Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T20:16:06.042Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Family Ties: Women's Work and Family Histories and their Association with Incomes in Later Life in the UK

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2010

TOM SEFTON ,
MARIA EVANDROU  and
JANE FALKINGHAM
TOM SEFTON
Affiliation:
Formerly at Centre for the Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE. Now at the Church Urban Fund
MARIA EVANDROU
Affiliation:
Centre for Research on Ageing, School of Social Sciences, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BJ email: [email protected]
JANE FALKINGHAM*
Affiliation:
ESRC Centre for Population Change, School of Social Sciences, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BJ
*
email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines the relationship between the family and work histories of older women and their personal incomes in later life, using retrospective data from the first 15 waves of the British Household Panel Survey. The association between women's family histories and their incomes later in life are relatively weak, explaining only a small proportion of the overall variation in older women's incomes. Divorce, early widowhood and re-marriage are not associated with any significant differences in older women's incomes, while motherhood is only associated with a small reduction in incomes later in life. While there are significant differences in the work histories of older women with different family histories, this translates into relatively small differences in their personal incomes, because the types of employment career pursued by most women are not associated with significantly higher retirement incomes and because public transfers dampen work history-related differentials, especially for widows. On the one hand, this could be seen as a positive finding in that the ‘pension penalty’ associated with life-course events such as motherhood and divorce is not as severe as often anticipated. On the other hand, the main reason for this is that the pension returns to working longer are relatively low, particularly for women with few qualifications. The analysis suggests that women retiring over the next two decades are unlikely to benefit significantly from the additional years they have spent in employment, because most of this increase has been in part-time employment. The article highlights the tensions between two objectives: rewarding work, and protecting the most vulnerable, such as carers, long-term disabled and unemployed. Resolving this dilemma involves moving away from a close association between pension entitlements and work history and towards universal entitlement based on a citizen's pension.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 40 , Issue 1 , January 2011 , pp. 41 - 69
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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

Age Concern (2006), Age Concern's response to the Pensions White Paper ‘Security in retirement: towards a new pensions system’, Ref: 1806, Age Concern, London.Google Scholar
Bardasi, E. and Jenkins, J. (2002), Income in Later Life: Work History Matters, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
Bardasi, E. and Jenkins, J. (2004), The Gender Gap in Private Pensions, ISER Working Paper 2004–29, Colchester: Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Essex.Google Scholar
Department for Work and Pensions [DWP] (2005), Women and Pensions: The Evidence, London: DWP.Google Scholar
Department for Work and Pensions [DWP] (2006a), Security in Retirement: Towards a New Pensions System, London: DWP.Google Scholar
Department for Work and Pensions [DWP] (2006b), Personal Accounts: A New Way to Save, London: DWP.Google Scholar
Disney, R., Grundy, E. and Johnson, P. (1997), The Dynamics of Retirement: Analyses of the Retirement Surveys, DSS Research Report No. 72, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Falkingham, J. and Rake, K. (2001), ‘Modelling the gender impact of British pension reforms’, in Ginn, J. and Arber, S. (eds.), Women and Pensions, Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Fawcett Society (2006), Fawcett Society response to the Pensions White Paper ‘Security in retirement: towards a new pensions system’, Fawcett Society, London.Google Scholar
Ginn, J. (2000), ‘Pension myth-selling and gender’, Radical Statistics, 74: Spring.Google Scholar
Ginn, J. (2003), Gender, Pensions and the Lifecourse: How Pensions Need to Adapt to Changing Family Forms, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Ginn, J. and Arber, S. (2002), ‘Degrees of freedom: can graduate women avoid the motherhood gap in pensions?’, Sociological Research on-line, www.socresonline.org.uk/7/2/CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginn, J., Street, D. and Arber, S. (2001), ‘Cross-national trends in women's work’, in Ginn, J., Street, D. and Arber, S. (eds.), Women, Work and Pensions, Buckingham: Open University Press, pp. 11–30.Google Scholar
Halpin, B. (1997), Unified BHPS Work–Life Histories: Combining Multiple Sources into a User-Friendly Format, Technical Paper 13, ESRC Research Centre on Micro-Social Change, Colchester: University of Essex.Google Scholar
Halpin, B. (2000), BHPS Work–Life History Files, Version 2, Colchester: ESRC Research Centre on Micro-Social Change, Colchester: University of Essex.Google Scholar
Land, H. (1994), ‘The demise of the male breadwinner – in practice but not in theory: a challenge for social security systems’, in Baldwin, S. and Falkingham, J. (eds.), Social Security and Social Change: New Challenges to the Beveridge Model, Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Manning, A. and Petrongolo, B. (2004), ‘The part-time pay penalty’, Report to the Women and Equality Unit, DTI.Google Scholar
McKay, S., Heaver, C. and Walker, R. (1999), Building Up Pension Rights, Department of Social Security Research Report No. 114, Leeds: Corporate Document Services.Google Scholar
Pensions Commission (2004), Pensions: Challenges and Choices, The First Report of the Pensions Commission, Norwich: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Pensions Commission (2005), A New Pensions Settlement for the Twenty First Century, The Second Report of the Pensions Commission, Norwich: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Pensions Policy Institute [PPI] (2009), The Pensions Primer, updated June 2009, London: PPI, online at https://www.pensionspolicyinstitute.org.uk/uploadeddocuments/Primer/2009/Primer_Updated_-_June09.pdfGoogle Scholar
Pronzato, C. (2007), ‘British Household Panel Survey Consolidated Marital, Cohabitation and Fertility Histories, 1991–2006’ [computer file], 2nd edition, University of Essex, Institute for Social and Economic Research [original data producer(s)], Colchester, Essex, UK Data Archive [distributor], November 2007, SN: 5629.Google Scholar
Rake, K. with Davies, H., Joshi, H. and Alami, R. (2000), Women's Incomes over the Lifetime, A Report to the Women's Unit, Cabinet Office, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Sefton, T., Evandrou, M. and Falkingham, J. (2008), Women's Work and Family Histories and their Association with Incomes in Later Life in the UK, CASE Paper 135, London: Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion (CASE), London School of Economics.Google Scholar
Walker, R., Heaver, C. and McKay, S. (2000), Building Up Pension Rights, DWP Research Report No. 114, London: Department for Work and Pensions.Google Scholar
Warren, T. (2003), ‘A privileged pole? Diversity in women's pay, pensions and wealth in Britain’, Gender, Work and Organisation, 10: 5, 605–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar