ESRI statistics show just how hysterical anti-divorce propaganda of the past was, writes GARRET FITZGERALD
A PARTICULARLY interesting part of the ESRI report on family dynamics in Ireland is the section dealing with marital breakdown.
A complication in assessing the rate of marital breakdown is that men are notably more reticent than women about admitting that they have experienced it. In the 2006 census, the number of men aged 40-44 recording themselves as having been through such a breakdown in their marriage was one-quarter below the number of women of that age doing so. Neither a higher number of men emigrating after such a breakdown, nor the average two-year age differential between spouses, could account for such a large differential. “The only plausible explanation for the gender gap,” says the report, “is under-reporting of separation and divorce and, especially separation, among men.”
Accordingly, any analysis of marital breakdown has to be based on the data provided by women at census time.
It is no surprise that our rate of marital breakdown is extremely low and, even a decade after its introduction, our divorce rate was tying with that of Italy for bottom place in a European table. In 2005 our divorce rate was only one-third that in the UK, France, and Germany, and in 2008 the ratio of divorces to marriages was only 18 per cent. (I forecasted in 1985 that this ratio would eventually lie within the range of 15-20 per cent.)
The report notes that the average annual increase in the marital breakdown rate peaked in the early 1990s, and in the following decade fell back from a rise of 65 per cent to one of 3 per cent a year. It concludes that “rather than causing an upward shift in the marital breakdown rate, the introduction of divorce was accompanied by a slowing down and eventual levelling off in the rate of growth of marital breakdown . . . There was no significant upward drift in marital breakdown as a result of the divorce legislation.”
Looking back at the debates that took place at the time of the two divorce referendums, one cannot but be struck by the hysterical nature of the anti-divorce propaganda that blocked its passage in 1985, and almost prevented its adoption a decade later. No “flood gates” were opened by its introduction.
Marital breakdown is far more prevalent among lower socio-economic groups, with one striking exception: graduate women – but not women in higher occupations – are considerably more likely to experience breakdown. By contrast, divorce is more common in the case of women in higher occupations – but is unaffected by educational attainment.
Most survivors of marital breakdown say they live alone – and this is especially true of men.
Most studies elsewhere have indicated that having children reduces the rate of marital breakdown. But that research does not seem to have broken down this correlation by reference to the number of children born to the union – which this Irish study has done.
The more detailed analysis contained in this study confirms that couples with two children are one-quarter less likely than childless couples to experience marital breakdown when the wife is between the ages of 35 and 50, and that couples with three children are even less likely to experience such a breakdown at any stage. As the report says: “the greater the number of children, the less the likelihood of divorce”, or indeed of any form of marital breakdown. In contrast, couples with only one child are one-quarter more vulnerable to marital breakdown.
In their conclusion, the authors of the report say that their favoured explanation of this phenomenon is “that having a first child puts a strain on the relationship, while having more children is a sign that those strains were overcome”. They add: “once marital breakdown has occurred, the likelihood of divorce is greater where fewer children are involved”.
The authors say that while we cannot know whether policy interventions to support first-time parents have the capacity to counter their increased risk of marital breakdown, this is something that policy-makers might wish to take into account. They add that this finding probably strengthens the case for statutory paternity leave, at least for first-time fathers, and may offer some justification for greater generosity toward parents in relation to first children.
For technical reasons, the data on which much of this report is based is confined to the censuses of 1996, 2002 and 2006. But if data from the 1986 and 1991 censuses are included, it becomes possible to project forward our rate of marital breakdown.
For our older generation, the eventual breakdown rate was just under 5 per cent, but in the 2006 census, the highest breakdown rate reached 20 per cent in the case of women aged 45 to 49. However, marital breakdown continues long after the age of 50 – increasing by a further 6 or 7 percentage points between the ages of 50 and 60, and perhaps by another 3 points thereafter.
This suggests that those who are now in their mid-50s may have an eventual marital breakdown rate of around 30 per cent. However, the recent slowing down in growth of the rate of marital breakdown in the case of younger age groups suggests that it is unlikely thereafter to exceed one-third – as against something like half in the case of some neighbouring states.