Interview: Melissa Kearney on “Marriage, Policy, and Economic Trends”
Melissa Kearney is the Neil Moskowitz Professor of Economics at the University of Maryland. She
is also the Director of the Aspen Economic Strategy Group; a Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER); and a non-resident Senior Fellow at Brookings. She visited the Tocqueville Center in February ’25 to speak at our event, co-hosted with On Discourse, “The American Family. Discuss.”
Tocqueville Center:
As a political theorist, I tend to think in terms of principles, law, and their broader implications. This leads me to the relationship between private institutions, like marriage, and their connection to public policy and law.
One thing I wanted to ask about is the historical trajectory of marriage over the past 80 years or so. As you point out, there has been a decline in marriage rates, and, correspondingly, an increase in economic disadvantages—especially for children raised in single-parent households.
Would you say that government policies on marriage have shaped the public’s understanding of what marriage is, and perhaps inadvertently contributed to its decline?
Melissa Kearney:
That’s an interesting question. As an economist, I see marriage as a long-term legal contract between two adults who pool their resources. In this sense, the government’s role is primarily in defining and regulating that legal contract.
This perspective on marriage is somewhat dry—it sets aside questions of love, personal fulfillment, and happiness, focusing instead on its practical aspects. Historically, marriage was a fundamentally practical institution. The idea that marriage is primarily about love and happiness is relatively modern.
When fewer people enter into this contract—particularly when children are involved—more children are raised in single-parent households, which often means fewer resources for them. That’s the reality from a practical standpoint.
“Marriage was a fundamentally practical institution. The idea that marriage is primarily about love and happiness is relatively modern.”
Another point to consider is that while we tend to think of marriage as a deeply personal decision, the government is already involved in various ways—often in ways we don’t explicitly acknowledge. Our tax code, social welfare policies, and transfer programs are all structured around family units.
For example, married couples file taxes jointly. Eligibility for Medicaid or housing assistance is often determined by combined household income. So, when we ask whether the government should have policies on marriage, the reality is that it already does. The question is whether those policies incentivize or disincentivize marriage.
If we evaluated policies through the lens of how they affect marriage incentives, we might reconsider aspects of our tax code and welfare programs. In many ways, current policies create disincentives to marriage, particularly for lower-income individuals.
From a policy perspective, if we agree that marriage is beneficial—especially for children—then we should structure policies with that in mind. I argue that children are often overlooked in policymaking. If we prioritized what’s best for them, we would likely see different approaches to marriage-related policies.
That said, while there are policy changes that could help remove marriage disincentives, I don’t believe they are the primary reason for the decline in marriage.
“If we evaluated policies through the lens of how they affect marriage incentives, we might reconsider aspects of our tax code and welfare programs.”
The decline in marriage has occurred primarily outside the college-educated population. More economically vulnerable groups have moved away from marriage, which has deepened economic insecurity and widened class inequality. College-educated adults are still getting married at rates similar to those of the 1980s and 1990s. That’s not the case for those without a college degree.
Two major factors contribute to this trend. First, there were broad social, cultural, legal, and institutional changes in the 1960s and 1970s—shifts in gender norms, expectations, and broader social revolutions. These changes led to a decrease in marriage rates across the board.
However, in the 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s, marriage rates stabilized for the college-educated, while they continued to decline among those without a college degree.
My interpretation of the data suggests that while changing social norms made marriage less essential, economic shifts disproportionately affected non-college-educated men. Job losses, declining wages, and reduced economic stability made them less desirable marriage partners in practical terms.
“The decline in marriage has occurred primarily outside the college-educated population, deepening economic insecurity and widening class inequality.”
Once women had greater economic independence and could earn as much as men, the practical benefits of marriage changed. If men without college degrees face lower employment rates and declining earnings—both in absolute terms and relative to women—the economic incentives for marriage weaken.
This trend did not affect college-educated individuals in the same way. So, if we’re asking what government policies could do to strengthen marriage rates, I believe the biggest impact would come from policies aimed at improving the economic security and job prospects of non-college-educated men.
Tocqueville Center:
That’s really interesting—you don’t hear this perspective discussed very often. Do you feel like your position is in the minority?
Melissa Kearney:
It’s hard to say. In my research, this connection between economic shifts and marriage decline has been fairly obvious for a while. But when I bring it up in panels or discussions, I often get the reaction you just had—people say, “I haven’t heard this framed this way before.”
That’s actually why I wrote my book. At first, I wondered if my perspective was already widely known. But as I wrote, I realized that much of this research exists in academic journals that aren’t widely read outside scholarly circles. Even among academics, research tends to be very specialized.
For example, I’d discuss these ideas with members of my book club—people who are well-read but not economists or policy experts. Many assumed that marriage rates were declining across all groups because women were prioritizing careers. Some believed that in places like the Midwest, most people still marry their high school sweethearts right after college.
That’s not what the data show at all. These misconceptions made me realize that important research findings weren’t reaching the broader public.
Tocqueville Center:
One final question before we wrap up: What do you think is the most important takeaway from your research for college students?
Melissa Kearney:
I think it’s crucial for young people to understand that the data consistently show that two-parent families provide significant benefits for children.
“Two-parent families provide significant benefits for children. While single parents work incredibly hard, on average, children from two-parent households have greater access to resources and opportunities.”
Of course, many children raised by single parents do exceptionally well. And single parents—both moms and dads—work incredibly hard to provide the best for their children. But, on average, children from two-parent households have access to greater resources and opportunities.
We need to be honest about these realities. Class disparities and family structures matter, and we shouldn’t shy away from acknowledging that out of a desire to avoid difficult conversations. Not all family structures have the same outcomes, and understanding these differences is essential if we want to create policies that help more people achieve stability.
At the same time, we need to have thoughtful discussions about how to support individuals who aren’t in those situations—whether through economic policies, education, or other means.
Toqueville Center:
That’s a great point. Thank you so much for your time—this was a really insightful conversation!