Journal of Population Economics

, Volume 5, Issue 3, pp 217–228 | Cite as

Unobserved variables and marital status The schooling connection

  • William Sander


Studies increasingly indicate that some of the characteristics of individuals are jointly determined with marital status, fertility, and labor supply. This study focuses on the effect of schooling on marital status. A Hausman-type test shows that schooling cannot be legitimately treated as an exogenous determinant of marriage and divorce. It is shown that if schooling is treated as an exogenous variable, the negative effect of schooling on the odds of marriage is underestimated. Further, the results indicate that schooling has a significant negative effect on divorce if it is treated as an exogenous variable; the coefficient for schooling is positive if it is treated as an endogenous variable.


Marital Status Labor Supply Exogenous Variable Endogenous Variable Significant Negative Effect 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Becker GS (1991) A treatise on the family. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Becker GS, Landes E, Michael R (1977) An economic analysis of marital instability. J Polit Econ 85:1141–1187PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Boulier BL, Rosenzweig MR (1984) Schooling, search, and spouse selection: testing economic theories of marriage and household behavior. J Polit Econ 92:712–732Google Scholar
  4. Bumpass LL, Sweet JA (1972) Differentials in marital instability: 1970. Am Soc Rev 37:754–766Google Scholar
  5. Carlin PS (1991) Home investment in husband's human capital and the wife's decision to work. J Popul Econ 4:71–86Google Scholar
  6. Carlson E (1979) Family background, school and early marriage. J Marriage Family 41:341–353Google Scholar
  7. Farrell P, Fuchs VR (1982) Schooling and health: the cigarette connection. J Health Econ 1:217–230Google Scholar
  8. Freiden A (1974) The United States marriage market. J Polit Econ 82:534–553Google Scholar
  9. Fuchs VR (1982) Economic aspects of health. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  10. Greeley AM (1990) The Catholic myth. Charles Scribner's Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Hausman JA (1978) Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica 46:1251–1271Google Scholar
  12. Heckman J (1980) Sample selection bias as a specification error. In: Smith JP (ed) Female labor supply. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 206–248Google Scholar
  13. Keeley MC (1977) The economics of family formation. Econ Inquiry 15:238–250Google Scholar
  14. Michael RT, Tuma N (1985) Entry into marriage and parenthood by young men and women: the influences of family background. Demography 22:515–544Google Scholar
  15. Michael RT (1973) Education and the derived demand for children. J Polit Econ 81:S128-S164Google Scholar
  16. Mosher WD, Hendershot GE (1984) Religion and fertility: a replication. Demography 21:185–191Google Scholar
  17. Reed WR, Harford K (1989) The marriage premium and compensating wage differentials. J Popul Econ 2:237–266Google Scholar
  18. Sander W (1985) Farm women and marriage. Oxford Agrarian Studies 14:114–127Google Scholar
  19. Sander W (1992) Catholicism and the economics of fertility. Popul Studies (in press)Google Scholar
  20. Schultz TP (1990) Testing the neoclassical model of family labor supply and fertility. J Human Resources 25:599–634Google Scholar
  21. Westoff CF, Jones EF (1979) The end of “Catholic” fertility. Demography 16:209–217Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • William Sander
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsDePaul UniversityChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations