Why are countless educated Pakistani women single? Gary Becker’s economic theory of marriage can provide an answer. A Nobel laureate, Becker revolutionised family dynamics by applying economic principles to marriage with the introduction of a marriage market so that people could make rational choices to maximise utility. According to his theory, individuals enter the marriage market seeking to maximise personal benefits, such as financial stability, companionship, and child-rearing potential. They weigh the costs and benefits of marriage and choose to marry if the pros overshadow the cons.
In Pakistan, the ideal woman is expected to be young, educated and earning. But not more than the man. This archetype, often referred to as “doctor bahu”, is a disproportionate ambition. She is presented to potential suitors in the usual “tea trolley parade”. Applying Becker’s theory here, the woman stands to benefit economically from marriage if her partner is financially stable and willing to support family life. From the stereotypical man’s perspective, marriage offers gains through comparative advantage, where he excels in the labour market and she excels in household management. In this set-up, marriage becomes a rational choice for both; each side gains from the arrangement, creating a mutually beneficial economic transaction.
But what about independent women who have surpassed society’s idea of their “prime”? Living on their own, possibly abroad, with fulfilling jobs and a higher education than potential partners, they challenge Becker’s theory in the Pakistani marriage market. The traditional comparative advantage no longer applies if a woman has an absolute advantage – excelling in both household management and the labour market. With autonomy and success already achieved, how does she weigh the benefits of marriage against her independence? This shift questions the conventional view of marriage as a mutually beneficial transaction and demands a re-evaluation of how such women navigate the marriage market.
At this stage, you no longer rely on a man for financial support and are fully capable of managing domestic responsibilities on your own with security and comfort. There is a quiet sense of relief in knowing you are not trapped in an unhappy marriage. The question is: is marriage even a beneficial option anymore? The only reason to consider it at this stage appears to be the longing for companionship.
Human beings are inherently social and the need for companionship often outweighs the cost of being alone. However, if companionship is the sole factor driving the shift from single to married then finding the right partner becomes a challenging task. There is no need to settle for less than you deserve. While Becker’s theory may seem simplistic, it still holds immense relevance: women tend to seek partners who are either equal to or above their socioeconomic standing. If you are a woman with a graduate degree, for example, your ideal partner becomes someone with a similar level of education or career. In economics, we use the concept of ceterisparibus, meaning ‘all else being equal’. This concept applies here as well: if companionship is the primary factor for marriage, we are, in essence, keeping everything else constant and looking for a partner who matches our social and economic standing. The added value then comes from his personality and the quality of his company. Ultimately, if, keeping all else constant, his presence enhances your life, marriage becomes a rational choice.
Becker calls this phenomenon “positive assortative mating”, where individuals with similar characteristics, such as education level or socioeconomic status, marry each other. Studies show that positive educational assortative mating is common, with individuals often marrying those with comparable educational backgrounds. In Pakistan, research by Daraz et al (2023) found a strong link between women’s educational attainment and empowerment in mate selection. Interviews with 500 educated women in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa revealed a preference for partners who share their values and aspirations, moving away from traditional family or societal criteria.
Another explanation could be rooted in the “prospect theory”, developed by Kahneman and Tversky. This theory suggests individuals evaluate losses and gains differently. Research indicates that women may weigh potential losses more seriously than men, contributing to greater risk aversion, which can impact economic decisions like career choices. In light of rising divorce rates and a high prevalence of intimate-partner violence, women – especially the financially independent ones – may view the risks of relationships and marriage as too great. The fear of relationships falling apart can make the idea of entering a partnership less appealing. For many women, particularly those who have grown accustomed to their independence, being on their own can feel safer and more comfortable. In a way, we have become so familiar with our own space and routine that the thought of disrupting the balance for the uncertainties of marriage seems less desirable.
A highly discussed article in The Atlantic, “The people who quit dating”, by Faith Hill, explores a similar phenomenon: singles who have given up the search for a partner. Hill refers to it as an “ambiguous loss”, emphasising the uncertainty of whether we will ever find a match. From an economic perspective, however, this situation is ambiguous but not a ‘loss’. It only becomes a loss if we choose a partner who leaves us worse off than we were earlier. In reality, we remain in a state of ambiguity, but not loss. We can still make rational choices – selecting a partner who enhances our well-being rather than settle for one who detracts from it. The timing and circumstances remain uncertain, but in the meantime, we are exactly where we need to be: grateful, fulfilled, and making the best possible choice for ourselves.
The writer is an assistant professor of economics at St Olaf College.
