Recent research led by University of Michigan sociologist Pamela Smock has shown that the economic consequences of divorce vary substantially– not only on the basis of gender, which has long been established, but also on the basis of race and ethnicity. Findings published in the Journal of Family and Economic Issues documented disparate effects of marital disruption on White, Black, and Hispanic men and women.
“Gender is crucial in understanding economic disparities stemming from separation and divorce,” said Smock, a research professor with the Population Studies Center at the Institute for Social Research. “Traditional gender-based division of labor and unpaid labor can make women more economically vulnerable. But this intersectional study reveals substantial disparities in men and women’s economic well-being after marriages dissolve, based on race and ethnicity.”
The research examined short-run consequences of separation and divorce in a large representative sample of American Baby Boomers provided by the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979.
The results indicated that all groups of women fared worse than men in economic status and well-being following marital disruption. Black and Hispanic men and all groups of women fared worse than White men, with Black women experiencing the highest levels of economic precarity.
Personal income in the U.S. is highly stratified by both sex and race/ethnicity, said Smock, a leading expert on the economics of family patterns whose prior research in the 1990s helped document and explain sources of gender differences in short-run consequences of divorce.
Social research shows women earn less than men across the board, and Black and Hispanic men and women earn less than their White counterparts. Upon losing the support of spousal income, women tend to increase their labor in the workforce. Smock and colleagues found the proportion of women working full-time increased from 61 to 72% among Whites, 67 to 72% among Blacks, and 61 to 66% among Hispanics, after marriage dissolution. But their efforts to increase their labor supply were not sufficient to attain personal income parity with their male counterparts.
As expected, the researchers found that family income following divorce declined for all groups– due to loss of spousal earnings. But these differences are especially dramatic for women due to lower personal incomes relative to men. Women experienced drops in family income of 46 to 50%, nearly double the drops experienced by men– despite typically carrying higher cost burdens as household caregivers.
“These dynamics put women in all groups at high risk for poverty, with potentially devastating consequences of divorce for women and children,” said Smock.
The percentage of White, Black, and Hispanic men living in poverty were 9, 15, and 16% in this study, respectively, following marital disruption. The rates of their female counterparts: 23, 35 and 32 percent.
The high levels of economic precarity documented among divorced women and particularly Black women likely bode poorly for women’s long-term economic security, said Smock. These vulnerabilities make it less likely that divorced women will be positioned to save for the future, contribute to pensions if they have them, and amass wealth for retirement years.
Social security benefits are not sufficient to remedy the economic disadvantages experienced by divorced women who do not remarry, said Smock, whose forthcoming research demonstrates that Social Security benefits put divorced women at particular disadvantage.
The policy implications of the research: Revisions to income security programs are needed to reduce race and gender disparities in the economic well-being of U.S. adults, Smock said.
The study was the first to directly evaluate how race and ethnicity intersect with sex in patterning economic consequences of divorce, Smock said.
“The results shed light on the ways that deeply entrenched race and gender inequality in the labor force can amplify the dire economic consequences of marital dissolution, particularly for Black women who may experience ‘double jeopardy,’” said Smock. “They suggest that race and ethnicity, and not gender alone, are powerful mechanisms that shape the economic consequences of divorce.”
The research was coauthored by Kristen Tzoc and Deborah Carr of Boston University. Pamela Smock is also a faculty affiliate of the Stone Center for Inequality Dynamics.
This post was written by Tevah Platt, communications manager for the Population Studies Center.