Common law marriage and couple formation

Table 2 CLM marginal effects in regressions of individual probability of being in couple

	Basic model		State characteristics added		State-specific time trends added, 3 years after each repeal removed
	Women	Men	Women	Men	Women	Men
A. Full sample
CLM	-0.011	-0.028	-0.012	-0.025	-0.038	-0.065
	[0.011]	[0.012]**	[0.012]	[0.013]*	[0.018]**	[0.017]***
Observations	321917	292376	321917	292376	202309	183543
B. Only three transition states: Idaho (1996), Georgia (1997), Pennsylvania (2005)
CLM	-0.03	-0.035	0.016	-0.002	-0.035	-0.061
	[0.012]**	[0.014]**	[0.013]	[0.017]	[0.018]*	[0.023]***
Observations	22176	19786	22176	19786	13708	12275
Other controls in the model
Individual characteristics	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
State characteristics			Yes	yes	yes	Yes
Year dummies	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
State dummies	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
State-specific time trends					Yes	Yes

Notes: This table shows estimates of the probit marginal effects from equation (1) estimated at the mean. Each entry comes from a separate regression. All regressions include individual demographic characteristics and state fixed effects. Basic model and model with state characteristics include year fixed effects. The last model does not include year fixed effects; instead it includes state-specific time trends, and it excludes 3 years after the repeal of the law in each transition state (1996-99, 2005-07 are excluded).
Here and in all tables: *significant at 10%; **significant at 5%; ***significant at 1%. Robust standard errors are clustered by state and year, shown in brackets; individuals’ survey weights are used.