I have wondered, oft times, why on earth are Indian marriages so extravagant and why they are so expensive. It seems that there are several lay-man explanations for it. The most common one is that expensive marriages are not a choice but a duty prescribed by tradition. I however tend to disregard such arguments for they don't offer a reasonably sound explanation for expensive marriages. The next popular one is that marriage is an opportunity for rich people to show off their wealth, but that doesn't answer the question at all for there are many ways to be ostentatious. For example, why not just have a super-extravagant house party or drive around in a limousine?
Marriages are a way for parents to fulfill their parental obligations is an argument that is at least understandable but it still fails to explain why a bequest of the same amount would be any worse. In fact most sons and daughters would prefer bequest to an expensive marriage. One other reasonable argument is that marriages confer many benefits packaged into one-marraiges bring families together, help rich people show off their wealth and fulfill religious obligations as well. The only problem with this argument is that all these benefits can be enjoyed in any religious function or a family gathering, why bother spending it all on a marriage?
My explanation for expensive marriages is that it acts as an insurance against divorce and/or family break up. To see why, say suppose a family spends 100,000$ (a huge amount for indians) on a marriage. The longer the marriage survives, the lesser the cost-per-succesful-year-of-marriage. Say this particular marriage survives for 40 years, the average cost is 2,500$. On the contrary, if the marriage survives only a year, the average cost is 100,000$. Any heir who cares about his family wealth will want to reap the benefit of marriage for as long as possible, so as to keep the average cost down. If this explanation is hard to stomach, consider the allegory of the train pass. When you a purchase a year-long train pass and travel only for a day, you lose. You're better off using the train service more frequently or not buying the pass at all! Marriage is a one-time investment, to make the most of it, you need to be married longer. Couples will then only consider divorce if the benefits of marriage are out-weighed by the benefits of living alone and the cost of marriage is less than what it would cost to keep the family together. Some might consider marriage itself expensive if all marriages become expensive and decide to remain single, which might be less costlier than a huge extravagant marriage with thousands of people.
Dowries have a similar rationale. I don't think dowry is a good idea, for unlike voluntary splurges on marriages, parents who have to pay the dowry don't think about the longitivtiy of the marriage. They only think of it is a due that must be paid. But in any case, dowries act in a similar fashion. A girl whose parents have paid a huge dowry to get her married will be more careful with her marriage. However there is also a catch. Dowries incentivize the boy's family to harass the girl since they know that the girl would stick on despite being harassed. To prevent this asymmetry, I am totally against either the boy's or girl's family taking up all the cost of the marriage. An even spread would ensure that the costs of marriage weigh upon the decisions of the respective families when they decide to severe ties! Also, dowries when shared equally are better than just marriages for if they are in the form of money or investments, they can be re-used for other important expenses. I don't like the word ''dowry", "mutual pre-marital colletaral" sounds better. Next up, why do employees "on-duty" fly business class more often than tourists?
Marriages are a way for parents to fulfill their parental obligations is an argument that is at least understandable but it still fails to explain why a bequest of the same amount would be any worse. In fact most sons and daughters would prefer bequest to an expensive marriage. One other reasonable argument is that marriages confer many benefits packaged into one-marraiges bring families together, help rich people show off their wealth and fulfill religious obligations as well. The only problem with this argument is that all these benefits can be enjoyed in any religious function or a family gathering, why bother spending it all on a marriage?
My explanation for expensive marriages is that it acts as an insurance against divorce and/or family break up. To see why, say suppose a family spends 100,000$ (a huge amount for indians) on a marriage. The longer the marriage survives, the lesser the cost-per-succesful-year-of-marriage. Say this particular marriage survives for 40 years, the average cost is 2,500$. On the contrary, if the marriage survives only a year, the average cost is 100,000$. Any heir who cares about his family wealth will want to reap the benefit of marriage for as long as possible, so as to keep the average cost down. If this explanation is hard to stomach, consider the allegory of the train pass. When you a purchase a year-long train pass and travel only for a day, you lose. You're better off using the train service more frequently or not buying the pass at all! Marriage is a one-time investment, to make the most of it, you need to be married longer. Couples will then only consider divorce if the benefits of marriage are out-weighed by the benefits of living alone and the cost of marriage is less than what it would cost to keep the family together. Some might consider marriage itself expensive if all marriages become expensive and decide to remain single, which might be less costlier than a huge extravagant marriage with thousands of people.
Dowries have a similar rationale. I don't think dowry is a good idea, for unlike voluntary splurges on marriages, parents who have to pay the dowry don't think about the longitivtiy of the marriage. They only think of it is a due that must be paid. But in any case, dowries act in a similar fashion. A girl whose parents have paid a huge dowry to get her married will be more careful with her marriage. However there is also a catch. Dowries incentivize the boy's family to harass the girl since they know that the girl would stick on despite being harassed. To prevent this asymmetry, I am totally against either the boy's or girl's family taking up all the cost of the marriage. An even spread would ensure that the costs of marriage weigh upon the decisions of the respective families when they decide to severe ties! Also, dowries when shared equally are better than just marriages for if they are in the form of money or investments, they can be re-used for other important expenses. I don't like the word ''dowry", "mutual pre-marital colletaral" sounds better. Next up, why do employees "on-duty" fly business class more often than tourists?
No comments:
Post a Comment