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

• Author: Fran Bennett
• Date: 01 June 2013
• Published date: 01 June 2013
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12020

FRAN BENNETT University of Oxford

Researching Within-Household Distribution:

Overview, Developments, Debates,

and Methodological Challenges

Research into intrahousehold f‌inances chal-

lenges key assumptions about the family as

a unitary whole, investigates the extent of

sharing within it, examines mechanisms of

control and allocation of resources, and

reveals the personalized nature of different

monies. This article presents an overview

of research on within-household distribution

(understood as both outcome and process). It

discusses major questions addressed, including

inequalities between (gendered) individuals

and the potential reasons for these. It outlines

signif‌icant developments and debates, within

qualitative research in particular, in relation to

the unit of analysis (traditionally, the married

couple), the texture and meaning of f‌inancial

dealings within couples, and the tensions

between autonomy and equal sharing as values.

It then discusses several key methodological

challenges, and concludes by highlighting

some policy implications of central research

messages. Throughout, it draws on and dis-

cusses the other articles in this special section,

which explore key methodological issues in

researching within-household distribution.

‘‘Research on the material aspects of family life

is not easy because so much economic behaviour

Department of Social Policy and Intervention, 32

Wellington Square, Oxford OX1 2ER, England

(fran.bennett@spi.ox.ac.uk).

Key Words: decision making, equality, fairness, family

resource management, gender.

takes place (literally) behind closed doors.’’

(Burgoyne, Clarke, Reibstein, & Edmunds,

2006, p. 619)

As this quotation suggests, in relation to

f‌inancial dealings within the household the

family has often been seen as a ‘‘black box’’ that

it is not possible to investigate (Pahl, 1989, p.

4). More substantively, such investigation could

be seen as unnecessary interference, because

the family is in any case a ‘‘glued-together’’

unit whose interests are as one (Sen, 1997, p.

371). Two further, more specif‌ic, assumptions

tend to follow. First, all household members

are assumed to benef‌it equally, or at least

proportionally to their needs, from household

resources. Second, incomes are put together

‘‘all in one pot’’ (Sung & Bennett, 2007) for

distribution, with no differentiation, and with

any mechanisms of control or decision making

remaining unexamined. These assumptions

are applied in particular to coresident family

members—the ‘‘family household’’ (Haddad,

Hoddinott, & Alderman, 1997). A third, addi-

tional assumption relates to the nature of money,

which may be viewed as an essentially neutral,

and endlessly fungible, means of exchange

within the household as well as outside.

An alternative body of thought on

within-household distribution, however, has

interrogated each of these three assumptions and

found them wanting. First, while acknowledging

that people can derive various benef‌its from

living together (Himmelweit & Santos, 2009), it

is argued that, because of the unequal positions

of individuals in households, some sharing of

582 Journal of Marriage and Family 75 (June 2013): 582 –597

DOI:10.1111/jomf.12020

Researching Within-Household Distribution 583

resources is often necessary—but may not itself

be equal. Second, it is asserted that an allocation

method must intervene between receipt of

household resources and their consumption,

and that this should be scrutinized. Last, in

relation to the nature of money, instead of

this being neutral, researchers argue that it

has ‘‘social meaning’’ in varying contexts

(Nyman, 2003; Singh, 1997; Zelizer, 1994). As

Robeyns (2003) argued, for example, ‘‘even if

household income were shared completely, it is

problematic to assume that it does not matter in

a well-being assessment whether a person has

earned this money herself, or obtained it from

her partner’’ (p. 65). Money is thus a social and

ideological, not just an economic, medium of

exchange (Pahl, 1989). ‘‘Personalized’’ monies

in particular, such as those from a spouse,

can carry expectations about future behavior

(Hallerod, Diaz, & Stocks, 2007, pp. 144 –

147) and be ‘‘laden with meaning’’ (Nyman,

Reinikainen, & Stocks, 2013, this issue); money

thus forms an integral part of the ‘‘emotional

economy’’ of family life (Goode, 2010).

As the above discussion suggests, within-

household distribution (or sharing) can refer to

both outcomes on the one hand and processes

on the other (Jenkins, 1994). Researchers in

this area have therefore investigated the con-

sumption, welfare, or well-being of individuals

within households (outcomes) as well as how,

if at all, this is connected with the control,

management, and spending of resources (pro-

cesses). They have examined the relationship of

both of these to other factors and the possible

reasons for any patterns thus revealed. Also,

the source, labeling, and recipient of different

monies have been seen as potentially impor-

tant, in terms of the perception of their value

and use and their impact on inequalities in the

household.

Researchers motivated to explore these ques-

tions have often been interested in gen-

der inequalities because, as Nussbaum (2000)

argued, ‘‘women are too often treated as mem-

bers of an organic unit such as the family or

community is supposed to be, and their interests

subordinated to the larger goals of that unit’’ (p.

227). Thus, male – female couples have been

the main focus of enquiry, though clearly within-

household distribution is also an issue for chil-

dren, and households can also be wider than the

nuclear family unit. The family is recognized as

a key site of distribution of labor and time as well

as material resources (Lister, 2005), but this area

of research focuses on material resources—and

often, within that, on income (seen by Davies &

Joshi, 1994, p. 302 as only a ‘‘narrow aspect’’ of

the full range of resources distributed between

family members and the associated dynamics of

power and interdependence).

This area of research developed from the mid-

20th century (Nyman & Dema, 2007), and more

rapidly from the 1980s, stimulated in part by

women’s increasing participation in the labor

market in many industrialized countries and by

emerging evidence of gendered inequalities in

power and resources. Pahl (1989), for example,

noted that some victims of domestic violence

in the United Kingdom said they felt better off

having left their partner because, despite the

meager level of social security they received,

they had control over it.

The growing inf‌luence of feminists in f‌ields

such as economics and international develop-

ment was also signif‌icant. Although the research

analyzed in this special section focuses largely

on Organisation for Economic Co-operation and

Development member states, within-household

distribution in lower income countries has also

been thoroughly investigated (Bolt & Bird,

2003; Haddad et al., 1997; Haddad & Kanbur,

1990; Pahl, 2008). Indeed, by the late 1990s,

Haddad et al. (p. 11) could argue that the burden

of proof had shifted to defense rather than

maintenance of the income-pooling assumption

implied by the unitary household model.

The other articles in this special section

examine questions of methodology in research

on within-household distribution. This article

discusses major questions addressed in such

research, together with some of its main

f‌indings; outlines signif‌icant developments and

debates; discusses key methodological issues;

and concludes by highlighting some policy

implications. It gives an overview of the f‌ield

of research as a whole, though with more

detail on qualitative research, in part in order

to unpack some key underlying concepts and

in part to complement the remaining articles in

this section, which contain more examples of

quantitative enquiry. The authors of the articles

in this special section believe that research on

within-household distribution can signif‌icantly

enrich our knowledge of the interrelationships of

gender and family (Ferree, 2010) and contribute

to our understanding of the dynamics of intimate

relationships in changing times (Demo, 2010).