Money Management and Gender Equality: An Analysis of Dual‐Earner Couples in Western Europe

• Published date: 01 October 2020
• Author: Beyda Çineli
• Date: 01 October 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12465

B Ç Universitat Pompeu Fabra

Money Management and Gender Equality: An

Analysis of Dual-Earner Couples in Western Europe

Objective: To explore the conditions under

which couples use different money management

systems.

Background: Both joint and individualized

money management systems are associated

more with gender egalitarian values than with

the traditional “breadwinner” system. How-

ever, prior research has not fully examined the

differences between these systems in terms of

power relation attributes amongst couples, such

as couples’ relative income, age difference, and

the associations with gender egalitarian values.

Method: The International Social Survey Pro-

gram “Family and Changing Gender Roles”

2012 module (N=2,520) was used to estimate

multinomial logistic regression models predict-

ing the likelihood of using different money man-

agement systems.

Results: The probability of using individual-

ized or joint money management systems was

much higher than traditional system for those

who have more gender egalitarian beliefs. This

probability was signicantly higher for the indi-

vidualized system. For a couple with income

homogamy, the probability of using either the

joint or the individualized system was higher.

For relationships in which the males were older

or earned signicantly more money than their

partners, the likelihood of using nontraditional

systems (joint/individualized) was lower.

Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Jaume I Building (Ciutadella

campus), Ramon Trias Fargas, 25-27, 08005 Barcelona,

Spain (beyda.cineli@upf.edu).

Key Words: family sociology, gender arrangements, gen-

der inequalities, household nancial organization, intimate

relationships.

Conclusion: Couples who appeared relatively

more traditional on characteristics such as indi-

vidual gender role attitudes, relative income,

and age difference are also more likely to use

more traditional strategy. The individualized

system, which is a newer method couples use to

manage their money, is the most closely associ-

ated with gender egalitarian values.

Implications: Policymakers who focus on

poverty and income inequalities should avoid

treating the household as a single unit but

rather take into consideration within-household

inequalities and gender differences. Fur-

thermore, couple education and couple

therapy–oriented policies can incorporate

sessions about household money management

into counselling programs for couples.

In the wake of World War II, a convergence

toward a common pattern of gender and family

behavior emerged. This pattern was charac-

terized by the nuclear family, with the men

as the breadwinners and the women as the

homemakers; early marriages and rst births;

high fertility; stable partnerships; and low

rates of divorce, singlehood, and childlessness

(Becker, 1981). Toward the end of the 20th

century, a rival equilibrium started to emerge.

This equilibrium, termed the gender equality

equilibrium by Esping-Andersen (2009), was

characterized by women’s quest for human capi-

tal, economic autonomy, and lifetime dedication

to paid work. These elements together redened

family life.

Although gender inequalities persist and

women continue to earn less than men, women’s

Family Relations 69 (October 2020): 803–819 803

DOI:10.1111/fare.12465

804 Family Relations

average contribution to couples’ joint lifetime

income has increased (Rake, 2000; Rake & Jay-

atilaka, 2002). In Western countries, both men

and women have adopted considerably fewer

traditional gender roles in both the home and

the labor market. Nevertheless, men still appear

to hold more traditional beliefs, particularly in

regard to unpaid work. Notably, beliefs regard-

ing unpaid caring and household tasks have

not changed as much as women’s paid work

(Crompton et al., 2003). Another observed trend

is postponing or even forgoing marriage in favor

of cohabitation relationships. Cherlin (2004)

argued that marriage is becoming increasingly

deinstitutionalized as the social norms related to

spousal roles continue to weaken.

In this work, I aimed to determine whether

these economic, cultural, and demographic

changes are associated with how couples orga-

nize their money. First, I exploredthe conditions

under which couples use nontraditional money

management systems (joint/individualized).

Second, I examined how these systems are asso-

ciated with gender equality values. For example,

when discussing the shift from one-person

management (e.g., male breadwinner model) to

more egalitarian money management systems,

should we refer to joint money management or

individualized money management?

Couples’ management of nancial assets is

an important topic for gender studies because

asset management is also an indication of the

level of equality in a relationship. An imbalance

in the access to and control of resources can

have serious consequences, including the depen-

dence of one spouse on the other and barriers

to leaving unsafe and unhealthy relationships

(Barnett & La Violette, 1993). Restricted access

to assets is related also to a number of indica-

tors of inequality, such as a disproportionate

share of unpaid housework and less power and

inuence in decision-making (Blumstein &

Schwartz, 1991).

Using a quantitative approach, I compared

individual- and couple-level dynamics behind

the following three money management systems,

which are dened and explored in the following

sections: one-person management (traditional

breadwinner model), joint management, and

individualized management. Exploring indi-

vidualized management system quantitatively

with a comparative perspective is one of the

gaps I aimed to ll with this research. Because

most studies have focused on well-established

married couples (Burgoyne, 1990; Burgoyne

& Lewis, 1994; Fleming, 1997; Nyman, 1999;

Pahl, 1989, 1990; Singh, 1997; Tichenor, 1999;

Treas & Widmer, 2000; Vogler & Pahl, 1994;

Yodanis & Lauer, 2007), the individualized

system remains a less explored money man-

agement system. More recent studies exploring

nancial practices in both married and nonmar-

ried couples have reported a higher incidence

of the individualized system (Ashby & Bur-

goyne, 2008; Hiekel et al., 2014; Pahl, 2008;

Vogler et al., 2008). The changes in the nature

of marriage (in particular, a decline in the tra-

ditional breadwinner model of marriage) and

the increase in cohabitation may account for

the use of more separate systems of money

management (Lauer & Yodanis, 2011; Vogler

et al., 2008; Yodanis & Lauer, 2014).

I also compare the two nontraditional systems

(the joint and individualized systems) in terms

of their associations with gender equality val-

ues. Research has shown that when one spouse

manages the assets, an imbalance in the con-

trol of money and experiences of deprivation are

more common (Pahl, 1995). Also, the individual

egalitarian gendered role beliefs are related to a

decreased likelihood of using the traditional sys-

tem (Yodanis & Lauer, 2007). However, to my

knowledge, there is no research that has com-

pared the individualized and joint systems (vs.

the traditional system) in terms of their associa-

tions with gender equality beliefs.

Data from the International Social Survey

Program (ISSP) Family and Changing Gender

Roles 2012 module was used for the analysis.

The empirical analysis was cross-sectional.

A multinomial logit regression analysis was

conducted using a sample of 2,520 individu-

als in dual-earner couples relationship from

10 countries in Western Europe. The analysis

compared the likelihood of employing joint or

individualized strategies of money management

over employing a more traditional strategy (one

person managing the couple’s funds). Because

the outcome variable money management sys-

tem was a relationship level variable, I tried to

explain it again using the couple characteris-

tics as the main explanatory variables. Given

that the sample was composed of individuals

from 10 countries, also a contextual-level vari-

able was included in the analysis as a control

variable.

To contextualize the analysis, I begin with a

literature review of rational choice and gender