Filter By

The fall out from the IFS' latest study on marriage: time for a grown-up discussion?

Should we really still be arguing about who makes the best parents?

The Institute for Fiscal Studies yesterday published a report that found that there was no positive influence of marriage per se on child outcomes. However, children of married people seem to develop better, which can be explained by differences in characteristics of those parents who choose to marry and those who don't. The most important characteristics are education, occupation, income and housing tenure. It is not hard to guess the correlation correctly. If you have a higher education (both mothers and fathers), higher occupational level (fathers only need to apply – career women seem to be less likely to get married), you are on a higher income and live in your own home you are more likely to get married. Those characteristics also make you a better parent. So there is a correlation between marriage and being a good parent, but that doesn't mean that being married makes you a good parent (and I should know).

If politicians would like to see more people getting married (and being better parents) they should make sure people get a proper education, a job that is paid well enough and make it easier for people to get on the housing ladder. No surprises here. This is the way forward to deal with the causes of bad parenting which as been high on the agenda as a cause for almost all evils in society. Government should help facilitate people to develop those characteristics that makes them more likely to be a good parent. Which would also make them more likely to get married. Two birds killed with one stone.

David Cameron has argued that it is “warmth not wealth” that counts for the outcome of children. According to him, encouraging parents to be good, warm parents is more important “than lifting people out of poverty”. Surely, neither he nor one of his advisers has ever tried to raise his children on a run-down council estate, money worries hovering over his head everyday. As I argued in a previous blog blaming the parents is an easy way out for politicians, but nothing more. However, I would say that everybody living in affluent conditions who doesn't manage to be a proper parent clearly has only themselves to blame. But everybody who raises their children with love and respect and giving the age appropriate boundaries and doing all this in adverse conditions such as poverty, damp housing, unemployment, ill health deserves a medal. So, politicians, do blame the bad parents but keep it to those who should know better and are more equipped to make the right choices (in case they don't know better already without an anorak know-it-all politician telling them what to do).

Looking at parents and how they are being portrayed in the media I am bored (and sometimes annoyed) by the ongoing discussion on who is doing a better job at being a parent (in most cases this reads mother). Apparently it is a competition or even a war out there. Come on people! There is more to life than bickering over what your neighbour does. It is not a war of working mothers versus stay-at-home mothers, married parents versus cohabiting one, single parents versus….I don't know what. Everybody knows it is not clear cut, so stop pretending that it is. Stay-at-home mothers can be brilliant or mediocre or simply no good, the same is true for working mothers, married mothers, single mothers, foster mothers, and yes, fathers in all shapes and sizes, too. And because ‘parenting' is not a competition where the best parents wins first prize, as a consequence there should not be a competition between different policies designed for different groups of people. A recognition in the tax and benefit system of married parents is justified as it recognises the family as a unit – which it is – and not some individuals living together in a flat-share, as I argued in another previous blog. A recognition in the tax and benefit system of a single parent family is equally justified as it acknowledges this family's particular circumstances. But these two do not compete with each other. To claim that a benefit for one would discriminate against and disadvantage the other is the same kind of bickering as the one mentioned above on who is the best mother.

Comments on: The fall out from the IFS' latest study on marriage: time for a grown-up discussion?

Gravatar Adam Schoenborn 21 April 2010
Interesting post Sandra.

@ Michael and Trafalmadore, I didn't see Sandra's main point as class stereotyping, although I can understand the objection to blaming "the bad parents but keep it to those who should know better and are more equipped to make the right choices." I think the point here is that economic hardship makes parenting more difficult (and more important), not that it's a class-based excuse for bad parenting.

Re: the IFS analysis, I wouldn't say it closes this issue once and for all, but it does seem to support the argument that people with characteristics which are likely to correspond to better outcomes for their children (more wealth, education, older mother at birth, planned pregnancy, etc.) are also more likely to get married.

There is a very interesting passage amongst their conclusions:

"For our research to indicate a significant positive causal effect of marriage, it would need to be shown that marriage leads to large improvements in parents’ characteristics by the time the child is 9 months old, which in turn lead to better social and emotional outcomes for children. This seems unlikely in the case of parental education and socio-economic status. It is more debatable whether relationship quality is greatly affected by marriage, or instead whether relationship quality determines marriage."

I wonder if they're right to downplay the socio-economic and stablilising benefits of marriage? Surely two potential incomes and a legal commitment to your partner have an impact on these characteristics. Isn't it possible that marriage is both an indicator of existing "good parenting characteristics" and a key component of a culture that builds and sustains these charactersistics?
Reply
Gravatar Trafalmadore 20 April 2010
Spot on Michael. The tone of this article is a little flippant and easy with class stereortype for my liking.
Reply
Gravatar Michael 20 April 2010
I'm sure you don't mean it that way, and perhaps I'm just being a little chippy, but this post does come close to a certain social snobbery ('keep it [the blame] to those middle-class ones who should know better and are more equipped to make the right choices').

To offer some context, I was brought up on a council estate, with parents who by today's standards weren't highly educated, who didn't get on the property ladder until their mid 40s, and who spent the majority of my youth on the dole (for the first few years there was also just me and my mother, meaning I fulfill just about all criteria on the 'broken family' checklist). I suspect they would find the suggestion that poverty almost explains away bad parenthood a bit wrongheaded - I shall have to ask them.

Anyway, after that confessional, the point I'm trying to make is that I think your caricatures seem to presume that the stoicism of the family trying their best through difficult circumstances are the exception, rather than the general rule. I don't doubt that difficult economic conditions play their part in family breakdown, and put huge strains on families, and that this has wider repercussions for society - but I also wonder whether the glue that used to preserve social and familial bonds through these rough times has also been gradually dissolved, and that it is this erosion that is the key factor. After all, throughout history there have been communities suffering acute socio-economic disadvantage, and yet the consensus seems to be that in the past they didn't fall apart quite so dramatically as they seem to today - indeed, this resilience often proved their lifeline. Perhaps this is the question that deserves a little more attention, and for that we may need to look a little further afield than whether someone has a decent education, a job and a house of their own.
Reply
Gravatar Sandra Gruescu 21 April 2010
Hi Michael,

thank you very much for your post. By saying that those who manage to raise their children well in 'adverse' circumstances deserve a medal, I don't want to imply that those are the exceptions, far from it. Most do a great job, and I do think they deserve extra praise for it. It is harder to be a good parent, giving your children the best chances in life, when you are poor at least in a materialistic society. Those who are better off ("the middle class" is probably not the right term here)have it easier to fulfill their 'parenting' duties. This is why I said they can blame themselves if something goes wrong. At least they can't blame it on poverty and other suspects. Bad and good parents can be found everywhere in society, poor or affluent. Just the reasons for 'bad parenting' might be different sometimes.
Please ask your parents, I am very interested what they will say.

Best wishes,
Sandra
Reply

Join the discussion Have opinions on this matter? Why not get involved and comment on this below.

Become a Member Joining ResPublica give you an exclusive amount of features. Gain early access to ResPublica events, contribute to topics and much more.

Detailed Summary

Date Published
20 April 2010

Categories
children
Children and Families
families
ifs
marriage
parents

About The Authors

Sandra Gruescu

Dr Sandra Gruescu led ResPublica's work around children and families policy from January 2010 until August 2011.  S...