Introduction:
Back in the days a household consisted of various family members such as grandparents, uncle and aunts, nieces and nephews, and the nuclear family including abundant children. However, general family size decreased as countries modernized and the nuclear family is more common now within a household. The nuclear family is basically both parents and the children. This trend too is changing where the nuclear family is being divided by death of either parent (perhaps both), divorce, or births out of wedlock. Currently, we see more families with children that consist of only fathers, mothers, and blended families with step-parents and step children. The dynamics of the family certainly change in these non-nuclear family structures, and the children are impacted by some way or another. The popular conclusion of many economists and sociologists is that children are better off economically and socially under a household where both parents are present, and negative effects are probable when the family deteriorates into or happens to be in a non-nuclear structure. Various theories such as the economic theory and the socialization theory exist to explain the impacts of non-nuclear family structures on children, and statistical testing and analysis have been implemented to test the hypotheses that originate from these theories.
The purpose of this paper is to explain why and how children are being affected
by non-nuclear family structures in terms of education and prosperity, and
policy implications are suggested at the end of the paper. The first part
of this paper explains the different theories that explain family structure
impacts on children such as the economic and socialization theories. The
second part is an analysis of existing regression tests, which demonstrates
the impacts on children and compares the different types of non-nuclear
family structures with each other. The last section suggests several policy
implications that optimize merits for children in the future.
Theories:
The "economic theory proposes that socioeconomic success is partly a function of human capital." (Biblarz, 325) This theory suggests that the quality of education and attainment depend on household production and the amount of parental investment in the child. Having both parents present is most beneficial for a child because the father and the mother provide resources that are complementary to each other. Simply put, the father provides the finance and the mother provides care and daily needs. If, however, one of the parents is missing, the other is usually incapable of providing both finance and general household needs to the fullest extent. Hence, the effect of an alternative (non-nuclear) family is detrimental to a child since he/she is incapable of receiving the resources fully.
The economic theory suggests that the presence of step-parents allows relief
to this burden, and that blended families generally are equally beneficial
as having two biological parents. In comparison to blended families, single-father
families will have more negative effects, but will do better than single-mother
families because of a substantial income advantage. Children who grow up
in single-mother families will have the lowest attainments because mother-headed
families "average less than a third the income of two-parent families
and about half the income of alternative father-headed families." (Biblarz,
325) Nevertheless, we learn later on that results do not particularly support
this economics-centered theory.
The socialization theory contrasts with the economic theory by disregarding
the financial aspects of the different family structures, and focuses on
the sociability of children. One of the responsibilities of parents is to
provide children with motivation and skills necessary for school achievement.
(Garasky, 1995) The absence of a parent reduces the amount of support and
control that a child needs, and could alter a child's understanding of hierarchy
within schools and other institutions. For example, a child that lives with
a single-mother may not receive enough supervision and discipline due the
mother's labor and other reasons, and could misbehave at school. Family
disruption such as divorce also weakens parent-child relationships and parental
values and role models are not efficiently internalized by children.
Generally in the socialization theory, the nuclear family structure is most
beneficial as other theories suggest, and the rest contribute less merits
to children. Family breakups and death of a parent will lead to certain
levels of increased stress. The presence of step-parents may provide some
parenting, but living with them could also lead to stress. If these alternative
parents are not willing to provide adequate parenting, children are better
off being raised by single parents.
The evolutionary psychology perspective puts more focus on the mother's
role in a household as opposed to the economic theory, which states that
the father's presence is more important due to financial reasons. This view
begins with a premise that "mothers invest more of their resources
in children than fathers", (Biblarz, 326) and the mother is interested
more in a child's well-being than the father. This is mainly because the
mother is more biologically attached to a child due to her reproductive
investment to the child (in other words, birth). As a result, mothers in
general are concerned with how well one single child does in life, instead
of having abundant number of children. Like the two other theories presented
here, the evolutionary psychology perspective predicts that children do
best under the nuclear family structure. Also, single-mother families are
better off than single-father families because of the reasons above. Children
from single-mother families will also have advantages over families with
step-fathers and biological mothers because blended families are usually
notorious for having internal friction and conflict, leading to great amounts
of stress.
The three theories, the economic, the socialization, and the evolutionary
psychology theories all have their explanations on how alternative families
impact the well-being and/or achievements of a child. The economic theory
focuses on the importance of the father's role as the main provider of finance.
The socialization theory gives emphasis to the social well-being of a child
and how family breakups lead to demerits. The evolutionary psychology theory
reveals the importance of a mother to a child in terms of her care.
Results:
The results of the regression analysis are based on a census generated of high school students, college students, and young adults. A measure called the SEI (socioeconomic index) is used to determine the children's sociological achievements.
As all three theories suggested, children living with both biological parents
have the highest SEI, and a high percentage finish their full education
through college and have higher achievements in life. The next beneficial
type of family structure that the statistics revealed was the single-mother
family. This is inconsistent with the economic theory, but follows the evolutionary
psychology perspective quite well. Perhaps it is the mother who impacts
the child mostly due to the special care and relationship of a mother and
child. In general, single-father families, and step-families lead to negative
effects on children's attainment, and families with step-fathers yield the
worse results. (Biblarz, 348) This statistically suggests that mothers should
not remarry for the sake of her children, if for some reason the spouse
is not present.
The general results described above is only "general" because
there are other variables that need to be taken into account to provide
a thorough explanation to the impacts a family could have on children. For
example the number of siblings is essential in determining the socioeconomic
achievements of a child. Consistent with the economic theory, having more
siblings reduces the amount of money invested on a single child. Therefore,
even if a mother-led family is generally more beneficial to children, the
number of children could affect that outcome. Another factor related to
this is the education of the mother. When a mother is educated well enough,
statistics show that the educated mother's child will do exceptionally well,
and the education also leads to a more sophisticated family structure with
fewer siblings. (Garasky, 1995)
Another factor that altered results is whether the alternative non-nuclear
family was caused by a divorce or death. Alternative families recently have
been caused by divorce rather than death due to modern trends. In the case
of death, the experience is traumatic, but the children and the widowed
parent develop a strong bond from overcoming this experience, which then
leads to positive effects. However, the divorce of parents usually leads
to demonstrates the parents' incompetence to the children, and makes them
lose confidence in their parents. The trauma caused by this situation is
more detrimental to the development of children. Furthermore, the age that
the children experience these family breakdowns is another key to find out
the impacts of family structure. Statistics show that the younger a child
experiences traumatic family destructions, the worse it is for their future
achievements. A four year old child that experiences family divorce would
suffer greater negative effects than a seventeen year old that experiences
the same separation. (Biblarz, 326)
Conclusion & Policy Implications:
As a result of this investigation, the paper concludes that the family is essential for accumulating human capital. This means that the ideal form of family structure, the nuclear family should be maintained in each household so that the children grow up to be high achievers in society. Governments of all countries should implement policies to advocate marriage and discourage parents from divorcing. One way to do this is to completely remove marriage penalties from the federal income tax. This allows couples to marry and remain married because they do not have to pay as much tax. Another method is to charge couples a higher penalty rates in divorce cases, so that divorce incentives diminish. However, this would only work if both parents are actively seeking better relationships with each other so as to not affect their children negatively. (Ginther, 20)
If in case the family ends up breaking down while children are of pre-school
age, a specific kind of education program must be implemented. One example
is the Head Start program that supports children from disadvantaged backgrounds
so that good groundings are built before the children go into more formal
education. Additionally, parents also should be educated to maximize the
outcome of their disadvantaged children. (Garasky, 1995)
Biblarz, Timothy J. and Adrian E. Raferty, (1999) "Family Structure, Educational Attainment, and Socioeconomic Success: Rethinking the "Pathology of Matriarchy" , in The American Journal of Sociology, September 1999, Vol. 105, No.2, pp 321-353
Garasky, Steven, (1995), "The Efects of Family Structure on Educational Achievement: Do the Effects Vary By the Age of the Child?" in The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, January 1995, Vol. 54, No. 1. pp. 89 -106
Ginther, Donna K., Robert A. Pollak, (2003), "Does Family Structure Effect Children's Educational Outcomes?" NBER Working Paper, 9628, April 2003