The Maltese electorate moves relentlessly towards a referendum on the divorce issue. Apart from other considerations, economic and money matters are the futuristic determinism to be faced by society.
Divorce and economic growth are negatively correlated. Past and recent experiences of other cultures and studies reveal the impact of the downturn on marriage and how this is dependent on how rich one of the spouses is.
I am going to delve into and dwell statistically on a reliable source as prominently published by the Economist newspaper in its issue of July 26, 2008 on page 42, screened and in colour, so as to highlight its importance according to the editor.
“Ah, yes, divorce”, Robin Williams once mused, “from the Latin word meaning to rip out a man’s genitals through his wallet”. The derivation may not be found in dictionaries but he was on well-trodden ground in linking divorce to money.
A survey in July 2008 conducted among financial analysts, stockbrokers and hedge fund managers by Mishcon de Reya, a law firm, suggested that the economic downturn prevailing will prompt an upsurge in divorces among high earners in London’s financial centre. This pattern, says the Economist, is not without precedent. Sandra Davis, who commissioned the study, says the recession of the early 1990s led to a wave of divorces among the City’s well-heeled.
“A third of current inquiries to lawyers by those deciding to break the knot,” she claims, “are linked to the credit crunch.”
The newspaper goes on to point out that one explanation is that the defecting spouses of high earners are getting out before the crunch reduces the potential for lucrative settlements. It adds that as the City boom turns to bust, redundancies are becoming commonplace and hefty bonuses a distant dream.
There is another argument which the paper puts forward, namely that since earnings are one of the factors taken into account in divorce settlements, it makes sense to divorce sooner rather that later. Others argue, the article goes on to say, that money and the distractions it brings allow couples to avoid addressing difficulties in their relationship, which come to the fore in more straitened circumstances.
Then arises the situation with middle earners. Here the link between divorce rates and economic conditions is less clear-cut, not least since the main marital asset is houses rather than spouses. Rising inflation and falling house prices put pressure on marriages and might thus contribute to higher divorce rates.
Yet, the same factors also make splitting up more complicated.
Falling property prices mean that selling the family home may not provide sufficient funds for two separate homes, especially now that lenders have become much more choosy, argues the Economist.
“A flagging economy clearly leads to an increase in misery; whether or not it causes a rise in the divorce rate is a moot point,” sums up Stephen Jenkins, director of the Institute for Social and Economic Research.
The Economist goes further to reveal and stipulate that “one consequence is that more couples are living together after divorce, which raises its own problems”.
It goes on to quote Godfrey Freeman, chairman of Resolution, an association of family lawyers, who points out that the lower-earning partners in such couples may find it harder to claim benefits. They are usually refused help, he says, on grounds that their mortgage is being paid, even if they have no cash of their own to cover everyday expenses.
The parting shot in the article is reserved for the last paragraph, which I will reproduce in all its acid comments.
“Divorce rates among some professions such as doctors, however, appear to be unaffected by economic fluctuations. And one group that seems even less likely to fall foul of the downturn is the divorce lawyers themselves.”
My ultimate reflection: the devil is in the detail.