Male Earnings, Marriageable Men, and Nonmarital Fertility: Evidence from the Fracking Boom
Abstract
We investigate whether an increase in the potential earnings of men leads to an increase in marriage and a reduction in nonmarital births by exploiting the positive economic shock associated with fracking in the 2000s. A reduced-form analysis reveals that in response to local-area fracking production, which increased wages and jobs for non-college-educated men, both marital and nonmarital birth rates increase, but marriage rates do not. The pattern of results is consistent with positive income effects on births but no associated increase in marriage. We contrast our findings to the Appalachian coal boom experience of the 1970s and 1980s.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 18 · Cited by 166
- Authors
- Kearney, M. S., & Wilson, R.
- Affiliations
- National Bureau of Economic Research (US)
- University of Maryland, College Park (US)
- Venue
- The Review of Economics and Statistics
- Publisher
- MIT Press - Journals
- Published
- 2018-10
- Volume
- 100
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 678-690
- ISSN
- 0034-6535 (ISSN-L)
- 1530-9142
- OpenAlex
- W2615098921
- Cited by
- 166
- References
- 18
- Citations by year
- 2026: 24 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 2 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 26.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Review of Economics and Statistics (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Demography › Family Dynamics and Relationships
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender, Labor, and Family Dynamics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Labor market dynamics and wage inequality
- Keywords
- male earnings, nuptiality, nonmarital fertility, out-of-wedlock births, natural gas production, local economic shocks
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
