The Changing Association Among Marriage, Work, and Child Poverty in the United States, 1974–2010

The United States stands out for its failure to significantly reduce child poverty over the past few decades and its unusually high child poverty rates relative to other rich countries (Gornick & Jantti, 2012; Rainwater & Smeeding, 2004). Accordingly, there has been vibrant scholarly literature concerning poverty among children and families (see Edin & Kissane, 2010; Lichter, 1997; Seccombe, 2000). Marriage and work have been central to this scholarship and related policy debates. The continued focus on marriage and work in alleviating child poverty is salient given the major transformations in these institutions. Whereas a married couple with children was once the norm, nonmarital births and single-parent households have become commonplace. Moreover, divorce rates remain relatively high; cohabitation is increasing; Americans are choosing to marry later, if at all; and marriage has become a more selective institution (Cherlin, 2009; Raley, 2000). The attributes and patterns of work have also changed greatly. Median wages have stagnated, earnings inequality has worsened (Bluestone & Harrison, 2001; Mishel, Birens, Gould, & Shierhotz, 2012), and female labor force participation has increased dramatically (Lichter & Crowley, 2004). There has also been a decline in well-paid blue-collar work, growth in part-time jobs, and greater job insecurity (Kalleberg, 2007; Mishel et al., 2012). Although it is well documented that marriage and work decrease a child's odds of being poor, these changes raise the question of whether their associations with child poverty have also changed over time. In this study I addressed this query.BackgroundTheories Why Marriage and Work Are Associated With PovertyThere are several causal explanations for why marriage affects child poverty. First, marriage increases the number of potential adult earners, and thus income, in the household. Relatedly, dual-earner households are more able to absorb the shock of income losses compared to single-earner households. Second, marriage benefits families through economies of scale. By sharing expenses (e.g., rent and other household goods and services), married couples can save more, support a higher standard of living, and invest for the future (Amato & Maynard, 2007). Thus, from an income-to-needs perspective, married households fare better financially (Thomas & Sawhill, 2005). Third, according to Becker's (1981) theory of household specialization, married couples have greater flexibility in how they divide their time between home and market production and thus can maximize household earnings (Amato & Maynard, 2007). However, marriage does not benefit all children equally: White children typically experience greater economic benefits from marriage than do Black and Hispanic children (Manning & Brown 2006).Although marriage may lead to greater levels of income, employment, and other available resources, selection into marriage also contributes to the relationship between family structure and child poverty. The adults most likely to form and maintain two-parent married households are more stable, well adjusted, and resource rich (Brown, 2010). Furthermore, unmarried, low-income parents are more likely to marry after experiencing increases in earnings (Gibson-Davis, 2009). Thus, failure to consider preexisting differences that influence selection into marriage can lead to overstating the causal effects of family structure (McLanahan & Percheski, 2008).Regarding the association between work and child poverty, having paid earners in the household generates earnings, earnings are the dominant source of income for households, and income is the basis for defining poverty. Indeed, Rainwater and Smeeding (2004) concluded that ensuring at least one parent is employed is the most important step to avoiding child poverty, and they found that having multiple earners in the household further lowers this risk. …