Transcript Slide 1

Within household inequalities:
policy implications
Fran Bennett, Jerome De Henau, Susan
Himmelweit and Holly Sutherland (with Sirin Sung)
GeNet conference, 8 December 2009:
Gender Equality in Paid and Unpaid Work
Outline and introduction
 GeNet project 5: www.genet.ac.uk: Within Household
Inequalities and Public Policy
 Not ‘mixed methods’ project, but multi-method, with joint
working throughout
 Our research looked inside the ‘black box’ of the
household, to investigate the control, management and
use of resources within (working age) couples, and to
draw out the implications for public policy
2
Income inequality and ‘wallet to
purse’ policies
 Major driver of inequality of income within working age
couples is differences in earned income
 Gaps in income within couples can be mitigated by the
effects of taxes and benefits – for example, via :

progressive income taxes

individual earnings-replacement benefits
 But differences in work patterns, pay and care result in
effects that are not symmetrical for men and women :


gap is narrowed by more if the man has the lower income
just as more women have begun to meet contribution conditions,
they have started to be tightened (McLaughlin et al., 2002)
3
Income inequality and ‘wallet to
purse’ policies
 Reforms which could narrow income gaps and increase
relative income receipt by women :



e.g. increase child benefit: but this is for the child not the woman
e.g. a more progressive income tax system: no use for nonearning women
e.g. reconsider contribution conditions
 However, public policy often treats the distribution of
resources within households as an equitably resolved
private issue


especially for low/medium income couples: assumption of
jointness in the assessment of means-tested benefits
also for low income partners in higher income couples
4
Obstacles to gender analysis
Obstacles to gender aware analysis of income distribution
include :
 Unit of analysis: a view of the family as an undifferentiated
whole (‘unitary household’ view)
 Time: analysis of household at one point, not individuals over
lifecycle (e.g. ‘workless households’ / ‘family-friendly’ tax)
 Policy: Main aim of income maintenance being increasingly
tightly defined as meeting household need, rather than giving
individual rights over the lifecycle
5
Gender analysis of household
panel data
 Representative BHPS data: couples’ views over time could be
matched to analyse common and differing influences on man’s
and woman’s satisfaction with household income
 Shared views – e.g. :
 Both partners were dissatisfied by man being unemployed
 Both partners were dissatisfied by woman being unemployed
(though less so than by the man being unemployed)
 But there are also differences - e.g. :
 Although both were more dissatisfied by the man’s
unemployment than the woman’s – this was not to the same
extent for the woman as the man
 Relatively each valued their own employment more
 Why? Unemployment reduced power within household?
6
Shared views reinforce inequalities
 Similar, though less extreme, pattern of shared and different views
with respect to disability, particular employment statuses and
domestic work:
 On average, the couple was more concerned by man’s
disability, less than full-time employment status and hours of
domestic work than the woman's
 Relatively being disabled, not being employed FT or doing
much domestic work led to less satisfaction with household
income (and power over it?)
 Where do such shared gendered views come from?
 Recognition of external constraints?
 Gender norms?
 If couples act on these shared views, they may increase
immediate household financial satisfaction by reinforcing
gender inequalities within and beyond the household
7
Policy implications
 In practice, decisions in accord with currently shared views can have
deleterious long-term consequences for women (and perhaps men)
 To challenge gender inequalities and break cycle, economic constraints
and/or gender norms giving rise to such shared views must be loosened
 Giving couples ‘choice’ :
is not the same as giving individuals choice
may result in choices that are in the short-term interests of the
couple rather than of the individuals within it, e.g. in case of divorce
may be against women’s long-term interests and autonomy
 A policy’s effects on joint household decisions may be more significant
than its immediate intra- (or inter-)household distributional impact
8
Jointness in low-income couples
 This may be particularly important for poorer couples, for
whom jointness may be more of a necessity
 Semi-structured separate interviews with members of 30
such couples to uncover within household processes and
power relations did reveal clear loyalty to sharing finances
(‘all in one pot’)
 Possible drivers: largely long-standing relationships; children
as joint project; put money together makes it stretch further?
 Joint bank accounts not good indicator of degree of jointness;
but joint finances seen as symbol of trust?
9
But more complex picture
 But underlying this was a more complex picture – e.g. :
- some clear gendered inequalities in access to/use of money
- knowledge of family income was sometimes gendered
- some differentiation of roles along traditional lines
- women more aware of tensions between togetherness and
individual interests and importance of money in own right
 Previous research confirms importance of source,
purpose, recipient and labelling of income & how it is
managed/controlled – our results also bear this out :
- e.g. child benefit paid to mothers largely taken for granted;
but some resented idea of ‘main carer’ for child tax credit
- e.g. commonly man’s wage paid into joint bank account, but
10
benefits/tax credits paid into woman’s own account
Implications for policy
 Some women in low- to moderate-income couples valued
right to income that (e.g.) carer’s allowance gave them
 But felt exploited and under-valued (seeing it as a wage)
 May explain carers’ reactions to work focused interviews?
 Benefits often seen as belonging to/for family; but deprivation
for women due to managing role or desire for independence
 Important to maintain and improve benefits for others
(e.g. to meet costs) and social protection for individuals
 Negative reaction to ‘main carer’ for CTC may help explain
pressure for benefit splitting from separated parents with
shared care for child/ren; & shows importance of rolesharing11
Conclusions
 Implications fro policy oriented research :
 Analyse impact of policy on individuals where
possible, not just (e.g.) ‘net tax rate’ for families
 Examine tensions between policies based on
individuals (e.g. labour market activation) and on
joint assessment/ownership (benefits/tax credits)
 Consider impact of redistribution within household
on roles and relationships, not just amount of
money received
12