Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T10:47:23.021Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Patterns of Money Management within Marriage*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2009

Jan Pahl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Much social and economic policy is based upon units such as the tax unit or the household, and much of it makes certain assumptions about flows of resources within these units. This article focuses on the control and allocation of financial resources within households, drawing on work done in the past and on original material taken from a study of the problems of a group of women whose marriages had broken down because of violence. Concentrating on the household type which is composed of a married couple and their dependent children, the article outlines three broad types of allocation system – the whole wage system, the allowance system and the pooling system. It is suggested that there are links between the system of allocation within the family, the stage in the life cycle which the family has reached, the income level of the household, and the occupational, regional and ethnic culture within which the household is located. The article concludes by suggesting that a better knowledge of intra-household money flows would be relevant to discussion concerned with the distribution of poverty, the allocation of welfare benefits, and the contribution made by married women's earnings to family living standards, and that it would also contribute to a better understanding of marital tension and marital breakdown.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , July 1980 , pp. 313 - 335
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Central Statistical Office, Social Trends no. 10, HMSO, London, 1979, p. 133.Google Scholar

2 This problem has been discussed by many of those who have been concerned with measuring the extent and nature of poverty; see in particular Townsend, P., Poverty in the United Kingdom, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, 1979, pp. 270–1 and 919–26Google Scholar; Fiegehen, G. C., Lansley, P. S. and Smith, A. D., Poverty and Progress in Britain 1953–73, Cambridge University Press, London, 1977, p. 46Google Scholar; and Atkinson, A. B., ‘Poverty and Income Inequality in Britain’, in Wedderburn, D. (ed.), Poverty, Inequality and Class Structure, Cambridge University Press, London, 1974, p. 44.Google Scholar

3 The idea of sharing is itself problematic. What would a ‘fair share’ be for any one family member? It has always been assumed that dependent children ‘need’ varying incomes according to their age, and these assumptions are reflected in the sums paid by, for example, the Supplementary Benefits Commission. It is not the intention of this article to question this, though some recent work has suggested that present levels of supplementary benefit payments, particularly those for children, are not high enough – see Piachaud, D., The Cost of a Child, Child Poverty Action Group, London, 1979.Google Scholar

4 I am grateful to John Butler of the University of Kent for this idea.

5 See for example Land, H., ‘Women: Supporters or Supported?’, in Barker, D. Leonard and Allen, S. A. (eds), Sexual Divisions and Society, Tavistock Publications, London, 1976Google Scholar; McIntosh, M., ‘The State and the Oppression of Women’, in Kuhn, A. and Wolpe, A. M. (eds), Feminism and Materialism, Routledge and Kegan Paul, Henley-on-Thames, 1978Google Scholar; and O'Donovan, K., ‘The Male Appendage: Legal Definitions of Women’, in Burman, S. (ed.), Fit Work for Women, Croom Helm, London, 1979.Google Scholar

6 Land, H. and Parker, R., ‘Family Policy in the United Kingdom’, in Kahn, A. J. and Kamerman, S. B. (eds), Family Policy, Columbia University Press, New York, 1978, p. 366Google Scholar – Rathbone, E., Family Allowances, Allen and Unwin, London, 1949, p. 1.Google Scholar

7 On this last point see Townsend, P., The Family Life of Old People, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1957, ch. 6.Google Scholar

8 See Hamil, L., Wives as Sole and Joint Bread-winners, Department of Health and Social Security (DHSS), Government Economic Service Working Paper, no. 13, London, 1978.Google Scholar

9 This research was funded by the DHSS and based at the University of Kent at Canterbury, 1976–1980.

10 Young, M., ‘Distribution of Income within the Family’, British Journal of Sociology, 3 (1952), 303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Young, M. and Willmott, P., The Symmetrical Family, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1975. P. 82.Google Scholar

12 Gorer, G., Sex and Marriage in England Today, Nelson, London, 1971, p. 92Google Scholar. See also Townsend, , The Family Life of Old People, p. 82Google Scholar – of forty-five wives, twenty-seven did not know how much their husbands earned.

13 Hunt, A., Fox, J. and Morgan, M., Families and their Needs with Particular Reference to One-Parent Families, HMSO. London, 1973.Google Scholar

14 Land, H., Large Families in London, G. Bell and Sons, London, 1969Google Scholar; and Gray, A., ‘The Working Class Family as an Economic Unit’, unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Edinburgh, 1974.Google Scholar

15 See Kerr, M., The People of Ship Street, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1958Google Scholar; and Humphreys, A. J., New Dubliners: Urbanisation and the Irish Family, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1966.Google Scholar

16 Gorer, op. cit.

17 Land, , Large Families in LondonGoogle Scholar.

18 Todd, J. E. and Jones, L. M., Matrimonial Property, HMSO, London, 1972, p. 31.Google Scholar

19 Thompson, F., Lark Rise to Candleford, Oxford University Press, London, 1954, p. 54.Google Scholar

20 See Rowntree, G., ‘The Finances of Founding a Family’, Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 1:3 (1954), 201–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gray, op. cit.; Brennan, T., Reshaping a City, House of Grant, Glasgow, 1959Google Scholar; and Land, Large Families in London.

21 Dennis, N., Henriques, F. and Slaughter, C., Coal is our Life, Eyre and Spottiswoode, London, 1956, p. 201.Google Scholar

22 Reeves, M. Pember, Round about a Pound a Week, G. Bell and Sons, London, 1914.Google Scholar

23 Mays, J. B., Growing up in a City, Liverpool University Press, 1954.Google Scholar

24 Turnstall, J., The Fishermen, MacGibbon and Kee, London, 1962.Google Scholar

25 Syson, L. and Young, M., ‘Poverty in Bethnal Green’, in Young, M. (ed.), Poverty Report 1974, Temple Smith, London, 1974, p. 110.Google Scholar

26 Woman's Own, Housekeeping Survey, 20 September 1975.Google Scholar

27 Lister, R., ‘Who bears the Burden?’, in The Great Child Benefit Robbery, Child Poverty Action Group, London, 1976, p. 26.Google Scholar

28 Land, H., ‘Inequalities in Large Families’, in Chester, R. and Peel, J. (eds), Equalities and Inequalities in Family Life, Academic Press, London, 1977.Google Scholar

29 Gray, op. cit. p. 84.

30 Zweig, F., The Worker in the Affluent Society, Heinemann, London, 1961.Google Scholar

31 Gray, op. cit. p. 195.

32 Hunt, A., A Survey of Women's Employment, Vol. II, HMSO, London, 1968.Google Scholar

33 Jephcott, P., Seear, N. and Smith, J., Married Women Working, Allen and Unwin, London, 1962.Google Scholar

34 Bott, E., Family and Social Network, Allen and Unwin, London, 1957.Google Scholar

35 Todd and Jones, op. cit. p. 29.

36 See Pahl, J., A Refuge for Battered Women, HMSO, London, 1978.Google Scholar

37 See Dobash, R. Emerson and Dobash, Russell, Violence against Wives: A Case against the Patriarchy, Open Books, Shepton Mallet, Somerset, 1980Google Scholar; and Binney, V., Harkell, G. and Nixon, J., ‘Refuge Provision for Battered Women’, Housing, 15:12 (1979), 6.Google Scholar

38 See Marsden, D., Mothers Alone, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, 1969.Google Scholar Marsden found that ‘non-support’ was the cause most commonly given by women for the ending of their marriages, and he commented, ‘One in three said they were better off than when they were married’ – p. 62Google Scholar.

39 See Dobash and Dobash, op. cit.; Freeman, M., Violence in the Home, Saxon House, Farnborough, Hampshire, 1979Google Scholar; Goode, W. J., ‘Force and Violence in the Family’, in Steinmetz, S. and Straus, M. (eds), Violence in the Family, Harper and Row, New York, 1974Google Scholar; Hanmer, J., ‘Community Action, Women's Aid and the Women's Liberation Movement’, in Mayo, M. (ed.), Women in the Community, Routledge and Kegan Paul, Henley-on-Thames, 1977Google Scholar; and Marsden, D., ‘Sociological Perspectives on Family Violence’, in Martin, J. (ed.), Violence and the Family, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, 1978.Google Scholar

40 See Blood, R. D. and Wolfe, D. M., Husbands and Wives, Collier-Macmillan, New York, 1965Google Scholar; Gillespie, D., ‘Who has the Power?: The Marital Struggle’, in Dreitzel, H. P. (ed.), Family, Marriage and the Struggle of the Sexes, Macmillan, New York, 1972Google Scholar; and Michel, A., ‘Comparative Data concerning the Interaction in French and American Families’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 29 (1967), 337–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

41 Thompson, op. cit.

42 Gorer, op. cit.

43 Rowntree, B. S., Poverty and Progress: A Second Social Survey of York, Longman, London, 1941.Google Scholar

44 Fiegehen et al., op. cit.; p. 118.

45 See Dennis et al., op. cit.; and Tunstall, op. cit.

46 Tilly, L. A. and Scott, J. W., Women, Work and Family, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1978, p. 139.Google Scholar

47 Play, F. Le, Les Ouvriers Européens, Vol. V, Imprimerie Imperiale, Paris, 1855, p. 427Google Scholar – quoted in Scott, J. W. and Tilly, L. A., ‘Women's Work and the Family in Nineteenth Century Europe’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 17 (1975), 49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also Steams, P., ‘Working Class Women in Britain 1890–1914’, in Viners, M. (ed.), Suffer and be Still, Bloomington, Indiana, 1972Google Scholar – suggesting that the whole wage system was also typical of working-class families in London in the late nineteenth century.

48 For further discussion of the complicated issues raised here see Poster, M., Critical Theory of the Family, Pluto Press, London, 1978Google Scholar; Scott and Tilly, op. cit.; Tilly and Scott, op. cit.; and Bell, C. and Newby, H., ‘Husbands and Wives: The Dynamics of the Deferential Dialectic’, in Barker, D. Leonard and Allen, S. A. (eds), Dependence and Exploitation in Work and Marriage, Longman, London, 1976.Google Scholar

49 For further discussion of this issue see Land, H., ‘Social Security and the Division of Unpaid Work in the Home and Paid Employment in the Labour Market’, in DHSS, Social Security Research, HMSO, London, 1977.Google Scholar

50 For further discussion of some of the issues raised here see DHSS, Social Assistance: A Review of the Supplementary Benefits Scheme in Great Britain, DHSS, London, 1978Google Scholar; and Supplementary Benefits Commission, Response of the Supplementary Benefits Commission to ‘Social Assistance: A Review of the Supplementary Benefits Scheme in Great Britain’ SB A Paper no. 9, HMSO, London, 1978.