Behind Closed Doors:
Financial inequalities within
older couples
DEBBIE PRICE & RACHEL STUCHBURY
DINAH BISDEE AND TOM DALY
B S G 2 0 0 9 , 2 nd – 4 th S E P T E M B E R
INSTITUTE OF GERONTOLOGY
debora.price@kcl.ac.uk
rachel.stuchbury@kcl.ac.uk
dinah.bisdee@kcl.ac.uk
thomas.daly@kcl.ac.uk
2
Background – ‘Behind Closed Doors’ Project
 How do the financial resources of men and women differ
within and between older couples? What are the drivers of
difference?

Quantitative Study
 How do older couples view, manage and negotiate about
money? What (if any) are the implications of within-couple
unequal ownership of financial resources for the well-being
of older people and their families?

Two Qualitative Studies – focus groups and couple/individual interviews
 What ageing and ageist discourses and practices are
prevalent in the formulation of government policy relating
to money? How do these relate to the money practices of
older couples?

Policy Study
3
Project Website
Portal for information
on older people and later
life:
finance, care,
health, housing, advice, wills and
end of life issues
Findings
Outputs
Web Survey
Researcher Blogs
Public views
About the project
www.householdmoney.co.uk
4
Within couple financial inequality
 Understanding human behaviour; challenging the social order;
influencing policy
 Feminist critique of the family: men have financial resources and
women are dependent
 Implications for power, control and gender relations within and outside
the household:
• Women’s access to resources and decision making among older couples will
be limited
• Women will be satisfied with unequal access to resources
• Women will sacrifice consumption within households
• Women may experience poverty within non-poor households
• Power and control within the household is connected to power and control
outside the household
 Implications for well being in widowhood/after divorce & vulnerability
to poverty and social exclusion
5
Research Questions (Project)
 Present a nationally representative statistical picture of
financial inequality between and within older couple
households, investigating how different sources of income
in later life contribute to or ameliorate financial inequality
within households;
 Through multivariate analysis, investigate the correlates of
later life inequality and consider whether within-couple
inequality in later life is associated with measures of quality
of life;
6
Outline
 Data considerations & epistemological issues
 Couple descriptives & financial decision making
 Gendered financial inequality of partnered older
people
 Financial inequality within partnerships

Exploratory analysis of correlates
7
ELSA
 People aged 50 and over and their younger partners, living
in private households in England.
 Sample drawn from households that had previously
responded to the Health Survey for England (HSE) in 1998,
1999 or 2001.
 Fieldwork: March 2002 and March 2003. Repeated
interviews, historical data added.
 Wave 1: approx 12,000 people; IFS derived financial
variables (with imputed data)

Project spec: analysis of Wave 1 of ELSA; hope in future to add histories, and act as
baseline data for longitudinal analysis
8
Data Collection: Income and Assets

Research questions require that information about income
and assets is collected separately for men and women in a
couple, but:
“Later in the interview, I would like to ask some questions about finances
generally, for example income and savings. Can I just check, do you and
name keep your finances totally separate?”
If person is living as part of a married or cohabiting couple and has indicated finances are
shared between the couple, questions go to respondent on behalf of the couple. If person
is living as part of a married or cohabiting couple and has indicated finances are not
shared between the couple, questions go to each respondent separately.

Asset information – only collected at benefit unit level even though wide
disparities in ownership between partners

Even apart from gender issues within the household, increasingly important for
understanding financial well being in later life, especially increasing prevalence of
second & subsequent marriages where spouse may not inherit
9
Epistemological Issues

Project raises epistemological issues with the way data on
assets, wealth has been collected and reported
• Relatively few couples would say finances were “totally separate” –
powerful norm to present ‘jointness’ within partnerships
• Joint does not mean joint, covers a whole range of arrangements
including some that are quite separate
• Couples unaware of each others’ finances
• Secret money


But income: at least attempts are made to collect separate data
Assets: information not collected for each couple unless they have declared
finances “totally separate”
•

in analysis, income from assets has been apportioned equally between partners – no other options
‘Benefit Unit’ discourse pervades data collection
10
ELSA: focus on benefit unit

Individual section on work and pensions collects information from
individuals about their work and pension income


Not used in IFS derived financial variables, which focus on benefit units
Income and assets section (used in IFS derived financial variables)




collects information largely from one person in the couple about either individual
or joint income (but not about individual occupational or personal pensions, broad
brush on work income);
if couple did not say that there income is totally separate, one person only answers
and then
 all assets are considered joint assets (whether individually or jointly held);
 income from assets is also considered joint regardless of how held.
In IFS derived variables, all assets and income from these are attributed to both
parties if one person is answering for both.
Large amounts of imputed data (but clearly flagged and transparent)
 Data can’t be used to examine individual asset ownership within couples,
except for couples who answer separately; query individual income where
proxy answers, and income from assets can’t be apportioned.
11
Older Couples
 4,503 heterosexual couples (9,006 people)
•
4,025 with financial data about both partners
 1,960 couples where one partner is over 65
•
1, 817 with financial data about both partners
Ages
Percentage
Both under 60
40%
Man under 60, woman 60 – 64
2%
Woman under 60, man 60 – 64
9%
Both 60 – 64
6%
Man under 60, woman 65+
1%
Woman under 60, man 65+
4%
Man 60 – 64, woman 65+
1%
Woman 60 – 64, man 65+
7%
Both 65+
31%
12
Marital Status of ELSA Couples
All
Where Where Where
woman woman woman
<60
60-64
65+
First marriage for both
67%
57%
70%
80%
Remarriage for both
9%
10%
9%
7%
First marriage for one, remarriage for
other
9%
12%
6%
5%
Married, status not known for both
7%
12%
12%
7%
Cohabiting, both divorced
2%
3%
2%
0.5%
Cohabiting, other combinations
7%
6%
1%
1%
100%
100%
100%
100%
4,501
2,365
670
1,466
n=
Source: ELSA, Wave 1, 2002/3, couples where at least one member is over 50
13
Living Arrangements
% all
Where
woman
under 60
Where
woman
60 – 64
Where
woman
65+
Couple only
71.8%
56%
85%
92%
Couple and grandchild/ren
0.6%
Couple, adult child/ren and grandchild/ren
1.0%
Couple, their parent/s, adult child/ren &
grandchild/ren
0% (1 cp)
Couple with adult child/ren (all over age 30)
4.4%
3%
7%
6%
Couple with adult child/ren (one/some under
30)
20.9%
38%
5%
1%
Couple and their parent/s
0.5%
Couple with parent/s and adult child/ren
(one/some under 30)
0.3%
Couple with their parent/s and adult
child/ren, all over 30
0% (1 cp)
Other
0.4%
Source: ELSA, Wave 1, 2002/3, couples where at least one member is over 50
14
Separate or Joint Finances of Couples?
Under 60
60 – 64
Over 65
Separate
17%
16%
18%
Joint
83%
84%
82%
100%
100%
100%
Separate
18%
18%
17%
Joint
83%
82%
83%
100%
100%
100%
1900/2365
731/670
1871/1466
MEN IN
COUPLES
WOMEN IN
COUPLES
n=
No significant differences
Source: ELSA, Wave 1, 2002/3
15
Who answered the Income & Assets Section?
 Gendered issues of power and control
 94% of cases: at least one of the couple answered the financial
questions; 5% missing; 1% other household member answered
Where couples declared joint finances, who answered for the couple?
Man answered IA
65%
Woman answered IA
35%
Source: ELSA, Wave 1, 2002/3
16
Organisation of Money (Individuals)
Man looks
after all
except
woman’s
personal
spending
Woman
looks
after all
except
man’s
personal
spending
Man
looks
after,
woman
gets
housek
eeping
Woman
looks
after,
man gets
house
Keeping
Share
and
manage
jointly
Keep
finances
completel
y separate
Some
other
arrangem
ent
Declared Separate (18%)
21%
14%
31%
19%
14%
74%
15%
Declared Joint (82%)
79%
86%
69%
81%
86%
26%
85%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
All individuals (100%)
14%
22%
6%
<1%
55%
2%
<1%
n=8339
1200
1833
472
36
4564
208
26
Note: only one person answers this for the couple, even if finances totally separate – if separate, about half men, half women
answer (‘first person to answer IA”)
Data notes: need to ‘decode’ all answers as where finances are ‘joint’ the same answer can’t be attributed to both partners as it
refers to the other in the ELSA dataset; where couples have ‘separate’ finances, they are coded as missing in the ELSA data if the
other person was asked the questions, need to match couples, attribute, and ‘decode’ these answers; cannot compare answers
given by partners within a couple
Source: ELSA, Wave 1, 2002/3
17
Who has final say in big financial decisions?
Man
Woman
Equal say
Declared Separate Finances (18%)
21%
28%
15%
Declared Joint Finances (82%)
79%
72%
85%
100%
100%
100%
All individuals (100%)
18%
10%
73%
n=8,366
796
1490
6050
P<0.001
Note: only one person answers this for the couple, even if finances totally separate – if separate, about half men, half women
answer (‘first person to answer IA”)
Data notes: need to ‘decode’ all answers as where finances are ‘joint’ the same answer can’t be attributed to both partners as it
refers to the other in the ELSA dataset; where couples have ‘separate’ finances, they are coded as missing in the ELSA data if
the other person was asked the questions, need to match couples, attribute, and ‘decode’ these answers; cannot compare
answers given by partners within a couple .
Source: ELSA, Wave 1, 2002/3
18
Outliers for men into the
hundreds of thousands
of pounds
72% of men in couples in
receipt of some private
or occupational pension
income
28% of women in
couples in receipt of
some private or
occupational pension
income
Source: ELSA, Wave 1,
2002/3
Distribution of income from private
and occupational pensions for those
in receipt, couples 65+
19
Outliers for men up to
£60,000
11% of men aged 65+ in
couples in receipt of
some income from paid
work or business
7% of women aged 65+
in couples in receipt of
some income from paid
work or business
Source: ELSA, Wave 1,
2002/3
Distribution of income from paid
work or business for those in
receipt, couples 65+
20
94% of men aged 65+ in
couples in receipt of
some income from state
pension
93% of women aged 65+
in couples in receipt of
some income from state
pension
Source: ELSA, Wave 1,
2002/3
Distribution of weekly income from
state pension for those in receipt,
couples 65+
21
4% of men aged 65+ in
couples in receipt of
some income from state
income support
1% of women aged 65+
in couples in receipt of
some income from state
income support
Income support is
assessed at benefit unit
level, but paid to the
claimant
Source: ELSA, Wave 1,
2002/3
Distribution of weekly income from
state income support for those in
receipt, couples 65+
22
Gender differences in annual net income from private/occ
pensions & paid work, men and women, 65+, in couples
Median, for those in receipt
Median Gap
Women as % of
Men
Men
Women
Net private/occ pension
£4,104
£1,770
£2,334
43%
Net earnings/profits
£3,334
£2,666
£668
80%
Pens+Earn
£4,674
£2,052
£2,622
44%
Percentage in receipt
Net private/occ pension
72%
29%
Net earnings/profits
11%
8%
Pens + Earn
75%
34%
Source: ELSA, Wave 1, 2002/3
23
Gender Differences in Net Weekly Income
All income, weekly, net, men and women in couples
Median
Median gap
Median women's
income as % of men's
AGE
Men
Women
60 - 64
£212
£ 98
£115
46%
All 65+
£180
£69
£110
39%
n=
65- 69
£198
£77
668/600
£121
39%
70 - 74
£178
£67
544/429
£112
38%
75 - 79
£167
£60
368/252
£106
36%
80 - 84
£ 151
£56
193/125
£94
38%
85+
£159
£81
77/35
£ 78
51%
Source: ELSA, Wave 1, 2002/3
Note: includes individual income from paid work, private and occupational pensions, state pensions, income support, state
benefits, income from assets and all other sources of income. All income is measured at the individual level (although one
partner often answers for both), except income from assets, which has been apportioned equally between partners.
24
Quintiles of Individual Income, 65+ in Couples,
according to sex
Source: ELSA, Wave 1, 2002/3
Couples where at least one member is over 65
25
Components of Net Weekly Income
Mean net weekly income components according to income quintiles, men and women in couples, 65+
600.00
Mean net weekly income
500.00
Other sources of income
400.00
State benefits not health related or income support
State income support
State health and health related benefits
300.00
Income from Assets
Income from paid work
200.00
Income from private pension
State pension income
100.00
.00
Lowest quintile
2
3
Source: ELSA, Wave 1, 2002/3
Couples where at least one member is over 65
4
Highest quintile
26
Relative Importance of Income Components
Relative importance of income components according to income quintiles, men and women in couples,
65+
100%
90%
80%
70%
Other sources of income
State benefits not health related or income support
60%
State income support
State health and health related benefits
50%
Income from Assets
40%
Income from paid work
Income from private pension
30%
State pension income
20%
10%
0%
Lowest quintile
2
3
4
Highest quintile
Source: ELSA, Wave 1, 2002/3, couples where at least one member is over 65
Inequality of income within couples, (1+=65+)
27
Source: ELSA, Wave 1, 2002/3
Couples where at least one member is over 65
Distribution of Income Inequality within Couples
28
Percentile of
share of joint
income
Men
Percentile of
share of joint
income
Women
5th
40%
5th
9%
10th
48%
10th
13%
20th
56%
20th
18%
25th
59%
25th
20%
50th (Median)
70%
50th (Median)
30%
75th
80%
75th
41%
80th
82%
80th
44%
90th
87%
90th
52%
95th
91%
95th
60%
Source: ELSA, Wave 1, 2002/3
Couples where at least one member is over 65
29
Income inequality within couples, 65+
Women’s share of joint income*
Between 0% and 20%
24%
Between 20% and 40%
49%
Between 40% and 60%
22%
Between 60% and 80%
4%
Between 80% and 100%
1%
100%
n=
Source: ELSA, Wave 1, 2002/3
* Where at least one member of the couple is over 65
1,817
Income quintile, age and within couple inequality
30
Source: ELSA, Wave 1, 2002/3
Couples where at least one member is over 65
Social class, age and within couple income inequality
31
Source: ELSA, Wave 1, 2002/3
Couples where at least one member is over 65
32
Man’s Social Class and Income Inequality
Her Male Partner’s Social Class, col %
Income share of
woman
I
II
III
IV
V
All
Between 0% and 20%
37
33
21
17
17
24%
Between 20% and 40%
43
44
50
53
53
49%
Between 40% and 60%
16
19
23
26
25
22%
Between 60% and 100%
4
4
7
4
6
5%
100
100
100
100
100
100%
255
393
324
540
269
1,781
n=
p<0.001
Source: ELSA, Wave 1, 2002/3
33
Woman’s Social Class and Income Inequality
Her own Social Class, col %
Income share of
woman
I
II
III
IV
V
All
Between 0% and 20%
6
21
27
24
24
24%
Between 20% and 40%
41
40
49
54
51
49%
Between 40% and 60%
44
32
20
19
21
22%
Between 60% and 100%
9
8
4
4
4
5%
100
100
100
100
100
100%
255
393
324
540
269
1,781
n=
p<0.001
Source: ELSA, Wave 1, 2002/3
Educational qualifications, age and
within couple income inequality
34
Source: ELSA, Wave 1, 2002/3
Couples where at least one member is over 65
35
Woman’s Education and Income Inequality
Her own Educational Qualifications,
col %
Income share of
woman
Higher
Education
al Qual
School
Leaving
Educatio
nal Qual
Forei
gn or
other
None
All
Between 0% and 20%
22
31
23
23
24%
Between 20% and 40%
42
41
53
54
49%
Between 40% and 60%
27
24
23
20
22%
Between 60% and 100%
9
5
3
4
5%
100
100
100
100
100%
396
510
119
765
1,790
n=
p<0.001
Source: ELSA, Wave 1, 2002/3
Health, age and income inequality within couples
36
Source: ELSA, Wave 1, 2002/3
Couples where at least one member is over 65
Marital status, age, and income inequality within couples
37
Source: ELSA, Wave 1, 2002/3
Couples where at least one member is over 65
38
Woman’s Marital Status and Income Inequality
Income share of
woman
Married,
first
marriage
Remarried,
2nd or subs.
Cohabiting
All
Between 0% and 20%
25%
24%
7%
24%
Between 20% and 40%
51%
24%
36%
49%
Between 40% and 60%
21%
42%
48%
22%
Between 60% and 100%
4%
9%
10%
5%
100%
100%
100%
100%
1,524
228
42
1,794
n=
p<0.001
Source: ELSA, Wave 1, 2002/3
39
Further Work
 Understanding the role that different components of
income play in within-couple financial inequality
 Multivariate modelling of financial inequality within
couples in later life

Possibly adding lifecourse history data from Wave 2
 Testing whether within couple financial inequality is related
to quality of life outcomes e.g. marriage quality, health
 Understanding the drivers of financial inequality between
couples in later life
 Considering explanations and implications arising from the
qualitative strand of the project
40
Conclusions
 The financial contributions of men and women within older couples are
very unequal, especially state pensions, private pensions and earnings
from paid work
 Older couples are poorer, but at all ages from 65 to 85, median
partnered women’s income is about 38% of partnered men’s
 Older partnered women dominate the lower individual income
quintiles, and older partnered men the higher; private pensions are the
main driver of difference
 Within older couples, at all ages, women contribute about 30% to the
couple’s joint income

A quarter of women contribute between 0% and 20%, and only 5% more than 60%
 Social class, education and marital status all play a (small?) part in
explaining income inequality within the household; age, health and
income quintiles seem to have little impact

Multivariate analysis will help to understand the mechanisms at work
41
Conclusions
 The data suggests that gendered financial inequality
within couples is a lifelong condition that men and
women must find ways of accommodating
 A substantial body of work on younger couples
suggests that such inequality has implications for
power, control and access to resources within
relationships, as well as impacts on wider society
 Through our qualitative work we hope to contribute
to understanding the importance of age and ageing
in these debates