Within household gender
inequalities in resources and
entitlements: policy implications
Fran Bennett, Jerome De Henau, Susan Himmelweit, Sirin
Sung and Holly Sutherland
GeNet WHIPP workshop, 11-12 March 2010, Oxford
Project 5: Within Household Inequalities and Public Policy
Outline
One approach:
 Identifying (dis)equalising factors in terms of economic
autonomy and command over financial resources
relevant to policy-making
 Drawing specific implications for policy and research
about gender equality and women’s autonomy
Three components:
 Policy simulation using POLIMOD tax-benefit
microsimulation models
 Quantitative analysis of BHPS data
 Qualitative research based on interviews with
individuals in 30 low/moderate income couples
2
‘Redistribution’ through taxes
and benefits
 Major driver of inequality of income within working age
couples is differences in earned income

in 72% of couples women have the lower original income; they
receive 38% of the total overall
 Gaps in income within couples can be mitigated by the
effects of taxes and benefits – for example, via:

progressive income taxes

individual earnings-replacement or cost-related benefits
 The size of the gap is reduced by around 14 percentage
points on average
 For most couples, main driver narrowing gap in incomes
is income tax, followed by NICs
3
Role of benefits / tax credits


gap is narrowed by more if the man has the lower income
individual earnings replacement benefits: bigger role for men;
cost-related benefits: similar for both
 Child benefits have the largest m->f equalising effects
among low income couples - if we assume that they are
mothers’ income
 In-work benefits widen the gap between partners’
incomes:

more for female breadwinner couples than for male breadwinner
couples
4
Policy implications
 Gaps in income within couples can be reduced by taxes
and benefits – but (gendered) differences in work
patterns, pay and care result in asymmetrical effects for
women and men
 Analysis of policy changes usually ignores both
women’s role as ‘conduit’ of resources for others and
any impact of changes on roles or relationships
 And also treats the distribution of resources within
households as an equitably resolved private issue


especially for low/moderate income couples: assumption of
jointness in the assessment of means-tested benefits
also for low income partners in higher income couples
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. :



Though both more dissatisfied by man’s unemployment than by
woman’s, this was not to the same extent for woman as for 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, couple more concerned by man’s disability, less than
fulltime employment status, hours of domestic work than 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 (1)
 In practice, decisions in accord with currently shared
views can have deleterious long-term consequences for
women (and perhaps men)
 To assess the intra-household gender effect of policies
need to consider:

immediate intra-household distributional impact
 as policy simulation did
 and the differences in views may capture

effects on joint household decisions based on shared gendered
views
 behavioural impact on gender roles ( challenging or reinforcing them)
 consequent effects on intra-household power and distribution
NB: there may also be inter-household gendered effects
8
Policy implications (2)
 Giving couples ‘choice’:



is not the same as giving individuals choice
may result in choices 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
 To challenge gender inequalities and break cycle, need to
loosen the economic constraints and/or gender norms
giving rise to:


shared gendered views and
differential power
within the household.
9
Jointness in low-income couples
 This may be particularly important for lower income
couples, for whom jointness may be more of a necessity
 Semi-structured separate interviews with members of
30 low/moderate income couples to uncover within
household processes and power relations did reveal
clear loyalty to sharing finances (‘all in one pot’)
 Drivers: long-standing relationships; children as joint
project; putting money together makes it stretch further?
 Joint bank accounts not good indicator of degree of
jointness; but joint finances seen as symbol of trust
10
But more complex picture
 But underlying this was a more complex picture – e.g.:
 some clear gendered inequalities in access to/use of money
 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, and how it is
managed/controlled, for how it is used and who benefits
 Common pattern of man’s wage paid into joint account,
benefits/tax credits paid into woman’s own account –
attempt to balance resources / reflecting gender roles?
11
Implications for policy
 Some women in low/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
financial deprivation for women could be due to
managing role or to their desire for independence
 (Gendered) unequal access to resources recognised
in paying child benefit to mothers by default – but


Negative reaction to ‘main carer’ for child tax credit
May reinforce (gendered) division of labour?
12
Conclusions: implications for
policy oriented research
 Analyse impact of policy on individuals where possible,
not just (e.g.) ‘net tax rate’ for families (common in UK,
where income maintenance is family/poverty focused)
 Examine tensions between policies based on individuals
(e.g. labour market activation) and on joint
assessment/ownership (benefits/tax credits)
 In-kind provision may not carry same risks as income?
 Consider impact of redistribution within household on
longer-term roles and relationships, not just on amount
of money immediately transferred
13