In Pakistan, where societal expectations dictate much of a woman’s life choices, a growing number of educated and independent women are remaining single. Despite their professional success and financial independence, they often struggle to find partners who meet their expectations. This phenomenon raises an important question: why do so many highly educated Pakistani women remain unmarried?

Nobel laureate Gary Becker’s economic theory of marriage offers a compelling explanation. Becker revolutionized the study of family dynamics by applying economic principles to marriage, introducing the idea of a “marriage market” where individuals make rational choices to maximize personal benefits. His theory suggests that people enter the marriage market seeking financial stability, companionship, and social security, weighing the costs and benefits before committing. But in modern Pakistan, does marriage still offer the same benefits to independent women?

For decades, Pakistani society has upheld a rigid archetype of the “ideal woman”—young, educated, and preferably earning, but never outshining her husband. This concept, often referred to as the “doctor bahu” ideal, presents a contradiction. Women are encouraged to pursue higher education, but only within limits that maintain traditional gender roles.

When a woman is presented for marriage in the infamous “tea trolley parade,” Becker’s theory suggests that both she and her potential husband evaluate their economic and social advantages. Traditionally, a man offers financial stability, while a woman brings homemaking skills and child-rearing potential. This creates a mutually beneficial economic transaction—each party specializes in a different role, enhancing overall household efficiency.

For educated women who have surpassed their so-called “prime”—those living independently, earning well, or even working abroad—marriage no longer fits the standard cost-benefit model. The traditional comparative advantage disappears when a woman excels in both career and household management, making her less reliant on a spouse for financial security.

At this stage, the question shifts from “Will marriage improve my life?” to “Will marriage compromise my independence?” Many financially independent women experience a quiet relief knowing they are not trapped in an unhappy marriage dictated by societal pressures. This realization forces a reevaluation of marriage as a rational choice—is it still beneficial, or does it pose more risks than rewards?

Despite financial stability, the human need for companionship remains a strong motivator. However, if companionship becomes the primary reason for marriage, then finding a suitable partner becomes even more challenging. Unlike financial security, companionship is subjective, and settling for less is not an option.

Pl subscribe to the YouTube channel of republicpolicy.com for quality podcasts:

Becker’s theory still holds relevance in this scenario—women tend to seek partners equal to or above their socioeconomic status. If a woman has a graduate degree, a stable career, and a comfortable lifestyle, her ideal partner should at least match her education level and ambitions. In economics, the concept of “ceteris paribus” (all else being equal) applies here: when companionship is the primary factor for marriage, the search for a partner focuses on compatibility beyond just financial security.

If, keeping all else constant, a man’s presence enhances a woman’s life without restricting her freedom, marriage becomes a rational choice. But if a partnership requires sacrificing autonomy, career growth, or peace of mind, the single life remains the better option.

Becker also introduced the concept of “positive assortative mating”, where individuals with similar characteristics—such as education, career level, and values—are more likely to marry each other. Research in Pakistan supports this theory. A study by Daraz et al. (2023) found that highly educated women in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa preferred partners who shared their educational and professional aspirations, rather than those selected by family traditions.

In contrast, women who break away from traditional norms find it difficult to identify suitable partners within their socioeconomic class. With fewer equally educated or financially independent men available, the marriage market narrows significantly for these women.

Beyond economic theories, another explanation comes from Prospect Theory, developed by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. This theory suggests that people evaluate potential losses more seriously than potential gains, leading to greater risk aversion.

For independent women, the risks of marriage often outweigh the perceived benefits. Given Pakistan’s rising divorce rates and cases of intimate-partner violence, many women—especially those accustomed to financial security—view marriage as a potential loss rather than a guaranteed gain. The fear of a failed marriage, emotional distress, or even financial setbacks makes the idea of staying single a safer and more comfortable choice.

For some, singlehood becomes a preference rather than a compromise. After years of independence, many women have developed routines, personal ambitions, and social circles that make integrating a partner into their lives a disruption rather than an enhancement.

A widely discussed article in The Atlantic, titled “The People Who Quit Dating” by Faith Hill, explores a similar phenomenon—singles who have stopped searching for partners. Hill refers to this as an “ambiguous loss”, suggesting that the uncertainty of never finding a partner can feel like an emotional burden.

Pl visit our website for more details:

However, from an economic perspective, singlehood is not a loss but an ambiguous situation. It only becomes a loss if one settles for a partner who diminishes rather than enhances their life. The marriage market, like any other market, is about making rational choices. If a partnership does not offer genuine companionship, respect, and shared goals, then remaining single is simply the smarter option.

The increasing number of educated single women in Pakistan is not a failure of the marriage market—it is a sign of progress. These women have made rational choices, prioritizing personal growth, financial independence, and emotional well-being over societal expectations.

Marriage should be a partnership of equals, not a transaction dictated by outdated gender roles. If marriage does not enhance a woman’s life, it is no longer a necessity—it is an option. And in that choice lies the true empowerment of modern Pakistani women.