Content uploaded by Harry Benson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Harry Benson on Sep 14, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Conflation of marriage and cohabitation Benson, September 2006 1
The conflation of marriage and cohabitation in government
statistics – a denial of difference rendered untenable by an
analysis of outcomes
Harry Benson
Bristol Community Family Trust
September 2006
Abstract
Despite a great deal of evidence that marriage benefits and protects adults and
children, successive UK governments have eroded and dismantled policy
mechanisms that distinguish married from unmarried cohabiting families. Following
the abolition of the term “marital status” in 2003, recent government-sponsored family
research refers only to “couple parent families”. This combined category conceals
significant differences between unmarried and married couple outcomes typically
demonstrated by overseas and earlier UK research.
Analysis of data from the Millennium Cohort Study, the most up-to-date large scale
UK panel survey of new parents, shows substantial differences in family stability
between married and unmarried couples in the early years of parenthood, even after
discounting socio-economic factors such as age, income, education and race. Most
notably, the difference in family breakdown risk between married and cohabiting
couples is sufficient that even the poorest 20% of married couples are more stable
than all but the richest 20% of cohabiting couples.
Given the central importance accorded to ensuring optimal outcomes for children in
public policy, these findings demonstrate that the lack of distinction between
marriage and cohabitation in government policy and research is untenable. Moreover
this conflation of terms is at odds with the increasing requirement incumbent upon
modern states to be transparent in their functioning and accountable for clearly
stated target delivery through the release of comprehensive statistics.
The author is grateful to Stephen McKay of Bristol University for sharing his analysis of
Millennium Cohort Study data and the trustees of Bristol Community Family Trust for their
funding grant. The author also thanks Samantha Callan of Loughborough University and
Robert Rowthorn of Cambridge University for their helpful comments and suggestions.
Conflation of marriage and cohabitation Benson, September 2006 2
Introduction
In recent years, it has become politically unacceptable to privilege marriage and to treat the
institution as anything other than one of several equally acceptable lifestyle choices (e.g.
Rowthorn, 2001). As more couples choose to cohabit prior to and, less commonly, as an
alternative to getting married, government policy has also reflected this new social norm.
Fiscal policy has long ceased to distinguish married couples from unmarried couples who live
together as if married, and more recently, the commissioning of government-sponsored
family research has taken the same approach. Married couples have become just one of
several couple types – married or unmarried, biological or step-parents – to be viewed as
“couple families” or “couple parent families” (Barnes & al, 2004, 2005; Lyon et al, 2006).
Although overseas studies continue to suggest that married families consistently do better
than unmarried families on important outcome measures (Carlson, 2006; Manning & Brown,
2006), equivalent UK studies are becoming hard or impossible to find, with notable
exceptions (Kiernan & Pickett, 2006). Using data rebased from Manning & Brown (2006), the
chart below illustrates the potential differences to be found when comparing the risk of
poverty amongst US children by parent marital status. In this case, the relatively low risk
faced by all children with “couple parents” would have concealed the relatively high risk faced
by those children with either “cohabiting biological parents” or “cohabiting step-parents”.
Relative risk of poverty amongst US children
(vs married two bio parents)
0
1
2
3
Married
Two Bio
Couple
parent
Married
Step
Cohab
Step
Cohab
Two Bio
time s
Source: Manning &
Brown (2006)
Some social commentators and researchers now either dismiss marriage out of hand – “what
really matters, at least for the wellbeing of children, is not the matrimonial status of their
parents but the ability of two adults to remain together in relative harmony for as long as
possible” (Roberts, 2006) – or over-emphasise the rather obvious point that “marriage does
not always enhance ones well-being” (Walker, 2000; Glenn & Sylvester, 2005). Others
dismiss differences on the evidence of qualitative interviews rather than hard outcomes
(Eekelaar & MacLean, 2004). It has to be appreciated however that although analysis of
marriage and marital status has received little attention in recent UK outcome research, the
distinctions are still present in the underlying data.
Family stability, and its converse, family breakdown, is a simple but compelling measure with
which to investigate different outcomes between married and unmarried couples with young
babies. The most recent UK analysis of this kind is seven years old and relies on a relatively
small dataset (Kiernan, 1999). The aim of this study is to investigate differences in family
stability amongst parents of young children, using the Millennium Cohort Study (MCS). The
MCS is a robust source of up-to-date, large scale, and publicly available data with which to
Conflation of marriage and cohabitation Benson, September 2006 3
investigate any differences in outcomes based on family structure, whilst controlling for
income and other potential confounds. Data covering the first three years of a child’s life
were released in May 2006.
Family trends
Three major family trends have taken place in the UK since 1970.
1. Fewer people are marrying. The number of UK weddings reduced from a peak of
470,000 in 1970 to 306,000 in 2003. Marriage rates per year have declined from 70 to
26 weddings per 1,000 adults. Remarriages have increased from 17% to 40% of all
weddings. Civil weddings have increased from 40% to 66% of all weddings. Men and
women are also getting married five years older.
2. More people are divorcing. The number of UK divorces increased from 63,000 in
1970 to 167,000 in 2004. Whilst divorce rates per year increased from 4 to 13
divorces per 1,000 marriages during the 1970s and early 1980s, divorce rates have
barely changed in the subsequent two decades. Analysis based on ONS data
estimates lifetime divorce risk at 45% (Benson, 2005). This figure is likely to be lower
for first marriages and higher for remarriages, where annual divorce rates are around
80% higher than for first marriages.
3. More people are cohabiting. The number of UK children born outside marriage
increased from 8% of all births in 1970 to 41% in 2003 (Office of National Statistics).
In some areas of the country, children born to married parents are now in the
minority.
Family policy
Government policy may be both consequence and contributing cause of these changes in
family trends. One example is the 1969 Divorce Act. In the years preceding the Act, rising
divorce rates increased social pressure on legislators to change the law. In the years
immediately subsequent to the act, divorce rates temporarily peaked as pent up demand for
divorce was released.
Another example is the Married Couples Allowance. During the Conservatives last period in
office (1979-1997), the value of this tax break for married couples was eroded from the
equivalent of over 4% of GDP in 1979 to 0.9% of GDP in 1997 (Lindsay et al, 2000). The
incoming Labour administration abolished it altogether – except for older couples. Both tax
and benefit systems now address couples as “married” or “living together as if married”. In
other words, there is no longer any fiscal distinction between married and unmarried couples.
A neutral fiscal policy on marriage reflects what appears to be the political view that couples
should not be distinguished by their marital status.
Although this policy is neutral in terms of immediate financial consequences, policy does
continue to favour marriage in terms of longer term financial consequences. Inheritance tax,
transferable allowances and pension rights still provide advantages to married couples. The
introduction of civil partnerships has extended these advantages to same-sex couples.
Research policy
As a knock-on effect of the neutral fiscal policy towards married and unmarried couples, the
government decided in 2003 the term “marital status” would no longer appear on government
forms. This policy was announced in a government paper summarising responses to the
consultation on pending civil partnership legislation (Smith, 2003).
Conflation of marriage and cohabitation Benson, September 2006 4
This change in policy has influenced the commissioning of new research by government
departments. For example, the Families and Children Study, commissioned by the
Department of Work and Pensions, changed the way it looked at family outcomes. Prior to
2003, FACS research distinguished family outcomes according to a variety of family
structures, including marriage (Marsh & Perry, 2003). After 2004, FACS research refers more
narrowly only to “couple parent” families and “lone parent” families (Barnes et al, 2004, 2005;
Lyon et al, 2006). The commissioning researcher at DWP has clarified that this change was
in line with tax and benefit policy, which does not distinguish between married and unmarried
couples (personal email communication, Elizabeth Rayner, September 2005). Other
government sponsored publications – e.g. Social Trends, Family Resources Survey, Labour
Force Review – also refer extensively to ‘couples’ without differentiation. Where marriage is
distinguished, it involves population data rather than an analysis of outcomes – e.g.
Population Trends.
Marriage benefits and protections
Nevertheless, it remains well known that being married is consistently associated with a
range of better outcomes for both adults and children (Waite & Gallagher, 2000). Conversely,
family breakdown is consistently associated with a range of poorer outcomes for both adults
and children (Brown, 2004, McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994). Much of this latter evidence
suggests that family breakdown causes these poorer outcomes. For example, family
breakdown leads to increased risks of poverty, crime, health problems and family breakdown
amongst both children and grandchildren (Amato, 2000).
The benefits and protections of marriage are often attributed to selection rather than cause –
i.e. people who do better get married. This is undoubtedly true in part. For example, those
less educated or on lower income are less likely to marry in the first place and more likely to
divorce if they do marry (Bumpass & Sweet, 1989; Ermisch & Francesconi, 2000; Kiernan,
2003). Policy makers sometimes conclude from this that differences in family structure can
be accounted for exclusively by selection.
However, a review by Wilson and Oswald (2005) lists 23 longitudinal studies that provide
compelling evidence of a causal link between marriage and health, mental health and
longevity. The authors conclude that “the size of the health gain is remarkable. It may be as
much as the benefit from giving up smoking”. Additional studies also illustrate how marriage
– but not cohabitation – improves well-being (Lamb & al, 2003), relationship quality (Kamp
Dush & al, 2003) and relationship stability (Marsh & Perry, 2003).
Although most of these longitudinal studies were conducted amongst US population
samples, UK and other European studies do exist. Of particular relevance is an analysis in
the FACS study (Marsh & Perry, 2003) showing how the risk of family breakdown amongst
low-income families is increased significantly where couples were unmarried.
Family breakdown and prevention
Family breakdown exacts emotional and financial costs on families and society. A report
produced for the Lords and Commons Family and Child Protection Group (Lindsay et al,
2000) calculated that the direct annual cost of family breakdown to the taxpayer exceeds £15
billion. The majority of this huge bill represents the excess of income support for single
parent families that might reasonably be attributed to family breakdown.
Factoring in a conservative combination of inflation, an 8% increase in lone parent family
formation, 19% rise in income support and 41% rise in lone parent premium (Office of
National Statistics) the current cost to the taxpayer of family breakdown is now likely to be
£20-£24 billion. This equates to an average contribution of £680-820 per taxpayer per year.
Conflation of marriage and cohabitation Benson, September 2006 5
Given the centrality of child outcomes to government policy – “Every Child Matters” – it might
be assumed that an appropriate focus for government would be to reduce and prevent family
breakdown. This does not appear to be the case. The former £5m Marriage and
Relationships Support (MARS) fund – now absorbed into the £17m Children, Young People
and Families Fund (CYPF) – used to be the main government vehicle for funding couple
support until 2003. In 2006-7, the MARS component was cut to under £4m (Percival, 2006),
equivalent to 15p per taxpayer per year. Even if the entire CYPF fund could be described as
support for voluntary sector programmes that prevent or reduce family breakdown, this still
only equates to 58p per taxpayer per year.
Therefore not only does government appear to take no cognisance of the distinctiveness of
marriage – the family structure category most associated with a wide range of positive family
outcomes – it also contributes very little to support couples and prevent family breakdown.
Compared with the billions of taxpayers’ money spent on dealing with the effects of family
breakdown, considerably less than 0.1% of this sum is spent on trying to prevent it from
happening in the first place.
Family structure and family breakdown
Government policy may now exclude comparisons of married and unmarried families in
government-sponsored UK longitudinal studies. However is still possible to conduct such an
analysis because the underlying data still exists. It is therefore possible to establish, using
large scale up-to-date UK datasets such as FACS or the MCS, the validity or otherwise of the
government’s neutral fiscal policy towards marriage.
The most recent UK analysis of this kind was published seven years ago based on a
relatively small dataset. This study found that 43% of unmarried parents and 8% of married
parents had split up before their child’s fifth birthday (Kiernan, 1999). The absence of
subsequent research raises valid questions about the robustness and relevance of these
findings today.
The aim of this study is to explore how family structure at birth influences subsequent family
stability using a large scale up-to-date government-sponsored UK cohort study. Replicated
findings based on more robust evidence would call into question the wisdom of ignoring
marriage in both government policy and research.
Method
The Millennium Cohort Study is a large scale longitudinal birth cohort study conducted within
the four countries of the United Kingdom. The survey contains a wide range of information
about 18,819 babies and their parents in 18,553 families. Parents of babies born between
September 2000 and January 2002 were interviewed for the first sweep when their babies
were 9 months old and for the second sweep when their babies were 3 years old.
Data was obtained from 15,119 parents during the second sweep. Although response rates
were a relatively high 81%, data was unweighted and thus did not take into account any
differential rates of attrition.
The key independent variable in this study was family status at the birth of the child. Parents
described their status as “married and living together”, “cohabiting/living as married”, “closely
involved”, just friends”, “separated”, “divorced” or “not in any relationship”. This study looked
at outcomes both for couples who were explicitly “cohabiting” as well as for couples who
were “unmarried”, which included couples who were either “cohabiting” or “closely involved”.
Conflation of marriage and cohabitation Benson, September 2006 6
Independent socio-economic variables – such as parental income, employment status, and
education levels – were taken either at 9 months or birth as the data allowed.
The key dependent variable was partner status when the child was 3 years old. Data was
derived to show status as “same person is partner”, “new partner” or “no partner”. This study
assumed that family breakdown had taken place in either of the latter two categories.
Results
Frequency and regression analyses were conducted on the risk of family breakdown by
marital status, by socio-economic group, and by each group independent of the others.
Table 1 shows the distribution of all families experiencing breakdown over the first 3 years of
a child’s life, based on parents’ marital status at birth. Amongst the entire sample of 15,119
parents, 2,966 experienced family breakdown, an overall risk of 20%. However, the risk of
family breakdown during the first 3 years of a child’s life varies greatly depending on marital
status.
! Married couples represent 63% of the sample at birth but only 18% of all family
breakdown, an overall risk of 6%.
! Unmarried couples – combining those “cohabiting” or “closely involved” – represent
33% of the sample at birth yet 50% of all family breakdown, an overall risk of 32%.
! Cohabiting couples on their own represent 24% of the sample at birth and 25% of all
family breakdown, an overall risk of 20%.
! Closely involved couples represent 6% of the sample at birth yet 25% of all family
breakdown, an overall risk of 76%.
! Amongst all other categories, family breakdown approaches 100%.
The overall risk of family breakdown is therefore substantially higher amongst all family types
compared to married couples.
! The risk is 5.5 times greater for all unmarried couples, 3.5 times for cohabiting couples,
and 13.3 times for closely involved couples.
Table 1
married
couple
unmarried
couple
cohabiting
couple
closely
involved just friends other total
Parent status at birth 9487 4629 3672 957 300 703 15119
% of total 63% 33% 24% 6% 2% 5% 100%
Family breakdown 545 1471 742 729 288 662 2966
% of total 18% 50% 25% 25% 10% 22% 100%
Family breakdown risk 6% 32% 20% 76% 96% 94% 20%
Risk vs married couple 1.0 5.5 3.5 13.3 16.7 16.4 3.4
Figure 1 presents the same data in terms of those who were couples at the time of the child’s
birth – i.e. excluding parents who were “just friends”, “separated”, “divorced” or “not in a
relationship” – comparing the percentage shares of the total sample and those who split up.
“Unmarried couple” comprises couples whether “cohabiting” or “closely involved”.
Conflation of marriage and cohabitation Benson, September 2006 7
! In this case, married couples represent 67% of all couples but only 27% of family
breakdown.
! In contrast, unmarried couples represent 33% of couples and yet 73% of family
breakdown.
Figure 2 illustrates the differences in family breakdown risk by couple type. Unmarried
couples are more likely to split up than married couples.
Fig 2: Couple break-up risk - All children
Marital status at childbirth (n=15119)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
married
couple
unmarried
couple
cohabiting
couple
closely
involved
Fig 1: Couple % of population & break-up
Marital status at childbirth (n=15119)
0%
25%
50%
75%
married
couple
unmarried
couple
cohabiting
couple
closely
involved
Table 2 compares the distribution of population and family breakdown depending on whether
the child is the first or subsequent child. Married parents represent a bigger proportion of
parents having their second child compared to those having a first child – 68% vs. 55%. They
also represent a bigger share of family breakdown – 25% vs. 11% of all family breakdown.
Despite this, family breakdown risks remain similar regardless of whether the baby is the first
or subsequent child. For married parents, the risk is 5% for a first child and 6% for
subsequent children. For unmarried parents, the risk is 33% for a first child and 31% for
subsequent children. The relative risk of family breakdown for unmarried couples is therefore
higher for those having a first child at 7.2 times vs. 4.8 times compared to married couples.
Table 2
married
couple
unmarried
couple
cohabiting
couple
closely
involved just friends other total
% of population
First child 55% 37% 29% 8% 2% 6% 6,320
Subsequent child 68% 26% 21% 5% 2% 4% 8,799
% of family breakdown
First child 11% 54% 29% 25% 10% 25% 100%
Subsequent child 25% 45% 21% 24% 10% 20% 100%
Family breakdown risk
First child 5% 33% 22% 74% 95% 96% 22%
Subsequent child 6% 31% 18% 78% 97% 94% 18%
Risk vs married couple
First child 1.0 7.2 4.9 16.4 20.9 21.1 4.9
Subsequent child 1.0 4.8 2.8 12.1 15.0 14.6 2.7
Conflation of marriage and cohabitation Benson, September 2006 8
Follow-up analysis of those “closely involved” (not shown) shows this group tend to be
younger and less well-educated than other cohabitees. Around half were having their second
or subsequent child, the same proportion found amongst cohabitees.
Figures 3 and 4 show the distribution of break-up and actual break-up risk over 3 years
depending on whether the baby is the first or subsequent child. Unmarried couples account
for 83% of family breakdown amongst couples having their first child but 65% of family
breakdown amongst couples having a second or subsequent child. However the absolute
risk of family breakdown remains similar for both married couples and unmarried couples,
regardless of whether having their first or subsequent child. For married couples, the risk is
5% and 6% respectively. For unmarried couples, the risk is 33% and 31% respectively.
Fig 3: Distribution of break-up - 1st & 2nd child
Marital status at childbirth (n=5809 & 8307)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
married
couple
unmarried
couple
cohabiting
couple
closely
involved
Fig 4: Couple break-up risk - 1st & 2nd child
Marital status at childbirth (n=5809 & 8307)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
married
couple
unmarried
couple
cohabiting
couple
closely
involved
Table 3 shows family breakdown rates amongst couples who were either married or
cohabiting when their baby was 9 months old, depending on income. “Income” in this case
represents total family income from both work and benefits or tax credits divided into
approximate quintiles.
Family breakdown rates over this slightly shorter duration – around 2 years and 3 months –
reduce as income increases for both married and cohabiting couples. For married couples,
the risk reduces from 8% on low income to 3% on high income. For cohabiting couples, the
risk reduces from 23% on low income to 7% on high income. Across every income group,
cohabiting couples are at least twice as likely to split up compared to married couples.
Table 3 <£15.6k <£20.8k <£31.2k <£41.6k >£41.6k Total
Status at 9 months
Married 1,613 1,545 2,498 1,403 1,656 8,715
Cohabiting 1,129 667 754 356 292 3,198
Family breakdown
Married 126 91 115 37 51 420
Cohabiting 260 83 76 31 20 470
Family breakdown risk
Married 8% 6% 5% 3% 3% 5%
Cohabiting 23% 12% 10% 9% 7% 15%
Cohabiting vs married 2.9 2.1 2.2 3.3 2.2 3.0
Conflation of marriage and cohabitation Benson, September 2006 9
Figure 5 illustrates this graphically, showing how both income and marital status
independently influence family breakdown risk. The difference in family breakdown risk
between married and cohabiting couples is sufficient that even the poorest 20% of married
couples are more stable than all but the richest 20% of cohabiting couples.
Figure 6 illustrates a similar pattern for age (data not shown). 95% of married and 91% of
cohabiting mothers give birth in their 20s and 30s. Although the risk of family breakdown
reduces with age, risk also varies depending on marital status. Even younger married
mothers are more stable than older cohabiting mothers.
Fig 5: Couple break-up risk - All children
by Income & Marital Status (n=11,913)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Low £15.6 -
20.8k
Middle £31.2 -
41.6k
High
Cohabiting
Married
Poo rest 20%
marri ed
Riche st 20%
coha biti ng
Fig 6: Couple break-up risk - All children
Marital status and age at birth (n=13,150)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Teens 20s 30s 40s
Cohabiting
Married
Finally, a regression analysis was conducted to assess the relative importance of marital
status and other socio-economic factors. Data for this analysis included married and
cohabiting couples only, not those “closely involved” or in other categories.
Table 4 shows how marital status, age, income education, ethnic group and welfare each
independently and significantly influence the risk of family breakdown. Wald numbers
suggest marital status and age are more important than income, education, race or welfare.
! Marital status. The odds of a cohabiting couple with a young child splitting up are
more than twice that of a married couple of equivalent age, income, education, ethnic
group and benefits.
! Age. The odds of a couple in their teens and 20s splitting up are twice that of a couple
in their 30s, independent of other factors.
! Education. The odds of couples with less education splitting are higher than for those
with more education, although the relationship between risk and education level is not
entirely linear.
! Income. The odds of a couple with the lowest family income – less than £15,600 –
splitting up are 44% more than that of couples. However rising income does not appear
to be a protective factor above this level.
! Ethnic group. The odds of black mothers splitting up are twice those of white mothers,
independent of other factors. Asian mothers are most likely to stay together.
! Welfare. The odds of splitting up are 33% higher for those on benefits.
! Birth order. Whether the child is the first or subsequent birth is not a factor.
Conflation of marriage and cohabitation Benson, September 2006 10
Table 4: Variables B S.E. Wald df Significance Odds ratio
Marital status (vs married) Cohabiting 0.78 0.08 101 1 0.000 2.17
Mother's age (vs. 30s) 94 3 0.000
Teens 1.30 0.18 52 1 0.000 3.68
20s 0.68 0.08 72 1 0.000 1.98
40s -0.06 0.23 0 1 0.789 0.94
Education (vs. NVQ4) 30 6 0.000
No quals 0.60 0.14 19 1 0.000 1.82
NVQ 1 0.25 0.15 3 1 0.092 1.28
NVQ2 0.45 0.10 21 1 0.000 1.57
NVQ3 0.31 0.12 7 1 0.008 1.36
NVQ5 0.04 0.24 0 1 0.875 1.04
Other quals -0.09 0.30 0 1 0.777 0.92
Family income (vs. mid quintile) 24 6 0.001
Bottom 20% 0.37 0.11 11 1 0.001 1.44
Next 20% 0.03 0.11 0 1 0.788 1.03
Penultimate 20% -0.26 0.15 3 1 0.082 0.77
Top 20% -0.13 0.15 1 1 0.398 0.88
Don't know 0.19 0.17 1 1 0.261 1.21
Refused 0.15 0.27 0 1 0.584 1.16
Ethnic group (vs. White) 22 6 0.001
Indian -0.54 0.35 2 1 0.126 0.58
Pakistani -0.46 0.23 4 1 0.047 0.63
Bangladeshi -0.61 0.43 2 1 0.155 0.55
Black 0.64 0.25 7 1 0.009 1.90
Mixed / other 0.51 0.23 5 1 0.026 1.66
Other / unknown -1.06 1.00 1 1 0.289 0.35
Welfare (vs. not on benefits) Receives 0.29 0.09 10 1 0.001 1.33
Birth order (vs subsequent child) First birth -0.10 0.08 2 1 0.181 0.90
Constant -3.56 0.11 1025 1 0.000 0.03
MCS analysis supplied by Stephen McKay of Bristol University
Discussion
This study investigates whether government policy and research are right to dismiss or
ignore marriage as a distinct social category with qualitatively different outcomes from other
cohabiting family structures. Couples who “live together as if married” may appear to be
comparable to couples who are legally married, in that they both live together and have
children. But are they really comparable in terms of family outcomes?
Although research in other countries may show outcome differences between married and
unmarried families, the relative absence of recent UK research – reinforced by government
policy to abolish the term “marital status” – make it unclear whether such findings still apply
in the UK.
Conflation of marriage and cohabitation Benson, September 2006 11
However our new analysis of Millennium Cohort Study (MCS) data on 15,000 British mothers
who gave birth in 2000 or 2001 shows clearly that married families continue to provide
significantly more stable homes for their children than do unmarried families.
This robust finding, using a large scale up-to-date dataset, questions the validity and wisdom
of recent government policy to treat married and unmarried couples alike, and abolish marital
status from government forms. Gliding over any distinction between couple types rules out
analyses based on diverse family structures which could have important policy implications.
MCS data shows that during the first three years of a child’s life, the risk of family breakdown
faced by unmarried parents is 5.5 times greater than that faced by married parents. Amongst
unmarried parents who describe themselves as “cohabiting”, the risk is 3.5 times greater.
Amongst those who describe themselves as “closely involved”, the risk is 13 times greater.
The differential risks associated with family status are broadly similar regardless of whether
the child is the first or subsequent birth.
One in three unmarried couple parents – including one in five of those who describe
themselves as “cohabiting” – will split up before their child’s third birthday compared to one in
seventeen married parents. These figures are similar to those found by Kiernan in 1999.
Social trends such as the move towards the separation of marriage and childbearing
(Kiernan et al, 1998) may have become more pronounced since that study, but despite its
increasingly normative character, the instability associated with cohabitation remains high.
Importantly, this study also shows that income does not account for differences in stability
between married and cohabiting couple parents. Whereas the ratio between unmarried and
married parent break-up rates is 3:1, the ratio between couples on similar income is still at
least 2:1.
Our regression analysis shows that family status and age are more important predictors of
family breakdown than either income or education. Moreover, only those on low income are
at significantly higher risk, independent of other factors. Government policy aimed at
increasing income levels above a threshold of about £15,000 p.a. might reasonably be
expected to reduce family breakdown to some extent. But it will not reduce the differential in
breakdown risk faced by cohabiting couples compared to married couples. The odds of
cohabiting couples splitting up are more than double those of married couples, even after
taking age, education, income, ethnic group and benefits into account.
Using a robust dataset, this study therefore replicates the claim that three quarters of family
breakdown affecting young children now involves unmarried parents (Benson, 2005). In
terms of hard outcomes, these conclusions question the appropriateness of policy-makers
and researchers considering marriage and cohabitation as equivalent or even perhaps
describing cohabiting couples as “living together as if married”.
Strengths and limitations of the study
The major strength of MCS is that it allows a clean analysis of a large up-to-date dataset of
comparable families. The study is “clean” in being able to analyse data from mothers with
children of the same age. There are therefore no potential confounds from changing social
norms. It is also advantageous to be able to investigate outcomes amongst only those
mothers who had their first child, thus discounting any potential sibling effects.
Further investigation is needed to find out why couples described themselves as “closely
involved”, implying being a couple, rather than “cohabiting”. Family breakdown risk is
especially high amongst the former category, part of which may be due to being younger and
less well-educated. It is also possible that some mothers in this category may be “living apart
together” (Haskey, 2005), potentially claiming additional lone parent benefits whilst not
Conflation of marriage and cohabitation Benson, September 2006 12
wishing to admit publicly to being a couple. Recent evidence suggests there appear to be
more claimants of lone parent benefits than there are lone parents (Brewer & Shaw, 2006).
Further research is needed to establish why those “closely involved” are so unstable and
whether this self-description is influenced by welfare policy.
The most obvious limitation of this study is that it only covers outcomes over the first three
years of a child’s life. Future MCS sweeps will allow analysis of family outcomes over longer
periods. Other datasets – ALSPAC, FACS – already have the potential for such analysis.
This study also concentrated only on change in family structure from birth. Subsequent
changes make analysis more complex but may have important consequences. For example,
Kiernan (1999) found that family breakdown risk was lower amongst cohabiting couples who
subsequently married compared to those who stayed unmarried.
What is it about marriage?
Socio-economic selection effects undoubtedly account for part of the apparent benefits and
protections afforded to married couples. But, as Wilson & Oswald (2005) demonstrate in their
review of longitudinal studies, marriage brings with it a causal component that is not
accounted for by socio-economic background factors.
Although it is not the aim of this study to explain precisely why marriage makes such a
difference, it is worth highlighting plausible explanations worthy of further UK research.
Commitment. The simplest explanation is that married couples have a higher level of
commitment to one another compared to unmarried couples in the first place. This does not
have to be true for all unmarried couples, amongst whom a continuum of commitment exists
(Smart & Stevens, 1997). However the decision to move in together for an unspecified period
of time generally represents a lower barrier-to-entry than the decision to get married for life.
Having moved in together, the risk of pregnancy is similar for all couples, whether married or
not (Ermisch, 2001). The increasing social norm to cohabit first and marry later also
increases the likelihood of unmarried childbirth (Ermisch, 2006).
For married couples, the time involved in bringing up a child fits with the intention to spend a
life together. For unmarried couples, the prospect of bringing up a child may set a time
horizon beyond the expectation or intention of the relationship. Coming to terms with these
long-term consequences may be too much for some couples to resolve.
A compelling new theory also suggests that men and women tend to see commitment in
different ways. Whereas women view commitment in terms of attachment – moving in
together – men view commitment in terms of a decision – getting married (Stanley & al,
2005). This gender difference in relationship intentions has the potential for considerable
misunderstanding.
Communication skills. Resolving intentions may not be helped by the likelihood that
couples who cohabit rather than marry may have poorer communication skills (Cohan &
Kleinbaum, 2002). Whether or not couples who cohabit start off with this vulnerability,
couples who are less committed to their relationship may put less effort into the development
of the skills necessary to sustain a long-term relationship.
Father involvement. The willingness and ability of fathers to be involved in the lives of their
families also plays a major role in family outcomes. Some studies have shown that the level
of father involvement can explain much of the difference in outcomes between the children of
married and unmarried families. For example, teenagers with involved fathers were less
likely to behave badly regardless whether parents were married, unmarried or single
(Carlson, 2006).
Conflation of marriage and cohabitation Benson, September 2006 13
Interestingly, mother behaviours towards either parent-child or parent-parent relationship
appear less predictive of both child and marital outcomes. Just as Carlson (2006) found that
father – but not mother – involvement is a key predictor of teenage behavioural problems,
Whitton & al (2002) found that father – but not mother – willingness to sacrifice predicts
marital commitment.
Behaviour. There are behavioural differences displayed by married families compared to
unmarried families, both before and after the birth of their child. For example, amongst MCS
participants, the risk of adverse health behaviours and outcomes – smoking, non-
breastfeeding and post-natal depression – increases depending whether mothers are
married, cohabiting or solo (Kiernan & Pickett, 2006). Unmarried mothers are also less likely
to attend ante-natal clinics. A preliminary analysis of MCS data for this study found that 82%
of married mothers attended compared to only 64% of those “cohabiting” and 40% of those
“closely involved”.
Specialisation and personal autonomy According to Becker (1981), specialisation in
household roles is a more efficient arrangement than simply sharing roles. Specialisation
allows one spouse to master some skills or responsibilities – such as tax returns – and to
relinquish others – such as children’s clothing. Married couples are more likely to specialise
household roles compared to unmarried couples, partly due to the length of relationship
(Stratton, 2005).
Married couples, especially first time couples, are also more likely than unmarried couples to
use joint rather than separate bank accounts (Heimdal & Houseknecht, 2003). For couples to
specialise their household roles and to manage their finances in joint name require a focus
on “us” rather than “you” and “me”. Both of these findings fit with other research showing that
cohabitors are more likely to value their personal autonomy and equity (Clarkberg & al,
1995).
Conflation of marriage and cohabitation Benson, September 2006 14
References
Amato, P. (2000). The consequences of divorce for adults and children. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 62, 1269-1287.
Barnes, M., Willitts, M., Anderson, T., Chaplin, J., Collins, D., Groben, S., Morris, S., Noble,
J., Phillips, M., & Sneade, I. (2004). Families and children in Britain: Findings from the
2002 Families and Children Study. Department of Work and Pensions, Research
Report No 206.
Barnes, M., Lyon, N., Morris, S., Robinson, V., & Yee, W.Y (2005). Family life in Britain:
Findings from the 2003 Families and Children Study. Department of Work and
Pensions, Research Report No 250.
Becker, G. (1981) A treatise on the family. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Benson, H. (2005) What interventions strengthen family relationships: A review of the
evidence. Paper presented at 2nd National conference on relationships education.
London
Brewer, M. & Shaw, J. (2006). How many lone parents are receiving tax credits? IFS briefing
note No 70, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
Brown, S. (2004). Family Structure and Child Well-Being: The Significance of Parental
Cohabitation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 351-367.
Bumpass, L. & Sweet, J. (1989). National estimates of cohabitation. Demography, 26, 615-
625.
Carlson, M. (2006) Family structure, father involvement, and adolescent behaviour
outcomes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 137-154.
Clarkberg, M., Stolzenberg, R., & Waite, L. (1995) Attitudes, values, and entrance into
cohabitational versus marital unions. Social Forces, 74, 609-632
Cohan, C. & Kleinbaum, S. (2002) Toward a greater understanding of the cohabitation effect:
Premarital cohabitation and marital communication. Journal of Marriage and Family,
64, 180-192.
Eekelaar, J. & MacLean, M. (2004) Marriage and the Moral Bases of Personal Relationships.
Journal of Law and Society, 31, 510-538.
Ermisch, J., & Francesconi, M. (2000). Cohabitation in Great Britain: Not for long, but here to
stay. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (A, 163, Part 2), 153–171.
Ermisch, J. (2001). When forever is no more: Economic implications of changing family
structure. University of Essex: IESR working paper.
Ermisch, J. (2006) An economic history of bastardy in England and Wales. ISER working
paper 2006-15. Colchester: University of Essex.
Glenn, N. & Sylvester, T (2005). The denial: Downplaying the consequences of family
structure for children. Institute for American Values.
Haskey, J. (2005). Living arrangement in contemporary Britain: Having a partner who usually
lives elsewhere and Living Apart Together (LAT). Population Trends, 122, 35-45.
Heimdal, K.R. & Houseknecht, S.K. (2003). Cohabiting & married couples' income
organisation: Approaches in Sweden & the United States. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 65, 525-538.
Kamp Dush, C., Cohan, C., & Amato, P. (2003). The Relationship Between Cohabitation and
Marital Quality and Stability: Change Across Cohorts? Journal of Marriage and
Family, 65, 539-549.
Conflation of marriage and cohabitation Benson, September 2006 15
Kiernan K., Land H. & Lewis J., (1998). Lone Motherhood in Twentieth-Century Britain
Oxford: Oxford University Press
Kiernan, K. (1999). Childbearing outside marriage in Western Europe. Population Trends, 98,
11-20.
Kiernan, K. (2003) Unmarried parenthood: new insights from the Millennium Cohort Study.
Population Trends, 114, 26-33.
Kiernan, K. & Pickett, K. (2006) Marital status disparities in maternal smoking during
pregnancy, breastfeeding and maternal depression. Social Science and Medicine, 63,
335-346
Lamb, K., Lee, G., & De Maris, A. (2003). Union Formation and Depression: Selection and
Relationship Effects. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 953-962.
Lindsay, D. et al. (2000). The cost of family breakdown. Bedford: Family Matters Institute.
Lyon, N., Barnes, M, & Sweiry, D. (2006) Families with children in Britain: Findings from the
2004 Families and Children Study (FACS). Department of Work and Pensions
Research Report No 340.
Manning, W. & Brown, S. (2006) Children's Economic Well-Being in Married and Cohabiting
Parent Families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 345-362.
Marsh, A. & Perry, J. (2003). Family change 1999 to 2001. DWP research no 181. CDS:
Leeds.
McLanahan, S. & Sandefur, G. (1994). Growing Up With a Single Parent: What Hurts, What
Helps. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Percival, D. (2006) DfES grant funding. 2-in-2-1 newsletter, no 6.29.
Roberts, Y. (2006) What’s half nothing? Guardian, May 31st.
Rowthorn, R. (2001) For marriage. Prospect magazine, April issue
Smart, C. & Stevens, P. (2000) Cohabitation Breakdown. London: Family Policy Studies
Centre.
Smith, J. (2003) Responses to civil partnerships. Women and Equality Unit, Department of
Trade and Industry.
Stanley, S., Kline, G., & Markman, H. (2005). The inertia hypothesis: Sliding vs deciding in
the development of risk for couples in marriage. Paper presented at the Cohabitation:
Advancing research and theory conference, Bowling green, OH.
Stratton, L. (2005). The degree of intrahousehold specialization in housework and how
specialization varies across couple households. Paper presented at June 2005 SOLE
meetings, Bonn.
Waite, L., & Gallagher, M. (2000). The case for marriage. New York: Doubleday.
Walker, A. (2000) Refracted knowledge: viewing families through the prism of social science.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 595-608.
Whitton, S. W., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2002). Sacrifice in romantic relationships:
An exploration of relevant research and theory. In H. T. Reiss, M. A. Fitzpatrick, A. L.
Vangelisti (Eds), Stability and Change in Relationship Behavior across the Lifespan
(pp. 156-181). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wilson, C. & Oswald, A. (2005) How does marriage affect physical and psychological health?
A survey of the longitudinal evidence. Unpublished manuscript, University of East
Anglia and Warwick University.
