The allocation of money in couples

Abstract

"Research conducted in the 1980s and early 1990s showed considerable inequalities within male-female couples as concerns financial arrangements and access to personal spending money. This paper provides an analysis of the allocation of money in German couples that goes beyond previous research in two respects. First, data are used that permit direct, albeit only rough, assessments of the amount of personal spending money available to each of the partners. Second, it is therefore possible to investigate in some detail the factors that may influence the availability of personal spending money and thus also the possible differences between the woman and the man concerns the amount of money available to each of them.<br> The empirical analysis is based on the German Low Income Panel (NIedrig-Einkommens-Panel, NIEP), a panel study representative of households with an income lower than about 1.5 times the German social assistance rate in 1999, the year of the first wave. We use the fourth wave of the NIEP, in which questions about couples' money management were added to the questionnaire. The data refer to those 718 households that consisted of an adult couple, with or without children. While not all couples allocate the same amount of money to each partner, there is no difference in the proportion of men and women who have more money at their disposal than their partners. A number of hypotheses are tested concerning the amount of money allocated to individual partners, and the effects are basically the same for men and women. Investigation of the effects on the within-couple differences in personal spending money shows that the balance shifts in favor of the male partner if his education is superior to that of the female partner. This holds specifically for couples with very low incomes." (Author's abstract, IAB-Doku) ((en))

Cite article

Allmendinger, J., Gartner, H. & Ludwig-Mayerhofer, W. (2006): The allocation of money in couples. The end of inequality? In: Zeitschrift für Soziologie, Vol. 35, No. 3, p. 212-226. DOI:10.1515/zfsoz-2006-0303