1. Project summary (Gender Equality Network project 5, 2010)
1.1 Aims and Objectives
The original aims of project 5 were to explore alternative approaches to understanding the
behavioural and distributional impact of policy change which take account of gender
inequalities in power and influence within the household; and to use such approaches to
analyse the effects of actual and potential changes in fiscal, social security and associated
labour market policies in the UK. As the project evolved, it has focused on approaches to
conceptualising and measuring inequalities within male-female couples, and on understanding
the concepts of entitlement and financial autonomy and the factors that influence individuals’
command over resources (entitlements) within such couples in a gendered way. This has
involved examining a broader range of policy issues.
1.2 Methods
The project involved three types of method: qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews
with 60 individuals in 30 couples; quantitative analysis of household panel data (BHPS) to
examine the gendered effects on the shared and divergent views of men and women in
couples concerning household finances of factors such as current incomes and potential
earning power; and use of UK and EU policy simulation models to explore which parts of the
tax-benefit system reduce or reinforce inequalities of income within couples, using different
assumptions on the division of joint benefits and taxes. The aim was to explore how the three
approaches could be used to inform each other: for the econometric analysis to build on the
qualitative findings, and for policy simulation to take account of within household inequalities
beyond those of income, identified by the qualitative and quantitative analysis.
Using a multi-method approach, we collected our rich qualitative data in connection with the
(necessarily more limited) pre-existing quantitative data by using the BHPS for both samples.
Moreover, linkage was also chieved by parallel study of similar phenomena (such as
togetherness and autonomy). Two complementary methods were applied to similar questions,
accompanied by regular and stimulating dialogue among the project team, resulting in fruitful
combinations of approaches in various ways (see 1.3 below).
Early analysis revealed that it was not feasible, and may not have been meaningful, to match
factors that influence individual entitlements (in the broadest sense) identified from the
quantitative anlaysis to specific income components within the policy simulation
analysis.This was for several reasons. The increasing use of direct payment of benefits/tax
credits into joint bank accounts causes problems in measuring individual receipt in household
surveys. The qualitative analysis in any case casts some doubt on a straightforward
interpretation of individualised income receipt being directly related to individual welfare.
Instead, we were able to show that a number of policy relevant factors influence how
individuals within couples subjectively experience their command over household resources;
and we have also explored the within-household consequences for individual income of
current and potential tax and benefit policies for the UK.
The qualitative research was based on interviews with individuals in 30 male/female couples
in England, Wales and Scotland in 2006 (Sung & Bennett, 2007). The interviews were carried
out individually, to explore the different perceptions and views of men and women; in some
couples, factual knowledge about the household finances also differed.
The quantitative part of the project analysed the determinants of individual satisfaction with
joint income among male/female couples in the BHPS 1996-2005. Analysis using fixed
effects to strip out time invariant extraneous effects allowed us to identify household and
individual level explanatory variables that affected shared and divergent views concerning
household finances. We assumed that different views about the same household income
reflect, at least in part, differential entitlements to that income and identified shared and
divergent views; this was the quantitative equivalent of the notions of togetherness and
autonomy that arose from the interview data (De Henau and Himmelweit 2007).
1
Using different assumptions on how to divide joint benefits and taxes between members of
couples, the policy simulation analysis (using POLIMOD and EUROMOD) identified which
parts of the tax-benefit system reduce or reinforce inequalities of income within couples,
placing the UK within a cross-national perspective (Figari et al., 2010).
1.3 Results
The quantitative findings point to two types of gendered effects on entitlements to household
income. First, some variables have a gendered impact because they have a different effect on
men's or women’s views about household income and, by implication, entitlements to that
income. Thus, for example, the presence of young children reduces - and earning more than
75% of household earnings increases - a woman's entitlements relative to her partner’s.
Second, shared views can take a gendered form. The man’s full-time employment tends to
have a greater positive effect, and his unemployment and/or disability a greater negative
effect, on shared views of household finances than the woman’s. But these same variables
also affect relative entitlements, reducing either partner’s if they are not full-time employed,
particularly if due to unemployment or disability. We interpret these results as meaning that if
couples act on these shared views, gender inequalities within and beyond households are
reinforced. The most important step towards challenging gender inequalities may therefore be
to loosen the economic constraints and/or gender norms giving rise to such shared views.
This may be particularly important for couples on lower incomes, for whom jointness may be
more of a practical necessity. Interviews with women and men in such couples revealed a
clear loyalty to sharing finances. But underlying this was a more complex picture, with
women more aware of tensions between togetherness and individual interests, and the
importance of money in their own right.
Neither (financial) ‘togetherness’ nor (financial) ‘autonomy’ provides an unproblematic route
to gender equality within the household. ‘Togetherness’ may not result in equal sharing of
resources. Rather, the qualitative research suggests that it can be used to increase as well as
reduce inequalities within the household. When combined with a gendered division of labour,
and a preference for solely family-based care, ‘togetherness’ can therefore act to intensify the
inequalities of living in a gendered society. But on the other hand attempts to achieve a degree
of financial autonomy may result in a lower standard of living for women who wish to have
some independence without drawing on their partners’ resources.
This underlines the significance of the policy simulation’s finding that partners’ incomes
within couples may be equalised to some extent by the tax-benefit system, but in a gendered
way that is a result of the division of labour. Many benefits/tax credits that women receive are
intended for the needs of children, rather than their own, and are means-tested on family
income, thus potentially reducing work incentives. The qualitative research showed that some
women achieved a degree of independence through the receipt of benefits in their own name.
However, the policy simulation demonstrated that benefits that men receive in their own right
(for example, for incapacity) have a greater equalising effect within couples than the
equivalent benefits received by women. The net effect, while reducing some gender
inequalities of income within couples, may also reinforce the division of labour at the root of
many aspects of gender inequality both within and beyond households.
1.4 Highlights of outputs and impacts
This research has made clear that within household inequalities matter. The team successfully
put this on the agenda for policy, by contributing directly and indirectly to the National Equality Panel report; for data collection, where our advice was sought for the design of the new
Understanding Society household panel survey; and for improving financial capability, where
it has influenced the themes of the FSA-backed Open University course on financial planning.
This research also has a future: parts will be extended cross-nationally in a new ESRC-funded
project, and an expert workshop convened in March 2010 focussed on developing policy
related research collaboration in the area.
2
2. Nominated Project Output
[Note to Jackie: we are uncertain about this. We have 3 candidates, each with pros and
cons. You may want to choose based on the portfolio as a whole. Then we would write the
supporting words.]
1. Bennett, F., Sung, S., De Henau, J. and Himmelweit, S. (forthcoming, 2011),
‘Togetherness, autonomy and entitlement in low-income households’ (provisional title), in J.
Scott, S. Dex and A. Plagnol (eds.), Gendered Lives: Gender Inequalities in Production and
Reproduction ), Edward Elgar
Pros: best example of paper addressing central issues for our project combining qual and
quant evidence. Will be published as book chapter.
Cons: not currently completed – but will be by your book deadline.
2. Figari F., Immervoll, H., H. Levy, H. and Sutherland, H. (in press), ‘Inequalities within
couples in Europe: market incomes and the role of taxes and benefits’, Eastern Economic
Journal
Pros: in press in relatively high (=medium) ranking economics journal. Uses methodology of
policy simulation part applied across Europe.
Cons: not very representative of the project as a whole.
3. De Henau, J. and Himmelweit, S. ‘Cooperation and conflict within couples: The gendered
distribution of entitlement to household income’ (submitted to Review of Economics of the
Household)
Pros: the major output from the quant part of the project, addressing central issues in an
innovative way.
Cons: only at submitted stage (to another ‘medium’ economics field journal) and timing
makes it unlikely to be accepted by date final report is submitted. Not very representative of
the project as a whole.
3. Academic Research highlights
Our research demonstrates the importance of going beyond the ‘unitary household’, to
explore what goes on behind the front door; and of adding an individual lifecourse
perspective to that of the family/household snapshot (which is usually the core of analysis of
income maintenance/transfer policies). It also shows that a gender perspective must take
account not only of the amount of resources received by women and men – or transferred
between them – but also, and perhaps more importantly, of the effects of such resources on
(gender) roles and relationships.
Qualitative analysis of the interview data revealed considerable complexity in the
management of financial resources among low- to moderate-income couples. There was some
continuity of traditional patterns, with gendered patterns of spending and a number of women
giving regular pocket money to their partners. Women were more likely to have day-to-day
responsibility for managing money. Some women seemed to be grappling with a 'Catch 22' of
either having control and therefore depriving themselves (because control becomes (self)control at these income levels), or not having control and therefore worrying. The findings
suggest that ‘control’ does not have a stable meaning, but is itself socially constructed in a
gendered way, and therefore that the categories of variables used as proxies for underlying
concepts such as financial control in surveys have the potential to be refined and improved.
The loyalty to jointness and mutuality found amongst these couples was closer to a unitary
concept of the couple than to gender equality. This seemed to be linked to the low level of
income many lived on; benefits therefore largely had to be seen as being intended for the
family, rather than individual. The common belief in solely family-based care for children,
with a traditional gendered division of labour, and a retreat into coupledom through lack of
3
resources, limited some women’s opportunities in particular (e.g. for paid work). Women
tended to be the ones who managed ‘togetherness’; but they were also more likely to be aware
of the potential tensions between ‘togetherness’ and autonomy. Some had achieved a degree
of independence - not always via paid work, but sometimes through the receipt of benefits in
their own name. This finding will be pursued further, using policy analysis and policy
simulation, to examine the impact of restrictions in such benefits for within household
inequality. If conditions are tightened further for contributory benefits, for example, many
women in particular will be ruled out of entitlement, and may not qualify for the means-tested
equivalents.
A tension between joint and separate interests was revealed in the quantitative analysis too.
For example, both men and women were found to have relatively less command over
household resources if they were not in full-time employment. Nevertheless both men and
women often shared views in which the man’s employment proved more important to their
financial satisfaction than the woman’s. These shared views, that reinforce unequal gender
roles, may arise from recognition of gendered external constraints or more directly from
gender norms. Either way they can have deleterious long-term consequences for women’s
autonomy and for their entitlement to household resources. Thus couples acting to further
their joint financial satisfaction may reinforce existing gender inequalities within and outside
their households. Within-household processes are therefore one significant way in which
gender inequalities are reproduced.
Differences between the joint views of couples and those of the individuals within them have
a systematic character. While the shared views endorse more traditional gender roles, the
individual views show a relative disadvantage to those who take on the more traditionally
female roles within households. While behavioural economics demonstrates that individuals
do not always make choices that are in their own longer-term interests, our results show that
couples are even less likely to, at least for women. Although rarely distinguished in public
policy, our results imply a significant difference between policies that give choices to couples
to make jointly and those that give choices to men and women to make on their own behalf.
Our results were for the UK alone, effectively a single environment in terms of policy. In
order to investigate the intra-household effects of different policies, more environmental
variation needs to be included. Results from the quantitative part of this project formed the
basis of a successful application to the ESRC to fund a project ‘Gender and Intra-Household
Entitlements, a Cross-National Analysis’ (GenIX), to extend this work cross-nationally, so
that the effect of different policy environments on intra-household inequalities can be
explored.
The extent of within-couple income equalization achieved by tax-benefit systems varies
greatly across countries. Out of 9 EU countries considered (Figari et al., 2010, forthcoming)
the UK is second only to Finland in the scale of equalization achieved on average for working
age couples. One driver is within-couple inequality in market incomes. In addition, there are
some specific features of tax-benefit systems that result in asymmetries and differences in the
ways they impact on couples in which the man or the woman is the main income earner. For
example, when women are the main breadwinners, non means-tested benefits play a much
stronger role in supporting male incomes than they do in supporting female incomes when
men are the main breadwinners. Furthermore, in the countries where it exists, joint taxation
does little to equalize income and does not favour the work incentives of the lower-income
partner.
Through Jerome De Henau and Sue Himmelweit’s involvement, the GeNet project 5 research
influenced an eight-country international project on Taxation and Gender Equity, whose
policy implications were presented at the World Bank in December 2009. GeNet’s influence
included i) persuading other country teams, where data allowed, to carry out a similar
assessment to that carried out within the GeNet project of the extent to which their tax
systems equalise post-tax income within couples and ii) a recognition, in assessing policy
4
implications, that tax policies have behavioural as well as distributional impacts on gender
inequalities (and that these impacts will both work in the direction of reducing gender
inequalities only when incentivising a change in male behaviour) and iii) that policies in other
areas may be needed if fiscal policy is to be effective in promoting more gender equal
outcomes (De Henau, Himmelweit and Santos, 2010).
In order that work on intra-household inequality and financial autonomy should continue, the
project is organizing an expert workshop to be held in Oxford in March 2010. This will bring
together 20 experts from the UK and abroad to examine the research and policy lessons of
existing work and to set the agenda in terms of areas in which further research is needed.
5
4. Non-academic Influence.
a) policy debates/reviews/developments;
i) The emphasis on within household distribution influenced the National Equality
Panel’s report An Anatomy of Inequality in the UK (2010). Holly Sutherland’s research
was included in the report. She and Fran Bennett hosted meetings at the Universities of
Essex and Oxford, at which they gave evidence to Panel members; and Sue Himmelweit
and Jerome De Henau sent papers from the quantitative research. The NEP report
emphasises access to individual income as a result of the project 5 evidence in particular:
http://www.equalities.gov.uk/national_equality_panel/publications/charts_and_statistical_ann
ex/statistical_annex.aspx
(and see d) below)
ii) The Women’s Budget Goup (WBG) has been influenced by the work of project 5 (all
3 PIs are active members and contribute regularly to its responses to Budgets etc.). Sue
Himmelweit met with the EHRC on behalf of the WBG, and also briefed the Exchequer
Secretary as a member of WBG on gendered approaches to economic policy in June 2008.
iii) The Fawcett Society invited project 5 to a seminar on women’s assets and debts, and
evidence from the qualitative research was included in their report (Westaway and McKay,
2007). This included the finding that it was only men who were dismissive of the idea of
saving; women were more likely to link saving to relationships - and to see saving as a
skill they valued - but also to say that they tried to ‘put something by’ but failed.
iv) Sue Himmelweit used evidence from GeNet work as an advisory group member for
the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s (EHRC) programme ‘Working Better’.
This was used to show that giving couples maximum choice over who takes parental leave
would exacerbate within-household inequalities - adding a specific intrahousehold
component to the evidence that long maternity leave and transferable parental leave tend to
reinforce existing gender divisions in employment, and that individual non-transferable
rights to parental leave (provided it is well enough paid) can reduce such divisions, as well
as those in caring behaviour. The EHRC’s ten-year strategy for ‘a move to “parental”
rather than “maternity” leave when a baby reaches six months, and the introduction of
dedicated, non-transferable periods of leave for mothers and for fathers by 2012’ (half paid
at 90% of normal pay) took account of this advice (EHRC, 2009).
v) Results from the qualitative research on attitudes to child benefit – showing the
largely supportive attitudes of both men and women to payment of child benefit to mothers
- were integrated by Fran Bennett into a report for the Child Poverty Action Group
(Bennett with Dornan, 2006).
vi) Project 5 presented evidence from the research to the EHRC at its joint seminar with
GeNet, in order to emphasise the importance of including analysis of within household
inequalities in their planned research work programme on gender equality issues.
b) legal debates/developments
c) non-academic professions e.g. for schools, employers, trade unions etc.
i) The GeNet project influenced the Open University’s flagship introductory financial
planning course ‘You and your money’ to take the interrelationship between individuals
and households in financial planning as a unique course-wide theme, not found in other
texts on financial planning. The course also includes a week’s study examining the
financial effects of decisions on intra-household matters and another which considers the
management of money by couples. This course, which forms a key part of the current
government’s drive to improve financial literacy, has been highly influential, with more
than 6,000 students to date and a widening participation agenda supported by the Financial
Services Authority.
6
d) other non-academic domains
Data sets
i) After the Individual Incomes Series, which used to be published by the Women and
Equality Unit, had been effectively discontinued, Fran Bennett wrote to Harriet Harman
MP (Minister for Women) to ask that it should be revived. (The IIS attempts to come
closer to the amount of income to which individuals within households have access, using
various assumptions about the receipt and use of different kinds of income.) We also
corresponded with the relevant civil servants in the Government Equalities Office about
this issue. The National Equality Panel (see above) reconstructed the IIS for 2005-2008
(and 1996-1999) in its recent report, made the data available to others, and argued for the
importance of examining income on an individual as well as family/household basis.
ii) The finding that couples often have different understandings of household resources
led us to recommend that household surveys, in particular the new Understanding Society
survey, should administer far more (possibly all) questions at individual level. However,
there is currently insufficient capacity to do this.
iii) We recommended that deprivation questions should be asked at an individual level in
such surveys. If these data were available, the methods used in project 5 could be used to
provide much better assessments of individual level poverty in the sense of deprivation.
iv) We were successful, in co-operation with Prof Jan Pahl, in persuading the BHPS to
repeat questions on household money management asked in earlier waves, by showing that
significant change was likely to have occurred since that time.
References
Bennett, F. with Dornan, P. (2006), Child Benefit: Fit for the Future, London: Child Poverty
Action Group
De Henau, J. and Himmelweit, S. (2007), ‘Struggle over the pie? The gendered distribution of
power and subjective financial well-being within UK households’, GeNet Working Paper
2007-17
De Henau, J., Himmelweit, S, and Santos, C. (forthcoming, 2010), ‘Gender and taxation: a
UK case study’, in C. Grown and I. Valodia (eds.), Taxation and Gender Equity: A
comparative analysis of direct and indirect taxes in developing and developed countries,
Routledge
Equality and Human Rights Commission (2009), Working Better: Meeting the changing
needs of families, workers and employers in the 21st century, London: EHRC, pp 9 and 40
Figari F., Immervoll, H., Levy, H. and Sutherland, H. (2010, in press), ‘Inequalities within
couples in Europe: market incomes and the role of taxes and benefits’, Eastern Economic
Journal
Sung, S. and Bennett, F., 'Dealing with money in low- to moderate-income families: insights
from individual interviews', in K. Clarke, T. Maltby and P. Kennett (eds.), Social Policy
Review 19: Analysis and debates in social policy 2007, Bristol: The Policy Press in
association with Social Policy Association (2007), pp 151-173
Westaway, J. and McKay, S. (2007), Women’s Financial Assets and Debts, London: Fawcett
Society
7
5. Publications
A) Books
Lelkes O. and Sutherland, H. (eds.), 2009, Tax and Benefit Policies in the Enlarged Europe:
Assessing the Impact with Microsimulation Models, Farnham: Ashgate
B) Book chapters
Bennett, F. and J. Millar (2009), ‘Social security: reforms and challenges’, in J, Millar (ed.),
Understanding Social Security: Issues for policy and practice, Bristol: The Policy
Press, pp 11-29
Himmelweit, S. and Stone, H. (2009), ‘Saving and working: decisions over time’ in
R.Simonetti, P. Anand, S. Himmelweit, M.Mackintosh, C. Santos and H. Stone (eds),
Doing Economics: People, Markets and Policy, The Open University
Himmelweit, S. and Santos, C (2009), ‘Well-being, power and inequality within households’
in R.Simonetti, P. Anand, S. Himmelweit, M. Mackintosh, C. Santos and H. Stone
(eds) Doing Economics: People, Markets and Policy, The Open University
Paulus, A., Čok, M., Figari, F., Hegedüs, P., Kump, N., Lelkes, O., Levy, H., Lietz, C.,
Lüpsik, S., Mantovani, D., Morawski, L., Sutherland, H., Szivos, P. and Võrk, A.
(2009), ‘The effects of taxes and benefits on income distribution in the enlarged EU’,
in O. Lelkes and H. Sutherland (eds.), Tax and Benefit Policies in the Enlarged
Europe: Assessing the Impact with Microsimulation Models, Farnham: Ashgate
Sutherland, H. (2009), ‘EUROMOD past, present and future’, in O. Lelkes and H. Sutherland
(eds.), Tax and Benefit Policies in the Enlarged Europe:Assessing the Impact with
Microsimulation Models, Farnham: Ashgate
Sefton T., Hills, J. and Sutherland, H. (2009), ‘Poverty, inequality and redistribution’, in J.
Hills, T. Sefton and K Stewart (eds.), Towards a More Equal Society?Poverty,
inequality and policy since 1997, Bristol: The Policy Press, pp 21-45
C) Refereed articles
Sutherland H., Hancock, R., Hills, J. and Zantomio, F. (2009), ‘Failing to keep up? The longterm effects of current benefit and tax uprating policies’, Benefits: The Journal of
Poverty and Social Justice 17 (1), 47-56
Paulus, A., Sutherland, H. and Tsakloglou, P. (2010), ‘Accounting for the distributional
effects of in-kind public benefits’, Journal of Policy Administration and
Management, 29/2
D) Research reports/other publications
Research reports:
Bradshaw, J. and Bennett, F. (2009), Minimum Income Schemes in the United Kingdom: A
study of national policies, report for European Commission (DG Employment, Social
Affairs and Equal Opportunities) (http://www.peer-review-social-inclusion.eu)
Bennett, F., Brewer, M. and Shaw, J. (2009), Understanding the Compliance Costs of Benefits
and Tax Credits, London: Institute for Fiscal Studies
Griggs, J. and Bennett, F. (2009), Rights and Responsibilities in the Social Security System,
Occasional Paper 6, London: Social Security Advisory Committee
8
Brewer M., Browne, J., Joyce, R. and Sutherland, H. (2009), ‘Microsimulating child poverty
in 2010 and 2020’, IFS Commentary C108, London: Institute for Fiscal Studies
Ward T., Lelkes, O., Sutherland, H. and Tóth, I.G. (eds) (2009), ‘European Inequalities:
Social Inclusion and Income Distribution in the European Union’, Budapest: TÁRKI
On-line digest:
Bennett, F. and Jones, K. (eds.) Social Policy Digest, on-line monthly digest of social policy
developments for Journal of Social Policy (web publication only) (2009 and 2010)
(http://journals.cambridge.org/spd/action/home)
Contribution to report:
Bennett, F. (2009), ‘Vulnerable employment’, in M.M. Threlfall (ed.), Europe’s Social
Situation: Towards a more inclusive view, London: Institute for the Study of
European Transformations, London Metropolitan University
Bennett, F. (2009), editorial on ‘gender relations and policy’ in The Journal of Poverty and
Social Justice (formerly Benefits), published by The Policy Press, as co-editor (2009);
and joint editorship (2009) of a special issue on the same theme with Jackie Goode,
University of Loughborough (vol. 17:3, 211-275)
Himmelweit, S. (2009), Agenda for Change: Women's Empowerment Needs a PeopleCentred Economy, Brighton: Pathways of Women's Empowerment
Other articles:
Bennett, F. (2009) ‘The costs of compliance’, Poverty issue 134, autumn (2009) (also
reprinted in The Adviser, late 2009)
Bennett, F. (2009), article on the costs of compliance for Citizens Advice Evidence journal
Book review :
Bennett, F.(2009), review of Stocks, J., Diaz, C. and Hallerod, B. (eds). (2007), Modern
Couples Sharing Money, Sharing Lives, Palgrave: Macmillan, for Feminist
Economics, vol 15:2, 120-125
E) Working papers
Bennett, F. and Lister, R. (2010, forthcoming, submitted), briefing on the ‘Living Wage’ for
Fabian Society website, funded by Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust
Figari, F., Haux, T., Matsaganis, M. and Sutherland, H. (2010), ‘The effects of minimum
income schemes on the working-age population in the European Union’, Research
Note 5/2009 of the European Observatory on the Social Situation and Demography,
Brussels: European Commission
Mullan, K., Sutherland, H. E. and Zantomio, F. (2009) ‘Accounting for housing in poverty
analysis’, ISER Working Paper 2009-33, Colchester: ISER, University of Essex
Figari, F., Paulus, A. and Sutherland, H. E. (2009), ‘Measuring the size and impact of public
cash support for children in cross-national perspective’, ISER Working Paper 200924, Colchester: ISER, University of Essex
9
Sutherland H., Decoster, A., Matsaganis, M. and Tsakloglou, P. (2009), ‘Accurate Income
Measurement for the Assessment of Public Policies - Final Report’, EUROMOD
Working Paper EM6/09, Colchester: ISER, University of Essex
Paulus A., Sutherland, H. and Tsakloglou, P. (2009), ‘The distributional impact of in kind
public benefits in European countries’, EUROMOD Working Paper EM10/09,
Colchester: ISER, University of Essex
Francesconi M., Sutherland, H. and Zantomio, F. (2009), ‘A Comparison of Earnings
Measures from Longitudinal and Cross-sectional Surveys: Evidence from the UK’,
ISER Working Paper 2009-14, Colchester: ISER, University of Essex
F) Forthcoming publications
Bennett, F., De Henau, J. and Sung, S. (forthcoming, 2010), ‘Within household inequalities
across classes? Money management and control’, in C. Lyonette, R. Crompton and J.
Scott (eds.), Gender Inequalities in the 21st Century: New barriers and continuing
constraints, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
Bennett, F. ‘Gender and social inclusion’ (forthcoming, 2010), research report for
GenderWorks, an Oxfam project (joint with other EU partner organisations); funding
from European Commission for dissemination
Bennett, F. (in press, available online, forthcoming 2010), ‘Gender analysis of transfer
policies: unpicking the household’, in V. Uberoi, A. Coutts, D. Halpern and I.
McLean (eds.), Options for Britain II: Cross cutting policy issues – changes and
challenges, Oxford: Wiley/Blackwell and Political Quarterly, pp 100-116
Bennett, F. (submitted, forthcoming, 2010), book review of Miles, J. and Probert, R.
(2009), Sharing Lives, Dividing Assets: An interdisciplinary study, Oxford and
Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing, in Journal of Poverty and Social Justice
Bennett, F. (forthcoming, 2010), Editorial in The Journal of Poverty and Social Justice
(formerly Benefits), 18:1, as co-editor
De Henau, J. and Himmelweit, S. (submitted), ‘Cooperation and conflict within couples: the
gendered distribution of entitlement to household income’, Review of Economics of
the Household
De Henau, J. Himmelweit, S. and Santos, C. (forthcoming, 2010), ‘Gender and Taxation: A
UK Case Study’ in C. Grown and I. Valodia (eds.), Taxation and Gender Equity: A
Comparative Analysis of Direct and Indirect Taxes in Developing and Developed
Countries, Routledge
Figari F., Paulus, A. and Sutherland, H. (accepted), ‘Measuring the size and impact of public
cash support for children in cross-national perspective’, Social Science Computer
Review
Figari F., Immervoll, H., Levy, H. and Sutherland, H. (in press), ‘Inequalities within couples
in Europe: market incomes and the role of taxes and benefits’, Eastern Economic
Journal
10
Francesconi M., Sutherland, H. and Zantomio, F. (2009), ‘A Comparison of Earnings
Measures from Longitudinal and Cross-sectional Surveys: Evidence from the UK’,
under revision
Land, H. and Himmelweit S. (forthcoming, 2010) Who cares, who pays: A report on
personalisation in social care prepared for UNISON, London: Unison
Mullen K., Sutherland, H. and Zantomio, F. (2009), ‘Accounting for housing in poverty
analysis’, under review
Sutherland, H. and Tsakloglou, P., ‘Accounting for the distributional effects of non-cash
public transfers in five European countries’, in K. Couch and D.J. Besharov (eds),
European Measures of Income and Poverty: Lessons for the U.S., International Policy
Exchange Series (eds. D.J. Besharov and N. Gilbert), New York: Oxford University
Press (Book as a whole under review by OUP)
F. Fiagri and H Sutherland, (forthcoming, 2011), ‘Income inequalities among couples in
Europe: the role of taxes and benefits’, in J. Scott, S. Dex and A. Plagnol (eds),
Gendered Lives: Gender Inequalities in Production and Reproduction, Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar
Bennett, F., Sung, S., De Henau, J. and Himmelweit, S. (forthcoming, 2011), ‘Togetherness,
autonomy and entitlement in low-income households’ (provisional title), in J. Scott,
S. Dex and A. Plagnol (eds), Gendered Lives: Gender Inequalities in Production and
Reproduction, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
6. Conference presentations
Fran Bennett, Jerome de Henau, Susan Himmelweit, Sirin Sung, Holly Sutherland:
’Inequalities within households: togetherness versus autonomy’, at ‘Beyond
Social Inclusion: Towards a More Equal Society’, conference organised by the
Centre for Social Policy, University of Loughborough, 22-23 January (2009)
Fran Bennett, ‘Togetherness and autonomy in low/moderate income couples‘ at workshop on
‘within household finances’ at GeNet conference on ‘Gender Inequalities in the 21st
Century’, Cambridge, 26-27 March (2009)
Fran Bennett, ‘Gender implications of benefits and tax credits in low/moderate income
couples’, workshop presentation at annual conference of Social Policy Association,
29 June (2009)
Fran Bennett, Jerome de Henau, Susan Himmelweit and Holly Sutherland (with Sirin Sung),
‘Within household inequalities: policy implications’, at GeNet Conference, London,
on ‘Gender Equality in Paid and Unpaid Work’, 8 December 2009
Fran Bennett: Respondent in session 1, on ‘Identifying the main factors of child poverty and
social exclusion for policy making: combining international benchmarking and
country level analysis’, at conference on Child Poverty and Wellbeing, held in
Brussels on organised by DG Employment and Social Affairs, European
Commission, 26 November 2009
Fran Bennett gave a talk on the evoluation of post-war welfare policies in the UK as a
panel member at a Fabian Society conference, London (21 February 2009)
11
Jerome De Henau and Susan Himmelweit, ‘Cooperation and conflict within couples: The
gendered distribution of entitlement to household income’ at
- GeNet conference on ‘Gender Inequalities in the 21st Century, Cambridge, 26-27
March 2009
- the Annual meeting of the European Society for Population Economics (ESPE),
Sevilla, 11-13 June 2009
Sirin Sung, Jerome De Henau, Fran Bennett and Sue Himmelweit, ‘Perceptions of the gender
division of labour within British households’, International Association for Feminist
Economics Annual Conference, Boston, USA, June 2009
Holly Sutherland and P. Tsakloglou, ‘Accounting for the distributional effects of in-kind
public benefits’, Joint OECD/University of Maryland International Conference:
’Measuring Poverty, Income Inequality, and Social Exclusion Lessons from Europe’,
OECD, Paris, 16-17 March 2009
Holly Sutherland, ‘Income inequality within couples and “redistribution” through the taxbenefit system: the case of the UK’, paper presented at the GeNet conference on
Gender Inequalities in the 21st Century, 26-27 March 2009, Cambridge
Figari F., Paulus, A. and Holly Sutherland, ‘Income inequality and the effect of public
policies in the European Union: what happens with enlargement?’, paper presented at
the 2nd General Conference of the International Microsimulation Association:
‘Microsimulation: Bridging Data and Policy’, Ottawa, Canada 8-10 June 2009
Holly Sutherland, ‘EUROMOD: the tax-benefit microsimulation model for the European
Union’, invited talk at Annual Conference of the Association of Public Policy
Analysis and Management Pre-Conference Workshop on European Measures of
Income, Poverty, and Social Exclusion: Recent Developments and Lessons for U.S.
Poverty Measurement, Washington DC, US, 4 November 2009
7. Seminars/invited talks etc.
Fran Bennett and Mike Brewer gave a presentation to Department for Work and Pensions
staff, London, on the findings of their research project on ‘Understanding the
Compliance Costs of Benefits and Tax Credits’ (7 July 2009), and a similar talk to
HM Revenue and Customs staff, London (29 July 2009)
Fran Bennett chaired a discussion between Angela Eagle MP (Treasury minister) and
Beatrix Campbell (journalist/author) at 11 Downing Street on money, power and
gender for the Women’s Budget Group on 6 May (2009)
Fran Bennett hosted a meeting between the National Equality Panel chair (Prof John
Hills) / NEP staff and members of the Departments of Social Policy and Social
Work and Sociology, Oxford University, on 23 April (2009); she gave a presentation about the implications of GeNet project 5 findings for NEP’s work
Holly Sutherland hosted a meeting for National Equality Panel members and staff at the
University of Essex and gave a presentation about GeNet and other work to them
Fran Bennett gave a presentation on women and social inclusion (based on a report for
GenderWorks, an Oxfam UK Poverty Programme project focused on gender and UK
12
poverty/social inclusion issues in context of the EU) to civil servants from various
government departments organised by the Government Equalities Office (5 October
2009)
Fran Bennett gave a talk on ‘voice poverty’ at a meeting organized by Carnegie UK
about the marginalization of dissent (28 July 2009)
Susan Himmelweit was invited by the World Bank as one of two international experts to lead
an exploratory workshop initiating their work on the Care Economy, February 2009
Susan Himmelweit gave a presentation “Reducing gender inequalities to create a sustainable
care system” at a Joseph Rowntree Foundation event on What does community and
family mean in the 21st Century, October 19th,2009, London
Susan Himmelweit gave keynote speech at 2nd Prometea conference International Conference:
“The scientific and technological careers of women and men. Private temporalities,
professional temporalities; public and corporate policies”, Paris November 26-7,
2009. UNESCO
Susan Himmelweit was invited to join an expert panel discussing the “The theory of the Care
Economy” at the International Association for Feminist Economics Annual
Conference, Boston, USA, June 2009
Holly Sutherland (with F. Figari, A. Salvatori), keynote talk on ‘The social impacts of the
economic downturn and “stress testing” European welfare systems’, IZA/OECD
workshop Economic Crisis, Rising Unemployment and Policy Responses: What Does
it Mean for the Income Distribution?, OECD, Paris, 8-9 February 2010
8. Conference/seminar organisation
Fran Bennett is organising on behalf of GeNet project 5 an international expert workshop, to
be held in Oxford on 11-12 March 2010 on the theme of ‘within household
inequalities and public policy’ (aims include agenda setting for future research and
policy in this area); papers to be considered for possible submission for themed issue
of journal (eg Social Policy and Society)
Susan Himmelweit as President of the International Association for Feminist Economics
organised the programme of its 19th Annual Conference, Boston, June 26-28, 2009
9. Business and user engagement
The project submitted an article to the ESRC’s Britain in 2010: ‘Inequality within
households: who holds the purse strings?’ in October 2009
Seminar at Government Equalities Office, (forthcoming, 26 February 2010) on ‘Withinhousehold Inequalities and Public Policy’ - Fran Bennett, Jerome De Henau, Susan
Himmelweit and Holly Sutherland
10. Policy contributions
13
Fran Bennett participated as a member of the subgroup on social exclusion and social
mobility, led by Prof David Piachaud, as part of the Strategic Review of Health
Inequalities post-2010 led by Sir Michael Marmot (launch: Feb 2010)
Fran Bennett is involved with the creation by the Equality and Diversity Forum (which brings
together UK NGOs and others working on equality and diversity issues) of an
Academic Research and Policy Network on equalities
(See above (ie sections on conference presentations, seminar talks etc.) for other policy
contributions, including e.g. input to National Equality Panel: project 5 sent in written
evidence and references, hosted meetings and gave presentations about their work for
GeNet; this is described in more detail in earlier sections of the report)
11. Collaborative activities involving research
Fran Bennett was a member of a project advisory group for a research project funded by the
Friends Provident Foundation on ‘assets and debts within couples: distribution,
decision-making and management’ (Karen Rowlingson, University of Birmingham
and colleagues)
Project 5 was contacted by Helen Hodgson, Senior Lecturer at Atax, University of New South
Wales, who was researching the impact of family tax/transfer systems. She discussed
her research at a project meeting on 11 May 2009
Fran Bennett gave comments to Jon Kesselman on a paper he was writing on questions of
joint and individual assessment in the taxation system in Canada
12. Media coverage and other communication activities
Fran Bennett liaised with journalist (Kate Burt) who was writing an article on gender equality
(Feb 2010) and sent her materials about the project
Fran Bennett collaborated with Prof Ruth Lister (University of Loughborough) to organise a
letter to The Observer signed by over 120 academics calling for an urgent
improvement in financial support for families on low incomes in the Budget (13 April
2009)
Fran Bennett, Susan Himmelweit and Holly Sutherland have been invited by Deborah
Brennan (Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales) to become
members of an international panel of advisors on gender to help an SPRC team advise
the Australian government on integrating gender into its policies and programmes.
13. Capacity building
Fran Bennett has supervised one PhD student herself and co-supervised one PhD student; she
also supervises two M.Phil students
Jerome De Henau and Susan Himmelweit have hired a post-doc researcher for a new
ESRC project (see Other Funding)
Holly Sutherland co-supervises 4 PhD students, as well as managing the funded research of 3
doctoral and 3 post-doc researchers
14
14. Training and career development
Fran Bennett attended a day’s course run by the Economic and Social Data Service for ESRC
research centres and programmes on data management, storage and sharing (3 Nov
2009)
15. Other funding
Fran Bennett: No other current research funding; but during 2009 was working on projects
funded by
- the Nuffield Foundation (£34,773, shared with coof compliance of benefits and tax credits;
researchers) on the costs
- the Social Security Advisory Committee (£11,100, shared with co-researcher) on
rights and responsibilities in the social security system); and
- indirectly the European Commission (on poverty and social exclusion in the UK, as
an independent expert; and for Oxfam on gender and social inclusion).
- fee from Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust to write a briefing on the ‘living wage’
- also works in a self-employed capacity - for example, for Cambridge University
Press (as co-editor of Social Policy Digest)
Susan Himmelweit and Jerome De Henau are principal and co-investigators (with Cristina
Santos) in a 30-month ESRC funded project (2008-2011): ‘Gender and intraHousehold Entitlements, a Cross-National Analysis’ (GenIX) – Full Economic Cost
of £307,483
Susan Himmelweit was coordinator of UK contribution to international project on Gender
and Taxation: Improving Revenue Generation and Social Protection in Developing
Countries, run jointly by American University, Washington DC and the University of
Kwa-Zulu Natal, South Africa, mostly funded by the Canadian International
Development Research Centre (IDRC) and the Ford Foundation. The UK
contribution was funded by UNDP. Jerome De Henau worked on the personal income
tax part of this project.
Susan Himmelweit together with Professor Hilary Land was commissioned by UNISON to
produce a report on personalisation in care
Holly Sutherland:
European Commission DG Employment 2009-2012 €1.5m per year EUROMODupdate
European Commission DG Employment 2009-12 £40K approx per year European Observatory
on the Social Situation and Demography: Social Inclusion and Income Distribution
(partner in project led by Applica srl)
IWT-Flanders 2010-2013, Flemosi: A Tool for Ex Ante Evaluation of Socio-Economic Policies
in Flanders €124,200 (partner in project led by K.U.Leuven)
15
ESRC Research Centre on Micro-Social Change (MiSoc) 2009-13 £4.3m; contributing as one
of 5 ISER secondary co-investigators
ESRC Analysis of Life Chances and Living Standards in Europe (ALiCE) 2008-11 £489K;
contributing as one of 4 ISER secondary co-investigators
16. Data/software/other non-publication products
17. Anything else
Fran Bennett did a rapporteur evaluation (on end of research award) for the ESRC (2009)
Fran Bennett reviewed a book proposal for The Policy Press (2009)
Fran Bennett is:

Research associate, Institute for Fiscal Studies

Member of editorial board of Journal of Social Policy and joint editor of Social
Policy Digest (web-based) with Ken Jones



Co-editor of The Journal of Poverty and Social Justice
Member of Women’s Budget Group
Member of Democracy and Civil Society Subcommittee, Carnegie UK
Jerome De Henau is:


Newly appointed full-time Lecturer in Economics (from February 2009, permanent
position) at the Open University
Member of the International Association for Feminist Economics (IAFFE)
Susan Himmelweit is:






2009 President of the International Association for Feminist Economics (Past
president for 2010)
Associate Editor of Feminist Economics
Member of the Editorial Board of Women, Politics and Policy
Member of EHRC advisory group on “Working Better”
Technical Advisor to international project on Gender and Taxation
Member of the Women’s Budget Group
Holly Sutherland is:



Visiting Professor at the Centre for the Analysis of Social Exclusion (CASE) at the
London School of Economics (2009- )
Research Professor at the German Institute of Economic Research (DIW), Berlin
(2001-)
Member of the Department for Work and Pensions Model Development Advisory
Board (2007- )
16


Co-Editor of Schmollers Jahrbuch (Journal of Applied Social Studies) (2003- ) and on
Editorial Board of the International Journal of Microsimulation (2005-); Academic
Advisory Board of the Social Policy Journal of New Zealand (2007)
Member of the Women’s Budget Group
17