At the conclusion of his article "The Economics of Love and Marriage," the author asks himself whether he really believes that love and marriage can be analyzed with the abstract logic of economics (331). His answer is "yes, but," and it is an appropriate response. As a traditional institution that historically has affected its participants economic situations, marriage can be discussed using economic terminology and theories. Love, however, largely indefinable and unpredictable, seems to lend itself less readily to economic discussion.
The author begins with the easier, more acceptable discussion of marriage as an economic relationship (317-19). He recognizes that the division of labor in a marriage--for example, the husband performing any necessary carpentry and house repairs and the wife performing the cooking--is likely not the most perfect and efficient division of labor. However, it does possess a certain type of efficiency. It may, for instance, be cheaper and less time-consuming for the husband to perform such repairs rather than hire the work out. One can perhaps form an analogy to roommates in a house or apartment. Many people who are not married or not even interested in entering marriage choose to share living quarters because it is cheaper and often more convenient to do so than remain alone. Thus, the institution of marriage, as an extended and more elaboration version of rooming together can fulfill economic incentives.
However, as the author asks, what possible incentive could there be for making marriage a permanent arrangement? (318). One is clearly limiting oneself forever after to consider another person's desires and needs whenever one is called upon to make a decision. From an economic standpoint, one can only assume that the economic incentives and rewards of such an arrangement must outweigh the cost of the lost freedom.
The author's discussion of firm-specific capital does not necessaril...