Why is monogamy associated with economic development?
Eric Gould, Omer Moav and Avi Simhon offer a new answer in the March 2008 American Economic Review: female inequality. Economic growth means that some women have higher human capital than others and thus they are better suited at producing and rearing high quality children. Wealthy men with lots of human capital will start to bid for these women and they will have to offer them exclusive status; these men also wish to invest in a smaller number of higher quality children.
In other words, male inequality encourages polygamy while female inequality discourages it. Apparently female inequality has been winning that race.
The hypothesis also helps explain why polygamy unravels so decisively at some point. Since monogamy itself encourages children (including daughters) with higher human capital, initial tendencies toward monogamy are self-reinforcing.
Marginal Revolution: Why is monogamy associated with economic development?.
Interesting study, but I think that implying economic growth in the equation is simply not meaningful for the subject because women with higher human capital were not only observed in our times.
I would say that this tendency existed over time, it’s just that the human capital was viewed differently. My bet is that men seek for a more intelligent partner because they are no longer solely interested in the health of a woman. If before men also looked on physical health when selecting a woman, nowadays, when life expectancy is so high and modern medicine is doing unimaginable things, men are more willing to stick to monogamy if they find a woman whom they can talk with.
I’m not saying that women became more inteligent, maybe it’s just that men started to understand them better. Yeee, right 
.
Any thoughts?
September 24, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Interesting, but has no practical use in my opinion. I would talk about it over a beer, maybe even over the next beer, but that’s it. All the problems in the world are solved and this gender equality/inequality is bugging everyone…NOOOT. For the second part, on men looking to other than children factory, I’m on the same page.
The understanding women part is always the tricky part. I don’t think men can understand women, nor the other way ’round, as there are no patterns. Women are not all the same and men are not all the same. You can understand individual men/women. I also think trying to understand men/women in general is both utopic and totally unnecessary. Bottom line is that you understand someone when you get to know him and that someone’s behavioral patterns do not overlap someone else’s behavioral pattern. Comparing and finding patterns is the brain’s way of learning. Maybe that’s why we believe a general men/women behavioral pattern exists (doubled by the media). A pattern is something we know, something safe, easier to cope with. Sorry if I deviated a bit. It’s not me, I just followed the thinking flow
.
Kick ass!
September 24, 2008 at 11:15 pm
[...] just posted the longest blog comment ever, on Denis’s blog. I rediscovered a part of me I thought gone: I managed to follow my line of thought, by [...]