The close connection of Social Science to modern Family Policy emerged first in Sweden.  In 1932, the young economist Gunnar Myrdal wrote an important article for the Swedish idea-journal, Spektrum.  Entitled "The Dilemma of Social Policy," the article laid out the argument for a radical new form of social engineering.

Over the prior decade, Myrdal said, policy experts armed with the new apparatus of social science research had called for policies that would prevent social problems from emerging, rather than confront these problems after they existed.  This preventative approach to social policy required the radical rebuilding of human institutions.  As Myrdal argued: "When based on human-oriented value premises and a rational social science, preventive social policy leads to the natural union of the correct technical with the politically radical solution."  Myrdal pointed specifically to Sweden's family crisis of the 1930's, seen most vividly in the falling birthrate, as an example of what he called "social lag": where an old institution--the family--had failed to adjust to new social and economic realities.  Here, in particular, social science would lead to the overthrow of the traditional family ways and the creation of a new reality grounded in radical policy solutions.[1]

Gunnar and Alva Myrdal made several major errors in ideas crafting their family and population policies for Sweden during the 1930's: mistakes discussed in some detail in my book, The Swedish Experiment in Family Politics: The Myrdals and the Interwar Population Crisis.  But their biggest error, I believe, was this assumption that social science would show the weakness or failure of traditional institutions and affirm the need for radical policy solutions.  In truth, modern social science actually shows the power, value, and necessity of traditional family arrangements: specifically, it shows traditional marriage to be the giver of health, wealth, and success to adults, and this social science research also shows that children who grow up with their married natural parents are healthier, happier, and more successful in school and in life than children living in any other circumstance.  They are more likely to be good workers and taxpaying citizens; they are less likely to need government aid or support.

Let me be more specific.  New research shows:

• that children growing up with their married natural parents are the least likely to be sexually, physically, or mentally abused (indeed, one study finds children living in step-parent or single-parent families to be at 40 times greater risk of abuse);[2]

• that children in married couple homes are the least likely to attempt suicide;[3]

• that children living with their natural, married parents are far less likely to abuse alcohol or use illegal, mind-altering drugs;[4]

• that children in married couple homes are the least likely to commit delinquent or criminal acts;[5]

• that children in married couple, natural parent homes are much more likely to be healthy and happy and to do well in school than children reared in any other setting.[6]

• And that all measures of child wellbeing show, on balance, negative or damaging turns following divorce.[7]

These social gifts from traditional family structures extend to adults as well.  Here, too, we find that married parents are healthier, in mind and body, than their cohabitating, never-married, or divorced counterparts.[8]  We also find that among divorced adults, physical and mental health also deteriorate, among women and men alike.[9] 

Some of the data that I cited here comes from the United States and Canada; some from European and international surveys.  Allow me, at this point, to provide some specific examples of recent social research regarding Mexico and Mexican-Americans, which underscore my point:

(A)  From The Journal of Family Violence (2002: In the United States, the mothers and children not living in a traditional family are particularly vulnerable to abuse:  52% of the Mexican-American women who had been abused received such treatment from unmarried boyfriends or cohabitators.[10]

(B)  From The American Journal of Sociology (1998): The demand for male labor exerted a negative impact on divorce rates more than the demand for female labor.  “When potential [male] partners are in a good labor market, divorce is less common (or remarriage more common).”  This relationship was more pronounced for African-American and Hispanic women.  In addition, demand for male labor reduced the number of single-mother households.[11]

(C)  From the journal Social Work (1997): Coming from a home without two biological parents present, as well as lower parental attachment, increased the probability of early sexual intercourse for Hispanic boys and girls.[12]

(D)  From the journal Family Relations (1997): Analysis determines that family cohesion and marital status are significant predictors of mental health: married women within close families are less prone to depression.  “This closeness with family members protects against physical and emotional stress in Hispanics by providing a natural support system.”[13]

(E)  From American Sociological Review (1993): “Being in a nonintact family at age 14 significantly increases the risk of a premarital birth” for whites, blacks, and Hispanics.  “The effect is largest for Hispanic women, and smallest for black women.”[14]

(F)  From the journal Pediatrics (1990): Premarital sex was less common among young Hispanic women who attend church regularly than among those who attend church seldom or never.  In fact, “church involvement has been found to be a stronger predictor of conservative attitudes toward premarital sex among Mexican-Americans than among black or white adolescents.”[15]

What do social science studies such as these tell us regarding public policy?  If the state's goals are to aim at household equality, encourage human health, happiness, and success, renew the population through children, give children the best possible start in life, cut government expenditure, increase government income, and prevent abuse, the government should:

• Encourage the marriage of young men and women and the long-term maintenance of married-couple homes;

• Affirm the role of fathers as breadwinners;

• Discourage divorce and the unstable status of cohabitation; and

• Welcome the presence of traditionally religious people.

These policies are in the state's best interest and they are the logical product of social science investigation. 

How might you, as lawmakers, gain access to this sort of data?  I am able to provide you with two powerful sources:

• First, I point to the book The Family Portrait: A Compilation of Data, Research and Public Opinion on the Family, recently published by The Family Research Council of Washington, DC (with whom Bill and I work).  This book contains a wealth of research findings showing the positive social gifts of the traditional family, and the great price paid when it is abandoned.  The majority of the data in this source is American, but not all.  In every case, the research finding is backed by a full citation of the source: it's an easily used and effective tool for legislators and journalists.

• And second, I want to bring your attention to a related resource, available on-line via the worldwide web.  This is the Family and Society Database, developed by The Heritage Foundation of Washington, DC, in cooperation with my own organization, The Howard Center.  This database includes many of the abstracts found on the CD-ROM, plus others.  It can also be searched via key word or subject categories.  It is available, without cost, through our Center’s website: http://www.profam.org (where it is called The Swan Library) or at:  http://www.familydatabase.org.

Both of these sources show the positive social effects of the traditional or natural family, and why such families deserve your encouragement and affirmation by policymakers.

What public policies work to affirm and support families?  Let me tell you of some successful American examples:

(1) First, the joint taxation of married couples, also known as income splitting.  In general, United States tax law still requires that most married couples file a joint tax return, where tax brackets are substantially wider for joint returns than for individual returns.  Between 1948 and 1969, the U.S. had a system of pure income splitting, where income tax brackets were fully twice as wide for married couples as for single persons.  Such policy treats marriage as a true economic partnership (just as any other business partnership) and recognizes and protects spouses who devote themselves to labor in the home, such as childcare.  There is good evidence that this law encouraged both the Marriage Boom of this period and, indirectly, the Baby Boom: where the U.S. Total Fertility Rate nearly doubled.  The weakening of income splitting in the U.S. during the 1960’s coincided with falling marriage and fertility rates. The most recent American tax reform took steps toward restoring full income splitting by reducing the so-called "marriage penalty."

(2) Second, tax exemptions and credits for children.  The effect of European-style child-allowance on encouraging fertility is minimal, at best; some recent European analysts find no positive effects at all.[16]  In contrast, there is evidence that the tax exemption for dependent children found in the U.S. tax code has a "robust" or strong effect on fertility.  When the real value of this exemption has risen, U.S. fertility in marriage rose also; when its real value has fallen, so has fertility.  Analyst Leslie Whittington shows that a 10 percent rise in the exemptions real value generates 8 percent more births.  Whittington explains this by noting that the exemption (now at about $3000 per child) provides about 15 percent of the annual cost of raising a child.[17]  In 1997, the U.S. Congress also created an additional child tax credit: $400 per child then; $1,000 per child in 2004.  Preliminary results suggest that this credit gives strong encouragement to children born in marriage. 

(3) My third example is home schooling.  This development is growing rapidly in the U.S.:  over two million children are now homeschooled, a number growing at about 15 percent a year.  Homeschooling can be called the most important American folk movement of the last 20 years, but the process seems to be little understood outside the U.S.  Most non-American observers worry that the children will be too sheltered or isolated.  In fact, survey after survey show homeschooled students to be--on average--more involved in positive group activities than their counterparts in the state schools.  And the educational results are impressive.  In grades one through four, according to a University of Maryland study, median test scores for homeschooled children are a full grade above those of public and private school students.  By grade eight (or the age of 13), the median scores of homeschoolers are almost four grade levels above those of children in state and private schools. 

The more important traits of homeschooling may be the social and familial.  Over 97 percent of homeschool students have parents who are married, compared to a 72 percent figure nationwide.  Sixty-two percent of homeschooling families have three-or-more children, compared to only 20 percent of the nationwide sample.  A full third (33.5 percent) of homeschooling families actually have four-or-more children, compared to only six percent nationwide.  These are unusually child-rich [barnrika] families.[18]

Are these examples of effective pro-family policies relevant to Mexico in this time?  That is, of course, for you to judge, not for me.  But I suggest that they may be.

More broadly, I urge you to trust social science.  Honest research, honestly reported, reinforces the tremendous social power and positive gifts of the traditional, or natural, family, one built on marriage and an openness to the birth of children.

Endnotes: