Peter G. Stillman argues: "Is it not the case that if you use   
'neoclassical economics' to model a vision of the family that includes  
'till divorce do us part' that the conclusions will differ, most likely,  
from Becker's (among other things, the wife's interest is for her to be  
working or to capable of working - see J S Mill, The Subjection of Women  
[1869])?"  
"If so, as I think you think is the case, then I am inclined to see  
Becker's article as ideological and non-feminist, because in building in  
a counterfactual assumption ('till death do us part') he allows himself  
an assumption that ... is not only wrong in 50% of the cases (or  
whatever) but also (neatly) is an assumption that biases his model  
towards keeping the little lady barefoot and pregnant (and doing  
housework)."  
  
  
On the contrary, I think the family (joint) utility function employed by   
most men and women who get married is of the "till death do us part"   
variety.  The fact that 50% "or whatever" of marriages may fail does not   
at all undermine Gary Becker's contribution to our understanding of the   
marriage and divorce phenomenon.  It is a matter of reality confronting   
  expectations when one or both parties decide to divorce.  
  
As Becker well puts it: "The incentive to separate is greater ... the   
more convinced a person becomes that the marriage was a 'mistake.'  This   
conviction could result from additional information about one's mate or   
other potential mates.  (Some 'search' goes on, perhaps subconsciously   
even while one is married!)  If the 'mistake' is considered large enough   
to outweigh the loss in marriage-specific capital, separation and   
perhaps divorce will follow."  This is employing the ever present   
benefit-cost or pain-pleasure calculation that guides human choices, as   
we find even in the work of Xenophon.  The response, "Because it is   
worth it," to the question, "Why is divorce so expensive [in America]?"   
pretty much reflects the same benefit-cost understanding.  
  
In fact, Becker reaches the conclusion about separation and divorce   
after taking into account the ease or difficulty of getting a divorce in   
different states as well as in Latin America.  I get the distinct   
impression that Peter Stillman is so eager to accuse Gary Becker of   
carrying an ideological baggage that he (Stillman) hardly bothers to   
read what Becker has written on this subject.  
  
I also think it is because most people get married with the "till death   
do us part" utility function that divorce attorneys find so much work to   
do, including dividing "community property" and designing ways to assure   
that the "disadvantaged" party is made whole.  The "till divorce do us   
part" variety of marriages would be rather easy to dissolve and would   
leave much less room for accusations of having been exploited.  
  
Becker concludes his article with a reference to "the value of our   
economic approach in understanding marital patterns."  He preaches   
nothing, but seeks to explain.  I think his work is more enlightening   
than the likes of Peter Stillman are inclined to accord him.  
  
James Ahiakpor