Money in heterosexual relationships

Abstract

Money in middle-income Anglo-Celtic marriage is joint and nebulous, whereas money in cohabiting heterosexual relationships is separate and calculable. The move from cohabitation to marriage is accompanied by greater jointness in the management of money. As the nature of the couple's commitment becomes more explicit in marriage, money becomes more nebulous and less calculable. However, in both marriage and cohabitation, the questions of equality, power and control are blocked so that the reality of women's lower income does not challenge the popular discourse of marriage and cohabitation being equal partnerships. The secular rituals of the marital joint account and purposive pooling in cohabitation channel information to reduce the gap between ideology and experience on the one hand, and the contradictions between coexisting ideologies on the other. These conclusions are based on two separate qualitative studies of 16 married couples and 15 cohabiting couples in Melbourne, between 1991 and1994.

When My Money Becomes Our Money: Changes in Couples’ Money Management

“…All in all, studies on changes from an independent money management system to joint pooling are rather scarce and do not provide clear empirical evidence, as shown for the non-representative, qualitative studies on marriage, for example Burgoyne et al (2010) and Singh and Lindsay (1996), where the number of observed marriages was small. There is no evidence available on the effect of childbirth on money management systems.…”

“…Cohabitation money is highly individualised and kept separate, as shown by various studies (e.g., Vogler, 2005;Vogler et al, 2006). In contrast, the majority of married couples have been found to pool their incomes (Heimdal and Houseknecht, 2003;Lauer and Yodanis, 2011) and organise 'marriage money', which is joint but also nebulous (Singh and Lindsay, 1996). Besides marriage, childbirth is another expression of commitment to the relationship and also makes joint investments necessary.…”

“…The majority of couples who changed their management system moved to partial pooling (nineteen couples) and less than half of the couples who changed their system moved to joint pooling (fifteen couples). In their qualitative study of married couples (mostly born in the 1940s and 1950s) and cohabiting couples (mostly born in the 1960s) in Australia, Singh and Lindsay (1996) only observed two couples who got married out of fifteen cohabiting couples. These two couples changed to joint pooling after one year of marriage.…”

La gestion commune au sein des couples : une question de mariage ou pas ?

“…2006) ; en Nouvelle-Zélande (Elizabeth, 2001), en Norvège (Lyngstad et collab. 2011) ; au Danemark et en Espagne (Hamplová et Le Bourdais, 2009) et en Australie (Singh et Lindsay, 1996). Trois explications à ce phénomène sont géné-ralement évoquées.…”

Household Finances, Income Shocks, and Family Separation in Britain

“…Such a finding is in line with expectations. As the nature of a couple's commitment becomes more explicit in marriage, resources are often pooled (Singh and Lindsay, 1996). Hence, home-ownership, which often leads to the pooling of resources, may be viewed as a sign of commitment.…”