The Hindu Business Line : Wise to be economical about religiosity

Religion, according to a paper, is a complementary trait within marriage, "because it affects a number of activities in which both spouses are involved beyond the purely religious sphere."

FOR one reason or another, religion has suddenly caught hold of the media, or vice-versa, but economists rarely talk about the topic. A recent sighting, however, is in the latest series of `discussion papers' from the Institute for the Study of Labour in Bonn.

The paper, written by Evelyn L. Lehrer of the University of Illinois, studies religion as a determinant of economic and demographic actions such as "choice of marital partner, union formation and dissolution, fertility, female time allocation, education, wages, and wealth." One more dependent variable could be the proportion of TV-viewing time devoted to religion, especially during troubled times such as these.

Lehrer's study is about the US, though it seems many of the findings have universal application. For instance, she talks of religion as a complementary trait within marriage, "because it affects a large number of activities in which both spouses are involved, as a couple, beyond the purely religious sphere." So, apart from the couple going to the same places of worship, with different prayers on their lips (?), religion would impact "the education and upbringing of the children, the allocation of time and money, the cultivation of social relationships, and often even the place of residence."

Put simply in the lingo of an economist: "There is greater efficiency in a household if husband and wife share the same religious beliefs." That doesn't mean, however, the two would share the same belief about a godman, please note. Almost all religions are pro-family, writes the author; as a result, religious affiliation tends to act as a stabilising force in families. When foundational beliefs of such an affiliation suffer a sudden jolt, what takes a hit is stability, you'd agree.

To find answer to why people marry outside their religion, despite the destabilising effect such an action can have, the author takes guidance from Gary Becker, who analysed decades ago the economics of marriage. According to him, the most plausible explanation for mixed marriages even though there could be "a higher probability of divorce" is because "they do not expect to do better by further search and waiting." How simple!

Here's more: "Perhaps they were unlucky in their search and became pregnant, or have aged and fear a diminishing market... Some persons enter mixed marriages not because they are unlucky but because they are inefficient at discovering suitable prospects or have other characteristics that lower their expected gains from marriage." If interested, you may catch Becker's paper on the Net, unless you're unlucky in your search.

Religiosity is another dimension of religion, propounds Lehrer. For good or bad, religiosity "accentuates religious differences;" generally beneficially, however, it can impact health and well-being through religious involvement. I guess that should include fasts, singing, circumambulation, trekking and so on. There is enough literature, the author says, to show that religiosity in youths can lead to lower probability of substance abuse and juvenile delinquency, delayed sexual debut and entry into cohabitation; more positive attitudes toward marriage and having children, and more negative attitudes towards unmarried sex and premarital childbearing.

That's some economics of religion, but it would be wise to be economical about religiosity rather than overdosing. A recommended damage-control exercise, especially when one finds religion ending up in just the wrong places.

SayCheek@TheHindu.co.in