.1068
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.persee.fr/doc/ofce_0751-6614_1986_num_16_1_1068
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3406/ofce.1986.1068?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pierre-Alain Audirac, 1986. "La cohabitation : un million de couples non mariés," Économie et Statistique, Programme National Persée, vol. 185(1), pages 13-33.
    2. Louis Dirn & Denis Stoclet, 1985. "Travail des femmes et structures sociales," Revue de l'OFCE, Programme National Persée, vol. 10(1), pages 83-108.
    3. Gary S. Becker, 1981. "A Treatise on the Family," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number beck81-1, May.
    4. Paul A. Samuelson, 1956. "Social Indifference Curves," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 70(1), pages 1-22.
    5. Guy Desplanques & Michel de Saboulin, 1986. "Mariage et premier enfant : un lien qui se défait," Économie et Statistique, Programme National Persée, vol. 187(1), pages 31-45.
    6. François de Singly, 1982. "Mariage, dot scolaire et position sociale," Économie et Statistique, Programme National Persée, vol. 142(1), pages 7-20.
    7. Pierre-Alain Audirac, 1982. "Cohabitation et mariage : qui vit avec qui ?," Économie et Statistique, Programme National Persée, vol. 145(1), pages 41-59.
    8. Claire Sarma, 1985. "La cohabitation hors mariage : un mode de vie différent ?," Économie et Statistique, Programme National Persée, vol. 179(1), pages 47-52.
    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. Renate H. Draus, 1988. "Le troisième âge en République fédérale allemande," Revue de l'OFCE, Programme National Persée, vol. 22(1), pages 205-225.

    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. Jennifer Roberts & Karl Taylor, 2017. "Intra-household commuting choices and local labour markets," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 69(3), pages 734-757.
    2. Helen V. Tauchen & Ann Dryden Witte & Sharon K. Long, 1985. "Domestic Violence: A Non-random Affair," NBER Working Papers 1665, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. LaFave, Daniel & Thomas, Duncan, 2017. "Extended families and child well-being," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 52-65.
    4. Heggeness, Misty L., 2020. "Improving child welfare in middle income countries: The unintended consequence of a pro-homemaker divorce law and wait time to divorce," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    5. Jara-Díaz, Sergio & Rosales-Salas, Jorge, 2017. "Beyond transport time: A review of time use modeling," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 209-230.
    6. Bergolo, Marcelo & Galván, Estefanía, 2018. "Intra-household Behavioral Responses to Cash Transfer Programs. Evidence from a Regression Discontinuity Design," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 100-118.
    7. Man Si, 2015. "Intrafamily bargaining and love," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 771-789, December.
    8. van Wissen, Leo J., 1991. "A Model of Household Interactions In Activity Patterns," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt46q1c44f, University of California Transportation Center.
    9. Diana Mok, 2007. "Do Two-earner Households Base Their Choice of Residential Location on Both Incomes?," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 44(4), pages 723-750, April.
    10. Liu, Xuemei, 2010. "Will the possibility of divorce discourage marriage-specific investment?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 251-257, April.
    11. Robert A. Pollak, 2012. "Allocating Time: Individuals' Technologies, Household Technology, Perfect Substitutes, and Specialization," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 105-106, pages 75-97.
    12. Malapit, Hazel Jean L., 2012. "Why do spouses hide income?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(5), pages 584-593.
    13. Eleftherios Giovanis & Oznur Ozdamar, 2019. "A Collective Household Labour Supply Model with Disability: Evidence from Iraq," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 209-225, June.
    14. Martina Kirchberger, 2014. "Preferences over Leisure and Consumption of Siblings and Intra-Household Allocation," Economics Series Working Papers 713, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    15. Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2008. "Asking for Individual or Household Willingness to Pay for Environmental Goods? Implication for aggregate welfare measures," MPRA Paper 11469, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Matthew Gnagey & Therese Grijalva & Rong Rong, 2020. "Spousal influence and assortative mating on time preferences: a field experiment in the USA," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 461-512, June.
    17. Chiara Ludovica Comolli, 2021. "Couples' paid work, state-level unemployment, and first births in the United States," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 45(38), pages 1149-1184.
    18. Sara Cantillon & Bertrand Maître & Dorothy Watson, 2016. "Family Financial Management and Individual Deprivation," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 461-473, September.
    19. J. Gimenez-Nadal & Jose Molina, 2013. "Parents’ education as a determinant of educational childcare time," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 26(2), pages 719-749, April.
    20. Katharina Mader & Alyssa Schneebaum, 2013. "Zur geschlechtsspezifischen Intrahaushaltsverteilung von Entscheidungsmacht in Europa," Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft - WuG, Kammer für Arbeiter und Angestellte für Wien, Abteilung Wirtschaftswissenschaft und Statistik, vol. 39(3), pages 361-403.

    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:prs:rvofce:ofce_0751-6614_1986_num_16_1_1068. 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: Equipe PERSEE (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.persee.fr/collection/ofce .

    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.