La infraestructura verde en Vitoria-Gasteiz

Pahl identified four different ways that money could be allocated amongst family members (1989). The essential characteristics of each system are described in Table 4.1 (overleaf), together with some key research findings on each allocation system.

Table 4.1 Characteristics of Different Household Allocation Systems

Based on Nickenig (2005), who drew on Vogler & Pahl (1994), Burgoyne (2004), Goode et al (1998), Bradshaw et al (2003) and Snape et al (1999).

System name

Brief description Typology of this system

Who controls in this system?

Female whole wage

Husbands hand over wage packet minus personal spending. Wives do all financial management.

Recurrent finding that this system is commonly used by families dependent on benefit.

The wife’s role is one of management, not control. She has very little say in big spending decisions.

House- keeping allowance

One partner gives the other an allowance. They then keep the remaining money, from which some bills may be paid.

Recurrent finding that this system is commonly used by families dependent on benefit.

More power for the woman, however the husband can still determine where money is spent and the wife may not feel

comfortable using funds for personal purchases.

Pooling Some money is pooled and some kept separately. Money management may be done by the man, the woman, or shared.

Particularly common among younger couples and when both partners are earning.

Seems to give each partner equal control but often not the case. The dependent partner may feel the money ‘belongs’ to the earner and impose restraint on personal purchases. Indepen- dent manage- ment

Finances are kept completely separate.

Characteristic of younger couples, those without children and those where the woman in full time

employment. More common in affluent households.

Likely to give the greatest degree of female control; can be genuinely equal. However, the greater earning power of men can leave them with more uncommitted spending money after household expenses have been shared.

Figure 4.1 shows the ways in which intra-household money allocations systems have changed over time. In the 1950s, the housekeeping system dominated, with men adopting the ‘breadwinner’ role and the women being the ‘home-makers’. As time has gone on, however, the housekeeping system has almost died out, being replaced by a steady rise in the number of couples using a pooled or independent system.

Figure 4.1: Intra-household Money Allocation Systems, 1950 to Present

(Source of data; Nickenig 2005, who drew on; 1950s – Zweig in Pahl 2004, 1980s – Pahl 1989, 2000s – unpublished Alliance and Leicester study)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1950s

1980s

2000s

Housekeeping

Female whole

wage

Pooled

Independent

management

4.2.3 Allocation systems and low income

The figures in Figure 4.1 are for all families within the population. However, research has suggested that families on low incomes favour different allocation systems to affluent families. Based on a sample of 1,221 families, Pahl and Vogler (1994) showed a clear correlation between household income and the allocation system used. Their findings are summarised in Table 4.2. The families in which the allocation system was managed by women averaged only 86% of the income of the families in which the allocation system was managed by men, leading Vogler to conclude: ‘women are most likely to manage finances single-

handedly in low-income households where financial management is likely to be a burden rather than a source of power’ (1994, 243).

Table 4.2. The Relationship of Different Allocation Systems to Family Incomes

After Nickenig 2005, who sourced it from Vogler & Pahl 1994.

Allocation system Percentage of families using this system

Mean standardised income of families using this system; £ per month (1994 prices)

Female whole wage 27 624

Female managed pool* 15 658

Housekeeping allowance 13 679

Joint pool 20 719

Male managed pool* 15 728

Male whole wage# 10 755

*Sub-divisions of the ‘pooling’ system used by Pahl in her later work. # An additional allocation system added by Pahl in her later work.

In 1998 Goode, Callender and Lister studied 31 families on Income Support or Job Seeker’s Allowance. They found that these families relied predominantly on the female whole wage system. Far from being a source of control for the

women in these families, this was a significant burden as there was never

enough money to cover all the needs of the family. They were placed in the role of poverty managers, with very little actual control and a great deal of stress. The wives in these families tended to allocate less money to their personal spending than to their partners, and prioritised the needs of other household members above their own. Other studies have similarly concluded that gender inequality is greatest under the female managed and housekeeping allowance systems (Pahl 1989, Vogler & Pahl 1994, Snape et al 1999). However Morris, in her study of families made redundant in South Wales (1984), took a rather

different view. She agreed that low income was correlated with female managed systems, but her contention was that this was a sensible response to low income considering the predominant gendered division of household labour; ‘the lower the household income, the greater the need for unitary control, and the greater the likelihood that this control will be exercised by the woman’ (492). Rather

than seeing female financial management systems as stemming from greater gender inequality, she argued that both greater gender inequality and female financial management systems were separate results of living on a low income.

Kempson (1996) considered 31 qualitative studies of life for families on a low- income, concluding that in most such families it was the mother who had to manage the limited finances. Women suffered the most deprivation, materially, psychologically and physically. Juggling spending between essential household bills took up a great deal of time and energy and caused much higher levels of stress compared to the men in the studies. When a financial crisis hit, it was usually the women who had to make difficult decisions about cutting down on spending and dealing with the bailiffs. No previous work has been published specifically looking at the allocation systems favoured by lower income families, the focus of this study.