Hostname: page-component-788cddb947-w95db Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-08T12:25:00.613Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE BECKER–COASE THEOREM RECONSIDERED

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2015

Pierre-Andre Chiappori ,
Murat Iyigun  and
Yoram Weiss
Pierre-Andre Chiappori*
Affiliation:
Columbia University
Murat Iyigun
Affiliation:
University of Colorado and IZA
Yoram Weiss
Affiliation:
Tel Aviv University and IZA
*
Corresponding author: Pierre-Andre Chiappori, Economics Department, Columbia University, 1009A International Affairs Building, MC 3308, 420 West 118th Street, New York, NY 10027. Email: pc2167@columbia.edu. Phone: (212) 854-6369. Fax: (212) 854-8059.
Get access

Abstract:

We reconsider the well-known Becker–Coase (BC) theorem according to which changes in divorce law should not affect divorce rates. We do that in a context of households that consume public goods in addition to private goods. For the Becker–Coase theorem to hold in this setting, utility must be transferable both within marriage and upon divorce, and the marginal rate of substitution between public and private consumption needs to be invariant in marital status. We show that if divorce alters the way some goods are consumed (either because some goods that are public in marriage become private in divorce or because divorce affects either the marginal rate of substitution between public and private goods or even the cardinalization of a spouse’s utility), then the Becker–Coase theorem holds only for very specific preferences. We conclude that, in general, divorce laws will influence the divorce rate, although the impact of a change in divorce laws can go in either direction.

Type
Research Papers
Information
Journal of Demographic Economics , Volume 81 , Issue 2 , June 2015 , pp. 157 - 177
Copyright
Copyright © Université catholique de Louvain 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aivazian, A. and Callen, J. (1981) The Coase theorem and the empty core. Journal of Law and Economics 14 (4), 175–81.Google Scholar
Becker, G. (1993) Treatise on the Family, paperback ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Browning, M., Chiappori, P. A. and Weiss, Y. (2014) Family Economics, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bergstrom, T. and Cornes, R. (1983) Independence of allocative efficiency from distribution in the theory of public goods. Econometrica 51, 1753–1765.Google Scholar
Bergstrom, T. C. and Varian, H. (1985) When do market games have transferable utility? Journal of Economic Theory 35, 222–33.Google Scholar
Bourguignon, F., Browning, M., Chiappori, P.-A. and Lechene, V. (1993) Intra–household allocation of consumption: a model and some evidence from French data. Annales d’Économie et de Statistique 29, 137–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browning, M., Bourguignon, F., Chiappori, P.-A. and Lechene, V. (1994) Incomes and outcomes: a structural model of intra–household allocation. Journal of Political Economy 102, 1067–1096.Google Scholar
Browning, M. and Chiappori, P.-A. (1998) Efficient intra-household allocations: a general characterization and empirical tests. Econometrica 66, 1241–1278.Google Scholar
Chiappori, P. A. (1988) Rational household labor supply. Econometrica 56, 63–90.Google Scholar
Chiappori, P. A. (1992) Collective labor supply and welfare. Journal of Political Economy 100 (3), 437–67.Google Scholar
Chiappori, P. A. (2007) Characterizing the Properties of the Generalized Quasi-linear Utilities. Mimeo, Columbia University.Google Scholar
Chiappori, P. and Weiss, Y. (2007) Divorce, remarriage and child support. Journal of Labor Economics 25, 37–74.Google Scholar
Chiappori, P. A. and Ekeland, I. (2006) The microeconomics of group behavior: general characterization. Journal of Economic Theory 130 (1)1–26.Google Scholar
Chiappori, P. A. and Ekeland, I. (2009) The microeconomics of group behavior: identification. Econometrica 77 (3), 763–99.Google Scholar
Chiappori, P. A. and Gugl, E. (2014) Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Transferable Utiity. Mimeo, Columbia University.Google Scholar
Clark, S. (1999) Law, property and marital dissolution. The Economic Journal 109, c41–c54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coase, R. H. (1960) The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics 3, 1–23.Google Scholar
Cooter, R. (1982) The cost of Coase. Journal of Legal Studies 11, 1–33.Google Scholar
Diamond, P. and Maskin, E. (1979) An equilibrium analysis of search and breach of contract, I: steady states. Bell Journal of Economics 10, 282–316.Google Scholar
Duflo, E. (2003) Grandmothers and granddaughters: old age pension and intra-household allocation in South Africa. World Bank Economic Review 17 (1), 1–25.Google Scholar
Fella, G., Mariotti, M. and Manzini, P. (2004) Does divorce law matter? Journal of the European Economic Association 2, 607–633.Google Scholar
Gugl, E. (2014) Transferable utility in the case of many public and many private goods. Studies in Microeconomics 2 (2), 133–140.Google Scholar
Kapan, T. (2006) Collective Tests of Household Behavior: New Results. Mimeo, Columbia University.Google Scholar
Lafortune, J., Chiappori, P. A., Iyigun, M. and Weiss, Y. (2014) Changing the Rules Midway: The Impact of Granting Alimony Rights on Existing and Newly-Formed Partnerships. Mimeo, Columbia University.Google Scholar
Lundberg, S., Pollak, R. and Wales, T. (1997) Do husbands and wives pool resources?: evidence from the UK child benefit. Journal of Human Resources 32, 463–480.Google Scholar
Matouschek, N. and Rasul, I. (2006) The economics of the marriage contract: theories and evidence. Journal of Law and Economics forthcoming.Google Scholar
Mnookin, R. and Kornhauser, L. (1979) Bargaining in the shadow of the law. Yale Law Journal 88, 950–997.Google Scholar
Peters, E. (1986) Marriage and divorce: informal constraints and private contracting. American Economic Review 76 (3), 437–54.Google Scholar
Rasul, I. (2006) Marriage markets and divorce laws. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 22, 30–69.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P. (1950) Evaluation of real national income. Oxford Economic Papers 2, 1–29.Google Scholar
Schultz, T. Paul (1990) Testing the neoclassical model of family labor supply and fertility. Journal of Human Resources 25 (4), 599–634.Google Scholar
Stevenson, B. and Wolfers, J. (2006) Bargaining in the shadow of the law: divorce laws and family distress. Quarterly Journal of Economics 121 (1), 267–288.Google Scholar
Thomas, D. (1990) Intra—household resource allocation: an inferential approach. Journal of Human Resources 25, 635–664.Google Scholar
Thomas, D., Contreras, D. and Frankenberg, E. (1997) Child Health and the Distribution of Household Resources at Marriage. Mimeo, RAND, UCLA.Google Scholar
Weiss, Y. and Willis, R. (1985) Children as collective goods and divorce settlements. Journal of Labor Economics 3 (3), 268–92.Google Scholar
Weiss, Y. and Willis, R. (1997) Match quality, new information and marital dissolution. Journal of Labor Economics 15 (1), January, S293–329.Google Scholar
Wickelgren, A. (2009) Why divorce laws matter: incentives for non contractible marital investments under unilateral and consent divorce. Journal of Law, Economics & Organization, 25, 80–106.Google Scholar
Wolfers, J. (2006) Did unilateral divorce raise divorce rates? A reconciliation and new results. American Economic Review 96, 1802–1820.Google Scholar
Zelder, M. (1993) Inefficient dissolution as a consequence of public goods: the case of non-fault divorce. Journal of Legal Studies 22, 503–520.Google Scholar