Women’s and men’s predominant social practices in managing employment and unpaid work are influenced by both family policies and society’s predominant cultural family models. Comparative approaches integrating macro-level and micro-level variables are increasingly used to study gendered dynamics in intimate relationships. Yet similar comparative approaches to the study of money management in intimate relationships are lacking. Using data from 34 countries surveyed in International Social Survey Programme 2012 data, I explore how variation in institutional and cultural factors concerning gender expectations (...) shapes money management decisions in intimate relationships. The results highlight the importance of contextual gender-egalitarian beliefs and institutional practices to the likelihood of using joint and individualized systems of money management over the traditional system. While macro-level gender ideology was associated with both joint and individualized system, the institutional practices were found to have a stronger relationship with couples’ individualized money management. (shrink)

The ways in which partners manage their money provide important clues to gender inequality in and the nature of couple relationships. Analyzing data from nationally representative surveys, I examine changes across British cohorts born between the 1920s and 1990s in their household financial management, and how the changes vary across individuals and couples occupying differential income positions. The results show divergent, nuanced cohort trends toward gender equality in couples’ money management. Across successive cohorts of low-earning women, there has been a (...) subtle relaxation in the form of male control, reflected in a decrease in the proportion of men adopting “back-seat” management by retaining the majority of the couple’s money while delegating the chore of managing daily expenses to their partners. By contrast, the empowerment of high-earning women is reflected primarily in an individualization of financial management, evident in a cohort decrease in joint financial management and an increase in independent management. The trend of individualization is particularly prominent among couples in which both partners have equally high earnings. The findings provide new insights into and important extensions of the theorization of gender relations in and the individualization of couple relationships. (shrink)

In this article, I advance a theory of gendered money and demonstrate how couples give special symbolic meaning to men’s money in domestic exchanges. Unlike previous perspectives on gender and money such as resource theories and gender performance, this framework acknowledges money as a prop and tool that couples use to construct gender boundaries and signal normalcy in the marital relationship. Integrating concepts from economic sociology with Hochschild’s insights on the symbolism of domestic labor, I find that Ukrainians use money (...) as a token and symbol of value, not as a commodity with which to obtain desired outcomes. Drawing on in-depth interviews with 56 married and cohabiting individuals, I discover that couples subvert market meanings of money to enact a Soviet-style gender ideology. By spending men’s money on “necessary” items and avoiding accessing women’s money in the household, couples construct men’s money as both visible and valuable while rendering women’s money non-fungible. These practices highlight the primacy of culture and ideology over relative income, and can help explain the reproduction of male privilege in the household, despite gains in women’s employment and earnings. (shrink)