First, the results regarding the impact of unilateral divorce on women`s employment are ambiguous. An influential first study found no independent effect of unilateral divorce on female labor supply, while more recent studies show that unilateral divorce increases women`s participation in the labor market, regardless of property sharing laws. On the other hand, a new analysis of US data suggests that unilateral divorce combined with an equal distribution of wealth leads to a decline in women`s employment [5]. Future research should do more to understand the sources of these divergent findings. Strict divorce laws allow a court to grant a divorce without the plaintiff having to prove that the spouse committed a breach of the marriage contract (any form of fault). A no-fault divorce on his part may require amicable consent (both partners must agree) or allow for a unilateral divorce. “Many couples who used to divorce are no longer married, but life partners. Those who marry are the most stable couples; There are more separations between roommates. In Denmark, Johannes Nellemann, Minister of Justice and professor, decided to write a thesis on the historical evolution of divorce in Denmark. This study also examined the change in Norwegian divorce practice after 1814. She recently published an article examining changes in Norwegian divorce policy from the late 18th century to the 19th and 20th centuries, when Norway was fighting for independence from Denmark. Some studies have examined the effects of divorce law on other economic decisions in households headed by a married couple, such as wealth accumulation (savings). One study uses data from Ireland and finds that a “side effect” of legalizing divorce in 1996 was an increase in household savings among married couples (including those who did not divorce) [14].
A priori, an increased risk of divorce can encourage both more savings (in anticipation of higher future expenses) and less savings (to avoid having to share property in the event of separation). The results suggest that the mild effect dominates. A recent study also suggests that the introduction of unilateral divorce in US states has led to an increase in household savings [5]. In addition, a spouse can also divorce if he or she has been forced to marry, either by the other spouse or by another person. The new Norwegian divorce legislation had also prompted the other Nordic countries to reconsider their own divorce legislation, and Nordic cooperation had been initiated to review all marriage legislation. Beginning in the 1970s, the numbers increased dramatically and have remained relatively high ever since. The high divorce rates were closely linked to the social revolutions of the time, the educational revolutions, the entry of women into the labour market, the sexual revolution and the financial emancipation of women. When thinking about divorce law, it is natural to identify the impact on children`s well-being in the short and long term. The evidence shows that divorce liberalization does not have long-term positive effects on children, at least not on children already born at the time of the policy change. For example, a 2004 study found that children who grew up in U.S.
states that allow unilateral divorce chose to marry and have children earlier, in addition to having fewer years of schooling and lower family income (than adults) than children who grew up in states where unilateral divorce was not allowed [10]. These findings have recently been challenged by new evidence showing that unilateral divorce reduces the likelihood of starting a family and has little impact on adult education. Another study shows that children who were young when unilateral divorce became possible are more likely to commit violent crimes later in life, resulting in higher crime rates ten years after reforms in states that introduced unilateral divorce [11]. The study attributes this effect to an increase in poverty among divorced mothers affected by the reforms. A number of studies have analysed the social impact of recent reforms of divorce legislation in different countries. The results suggest that the introduction of unilateral divorce increased divorce rates, at least temporarily, and that unilateral divorce reforms likely had a negative impact on couples who were “trapped” in the transition (married under the previous divorce regime and “surprised” by the reforms), including long-term negative effects for children born shortly before the law changes. However, involuntary and unilateral divorce reforms cannot explain the sharp rise in divorce rates in many countries in the second half of the 20th century. In addition, a number of studies have shown that legal, easy and unilateral divorce can have positive economic and social consequences, including increased savings rates among married people and reduced levels of household conflict and domestic violence. In addition, unilateral divorce appears to have led to better (albeit fewer) marriages in the long run, likely with lower divorce rates, suggesting that the overall long-term effects of the reforms are likely to improve well-being. Recent reforms in favour of joint childcare also appear to have promoted marriage and fertility.
Historian and associate professor at SKOK, Hanne Marie Johansen, has studied the history of Norwegian divorce practices.
