- Email: [email protected]
Introduction: Special issue on the household economy
The Journal of Socio-Economics 37 (2008) 455–457
Editorial
Introduction: Special issue on the household economy
In the light of rapid social change, the intra-household economy is a constantly shifting target for both research and policy. As far back as 1995, there was a call for more interdisciplinary research effort, and a move away from an almost exclusive focus on married couples and western societies (Burgoyne and Routh, 1995; Burgoyne, 1995). More than a decade later, the process of change seems to have accelerated—even more than we anticipated. Family relationships have become more fluid and diverse: in the west we have witnessed a huge increase in the numbers of men and women living together; children born outside of formal marriage; high rates of divorce and remarriage; and increasing recognition and legal regulation of same sex partnerships. How have researchers responded to these challenges? First, there is renewed interest from scholars across a range of disciplines: this issue reflects such contributions from economics, law, sociology and psychology. The authors have attempted to write in a way that facilitates communication and collaboration across disciplinary boundaries. Nonetheless, they draw on a variety of methodological traditions: some based on qualitative interviews, some using survey data, and some taking a more theoretical perspective. Second, there is less emphasis on marriage per se in this issue, and the beginnings of more comparative work: three of the papers deal with financial practices in both married and unmarried opposite sex couples (those by Pahl, 2008; Vogler et al., 2008 and Ashby and Burgoyne, 2008) and a fourth reports findings from the first UK study of money in same sex couples (Burns et al., 2008). All of these report a higher incidence of separate systems of money management than has previously been observed in married heterosexuals. Pahl questions whether this is a real trend towards individualisation, reinforced by developments in financial and credit services, or whether it simply reflects an early stage in relationships with more merging of finances occurring when children arrive. In contrast, Vogler et al. argue that changes in the nature of marriage (in particular a decline in the traditional breadwinner model of marriage) and the rise in cohabitation may account for the use of more separate systems of money management. At least three important emergent themes are discernable, highlighting the complexities that lie behind category labels and the need for a more nuanced approach in future research. First, care is needed when comparing cohabiting and married heterosexual couples: Vogler et al. report that young cohabiting unmarried parents are much more like their married counterparts than 1053-5357/$ – see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.socec.2006.12.033
456
Editorial / The Journal of Socio-Economics 37 (2008) 455–457
are those who have no dependent children or who are cohabiting following a divorce. This lends support to Barlow, 2008 call (this issue) for any future legal regulation of cohabiting partnerships (currently being considered by the UK’s Law Commission) to take a functional approach. Her findings show widespread support for the law to extend the economic and legal rights of marriage to those cohabitants who are fulfilling the functions of marriage, especially parenthood. Second, Ashby and Burgoyne, 2008 and Burns et al., 2008 unpack the little-researched categories of ‘Independent Management’ and ‘Partial Pooling’. Rather than signifying the existence of two separate financial entities (as has often been assumed in previous research) there may be a whole spectrum of separate and collective arrangements. These depend on such factors as who is deemed to own the money in various accounts, beliefs and expectations about the relationship, and so on. Moreover, in both same-sex and opposite-sex relationships, an ethic of ‘equality’ (typically expressed by making equal contributions to collective expenses, where money is not totally pooled) paradoxically reinforces the dominance of the higher earner, allowing ‘market forces’ (Vogler et al., 2008) into the relationship. This may also contribute to the differences in men’s and women’s ability (and willingness) to use ‘household income’ towards their own financial provision for retirement (Phipps and Woolley, 2008). Third, these papers indicate a growing consensus that existing typologies need rethinking if we are to have a better understanding of financial behaviour in the newer forms of partnership and even more so in non-western cultures. Pahl, 2008 who has been highly influential in this field of research, argues that assumptions based on family finances in Europe and North America may not apply to family arrangements in other parts of the world. Sonnenberg (2008) takes a more radical approach, arguing that researchers have tended to reify patterns of money management into ‘systems’. This prevents us from understanding the subtle processes of negotiation and identity construction that allow inequality to coexist with a rhetoric of equality within a relationship—typically disadvantaging the economically weaker partner. Sonnenberg, 2008 advocates the use of ethnographic and discursive approaches to household finances in order to uncover the ways that such inequalities are reproduced. Finally, as a counter-point to the apparent trend towards individualisation in financial arrangements, Kirchler et al., (2008) remind us of the research challenges posed by the fact that dyadic decision making is much more than a simple aggregation of decisions made by individuals. Where next? Engaging in mental time-travel is always risky, but it seems unlikely that the trends we are seeing will be reversed soon. In the absence of the old external constraints, arrangements within households have become subject to much more individual negotiation, creating newer tensions between freedom and commitment, separate and shared identities. The recent finding that even quite trivial exposure to the idea of money can change people’s behaviour towards what Vohs et al., 2006 call “self-sufficiency” is worth following up as it may have some relevance to the increasing levels of individualism within couple relationships (see also Burgoyne and Lea, 2006). We urgently need more and better research across national and cultural boundaries to explore, for example, cultures undergoing rapid social change, different economic and social contexts, and material relationships that encompass more than a single household. Policy needs to be informed by more fine-grained and relevant research. At present, we are far from realising Dasgupta’s (1995) vision of effective modelling and enquiry from a fusion of empirical data across disciplines and contexts. However, my hope is that the next decade will see the development of a more inclusive theory of the household economy that better reflects the more diverse and fluid relationships of the early 21st century.
Editorial / The Journal of Socio-Economics 37 (2008) 455–457
457
References Ashby, K.J., Burgoyne, C.B., 2008. Separate Financial Entities? Beyond categories of money management. Journal of Socio-Economics 37, 458–480. Barlow, A., 2008. Cohabiting relationships, money and property: The legal backdrop. Journal of Socio-Economics 37, 502–518. Burgoyne, C.B., 1995. Financial organisation and decision-making within western ‘households’. Journal of Economic Psychology 16, 421–430. Burgoyne, C.B., Lea, S.E.G., 2006. Money is material. Science 314, 1091–1092. Burgoyne, C.B., Routh, D.A., 1995. Economic actors, minds and contexts: towards an ecological economic psychology? Journal of Economic Psychology 16, 355–360. Burns, M.L., Burgoyne, C.B., Clarke, V., 2008. Financial affairs? Money management in same-sex relationships. Journal of Socio-Economics 37, 481–501. Dasgupta’s, P.S., 1995. Population, poverty, and the local environment. Scientific American 272 (2), 26–31. Kirchler, E., Hoelzl, E., Kamleitner, B., 2008. Spending and credit use in the private household. Journal of Socio-Economics 37, 519–532. Pahl, J., 2008. Family finances, individualisation, spending patterns and access to credit. Journal of Socio-Economics 37, 577–591. Phipps, S., Woolley, F., 2008. Control over money and the savings decisions of Canada households. Journal of SocioEconomics 37, 592–611. Sonnenberg, S.J., 2008. Household financial organisation and discursive practice: Managing money and identity. Journal of Socio-Economics 37, 533–551. Vogler, C., Brockmann, M., Wiggins, R.D., 2008. Managing money in new heterosexual forms of intimate relationships. Journal of Socio-Economics 37, 552–576. Vohs, K.D., Mead, N.L., Goode, M.R., 2006. The psychological consequences of money. Science 314, 1154–1156.
Carole B. Burgoyne ∗ School of Psychology, University of Exeter, Washington Singer Laboratories, Perry Road, Exeter EX4 4QG, UK ∗ Tel.:
+44 1392 264615; fax: +44 1392 264623. E-mail address: [email protected]
Editorial
Introduction: Special issue on the household economy
In the light of rapid social change, the intra-household economy is a constantly shifting target for both research and policy. As far back as 1995, there was a call for more interdisciplinary research effort, and a move away from an almost exclusive focus on married couples and western societies (Burgoyne and Routh, 1995; Burgoyne, 1995). More than a decade later, the process of change seems to have accelerated—even more than we anticipated. Family relationships have become more fluid and diverse: in the west we have witnessed a huge increase in the numbers of men and women living together; children born outside of formal marriage; high rates of divorce and remarriage; and increasing recognition and legal regulation of same sex partnerships. How have researchers responded to these challenges? First, there is renewed interest from scholars across a range of disciplines: this issue reflects such contributions from economics, law, sociology and psychology. The authors have attempted to write in a way that facilitates communication and collaboration across disciplinary boundaries. Nonetheless, they draw on a variety of methodological traditions: some based on qualitative interviews, some using survey data, and some taking a more theoretical perspective. Second, there is less emphasis on marriage per se in this issue, and the beginnings of more comparative work: three of the papers deal with financial practices in both married and unmarried opposite sex couples (those by Pahl, 2008; Vogler et al., 2008 and Ashby and Burgoyne, 2008) and a fourth reports findings from the first UK study of money in same sex couples (Burns et al., 2008). All of these report a higher incidence of separate systems of money management than has previously been observed in married heterosexuals. Pahl questions whether this is a real trend towards individualisation, reinforced by developments in financial and credit services, or whether it simply reflects an early stage in relationships with more merging of finances occurring when children arrive. In contrast, Vogler et al. argue that changes in the nature of marriage (in particular a decline in the traditional breadwinner model of marriage) and the rise in cohabitation may account for the use of more separate systems of money management. At least three important emergent themes are discernable, highlighting the complexities that lie behind category labels and the need for a more nuanced approach in future research. First, care is needed when comparing cohabiting and married heterosexual couples: Vogler et al. report that young cohabiting unmarried parents are much more like their married counterparts than 1053-5357/$ – see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.socec.2006.12.033
456
Editorial / The Journal of Socio-Economics 37 (2008) 455–457
are those who have no dependent children or who are cohabiting following a divorce. This lends support to Barlow, 2008 call (this issue) for any future legal regulation of cohabiting partnerships (currently being considered by the UK’s Law Commission) to take a functional approach. Her findings show widespread support for the law to extend the economic and legal rights of marriage to those cohabitants who are fulfilling the functions of marriage, especially parenthood. Second, Ashby and Burgoyne, 2008 and Burns et al., 2008 unpack the little-researched categories of ‘Independent Management’ and ‘Partial Pooling’. Rather than signifying the existence of two separate financial entities (as has often been assumed in previous research) there may be a whole spectrum of separate and collective arrangements. These depend on such factors as who is deemed to own the money in various accounts, beliefs and expectations about the relationship, and so on. Moreover, in both same-sex and opposite-sex relationships, an ethic of ‘equality’ (typically expressed by making equal contributions to collective expenses, where money is not totally pooled) paradoxically reinforces the dominance of the higher earner, allowing ‘market forces’ (Vogler et al., 2008) into the relationship. This may also contribute to the differences in men’s and women’s ability (and willingness) to use ‘household income’ towards their own financial provision for retirement (Phipps and Woolley, 2008). Third, these papers indicate a growing consensus that existing typologies need rethinking if we are to have a better understanding of financial behaviour in the newer forms of partnership and even more so in non-western cultures. Pahl, 2008 who has been highly influential in this field of research, argues that assumptions based on family finances in Europe and North America may not apply to family arrangements in other parts of the world. Sonnenberg (2008) takes a more radical approach, arguing that researchers have tended to reify patterns of money management into ‘systems’. This prevents us from understanding the subtle processes of negotiation and identity construction that allow inequality to coexist with a rhetoric of equality within a relationship—typically disadvantaging the economically weaker partner. Sonnenberg, 2008 advocates the use of ethnographic and discursive approaches to household finances in order to uncover the ways that such inequalities are reproduced. Finally, as a counter-point to the apparent trend towards individualisation in financial arrangements, Kirchler et al., (2008) remind us of the research challenges posed by the fact that dyadic decision making is much more than a simple aggregation of decisions made by individuals. Where next? Engaging in mental time-travel is always risky, but it seems unlikely that the trends we are seeing will be reversed soon. In the absence of the old external constraints, arrangements within households have become subject to much more individual negotiation, creating newer tensions between freedom and commitment, separate and shared identities. The recent finding that even quite trivial exposure to the idea of money can change people’s behaviour towards what Vohs et al., 2006 call “self-sufficiency” is worth following up as it may have some relevance to the increasing levels of individualism within couple relationships (see also Burgoyne and Lea, 2006). We urgently need more and better research across national and cultural boundaries to explore, for example, cultures undergoing rapid social change, different economic and social contexts, and material relationships that encompass more than a single household. Policy needs to be informed by more fine-grained and relevant research. At present, we are far from realising Dasgupta’s (1995) vision of effective modelling and enquiry from a fusion of empirical data across disciplines and contexts. However, my hope is that the next decade will see the development of a more inclusive theory of the household economy that better reflects the more diverse and fluid relationships of the early 21st century.
Editorial / The Journal of Socio-Economics 37 (2008) 455–457
457
References Ashby, K.J., Burgoyne, C.B., 2008. Separate Financial Entities? Beyond categories of money management. Journal of Socio-Economics 37, 458–480. Barlow, A., 2008. Cohabiting relationships, money and property: The legal backdrop. Journal of Socio-Economics 37, 502–518. Burgoyne, C.B., 1995. Financial organisation and decision-making within western ‘households’. Journal of Economic Psychology 16, 421–430. Burgoyne, C.B., Lea, S.E.G., 2006. Money is material. Science 314, 1091–1092. Burgoyne, C.B., Routh, D.A., 1995. Economic actors, minds and contexts: towards an ecological economic psychology? Journal of Economic Psychology 16, 355–360. Burns, M.L., Burgoyne, C.B., Clarke, V., 2008. Financial affairs? Money management in same-sex relationships. Journal of Socio-Economics 37, 481–501. Dasgupta’s, P.S., 1995. Population, poverty, and the local environment. Scientific American 272 (2), 26–31. Kirchler, E., Hoelzl, E., Kamleitner, B., 2008. Spending and credit use in the private household. Journal of Socio-Economics 37, 519–532. Pahl, J., 2008. Family finances, individualisation, spending patterns and access to credit. Journal of Socio-Economics 37, 577–591. Phipps, S., Woolley, F., 2008. Control over money and the savings decisions of Canada households. Journal of SocioEconomics 37, 592–611. Sonnenberg, S.J., 2008. Household financial organisation and discursive practice: Managing money and identity. Journal of Socio-Economics 37, 533–551. Vogler, C., Brockmann, M., Wiggins, R.D., 2008. Managing money in new heterosexual forms of intimate relationships. Journal of Socio-Economics 37, 552–576. Vohs, K.D., Mead, N.L., Goode, M.R., 2006. The psychological consequences of money. Science 314, 1154–1156.
Carole B. Burgoyne ∗ School of Psychology, University of Exeter, Washington Singer Laboratories, Perry Road, Exeter EX4 4QG, UK ∗ Tel.:
+44 1392 264615; fax: +44 1392 264623. E-mail address: [email protected]