Abstract
Using data from the 2012 International Social Survey Program (n = 8269), this study investigated how couples integrate and manage their income across 20 countries with varying degrees of gender inequality. Couples were more likely to report that one person managed the shared pot of money in countries with high gender inequality compared with couples in more gender equal countries. This pattern was not moderated by within-couple earnings equality. We found a cohabitation—marriage gap in income arrangements that is largest where national-level gender equality is high. In more gender equal contexts, married couples were more likely to pool and manage their money together, whereas a larger proportion of married couples assigned one money manager in countries with less gender equality. Cohabiting couples were more likely to keep some money separate than to take-up a pooled, jointly managed approach in more gender equal countries. Findings demonstrate the need to consider both management and pooling dimensions of couples’ treatment of money to understand the influence of contextual factors on couples’ income arrangements.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
Data and code for the paper analyses are available at: https://github.com/jrpepin/ISSP_Income-Pooling.
References
Addo, F. R., & Sassler, S. (2010). Financial arrangements and relationship quality in low-income couples. Family Relations, 59(4), 408–423. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2010.00612.x.
Altintas, E., & Sullivan, O. (2016). Fifty years of change updated: Cross-national gender convergence in housework. Demographic Research, 35(16), 455–470. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2016.35.16.
Barlow, A. (2008). Cohabiting relationships, money and property: The legal backdrop. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 37(2), 502–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2006.12.037.
Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. M. (2008). Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bennett, F. (2013). Researching within-household distribution: Overview, developments, debates, and methodological challenges. Journal of Marriage and Family, 75(3), 582–597. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12020.
Bisdee, D., Daly, T., & Price, D. (2013). Behind closed doors: Older couples and the gendered management of household money. Social Policy and Society, 12(01), 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1017/S147474641200053X.
Blakemore, J. E. O., Lawton, C. A., & Vartanian, L. R. (2005). I can’t wait to get married: Gender differences in drive to marry. Sex Roles, 53(5–6), 327–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-6756-1.
Bolzendahl, C. I., & Myers, D. J. (2004). Feminist attitudes and support for gender equality: Opinion change in women and men, 1974–1998. Social Forces, 83(2), 759–789. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2005.0005.
Burgoyne, C. B. (1990). Money in marriage: How patterns of allocation both reflect and conceal power. The Sociological Review, 38(4), 634–665. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.ep5476701.
Burgoyne, C. B., & Lewis, A. (1994). Distributive justice in marriage: Equality or equity? Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 4(2), 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2450040204.
Burgoyne, C. B., & Morison, V. (1997). Money in remarriage: Keeping things simple—And separate. The Sociological Review, 45(3), 363–395. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.00069.
Ciabattari, T. (2001). Changes in men’s conservative gender ideologies: Cohort and period influences. Gender & Society, 15(4), 574–591. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124301015004005.
Davis, N. J., & Robinson, R. V. (1991). Men’s and women’s consciousness of gender inequality: Austria, West Germany, Great Britain, and the United States. American Sociological Review, 56(1), 72–84. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095674.
Elizabeth, V. (2001). Managing money, managing coupledom: A critical examination of cohabitants’ money management practices. The Sociological Review, 49(3), 389–411. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.00338.
Gaye, A., Klugman, J., Kovacevic, M., Twigg, S., & Zambrano, E. (2010). Measuring key disparities in human development: The gender inequality index. United Nations Development Programme Human Development Reports, 46, 41.
Goldscheider, F., Bernhardt, E., & Lappegård, T. (2015). The gender revolution: A framework for understanding changing family and demographic behavior. Population and Development Review, 41(2), 207–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2015.00045.x.
Hamplová, D., & Le Bourdais, C. (2009). One pot or two pot strategies? Income pooling in married and unmarried households in comparative perspective. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 40(3), 355–385.
Hamplová, D., Le Bourdais, C., & Lapierre-Adamcyk, É. (2014). Is the cohabitation–marriage gap in money pooling universal? Journal of Marriage and Family, 76(5), 983–997. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12138.
Heimdal, K. R., & Houseknecht, S. K. (2003). Cohabiting and married couples’ income organization: Approaches in Sweden and the United States. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65(3), 525–538. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00525.x.
Hiekel, N., Liefbroer, A. C., & Poortman, A.-R. (2014). Income pooling strategies among cohabiting and married couples: A comparative perspective. Demographic Research, S19(55), 1527–1560. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2014.30.55.
Hobson, B. (1990). No exit, no voice: Women’s economic dependency and the welfare state. Acta Sociologica, 33(3), 235–250.
Hu, Y. (2019). What about money? Earnings, household financial organization, and housework. Journal of Marriage and Family. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12590.
ISSP Research Group. (2012). International social survey programme: Family and changing gender roles IV—ISSP 2012.https://doi.org/10.4232/1.12022.
Kenney, C. T. (2004). Cohabiting couple, filing jointly? resource pooling and U.S. poverty policies. Family Relations, 53(2), 237–247. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00014.x.
Kenney, C. T. (2006). The power of the purse: Allocative systems and inequality in couple households. Gender & Society, 20(3), 354–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243206286742.
Lauer, S., & Yodanis, C. (2010). The deinstitutionalization of marriage revisited: A new institutional approach to marriage. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 2(1), 58–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00039.x.
Lauer, S. R. & Yodanis, C. (2011). Individualized Marriage and the Integration of Resources. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73, 669–683. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00836.x.
Lewis, S., & Den Dulk, L. (2008). Parents’ experiences of flexible work arrangements in changing European workplaces: A multi-layer contextual approach. Sociological Problems, 5–28.
Ludwig-Mayerhofer, W., Allmendinger, J., Hirseland, A., & Schneider, W. (2011). The power of money in dual-earner couples: A comparative study. Acta Sociologica, 54(4), 367–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001699311422091.
Lyngstad, T. H., Noack, T., & Tufte, P. A. (2011). Pooling of economic resources: A comparison of norwegian married and cohabiting couples. European Sociological Review, 27(5), 624–635. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcq028.
Malik, K. (2013). The rise of the South: Human progress in a diverse world. United Nations Development Programm. Retrieved from https://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/reports/14/hdr2013_en_complete.pdf.
Noack, T. (2001). Cohabitation in Norway: An accepted and gradually more regulated way of living. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 15(1), 102–117. https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/15.1.102.
Nyman, C. (1999). Gender equality in ‘the most equal country in the world’? Money and marriage in Sweden. The Sociological Review, 47(4), 766–793. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.00195.
Ollier-Malaterre, A., Sarkisian, N., Stawiski, S., & Hannum, K. M. (2013). Work-life balance and performance across countries: Cultural and Institutional Approaches. In D. Major & R. Burke (Eds.), Handbook of worklife integration of professionals: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 357–380). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Pahl, J. (1990). Household spending, personal spending, and the control of money in marriage. Sociology, 24(1), 119–138.
Permanyer, I. (2013). A critical assessment of the UNDP’s Gender Inequality Index. Feminist Economics, 19(2), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2013.769687.
Präg, P., Begall, K., & Treas, J. (2019). Understanding the marriage–cohabitation gap in income pooling: Evidence from 29 European countries. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/rqzj3.
Roman, C., & Vogler, C. (1999). Managing money in British and Swedish households. European Societies, 1(3), 419–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.1999.10749939.
Sani, G. M. D. (2015). Within-couple inequality in earnings and the relative motherhood penalty. A cross-national study of European Countries. European Sociological Review, 31(6), 667–682. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcv066.
Singh, S., & Lindsay, J. (1996). Money in heterosexual relationships. Journal of Sociology, 32(3), 57–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/144078339603200304.
Steuber, K. R., & Paik, A. (2014). Of money and love: Joint banking, relationship quality, and cohabitation. Journal of Family Issues, 35(9), 1154–1176. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X13503324.
Tichenor, V. J. (1999). Status and income as gendered resources: The case of marital power. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61(3), 638–650. https://doi.org/10.2307/353566.
Treas, J. (1993). Money in the bank: Transaction costs and the economic organization of marriage. American Sociological Review, 58(5), 723–734. https://doi.org/10.2307/2096283.
Treas, J., & Tai, T. (2012). How couples manage the household work and power in cross-national perspective. Journal of Family Issues, 33(8), 1088–1116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X11426700.
Vitali, A., & Arpino, B. (2016). Who brings home the bacon? The influence of context on partners’ contributions to the household income. Demographic Research, 35(41), 1213–1244. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2016.35.41.
Vogler, C. (1998). Money in the household: Some underlying issues of power. The Sociological Review, 46(4), 687–713. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.00136.
Vogler, C. (2005). Cohabiting couples: Rethinking money in the household at the beginning of the twenty first century. The Sociological Review, 53(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2005.00501.x.
Vogler, C., Brockmann, M., & Wiggins, R. D. (2006). Intimate relationships and changing patterns of money management at the beginning of the twenty-first century. The British Journal of Sociology, 57(3), 455–482. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2006.00120.x.
Vogler, C., & Pahl, J. (1993). Social and economic change and the organization of money within marriage. Work, Employment, and Society, 7, 71–95.
Vogler, C., & Pahl, J. (1994). Money, power and inequality within marriage. The Sociological Review, 42(2), 263–288. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.ep9407143246.
Yodanis, C., & Lauer, S. (2007a). Economic inequality in and outside of marriage: Individual resources and institutional context. European Sociological Review, 23(5), 573–583. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcm021.
Yodanis, C., & Lauer, S. (2007b). Managing money in marriage: Multilevel and cross-national effects of the breadwinner role. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69(5), 1307–1325.
Yodanis, C., & Lauer, S. (2014). Is marriage individualized? What couples actually do. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 6(2), 184–197. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12038.
Yu, W. (2015). Placing families in context: Challenges for cross-national family research. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77(1), 23–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12152.
Acknowledgements
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2016 annual meeting of the American Sociological Association in Seattle, Washington.
Funding
We gratefully acknowledge support from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development grant, P2CHD041041, awarded to the Maryland Population Research Center and grants P2CHD042849, Population Research Center, and T32HD007081, Training Program in Population Studies, both awarded to the Population Research Center at The University of Texas at Austin. The content is solely the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix
Appendix Table A. Income Organization Arrangements by Nation
Total | One $ Manager | Manage $ Together | Keep Some $ Separate | Keep All $ Separate | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | |
Argentina | 231 | 83 | 0.36 | 102 | 0.44 | 22 | 0.10 | 24 | 0.10 |
Australia | 419 | 66 | 0.16 | 267 | 0.64 | 52 | 0.12 | 34 | 0.08 |
Chile | 329 | 173 | 0.53 | 107 | 0.33 | 28 | 0.09 | 21 | 0.06 |
Czech Republic | 527 | 147 | 0.28 | 256 | 0.49 | 100 | 0.19 | 24 | 0.05 |
Finland | 380 | 21 | 0.06 | 128 | 0.34 | 119 | 0.31 | 112 | 0.29 |
France | 649 | 26 | 0.04 | 394 | 0.61 | 155 | 0.24 | 74 | 0.11 |
Germany | 386 | 48 | 0.12 | 233 | 0.60 | 53 | 0.14 | 52 | 0.13 |
Iceland | 388 | 21 | 0.05 | 266 | 0.69 | 47 | 0.12 | 54 | 0.14 |
India | 356 | 120 | 0.34 | 54 | 0.15 | 85 | 0.24 | 97 | 0.27 |
Ireland | 396 | 56 | 0.14 | 203 | 0.51 | 82 | 0.21 | 55 | 0.14 |
Latvia | 313 | 88 | 0.28 | 119 | 0.38 | 79 | 0.25 | 27 | 0.09 |
Lithuania | 328 | 80 | 0.24 | 132 | 0.40 | 98 | 0.30 | 18 | 0.05 |
Norway | 398 | 20 | 0.05 | 195 | 0.49 | 145 | 0.36 | 38 | 0.10 |
Philippines | 606 | 415 | 0.68 | 153 | 0.25 | 29 | 0.05 | 9 | 0.01 |
Poland | 271 | 34 | 0.13 | 190 | 0.70 | 24 | 0.09 | 23 | 0.08 |
Spain | 917 | 137 | 0.15 | 645 | 0.70 | 94 | 0.10 | 41 | 0.04 |
Sweden | 290 | 12 | 0.04 | 145 | 0.50 | 100 | 0.34 | 33 | 0.11 |
Switzerland | 411 | 60 | 0.15 | 232 | 0.56 | 70 | 0.17 | 49 | 0.12 |
United States | 392 | 117 | 0.30 | 192 | 0.49 | 36 | 0.09 | 47 | 0.12 |
Venezuela | 282 | 103 | 0.37 | 130 | 0.46 | 29 | 0.10 | 20 | 0.07 |
Appendix Table B. Relative Risk Ratios of Income Allocation Organization Arrangement (Excludes Solo-earner couples (N = 6916)
Model 4 | Model 5 | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
One Manages | Pool Some | Keep Separate | One Manages | Pool Some | Keep Separate | |||||||
Gender Inequality Index | 1.04 | *** | 1.01 | 1.02 | 1.05 | *** | 1.01 | 1.02 | ||||
Earnings Equality (Male higher earner ref.) | ||||||||||||
Female higher earner | 0.90 | 1.10 | 1.23 | 1.14 | 1.09 | 1.29 | ||||||
About equal earnings | 0.74 | 0.93 | 0.87 | 1.07 | 1.16 | 0.88 | ||||||
Earnings Equality × GII | ||||||||||||
Female higher earner | 0.35 | 1.01 | 0.71 | |||||||||
About equal earnings | 0.16 | ** | 0.20 | 0.83 | ||||||||
Cohabitation | 1.52 | ** | 3.21 | *** | 4.76 | *** | 1.51 | ** | 3.21 | *** | 4.75 | *** |
Cohabiting × GII | ||||||||||||
Female Report | 0.98 | 1.03 | 1.11 | 0.98 | 1.04 | 1.11 | ||||||
Age | 0.99 | * | 0.98 | *** | 0.99 | 0.99 | * | 0.98 | *** | 0.99 | ||
Parent | 0.93 | 0.94 | 1.01 | 0.94 | 0.94 | 1.01 | ||||||
Employment (full-time is ref) | ||||||||||||
Part-time | 0.86 | 0.84 | 1.23 | 0.85 | 0.84 | 1.23 | ||||||
Unemployed | 1.18 | 0.75 | 0.67 | * | 1.20 | 0.76 | 0.67 | * | ||||
Student | 1.38 | 0.88 | 1.51 | 1.40 | 0.88 | 1.51 | ||||||
Not in labor force | 1.17 | 0.75 | 0.95 | 1.16 | 0.74 | 0.95 | ||||||
Homemaker | 1.04 | 0.73 | ** | 0.68 | ** | 1.05 | 0.73 | ** | 0.68 | ** | ||
Education (Upper sec. is ref) | ||||||||||||
No formal education | 1.68 | 1.23 | 1.72 | 1.63 | 1.18 | 1.73 | ||||||
Primary school | 1.41 | * | 0.70 | 1.20 | 1.41 | * | 0.70 | 1.20 | ||||
Lower secondary | 0.92 | 0.92 | 1.26 | 0.92 | 0.92 | 1.26 | ||||||
Post-secondary | 1.00 | 0.98 | 1.43 | * | 1.00 | 0.98 | 1.43 | * | ||||
Lower level tertiary | 0.71 | 1.48 | *** | 1.54 | ** | 0.71 | 1.48 | *** | 1.54 | ** | ||
Upper level tertiary | 0.54 | ** | 1.99 | *** | 1.63 | * | 0.54 | ** | 1.99 | *** | 1.62 | * |
Housework | 0.92 | ** | 0.97 | 1.04 | 0.92 | ** | 0.97 | 1.04 | ||||
Mother’s Work History | 0.99 | 1.26 | 0.94 | 0.99 | 1.27 | 0.94 | ||||||
Happy with Family Life | 0.79 | ** | 0.78 | *** | 0.66 | *** | 0.79 | ** | 0.78 | *** | 0.66 | *** |
Intercept | 1.72 | 2.49 | * | 1.59 | 1.46 | 2.34 | * | 1.54 | ||||
BIC | 15,425 | 15,411 | ||||||||||
Model 6 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
One Manages | Pool Some | Keep Separate | ||||
Gender Inequality Index | 1.04 | *** | 1.02 | 1.03 | * | |
Earnings Equality (Male higher earner ref.) | ||||||
Female higher earner | 0.91 | 1.09 | 1.21 | |||
About equal earnings | 0.74 | 0.91 | 0.86 | |||
Earnings Equality × GII | ||||||
Female higher earner | ||||||
About equal earnings | ||||||
Cohabitation | 1.30 | 7.33 | *** | 7.93 | *** | |
Cohabiting × GII | 0.88 | 0.00 | *** | 0.05 | * | |
Female Report | 0.98 | 1.03 | 1.10 | |||
Age | 0.99 | * | 0.98 | *** | 0.99 | |
Parent | 0.92 | 0.96 | 1.03 | |||
Employment (full-time is ref) | ||||||
Part-time | 0.87 | 0.84 | 1.22 | |||
Unemployed | 1.18 | 0.74 | * | 0.66 | * | |
Student | 1.39 | 0.85 | 1.49 | |||
Not in labor force | 1.17 | 0.73 | 0.95 | |||
Homemaker | 1.04 | 0.73 | ** | 0.68 | ** | |
Education (Upper sec. is ref) | ||||||
No formal education | 1.68 | 1.33 | 1.85 | |||
Primary school | 1.42 | * | 0.74 | 1.24 | ||
Lower secondary | 0.92 | 0.90 | 1.25 | |||
Post-secondary | 1.00 | 0.96 | 1.42 | * | ||
Lower level tertiary | 0.71 | 1.46 | *** | 1.54 | ** | |
Upper level tertiary | 0.53 | ** | 2.00 | *** | 1.66 | * |
Housework | 0.92 | ** | 0.97 | 1.04 | ||
Mother’s Work History | 0.99 | 1.27 | 0.93 | |||
Happy with Family Life | 0.79 | ** | 0.78 | *** | 0.66 | *** |
Intercept | 1.87 | 1.94 | 1.31 | |||
BIC | 15,353 | |||||
Appendix Table C. Multinomial Regression: Relative Risk Ratios of Income Allocation Organization Arrangement (N = 7,118)
Model 4 | Model 5 | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
One Manages | Pool Some | Keep Separate | One Manages | Pool Some | Keep Separate | |||||||
Gender Inequality Index | 1.04 | *** | 1.02 | 1.03 | ** | 1.04 | *** | 1.02 | 1.04 | ** | ||
Earnings Equality (Male higher earner ref.) | ||||||||||||
Female higher earner | 0.96 | 1.12 | 1.17 | 1.14 | 1.20 | 1.45 | ||||||
About equal earnings | 0.68 | * | 0.96 | 0.93 | 1.05 | 1.38 | 1.08 | |||||
Earnings Equality × GII | ||||||||||||
Female higher earner | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.99 | |||||||||
About equal earnings | 0.97 | * | 0.97 | 0.99 | ||||||||
Cohabitation | 1.65 | ** | 3.09 | *** | 4.27 | *** | 1.65 | ** | 3.09 | *** | 4.25 | *** |
Cohabiting × GII | ||||||||||||
Duration | 1.39 | * | 1.40 | 1.70 | ** | 1.38 | * | 1.39 | 1.70 | ** | ||
Model 6 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
One Manages | Pool Some | Keep Separate | ||||
Gender Inequality Index | 1.04 | *** | 1.03 | ** | 1.04 | ** |
Earnings Equality (Male higher earner ref.) | ||||||
Female higher earner | 0.96 | 1.12 | 1.17 | |||
About equal earnings | 0.67 | 0.96 | 0.93 | |||
Earnings Equality × GII | ||||||
Female higher earner | ||||||
About equal earnings | ||||||
Cohabitation | 1.38 | * | 7.19 | *** | 7.80 | *** |
Cohabiting × GII | 1.00 | 0.94 | *** | 0.96 | ||
Duration | 1.44 | * | 1.34 | 1.60 | * | |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pepin, J.R., Cohen, P.N. Nation-Level Gender Inequality and Couples’ Income Arrangements. J Fam Econ Iss 42, 13–28 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-020-09717-5
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-020-09717-5