The fact that one out of four children are now born outside marriage does not seem to shock most people. Some may argue that this is the result of a fall in moral standards while others would attribute this phenomenon to social policies that may have become too generous.
Social scientists are a little more clinical in trying to come up with explanations as to why more young women choose to give birth to a child while being unmarried. Many say that the availability of contraception gave women the ability to control the number and timing of children.
Empirical studies conducted in western countries confirm that, since contraceptives became easily available in the last three decades, the number of single-parent families headed by single mothers increased substantially.
Some sociologists describe this development as “the reproductive technological shock that has eroded the age-old custom of shotgun marriage”.
Other sociologists maintain that “the declining availability of good jobs combined with welfare benefits for single mothers” are behind this change. Yet, social research in countries like the US have shown that when social benefits to single parents were increased in the 1960s out-of-wedlock births did not rise as much as they did in the 1970s and 1980s, when these benefits fell again.
Since the 1960s, shotgun marriages gradually disappeared. Society no longer accepted the norm that ‘if a girl gets pregnant, you married her’. Parents of unmarried pregnant girls became more tolerant and often supported their daughter to bring up the child even without the support of the father. The stigma of unwed motherhood is no longer shunned in most sectors of our society. Interestingly, unwed mothers are today much less likely to give up their child for adoption as they often find the financial, moral and psychological support of their families.
Now that the ‘reproductive technology shock’ seems irreversible, one needs to mitigate the possible negative effects of this massive social change. Even if it were possible to restrict the availability of contraceptives, this would now be counterproductive. Such measure would, in fact, lead to greater poverty.
A US study on the implications of out-of-wedlock births asserts that “with abstinence rare and the stigma of out-of-wedlock motherhood small, denying women access to contraception would only increase the number of children born out of wedlock and reared in impoverished single-parent families”.
A recent survey by the National Statistics Office concluded that “people found to be mostly at risk of poverty in 2011 were those living in single parent households, with 47 per cent of persons in this category being at risk”.
Easier access to birth control information and devices, before sexual participation, could reduce the number of unplanned children. But the return to the old system of shotgun marriages will not be brought about by significant reductions in welfare benefits. As younger people become sexually active at a younger age, and with little social stigma enforcing the norm of shotgun marriages, younger fathers feel little urge to marry their pregnant partners.
Many social scientists argue that “cuts in welfare have little effect on the number of out-of-wedlock births”. The initial goal of social policy should be “to see that the children in unfortunate families were adequately supported”.
The support of vulnerable children, not the alteration of the behaviour of potential mothers, should be the major policy goal of welfare. The level of support should strike a balance between those who collect the welfare and do not work and those who do work and, through their taxes, pay the less fortunate.