Neoliberals opposed no-fault divorce to force families to absorb social costs

Evidence

Posner and Becker were adamantly opposed to no-fault divorce, not out of any overt moral concern with the decline of family life (the rising divorce rates of the late twentieth century were inevitable, Becker insists) but because of the potential social costs involved in supporting dependent women and children. When women and men fail to privatize the costs of their sexual behavior, instead transferring these costs to the state, neoliberals make an exceptional case for the imposition of noncontractual obligations. In cases of marital dissolution then, the legal responsibilities of marital and child support must take precedence over the wishes of the parties involved. — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 241

Posner and Becker were adamantly opposed to no-fault divorce, not out of any overt moral concern with the decline of family life (the rising divorce rates of the late twentieth century were inevitable, Becker insists) but because of the potential social costs involved in supporting dependent women and children. When women and men fail to privatize the costs of their sexual behavior, instead transferring these costs to the state, neoliberals make an exceptional case for the imposition of noncontractual obligations. In cases of marital dissolution then, the legal responsibilities of marital and child support must take precedence over the wishes of the parties involved. As noted by the Chicago School legal scholar, Richard A. Epstein, the rules of social welfare should “follow the basic pattern of natural obligation as it is perceived to arise within families.” The task of neoliberal welfare reform is “to transform [this] inclination into duty” and thus to “derive an ‘is’ from an ‘ought’ “—a precise translation of the poor law philosophy of natural charity within the family. — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 241

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the austere logic that pushes costs off public budgets onto private households, mirroring the kinship-revival thesis in Becker’s own work. — connects to: Neoliberals endorsed state coercion to enforce kinship obligations over income redistribution — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 212; American neoliberals defended kinship bonds as noncontractual obligations and opposed no-fault divorce — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 214; Family loyalty is central, not marginal, to American neoliberal welfare theory — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 213 (+13 more)
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 241

Broader Connections

• Neoliberal welfare reform aimed to convert natural family charity into legal duty #expands (0.75) — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 241
• Neoliberals opposed welfarism because it cushioned people from consequences, not for political reasons #contradicts (0.72) — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market, 167
• Neoliberals opposed welfare for inflation fear, not moral reasons #contradicts (0.72) — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 228
• Neoliberal family duty rhetoric derives from Elizabethan poor law logic #expands (0.70) — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 922