Since we know that there are cases where low income does not always mean poor health we can dismiss the extreme view that low income always causes poor health. However we can now address the income health relationship at the population level where we analyse the effect of individual incomes comparatively within the population and their relationship with health. We can also show the artefactual relationship between income distribution and health always occurs if the effect of the individual’s income on risk of mortality is higher at lower incomes (Gravelle 1998). This confirms that the study of this relationship cannot be done at the population level but must be done at the individual level to show the relationship of absolute and relative income. Cross sectional evidence shows a strong relationship between life expectancy and income distribution in contrast with the gross national product per head or mean income (Wilkinson 1992). Here he gives the example of Britain and Japan which illustrates the possible effects of income distribution and health showing that even though they both had similar income distributions and life expectancy in 1970 Japan has shown to have a higher life expectancy due more egalitarian approach to income distribution. However Britain has shown to have higher mortality rates due to higher income inequality. This enforces the point that health inequality is attributable to relative rather than absolute income. These results also show that we cannot link any association between income and health to be of direct causation but we must identify other confounding factors that lead to correlation between relative income and poor health.

Studies have attempted to discuss the problem of causation between health and income by showing that the variable and factors related to income tend to be collinear making their effect on health unclear (Rodgers 1979). He effectively states it is plausible to conclude that there is causation since there is an affect of income on mortality via intermittent variables. These factors such as inequality of health, educational and social background result in the distribution of income not the mean income comprising the function that results in changes of life expectancy. Hence it would be more correct to propose that the relationship between income distribution and poor health is a more spurious one. This point is enforced by a study done by Rodgers on significance testing which shows that the significance of income distribution is consistent across different countries because life expectancy at birth is higher by five to ten years in egalitarian societies as opposed to less egalitarian ones. He also rules out any insignificance on his study due to poor asymptote. These results confirm the position that increased income inequality does result in poor health as opposed to low income.

Sapolsky’s more recent study uses an psychological approach to show that stress as a result of income inequality does lead to poor health. This alternative argument would allow us to control individual income while assessing the impact of these external variables(i.e. stress and stress related illnesses). He analyses social rank in non human animals to form a basis in determining the effect of stress related physiology and stress related diseases to help him form an opinion on the stress factor in animals, which is then observed in human beings. This is based on the notion that human beings are fundamentally animals hence it is likely inherent human nature influences play a role in the determination of the health status of individuals. This would also explain why data stretching back centuries shows that each step down the socioeconomic ladder reduces the mental and physical health prospects of an individual (Sapolsky 2004). This is because as stress and stress related illnesses increases triggering a whole host of physical problems like increased smoking, drinking, obesity and negative lifestyles resulting in decline in health status. In addition decreased socioeconomic status leads to decrease in health protective measures like joining health clubs. All this suggests that feeling poorer than others are a result of established societal mechanisms that form social classes. These mechanisms seem to have an adverse impact on the psychological health of individuals at the lower income levels or lower social classes. Further studies have shown that poverty is not a strong predictor of crime as is poverty among plenty i.e. relative income. This relationship between psychological health and socioeconomic status shows that the effect of “perceived” low income on health exists only if it is compared at the individual level with that of other individuals within the same population. Only then can there be correlation with factors such as stress and perceived poverty which results in detrimental effects at each lower socioeconomic level. For example in the United states the higher the degree of income inequality the poorer the health. It is also critical to observe that in an egalitarian society the distribution of wealth would reduce the health status of the wealthy slightly though this effect is too small compared to the general effect of income inequality in less egalitarian societies. However so as to resolve any lingering doubt of this relation it is important using variable regression models we examine further the effect of these indicators accompanying income distribution in society.

From the discussion above we can see various studies have investigated the link between income and health and have shown there is no causation between low income and poor health. However the studies have shown clearly a spurious correlation exists between income distribution and poor health status. Results of logistic regression models (Kennedy 1998) indicate that factors such as health insurance status,  smoking status, education status create a spurious relationship between income distribution and mortality. More importantly these models show that income distributions are associated with self rated or poor health even after mean individual income is accounted for, further enforcing the point that it is income distribution which should be considered when showing correlation with other factors to poor health.

In conclusion we can state that it is income distribution rather than low income that affects the health status of an individual. The relationship between income and health is clearly not a causal one because of the effect of intermittent variables that spuriously affects health status of individuals. We can simply visual a scenario where a person with a low income is able to have better health than an individual who has high income but feels that he is not doing well comparatively. The factors that surround income inequality create a much higher risk to poorer health incomes than those surrounding low incomes. This is a useful point to consider while trying to establish the factors that make some societies more egalitarian than others. It is also important for future studies to continue to investigate the psychological factors related to income distribution because they seem to catalyse other problems such as drug abuse which increases health problems for the individuals concerned. These negative outcomes of income inequality suggest it would be too simple to suggest that low incomes cause poor health.

References:

Wilkinson R. G. (1992). Income distribution and life expectancy. British Medical Journal, 304, 165-168

Gravelle, H. (1998).  How much of the relation between population mortality and unequal distribution of income is a statistical artefact? British Medical Journal 316, 382-385.

Kennedy, B. Pp. Kawachi, I., and Prothrow-Stith, D. (1998). Income distribution, socioeconomic status and self rated health: a U.S. multi-Level analysis. British Medical Journal, 317, 917-921

Rodgers, G.B. (1979). Income and inequality as determinants of mortality. Population Studies, 33(2), 343-351

Deaton, A. (2003). Health inequality and economic development. Journal of Economic Literature, 41(1) 113-158.

Sapolsky, R. M. (2004). Social status and health in humans and other animals. Annual Review of Anthropology, 33, 393-418.

Divorce affects the children financially because of the break up of the financial structure within the familly because both parents now have to rely on their own personal incomes to survive whereas before they would usually pool their incomes into one financial resource that would usually help achieve more family goals. Biblarz and Raftery state “Since children’s success depends on the economic resources and equivalent services that parents provide, children who spend most of their childhood in a two-parent family (biological or stepfamily) will have the highest attainments because two parental figures are present to provide complementary resources.” As a result the separating couple individually would now have to use their personal incomes and effort to set up their own households hence spending less on goods benefitting the children such as quality education and better health care. Furthermore if the father were to set up another household elsewhere than these children would suffer more because the father would spend less on them and as a result they would be strained financially. Evidence shows that most fathers in the British cohort study (Kiernan 1999) do not give child support to their children because of fear how the mother would use the funds. Even in the cases where fathers do give support to their children they usually give far less than what husbands support their children with. This indicates that divorce creates a financial constraint reducing the availability of beneficial goods for children whose parents are divorced.

The social impact of divorce is enormous because study shows that children from divorced families tend to be more prone to divorce their partners later in their lives than those who come from normal households. Infact the impact on divorce in children is greater if the parents divorce in the childrens formative years, i.e  between 0 and 19 years as opposed to divorce in their later years 20 to 33 years (Seltzer 1994). This is because in the formative years children need both parents to develop adequate social skills and values that will help them form stable relationships in the future. For example male children need their fathers to guide them to become responsible men. The missing father is more devastative for boys than for girls as shown in the Moynihan report (1965). Men who grow with their single parent mothers tend to behave in a deviant way possessing violent natures eventually getting involved in criminal behaviour. Divorce also harms children because as Biblarz argues that divorced mothers tend not to get social support and therefore do not enjoy socioeconomic benefits that for example widowed mothers enjoy. This suggests children from divorced families are worse off in the long term than children from widowed families. British birth cohort hazard analysis (Kiernan 1999) for ages 0 to 33 shows how children from divorced children perform socially i.e the probabilities that they will exhibit behavioural problems at any age are much higher than those from stable families which indicates that divorce has a higher social impact for children from divorced families especially if the divorce occurs during the formative years of the child i.e. ages 4 to 19.

Many children from divorced families also tend to get affected psychologically and eventually get depressed and suicidal as opposed to children in normal families. This is because first and foremost they are unable to take sides with either parent during the divorce making them feel as though the divorce is their fault. Such children usually get affected by their parents arguing and fighting and this errodes their personal confidence and sense of security. “Children of divorce have lower attainments than children from two-parent families because they have had sustained exposure to their parents’ discord”(Biblarz and Raftery 1999). When the divorce eventaully happens the children feel inadequate and may end up being emotionally distabilized should no counselling measures be taken. This leads to drug abuse in some cases and in the most extreme cases suicide.  Divorce also forces couples to move apart sometimes very far from each other. Should the non custodial parent (usually the father) not communicate frequently, then the children may also feel a sense of loss of a parent. Girls are affected by the absense of their father by tending to be emotionally detached (withdrawn) from boys and men (including their husbands)  later in their lives. Divorce however seems to have a larger effect on boys than on girls (Kiernan 1999),  this translates in behavioural and psychological problems having larger outcomes on boys explaining why most boys in this categories exhibit more violent  or criminal tendencies than boys from stable homes. Girls seem to get affected by becoming neurotic depressive, a condition that is also exacerbated by their mothers behaviour. This situation is also carried into future relationships and may explain why marriages of these children don’t seem to last.

Divorce causes long term physical and consequently mental disorders for children who are between the ages of 0 and 4 in the long term, (Kiernan 1999). This is because when divorce happens when a child is of that age it means that the child does not get the adequate care it needs to develop fully. For instance if the child is in the custody of the father it misses breastfeeding opportunities as well as post natal care that leads to mental and mental deformities later on. This makes them unable to do well in sporting activities and school activities. In this regard these children are at a great disadvantage compared to their counterparts in stable families (Duncan and Duncan 1969; McLanahan and Sandefur 1994). Also due to the strain in financial resources in single parentship, these children are aslo not enrolled in positive social groups such as football teams or piano,ballet classes hence do not develop extracurricularly. As with the case with social skills lack of additional skills means that they rarely develop into leadership roles, a characteristic they take to their marriages. This is particularly detrimental to men who are then expected to assume the leadership role in a family but are normally unable to do so because of their own upbringing.

In conclusion the long term effects of divorce on children are detrimental because they lead to many psychologically and physical disorders that make it difficult for these children to adapt social values that will help them in forming stable relationships in the future. Divorce also clearly has an effect on the financial and social well being of children who are affected by it. The full effects of divorce can be reduced by surrounding the children with an enabling environment that will pass onto them social values and required financial and emotional support that will reduce the long terms effects of divorce. I argue that step families and specialized mentorship in schools will go someway in reducing these harmful effects of divorce. However there are clearly situations where divorce does mitigate against physical, emotional abuse that children may be getting from one parent. However in this case though the divorce would be better in the short term, these children would tend to be worse of than children whose parents are non abusive because they would suffer the long term effects of the divorce as well as the abuse.

REFERENCES

Kiernan, K. and Cherlin, A. J. (1999). Parental divorce and partnership dissolution in adulthood: evidence from a British cohort study. Population Studies, 53, 39-48

Ni Brolchain, M. (2001). ‘Divorce effects’ and causality in the social sciences. European social review, 17(1), 33-57

Biblarz, T.J. and Raftery, A. E. (1999). Family structure, educational attainment, and socioeconomic success: rethinking the “pathology of matriarchy “. American Journal of Sociology, 105(2), 321-365

Seltzer, J. (1994). Consequences of marital dissolution for children. Annual Review of Sociology, 20, 235-266

Mc Lanahan S. and Sandefur, G. (1994). Growing Up with a Single Parents: What Hurts, What Helps? Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Axelrod argues that people cooperate because of mutual benefits they derive from working together even as they pursue their own individual interests. Here he gives the example of senators working together to derive mutual benefit that will safeguard each senators interests resulting in a set of norms that govern cooperation in the senate. Game theory shows that mutual cooperation results in mutual benefits though if one pursues his self interests then the benefit is higher as shown by the prisoners dilemma where defectors derived the most points by defecting early which meant the other party got nothing. However if both parties cooperated they each got the same significant points deriving mutual benefit. If both parties did not cooperate and defected then they would each get the same penalty. This goes to show that people will cooperate as long as the mutual benefit is higher than the penalty of not cooperating and if they are sure that the other person would not defect. A good example given by Axelrod is the live and let live behaviour exhibited by the British and German soldiers in the trenches of the Second World War. These soldiers would attack each other when ordered to do so but desist from doing so when there were no orders. In this case soldiers from both sides would cooperate not to do each other harm unless ordered to do so. People also cooperate because of the possibility they will meet again. That is choices made today not only influence current outcomes but also future ones as well. The idea here is that people will cooperate in the present anticipating future cooperation, so if the parties recognize that they will need each other in the future they do what they can to cooperate. As shown by evolution biologist William Hamilton (Axelrod 1984 Chap 5) cooperation can occur without foresight because of the biological nature of organisms to survive by providing beneficial responses to others. This individual is likely to provide these set of genes to their offspring hence the cycle of cooperation continues biologically to the next generation.

Many studies show that reciprocity is a major motivational force with regards to cooperation of individuals. Reciprocity makes cooperation between peoples possible even if there are a large amount of people who don’t cooperate (defectors) and people who are new to the game and have not played before (newcomers). Fehr (1998) describes reciprocity as the behavioural predisposition to cooperate conditionally on others’ cooperation and to punish violations of cooperative norms even at a net cost to the punisher. This conditional cooperation is based on the degree of self interest of each party and whether each person is willing to contribute to the common good of the others at a cost to themselves. Fehr’s postulates that the presence of a punishment mechanism is also important in making people reciprocate because there is now a means to reward those who reciprocate and to punish those who are selfish. However what is also stressed in his “thesis” is that positive reciprocity would induce selfish people to cooperate with the objective of gaining some direct benefit from the cooperative people. Similarly the presence of negative reciprocity would also force the selfish people to be less opportunistic because of fear of getting punished by other selfish types. This is an interesting point because it also shows that selfish people also punish each other for increased opportunism. Fehr captures this in a series of game experiments where the games which are repeated without punishment lead to 53% of the participant’s free riding completely as compared to 80% of participants cooperating where the punishment is enforced by the reciprocators all the time. This was also shown by Axelrod in tit for tat experiments which showed that as long as people acted in the mutual interest of the other party then other party would respond in kind. Programs that constantly punish or enforce cooperation are not better tit for tat systems than those systems that reward cooperation and/or punish free riders. Therefore it is clear that while rewarding is an important force that ensures that people do cooperate, punishment is also important in ensuring that the free rider problem is solved. This ensures that cooperative members continue to cooperate in the group because they can see an effective system that rewards them and allows them to punish free riders.

A more rational approach is provided by Micheal Macy (1990) who reformulates Oliver Marwell’s theory of critical mass to show how cooperative responses are formulated by social responses and cues generated by the response of others. Here contributors often fall into a social trap created by the free rider problem while trying to address the issue of collective gain. This idea of critical mass is unique in the sense that it tries to address the issue of the cost of cooperation. Indeed there are occasions when individuals can make rational contributions to a group without diminishing the benefit to themselves, this would imply that the cost of contributing does not increase with increase in size of the benefiting group. However there are instances where it is necessary to have a balanced number of contributing members and free riders without diminishing the benefits to the proactive members and consequently turning them into free riders. Therefore it is necessary for there to be a critical mass of contributors who cooperate for the sake of the rest of the group who don’t. Rational choice theory observers that volunteers or contributors would have to observe the cost effectiveness of their actions so as to maximize the benefits of their contributions. According to Macy social learning theory provides a broader behavioural foundation for the theory of critical mass. The example he gives is that behaviour of actors in utilizing social norms that lead them to volunteer without purposefulness. Macy’s contribution here is that if a contributor is able to rationally decide that there is a critical mass of contributors that can sustain the overall group then that contributor will cooperate with others hence showing that people cooperate because they are rational and able to decide when it would be futile to do so.

In conclusion cooperation is sometimes a rational and adaptive process that depends on the nature of the group of participative individuals and how they relate to each other. Game theory experiments like tit for tat show that individuals adapt to positive previous treatment positively and negatively towards previous negative treatments. People can also cooperate without foresight which further enforces the point that cooperation can be a deterministic or adaptive process. We also see occasions where individuals may rationally decide to defect if they sense that the other party is about to do so. This shows that there is also choice available when it comes to people cooperating. This idea of rationality is also enforced by the fact that individuals cooperate because they anticipate they will need to cooperate with you again (foresightedness). This contrasts with the deterministic nature of cooperation vis a vis rational choice decisions which help a person determine which relationships are worth keeping. Another key concept in cooperation is the idea of reciprocity and how it plays a role in rewarding of contributors and punishment of selfish free riders. These theories are very useful in forming guidelines for governing group relationships and participation because it seeks to measure cost effectiveness of individual actions in a group and how best people can cooperate.

References:

Fehr, E. and Gintis, H. (2007). Human motivation and social cooperation: experimental and analytical foundations. Annual Review of Sociology, 33, 43-64

Fehr, E. and Gachter, S. (1998). Reciprocity and economics: the economic implications of Homo Reciprocans. European Economic Review, 42, 845-859

Axelrod, R. (1984). The Evolution of Cooperation. Penguin, London

Macy, M. (1990). Learning theory and logic of critical mass. American Sociological Review, 55(6), 809 826

The age of marriage has changed drastically of the 20 century among women. An example given by Oppenheimer (1997) indicates that the single rates for women under 25 years rose from 14% in the 1960′s to 42% in the 1960’s. This suggest that either women have found a viable alternative to marriage before that age or that circumstances are forcing them not to marry by that age. A number of theories are mentioned in the studied texts that can be categorised into economic, socioeconomic and sociological theories. In this essay i will be discussing Becker’s “new home economic theory” which describes household activities as a sum of economic functions and consequently how the industrialization process affects the marriage process. I will also be discussing socioeconomic theory that shows how social factors coalesce with economic factors to cause the delay in marriage timing.

Economic theory as defined by the Princeton University online glossary is a theory of commercial activities such as the production and consumption of goods. With respect to this essay economic theory states that women’s increase in economic independence has led to a reduction in marriage desirability (Berk 1983).  This is attributed in the new home economic theory (Becker) to the industrialization process that has lead to many women foregoing household economic functions for careers that supplied them with income security hence reducing their dependence on the men for their daily needs. Hence this theory holds in part a decline to gains in marriage due to women independence is reason why there is an increase in delayed marriages.

Becker postulates that the main gain to marriage is due to the mutual dependence of both spouses due to their own specialized nature. This implies that while the woman would be concerned with household activities the man would be in charge of finding an income that would supply the family needs. Hence as women tend to take new economic roles as a result of industrialization they become less specialized in household activities and men also begin to take up new household roles.

Parsons (1949) maintains that sex role segregation is a functional necessity in the stability of marriage because it prevents disruptive competition between husband and wife. Becker (1981) in line with this thought views married men and women as potential trading partners with man focusing on market work while women are concerned with home production. This specialization provides major gains to marriage for each partner and is reduced when incomes fall and the woman is forced to participate in the market production. This leads to strain in marriages and consequently divorce and also a delay factor in single couples with women now tending to focus on the more economic aspects of her life.

Part of the economic theory can be explained from the young men’s income position, which is a largely ignored factor with regards to analyzing the change in marriage age. Young men tend to wait until they have established a career path before they get married. This largely because of their role as the provider in the family and the challenges with become the head of the household. This has led to suicides, divorce and many men absconding their duties due to the pressure of maintaining an economically sound household. In the industrial age the gains for marriage for men are declining because of increased participation of women in the labour market. This increase the delay in age of marriage for men as they find it hard to find a woman that supports his own agenda for his career by providing for his needs at home.

While having had a look at various explanations of the economic theory proposed by Becker, we can also show how sociological theory can help construct a framework Oppenheimer uses to analyze variously how social action, social processes, and social structures work. Oppenheimer further develops the theory into a socioeconomic theory by borrowing Becker’s ideas on the economic aspects of marriage and merging with social occurrences that also influence the marriage timing of the cohort. Oppenheimer (1997) indicates that marriages tend to be delayed due to the trend in many couples to cohabit before they marry. Oppenheimer postulates that in the 1940′s 3% of the women less than 25 years cohabited compared to 37% in the 1960′s. Hence cohabitation seems to becoming a stage in the marriage process. This process of cohabitation shows that women’s economic independence is not the answer to explaining why women are now marrying much later.

Cohabitation as a social occurrence also reduces the cost of search and also reduces the risk of promiscuity while pooling resources creating a more stable economic environment that can lead to successful marriages. Therefore cohabitation and the rise in delayed marriages is decreasing the rate of marital instability due to the stable nature of partners who tend to have delayed their marriage as opposed to those who marry young and consequently face greater stress due to lower capacities to deal with household challenges like providing for the family health, financial and social needs. However Oppenheimer states that the situation is different among African American women who for one reason or another find themselves as single parents and have to find their own economic independence in order to survive.

Another issue is the increase in selection and socialization in the search of the marriage partner as a result of socioeconomic issues that are arising due to the continuous industrial process .Hence assortative mating is reduced due to uncertainty about the important attributes that a prospective partner should possess leads to delay in the timing for marriage. Uncertainty also due to the establishment of ones own career also delays the timing in which a person thinks is the best time to get married in the industrial society. Oppenheimer argues that work is such an influence in structuring life that any career uncertainties will affect behaviour and attitudes towards marriage formation. This results in women not feeling ready to marry until they have achieved some career goals. As a result the search for the perfect partner with desired characteristics, like being able to provide economically or possessing certain abilities that show future economic achievements come into play in this socialization process. This shows that desirability may not necessarily be objective but is influenced by certain fantasies a woman may have with regards to a perfect partner. This analysis shows that in general women tend to be economically dependent on men even though they may have their own working careers. Hence the theory of economic independence theory does not hold against this sociological argument.

Using the Job search economic theory to describe search in marriage we can differentiate efficient searches from costly ones as a function of how one uses time and resources to efficiently find the right partner in the marriage market while observing the opportunity cost of keeping a certain partner or continuing with the search of another partner. Hence we can say if the opportunity cost of avoiding the search for a suitable partner is high then it might be better to delay ones marriage until it becomes less economically sound ( i.e when cost of the search is equal or higher than the returns of the search) to continue with the search. Therefore what tends to happen is that people will tend to look for the minimum acceptable match. This is described as anyone within the acceptability range; anyone who falls out of this range is deemed unacceptable and would therefore not be considered as a partner. However it may not be prudent to view the marriage search process from a purely economic point of view but from a social one as well, where we consider both the social and emotional aspects of a relationship and how they support the build up to marriage rather than the economic and financial aspects of the partnership. This dual assessment of marriage form a socioeconomic theory on how financial or economic factors participate with the social environment of dating or potential couples in the search process, resulting in a change in the age of marriage due to the delay in the search process.

Another crucial point to mention with regards to marriage search is how education plays a role in the increasing the efficiency of the search process. Educated people tend to be aware of more important characteristics that they need to look out for during the search as opposed to the young couples who start dating at an early age. Hence it would be better for people to delay the marriage selection process until they are confident that they have made an educated decision. This socialization process increases the stability of marriage.

In conclusion new home economic theory as proposed by Becker leaves out a lot of social actions that have been shown by Oppenheimer to contribute to the delay in the age of marriage in Industrial society. It is therefore in my view prudent to develop a socioeconomic theory based on empirical evidence to show how social and economic factors correlate.  Oppenheimer in my view has reliable theories that explain both the social and economic aspects of marriage and hence we are able to arrive at more sound conclusions as to why age of marriage is increasing among men and women.

References

Oppenheimer, V. K. (1997). Women’s employment and the gain to marriage: the specialization and trading model. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 431-453

Oppenheimer, V. K. (1988). A theory of marriage timing: American Journal of Sociology, 97(1), 143-168

Pampel, F. C. and Peters, H. E. (1995). The Easterlin Effect. Annual Review of Sociology, 21, 163-194

Berj, R. A. and Berk, S. F. (1983). Supply-side sociology of the family; the challenge of the new home economics. Annual Review of Sociology, 9, 375-395