1.2.1- CAMPUS RIO EBRO Y PARQUE GOYA A-IDENTIFICACIÓN

With such a strong pedigree behind the Pahl/Vogler classification, it is the place to begin analysis of the household management systems used in this study. Looking first at the accounts used to manage money, the most common system encountered (eleven cases) was the use of one or more joint accounts for all household income and all expenditure except personal spending. Three other households which appeared to have separate bank accounts for each partner in fact used this system; interviewees had full access to their partner’s personal accounts. The only other method used (three cases) was to have one account in the male partner’s name, into which his wages were paid, and one account in the female partner’s name, into which tax credits, Child Benefit and any wages she earned were paid. One couple used a system whereby the male partner paid a fixed sum from his earnings into the female partner’s bank account, and she then paid for all household expenditure.

Fitting the households into the Pahl/Vogler model, one system predominated. In eleven out of seventeen households, both partners had access to all the bank accounts, but the woman was solely or mainly responsible for day-to-day financial management. Although this system had some features of the ‘female whole wage system’ (wives often had sole responsibility for money management, in some cases men had ‘pocket money’ for their leisure spending), more

access to all bank accounts. These households were therefore classified as using a system of ‘female-managed pooling’ (see Table 4.1) Two household (Fiona’s and Steph’s) shared both accounts and day-to-day money management between the partners; jointly managed pools. One household (Jill’s) used joint accounts but the man was responsible for day-to-day shopping; a male-managed pool. In two examples (Gabrielle’s and Bridget’s) each partner had their own accounts with separate spending responsibilities; ‘independent management’ systems. In a single case (Karen’s) a version of the housekeeping system was used, with the woman receiving a fixed amount into her account from her partner every month. The systems used are summarised in Table 9.1.

Table 9.1 Money Management Systems Used by Study Households Female- managed pool Jointly- managed pool Male- managed pool Independent management House- keeping system Highly deprived Anna, Claire, Debbie, Elizabeth, Hazel, Nikki, Pauline, Ruth Steph Karen Hardly deprived Isobel, Lisa, Marie

Fiona Jill Bridget, Gabrielle

The dominance of pooling systems in the sample group (fourteen out of

seventeen households) needs further discussion. This study differs from previous ones in that the women interviewed seemed to place very little importance on the origin of different pieces of household income, be it his wages, her wages, or state transfers. Although the pooling households in the study used various arrangements of accounts in individual or joint names, this had no connection to the source of the money; in effect, all the accounts used were joint, as both members of the couple had access to them. The interviewees clearly spoke about the money in all their household’s accounts as ‘ours’ rather than ‘his and hers’. For these women, there was no conception of the separate origin or ‘ownership’ of different pieces of money within the pool, contradicting the Burgoyne’s finding that women find it very difficult to forget the ‘source’ of

money (1990, 2004). In particular, past studies have shown that Child Benefit was ‘tagged’ as belonging to the children, and reserved for spending on their needs (Goode et al 1998, Pahl 1989), but this was not the attitude of the women in the study group. Nor was it possible to identify separate areas of spending on gendered lines as suggested by Goode et al (1998). For the large majority of the couples in the study, it was not possible to separate spending on certain kinds of item from the bulk of ‘our’ money, which was pooled for all purposes except, in about two thirds of cases, for personal spending money (discussed below, section 9.2.3). This applied not only to money from wages, but also to state transfers. It seemed that there was a blurring of ‘ownership’ in the household’s various bank accounts, with a resulting dominance of pooling systems.

The reduction in the importance of the origin of different pieces of household income between previous studies and this one could simply be due to an unusual feature of the households in this particular sample. However, it could also be due to a genuine shift in the way couples treat their money over time. Such a shift may be rooted in three causes.

Firstly, the rise in electronic money is significant. No-one gets a ‘pay packet’ any more, and no-one has a Child Benefit book; rather, virtually all of the money coming into the household arrives electronically. This explains the decline of the housekeeping system. In fact previous studies have already noted the steady decline of this system, from its heyday in the 1950s when around half of couples were using it (see Figure 4.1). It also goes some way to explain the loosening of the bonds connecting the ‘source’ of the money (and who has ‘earned’ it) with what it gets spent on. The shift to electronic money means that ‘a man’s wages’ no longer have the same emotional power they once did; the money is no longer actually seen, no longer handled. The old system of a man coming home on pay day and divvying up the money into piles for rent, housekeeping, his leisure and so on no longer occurs, and because the female partner is more often than not the one doing the day-to-day household spending, it feels natural for her to have full access to all the accounts, and therefore to her partner’s wages.

Secondly, the income of modern households is much more diverse than in the 1980s. All of the households in the study had considerable income from state

transfers (section 7.2.2). This averaged 30% of the household’s total income; too much to reserve entirely for spending on the children in the way that Child Benefit often used to be. Moreover, almost half of the families also had a female wage earner; when added to state transfers and ‘other income’, on average more than half (52%) of household income was coming from sources other than the man’s wages. This marks a profound shift from the 1950s, or even the 1980s, when 90% or more of the household income of a young family was likely to come from the man’s wages. Psychologically ‘labelling’ money from different sources as ‘belonging’ to different household members in the way previous studies have found would now be complex. Instead, money from state transfers and from female wages was simply pooled with male wages. It is hardly surprising that for the families in the study the male breadwinner model is in such obvious decline when men are only winning half of the bread.

Thirdly, there has been a steady shift in cultural norms away from male

breadwinning concepts. In Polly Toynbee’s book Hard Work (2003), she described the situation in the 1970s where male-dominated trade unions insisted on lower wages for women workers; female earnings were seen as ‘the wife’s pin-money’ to pay for holidays and luxury items rather than as a key component of

household income. There was no evidence of these kinds of attitudes amongst the families in the study group. Nearly all of the women interviewed saw it as part of a mother’s role to undertake a share of household breadwinning and expressed a desire to work, at least part time, and to earn ‘their share’. These attitudes are discussed in more detail in section 10.3. The women in this study were the children or even grandchildren of those who raised children in the 1980s, the generation that participated in studies such as those conducted by Pahl. It seems a noticeable generational shift has occurred. Previous studies have already noted this change in attitudes to mothering and paid work (Women and Work Commission 2006, Gardiner and Millar 2006, Bradshaw 2003).