Economics and The Pill

The May issue of First Things has an interesting article that looks at the impact of birth control through the lens of economics ('Bitter Pill' by economist Timothy Reichert). The gist of the article is that the availability of the birth control pill starting in the 1960's dramatically changed the marriage 'market'. His contention is that prior to the pill there was essentially one market: a marriage market. After the arrival of the pill the market was splintered into 2 markets: a marriage market, and a sex market. The pill, he contends, reduced the incentives for marriage, especially among men, while siimultaneously putting more pressure on women to enter the sex market before marriage since it was now 'safe'.



Like most economic models, I find this one oversimplified but interesting nonetheless. It seems clear to me that there has always been 2 separate markets, else the 'world's oldest occupation' would not in fact be the world's oldest occupation. However, it does seems clear that there are now more incentives for sexual activity before marriage, though the rise of out of wedlock births make it clear that it is not necessarily 'safe'.



His contention in the article is that in fact it is not safe and this market shift has hurt women, not 'empowered' them. It is of course sold by both feminists and the playboy culture that the pill has 'liberated' women. In fact, we now have 40% of all births out of wedlock, and up to 70% in some ethnic groups, and it is well documented that being a single mom is the single most powerful predictor of poverty. By giving men fewer incentives to marry, this also keeps more women and their children in poverty. He supports his article with lots of charts and graphs, of course, as any good economist would. This includes fewer and later marriages, earlier sexual activity, more women in the workplace to support their kids, and declining rates of female happiness.



He does not talk about some of the additional factors that confound his data: legalized abortion coming near the same time, for instance, and declining church attendance. Still, I think he has a point. This technology that is touted as helping women has actually hurt them. However, in my opinion it has hurt them because they use the technology outside of marriage. He does not mention this either. Were it utilized only within marriage, it would be a very different story. There, too, is a message. The more freedom we have, the more important it is that the freedom be exercised by a virtuous people. When we lack virtue, our freedom comes back to bite us.