Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-2r2wp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-15T21:16:59.370Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Polygamy, the Commodification of Women, and Underdevelopment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 September 2021

Daniel Seligson*
Affiliation:
Independent Scholar
Anne E. C. McCants
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Family systems shape social institutions, yet they are rarely considered in histories of economic development. In this article, we show that a suite of social conventions—such as age gaps at marriage, bride price, sequestration, and discrimination and violence against women—are overrepresented in polygamous societies as compared to monogamous societies. This dichotomy can be explained on the grounds that polygamy produces a chronic scarcity of marriageable females. We argue that this suite, which we call gamos and which we quantify by two different methods, has demonstrably significant consequences for social, institutional, and economic development.

Information

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Social Science History Association
Figure 0

Figure 1. McDermott’s polygamy scale: (A) tabulation and (B) histogram. Notes: 1A: (a) Multiple cohabitations: <2 percent; (b) multiple cohabitations: >2 percent; (c) only applies to select minorities and/or within enclaves; (d) w is the fraction, specified in percent, of women in plural marriages; and (e) no US agency compiles statistics on covert polygamous marriages. One source has reported, without documentation, that 50,000 to 100,000 Muslims live in polygamous households (Hagerty 2008). Another says, also without documentation, that 50,000 to 100,000 Black Muslims live in polygamous relationships (Al-Krenawi 2014). From these it seems fair to estimate that no more than 0.1 percent of American marriages are polygamous. In figure 1B, the vertical axis label (#) signifies the number of states in each classification category. The world according to McDermott’s coding scheme is evidently bimodal, cleaving along the line of customary and religious law’s view of polygamy.

Figure 1

Map 1. World map of 102${\cal P}$-states (in gray) and 75 ${\cal nP}$-states (in white).

Figure 2

Figure 2. Male-to-female sex ratios for 177 nations. Notes: (A) Sex ratios in the first four years of life and (B) sex ratios in the first decade after puberty. Means and medians for both age groups are about 1.05. Population weighted means are larger by about 0.03 owing to sex ratios greater than 1.12 in China and India. Five states—Qatar, UAE, Bahrain, Maldives, and Kuwait—have sex ratios after puberty exceeding 1.2, a fact that may be attributed to a preference for males in their immigrant workforces.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Hudson’s index of wealth transfers at marriage. Notes: (A) The distribution of wealth transfers at marriage per Hudson’s index in 73 ${\cal nP}$ states. (B) The distribution of wealth transfers at marriage per Hudson’s index in 100 ${\cal P}$ states. (C) The cumulative distribution functions of the ${\cal P}$ and ${\cal nP}$ distributions. The maximum difference, $\delta $, of these is approximately 0.9, generating a vanishingly small pks, from which we conclude that the distributions are distinct, as expected.

Figure 4

Table 1. Eleven social conventions and descriptive statistics of their distributions in ${\cal P}$ and ${\cal nP}$

Figure 5

Figure 4. The cumulative distribution functions of ${\cal P}$ (to the right) and ${\cal nP}$ (to the left) distributions of gS. Notes: Within the ${\cal nP}$ distribution, we identify members of the EMP (black) and non-EMP (gray) subgroups. Though those two subgroups are themselves distinct, the distinction is modest compared to that between ${\cal P}$ and$\;{\cal nP}$ as a whole.

Figure 6

Table 2. Regional and or cultural traditions, nominal prevalences of plural marriage fraction c. 1900, and exemplary states

Figure 7

Figure 5. Distribution of prevalence of polygamous marriage in 1900.

Figure 8

Map 2. A micromeasure of gamos, g, mapped for 177 states. Note: The scale is such that deepest grays correspond to 22.5 percent prevalence in 1900.

Figure 9

Figure 6. Two views of development, $\mu $. Notes: (A) The correspondence between HDI and $\mu $ (r = 0.93). (B) The well-separated CDFs of \mu in ${\cal P}$ (left/gray) and$\;{\cal nP}$ (right/black).

Figure 10

Map 3. The map of$\mu $by nation. Note: The deepest grays correspond to the lowest states of development and white to the highest, or $\mu = \mp \;2$ respectively.

Figure 11

Table 3. Candidate proxies for sources of development across five categories

Figure 12

Figure 7. Five-parameter model selection. Notes: Each dot or polygon represents one of 648 different combinations of the 14 proxies. Black coloring signifies that g, the prevalence of male plural marriage, is one of the model variables. ${{\cal M}_5}$, the optimal five-parameter model, is represented by the five-sided polygon in the lower left corner. ${{\cal M}_4}$, the optimal four-parameter model (from which all measures of family structure are excluded), is represented by the four-sided polygon.

Figure 13

Table 4. ${{\cal M}_5}$ parameter summary table

Supplementary material: PDF

Seligson and McCants supplementary material

Appendix

Download Seligson and McCants supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 414.8 KB