IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jlabec/doi10.1086-698901.html

How Bargaining in Marriage Drives Marriage Market Equilibrium

Author

Listed:
  • Robert A. Pollak

Abstract

This paper investigates marriage market equilibrium when bargaining in marriage (BIM) determines allocation within marriage. In contrast, the standard marriage market model assumes that prospective spouses make binding agreements in the marriage market (BAMM) that determine allocation within marriage. When BIM determines allocation within marriage, the appropriate framework for analyzing marriage market equilibrium is the Gale-Shapley matching model, not the Koopmans-Beckmann-Shapley-Shubik assignment model. BIM and BAMM have different implications not only for allocation within marriage but also for who marries, who marries whom, the number of marriages, and the Pareto efficiency of marriage market equilibrium.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert A. Pollak, 2019. "How Bargaining in Marriage Drives Marriage Market Equilibrium," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 37(1), pages 297-321.
    • Handle: RePEc:ucp:jlabec:doi:10.1086/698901
    DOI: 10.1086/698901
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/698901
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/698901
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/698901?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Hiller, Victor & Wu, Jiabin & Zhang, Hanzhe, 2023. "Marital preferences and stable matching in cultural evolution," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 210(C).
    2. Fernández-Kranz, Daniel & Roff, Jennifer Louise & Sun, Hugette, 2018. "Can Reduced Child Support Make Joint Custody Bad for Children? The Role of Economic Incentives in U.S. Divorce Law on Child Outcomes," IZA Discussion Papers 12025, IZA Network @ LISER.
    3. Moroni, Gloria & Nicoletti, Cheti & Salvanes, Kjell Gunnar & Tominey, Emma, 2025. "Gender equality through marriage," Discussion Paper Series in Economics 20/2025, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Economics.
    4. Jiabin Wu, 2021. "Matching markets and cultural selection," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 25(4), pages 267-288, December.
    5. David Boto‐García & Federico Perali, 2024. "The association between marital locus of control and break‐up intentions," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 83(1), pages 35-57, January.
    6. Eva Dziadula, 2022. "Match quality and divorce among naturalized U.S. citizens," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 89(1), pages 37-61, July.
    7. Fernández-Kranz, Daniel & Roff, Jennifer Louise, 2021. "Commitments and the Marital Match: The Effect of Alimony Reform on Assortative Matching," IZA Discussion Papers 14877, IZA Network @ LISER.
    8. Marco Francesconi & Cheti Nicoletti & Khushboo Surana, 2026. "Gender role attitudes and marital sorting: implications for household inequality," IFS Working Papers W26/18, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    9. Kranz, Daniel Fernández & Roff, Jennifer & Sun, Hugette, 2021. "Can economic incentives for joint custody harm children of divorced parents? Evidence from state variation in child support laws," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 1-27.
    10. Berliant, Marcus & Thakur, Sounak, 2019. "Commitment and matching in the marriage market," MPRA Paper 96001, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D10 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - General
    • J12 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Marriage; Marital Dissolution; Family Structure
    • K36 - Law and Economics - - Other Substantive Areas of Law - - - Family and Personal Law

    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:ucp:jlabec:doi:10.1086/698901. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JOLE .

    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.