The Intertwining of Money and Love in Couple Relationships

Researching Within‐Household Distribution: Overview, Developments, Debates, and Methodological Challenges

“…Kan and Laurie () found that men's psychological well‐being was affected by their own levels of savings, investments, and debts, whereas women's was also affected by their partner's. Also, Diaz, Dema, and Ibanez () demonstrated that, even when all family income is put together, this may be used by men and women differently in some couples (in Spain) in this case because of the status hierarchies of different monies. In addition, because of women's “compulsory altruism” (Land & Rose, ), what they spend on the family and household may be seen, by both themselves and their partners, as personal spending (Fleming, , pp.…”

“…Researchers have also warned against reading off the degree of financial jointness from whether couples have joint and/or separate bank accounts (Lewis, ; Sung & Bennett, ), and Lee and Pocock (), for example, pointed out that South Korean couples rarely have joint accounts. In earlier research, “equality” often seemed to be interpreted as meaning togetherness and sharing, but evidence has shown that joint finances can conceal unequal access (often gendered), and supposedly “pooled” money can provide a cover for one partner's personal spending or project to be privileged (Bisdee et al, ; Diaz et al, ). Ashby and Burgoyne argued that “pooled” money can be seen as separately owned, and vice versa.…”

Reflections on a Cross‐National Qualitative Study of Within‐Household Finances

“…In the light of the weak Mediterranean welfare state, with a high level of familism, the family is the primary arena for support, and the state's role is minor. Pooling money for Spanish couples was seen as a necessary aspect of promoting the strength of the couple/family unit in both emotional and economic terms (Díaz et al, ).…”

“…The spectrum of financial arrangements, allocation of resources, and ways of conceptualizing (for example) ownership of money or fairness could be expected to be greater if a wider variety of types of couples were included. Including only married couples, who more often operate as a single economic unit and prioritize the needs of the couple (Pahl, ) would, for example, increase the likelihood that the interviewed couples pooled their money, because pooling has been found to be the dominant form of financial management among this group (Díaz et al, ; Pahl, ; Vogler, Brockmann, & Wiggins, ). Including nontraditional couples (e.g., cohabiting couples, same‐sex couples, and couples LAT), who have been found to value financial autonomy and are more likely to keep their money separate (Burns, Burgoyne, & Clarke, ; Elizabeth, ; Evertsson & Nyman, ; Vogler et al), meant that our data would likely include more couples who used one of the individualized systems of money management, independent management or partial pooling.…”

“…The ways in which couples organized their finances and allocated money and consumption were the specific focus for the study. In addition to contributing to the growing body of knowledge about this field of research, this focus would also serve as a lens through which one could investigate several aspects of the couples' lives (Díaz, Dema, & Ibáñez, ; Evertsson & Nyman, ; Ludwig‐Mayerhofer, Allmendinger, Hirseland, & Schneider, ; Nyman & Reinikainen, ; Stocks, Díaz, & Halleröd, ; Wilson & Stocks, ). In this article, we discuss some aspects of this collaborative research project by sharing experiences concerning theoretical and methodological aspects of conducting cross‐national qualitative research on within‐household distribution.…”