Managing money in British and Swedish households

Roman, Christine; Vogler, Carolyn

doi:10.1080/14616696.1999.10749939

Cited by 35 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies from other countries have confirmed that there are strong links between money and power in relationships (Vogler, 1998), that patterns of money management within family households are rooted in economic as well as cultural differences Roman & Vogler, 1999;Singh, 1997), and that these patterns are undergoing significant changes (Pahl, 2005;Vogler, 2005). A comparative study between Britain and Sweden has indicated that gender ideologies, in addition to differences in women's contributions to household income, play a crucial role in contributing to the handling of money within marriage (Roman & Vogler, 1999).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 82%

Shared or separate? Money management and changing norms of gender equality among Norwegian couples

Knudsen

Wærness

2009

Community, Work & Family

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 82%

Shared or separate? Money management and changing norms of gender equality among Norwegian couples

Knudsen

Wærness

2009

Community, Work & Family

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Among cohabiting couples, however, gender inequalities are likely to emerge for a slightly different reason. To the extent that cohabiting couples earning different amounts, define equality in the same way as their counterparts in New Zealand, Australia and America, namely as contributing equally to household expenditure (rather than equality in access to money for personal spending and saving) it is possible that the partial pool and the independent management systems may enable gender inequalities generated in the labour market to be more directly transposed into inequalities within households, so that the higher earner ends up with more control over and greater access to money for discretionary spending (Singh and Lindsay 1996; Brines and Joyner 1999; Elizabeth 2001; Roman and Vogler 1999). Indeed, the reason why cohabiting couples earning different amounts are more likely than those earning similar amounts to use one of these systems may be precisely because they enable the higher earner to retain control over higher levels of discretionary income, despite the decline of traditional discourses of male breadwinning and the increasing importance of egalitarian ideologies of co‐provisioning.…”

Section: Who Earns More?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Intimate relationships and changing patterns of money management at the beginning of the twenty‐first century¹

Vogler

Brockmann

Wiggins

2006

British Journal of Sociology

Self Cite

140

133

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drawing on British data from two annual sweeps of the ISSP eight years apart in 1994 and 2002, for modules focusing on 'Family and Changing Gender Roles', this paper examines the extent to which changes in women's labour market participation, changing ideologies/discourses of gender and changing forms of intimate relationships are affecting the ways in which couples organize household money, and the implications of such changes for recent theories of intimate relationships. The analysis indicates that by 2002, the type of relationship respondents had established, together with their social class position, were both independently related to the ways in which they managed money, after controlling for socio-economic and cultural or discursive factors. Our findings also provide a degree of support for the thesis of a partial decline in the male breadwinner model of gender, as indicated by small declines in the use of the relatively inegalitarian female whole wage and housekeeping allowance systems which were most likely to be used by married couples and cohabiting fathers, expressing relatively traditional ideologies/discourses of breadwinning - and a slight increase in the use of the partial pool, which was most likely to be used by childless cohabiting couples in which male partners expressed less traditional ideologies of breadwinning and women were in middle-class jobs with incomes high enough to facilitate partially separate finances. We also suggest, however, that in so far as cohabiting couples earning different amounts define equality as contributing equally to household expenditure, it is possible that rather than being associated with shifts to greater equality in access to money for personal spending and saving, the partial pool may be associated with marked inequalities, because it may enable gender inequalities generated in the labour market to be more directly transposed into inequalities within households, despite the decline of traditional discourses of male breadwinning and the increasing importance of egalitarian ideologies of co-provisioning.

show abstract

“…Since White v. White (2000), the starting point in dividing married couples’ assets (individual and joint property, personal savings, life assurance savings, shares, pension assets and so on) on divorce is an equal split. But cohabiting couples are not protected by the same legislation and there might be marked gender divisions in access to economic resources within the home that pooling their assets will overlook (Roman and Vogler, 1999; Vogler and Pahl, 1994). Nevertheless, for this article, it was decided to assume that a woman and man in any couple, married or cohabiting, would receive exactly equal shares from any ‘benefit unit’ marketable assets (housing and financial), in addition to their own individually accrued pension savings.…”

Section: Data Sources and Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Privileged Pole? Diversity in Women's Pay, Pensions and Wealth in Britain

Warren¹

2003

Gender Work & Organization

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Is gender on its own becoming redundant in the analysis of employment experiences? There is a growing interest in economic diversity amongst women within the social sciences, with commentators suggesting, firstly, that a polarization in women's labour market experiences is occurring. Secondly, economic diversity amongst women may even be so distinct that a privileged pole is faring substantially better in wage and occupational terms than most men. This article uses data from the Family Resources Survey to explore these two suggestions. It concludes that the success on the labour market that has been achieved by an economically privileged pole amongst women supports the decline in the power of gender to explain variation in occupational patterns and wages, but it is clear that gender (tempered with awareness of the ways that it is cross-cut by class, ethnicity and other social divisions) remains an invaluable explanatory variable for our understanding of economic security in its fuller sense, not least in the pension positions of women.

show abstract

Managing money in British and Swedish households

Cited by 35 publications

References 12 publications

Shared or separate? Money management and changing norms of gender equality among Norwegian couples

Shared or separate? Money management and changing norms of gender equality among Norwegian couples

Intimate relationships and changing patterns of money management at the beginning of the twenty‐first century¹

A Privileged Pole? Diversity in Women's Pay, Pensions and Wealth in Britain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Managing money in British and Swedish households

Cited by 35 publications

References 12 publications

Shared or separate? Money management and changing norms of gender equality among Norwegian couples

Shared or separate? Money management and changing norms of gender equality among Norwegian couples

Intimate relationships and changing patterns of money management at the beginning of the twenty‐first century1

A Privileged Pole? Diversity in Women's Pay, Pensions and Wealth in Britain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Intimate relationships and changing patterns of money management at the beginning of the twenty‐first century¹