The concept of (financial) autonomyFootnote ²

‘Autonomy’ is a central component of the equality measurement framework of the British Equality and Human Rights Commission (2009). Lister situates her analysis of autonomy (2003: 17) as the ability to determine the conditions of one's life and pursue one's life projects in the context of gendered relations; and Nussbaum argues (Reference Nussbaum2003: 34) that ‘agency and freedom are particularly important goals for women, who have so often been treated as passive dependents’.

Our focus here is financial autonomy. Economic autonomy, or financial independence within/from family, has been significant in gender debates. Lister (Reference Lister2003: 11) links autonomy with economic independence as ‘central to women's claims for full citizenship’ – adding, however, ‘albeit in the context of the weave of interdependencies of human relationships’ (Williams, Reference Williams2002; Smart, Reference Smart2007: 48; Ribbens McCarthy, Reference Ribbens McCarthy2012). At the heart of her discussion is a critique of gender inequalities resulting from women's economic dependence on men. Economic autonomy as access to income to support oneself and one's dependants has been central to debates about gender and the welfare state (e.g., Lewis, Reference Lewis1992; Orloff, Reference Orloff1993, Reference Orloff2009). It has often been a key theme in discussions about social security systems and welfare reform (for example, in the UK about the implications of means testing versus other routes to benefit entitlement) (Bennett, Reference Bennett2005).

This literature conveys the significance of economic autonomy for women in particular. But this has been criticised as of concern only to better-off women (Morgan, Reference Morgan2006: 89; Lister, Reference Lister2003: 108, 225, note 30; Bennett, Reference Bennett2008). On the other hand, challenging financial circumstances cannot be assumed to create togetherness. Indeed, they can impose great stress on relationships (Ramm et al., Reference Ramm, Coleman, Glenn and Mansfield2010), even risking family breakdown – though reliance on family-based identity may be more common in situations of reduced resources, as Ribbens McCarthy (Reference Ribbens McCarthy2012: 74) argues (see Daly and Leonard, Reference Daly and Leonard2002). Thus, the relevance of the economic independence dimension of financial autonomy to individuals in low-/moderate-income couples remains a puzzle to be investigated – and clearly relevant to the design of fiscal policy, including tax/benefits systems.

In relation to the other dimensions explored here – privacy, and agency – Fleming (Reference Fleming1997) and others have explored the desire for autonomy as influencing how couples organise their money, and the possibility of achieving this via independent money management (Ashby and Burgoyne, Reference Ashby, Burgoyne and Burgoyne2008). Again, tax/benefits policy can affect whether partners enjoy privacy within their relationship in relation to money matters, and what agency they have over elements of household income, including benefits. But the increase in independent management of money is associated with remarried couples (Burgoyne and Morison, Reference Burgoyne and Morison1997), younger cohorts (Burgoyne et al., Reference Burgoyne, Clarke, Reibstein and Edmunds2006), cohabiting couples (Burgoyne and Sonnenberg, Reference Burgoyne, Sonnenberg, Miles and Probert2009) and same sex partnerships (Burns et al., Reference Burns, Burgoyne, Clarke and Burgoyne2008). The interviewees in our research, however (see below), were very different. First, they were living on low/moderate incomes, and many had straitened finances, so sharing resources could be a rational response to external pressures; individual spending without agreement would jeopardise tight household budgeting. Secondly, drivers towards togetherness were strong, as all but one couple were married (remarried, for some); they had brought up children together; most had lived together for some considerable time; and there were more older than younger couples.

So we were investigating the meaning of financial autonomy to a population to whom this is often seen as irrelevant. Many studies of low-income couples’ household finances focus on gender inequalities in intra-household resources (e.g., Cantillon et al., Reference Cantillon, Gannon and Nolan2004). Our concern, however, is instead on the views and perceptions of both partners about financial autonomy, and in particular – given the tendency to subsume women's (and children's) needs/rights within the ‘family’ (Ribbens McCarthy, Reference Ribbens McCarthy2012: 85) – whether these varied by gender; and, if so, how.

Research methods and sample

We employed qualitative methods, particularly suited to exploring experiences of constraints in everyday life (Denzin and Lincoln, Reference Denzin and Lincoln1998). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with men and women in thirty male–female couples in England, Wales and Scotland. They had all had children at some point, and many had children/step-children living with them. Virtually all were of working age (with a few over sixty). Although this was not deliberate, all were white.

Our sample was drawn from individuals/couples from low-income households added to the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS), for the European Community Household Panel, and interviewed annually between 1997 and 2001. Information about the research was sent to some 100 couples, selected because they had the experience of living on means-tested benefits/tax credits, now and/or in the past. This was followed up over the telephone and thirty-one agreed to participate (one couple was omitted as they were not living on a low/moderate income).

Our sampling may have favoured the selection of couples inclined to ‘togetherness’ in financial arrangements; if so, individuals identifying autonomy as an issue relevant to themselves is all the more striking. We conducted interviews in 2006 with men and women separately (and simultaneously, whenever possible). Separate interviews allow individuals to express their views independently (Pahl, Reference Pahl1989) – particularly important for sensitive topics such as money (though joint interviews facilitate observation of couple dynamics). The data were analysed thematically with the help of Nvivo software.

Family finances

If we characterised our findings about couples’ finances with one catchphrase, it would be ‘all in one pot’. Many interviewees used this or similar phrases, as well as ‘partnership’ and ‘team’; and money was described in terms of there being ‘no yours and mine’ (Bennett et al., Reference Bennett, Henau, Himmelweit, Sung, Scott, Plagnol and Dex2012). Loyalty to the couple/family was emphatically expressed, and applied explicitly to finances.

We investigated indicators of financial togetherness, including joint accounts, which we found remain a ‘powerful symbol of marital togetherness’ (Pahl, Reference Pahl1999: 67). The vast majority of respondents saw a joint account as important, many referring to trust and sharing, some to practicalities, and a small number mentioning both (Sung and Bennett, Reference Sung, Bennett, Clarke, Maltby and Kennett2007). This included some women who emphasised its importance in terms of sharing:

This woman's part-time wage was paid into the joint account, and she shared the repayment of debts her husband had incurred prior to their marriage.

However, ‘one pot’ may be figurative (Sonnenberg, Reference Sonnenberg and Burgoyne2008), and some couples claim to manage everything jointly when their finances are separate. When togetherness has such a positive value, this can be one way to demonstrate commitment to it. So beliefs about how things should be done can affect ‘doing couple’ (Stocks, Reference Stocks, Stocks, Diaz and Hallerod2007) and ‘doing gender’ (West and Zimmermann, Reference West and Zimmerman1987) – how people perform their roles as partners as well as how their gendered identities affect their actions. This may be a strong (defensive) motivation for men in particular, in view of the familiar image of the man drinking the family money away, or otherwise failing to fulfil the ideal of the altruistic head of the unitary household (Becker, Reference Becker1981). For our interviewees, a focus on the individual did seem to be associated for men, in particular, with failing the family.

Conceptualisation of financial autonomy: economic independence, privacy and agency dimensions

Based on analysis of our interview data, we suggest a tripartite conception of financial autonomy for individuals in couples: economic independence (individual income, rights and entitlement), privacy (absence of surveillance) and/or agency (in relation to household and/or personal spending). These dimensions are well grounded in the literature on money management and gender relations, but have not to date to our knowledge been examined together in relation to low-/moderate-income couples. As we explained above, we believe that they can also be useful in analysing the implications of relevant policies, in particular welfare reform.

As Robeyns (Reference Robeyns2003: 65) noted, economic independence is often understood as not having to depend on resources from a partner to meet one's needs:

This was evident from our research; as one woman said:

We did not ask detailed questions about individual or family incomes; and our indicators of economic independence are not limited to having independent income, but also include feeling ownership and entitlement to income. We concentrate here on the views of men and women, and on teasing out the influence of gender roles and relations, though this is clearly intertwined with other factors such as family situation, employment status, etc., which are discussed where relevant.

Financial autonomy can also be understood as the absence of control or surveillance by a partner (Bjornberg and Kollind, Reference Bjornberg and Kollind2005), including privacy in financial affairs. This has been explored in research on ‘independent management’ of money by couples, individual accounts, etc. (e.g., Pahl, Reference Pahl2005). We investigate individual accounts, and men's and women's perspectives about financial privacy.

Finally, financial autonomy as agency can mean taking decisions or actions relating to household income for the household, and/or having legitimate access to that income for personal spending or projects. ‘Agency’ can include more than decision-making, encompassing negotiation, manipulation, resistance, etc. (Iversen, Reference Iversen2003, citing Kabeer, Reference Kabeer1999: 438). We look at control over income for the household, and how this may be related to contributing to household income, or possibly compensating for not doing so. We also examine access to income for ‘personal’ spending, including the importance of how this is defined.

There may be overlaps and interrelationships (and also perhaps contradictions and discrepancies) between these different dimensions of financial autonomy, which we try to tease out. We did not apply objective tests of financial autonomy; we are therefore interpreting whether our interviewees’ responses suggested this was a meaningful idea for them, and whether men's and women's views differ, and, if so, why. In particular, we were interested in its meaning to women at these modest income levels, given the argument about financial autonomy being relevant only for the better off, and in its relevance to married couples, given the suggestions that independence in finances is more salient for cohabitees and same-sex couples.

The economic independence dimension

We discuss below financial autonomy as economic independence, analysing the perceptions of interviewees about ownership of and entitlement to income, including their ideas about making a contribution and about the phrase ‘money in your own right’, which we used in our discussions with them.

In its ‘roadmap’ for gender equality, the European Commission (2006) called for equal economic independence for women and men. Though ‘the male breadwinner model has eroded . . . the social reality is still far from a family comprised of self-sufficient, autonomous individuals’ (Lewis, Reference Lewis2001: 60; and see Lewis and Bennett, Reference Lewis and Bennett2004). This was clearly true in particular for many women in our sample. In most couples, the woman as well as the man had a job, but, unlike almost all the men, most worked only part time. In three of the couples interviewed, the woman worked but the man did not, and in five the opposite was true; in a few cases, neither was employed. Few individuals had qualifications higher than O-level/GCSE or A-level.

It was clear, however, that most women saw economic independence as relevant to them. For some, it was a practical issue (Bennett et al., Reference Bennett, Henau, Himmelweit, Sung, Scott, Plagnol and Dex2012). A few emphasised the importance of money in their own right in the event of ‘something happening’ to their partner, his income or the partnership – or, in one example, ‘if I have to run’ (Case 14, female). None of the men talked in this way.

As Lewis (Reference Lewis2006: 40) wrote: ‘greater female economic independence, if not full autonomy, is . . . possible via the wage’. Women were often clear about the importance of their financial contribution for their own self-esteem, with two referring explicitly to ‘paying their way’. This seems to relate to (a degree of) perceived economic independence.

A sense of entitlement can also arise through individual rights to other income, including benefits (Rake and Jayatilaka, Reference Rake and Jayatilaka2002: 7; Goode et al., Reference Goode, Callender and Lister1998). So we explored this with our respondents. There was some resistance; many people viewed benefits as belonging to the family – sometimes, it seemed, because they were perceived as being just for the basics, with only any money over and above this being at the disposal of the individual. But a few women received carer's allowance, the non-means-tested benefit for caring for a disabled/elderly person; this tended to be seen as a wage, and (perhaps as a result) was likely to be available to them, rather than going into the family ‘pot’.

Some couples had a package of income between them – just benefits/tax credits, or combined with wages – with each partner ‘owning’ some. This could help to create a more equal relationship, with a degree of financial autonomy for both. In one such couple, both partners had part-time jobs and claimed tax credits to supplement their earnings. In another couple with three children (two with learning difficulties), the woman had no paid job, but received a carer's allowance and benefits for the children, which she said meant she had ‘more independence with money now’, as well as ‘more say’ (Case 19, female).

In other couples, however, such a package could instead give women some, albeit limited, autonomy in what appeared to be more unequal relationships. Two women in traditional couple relationships, for example, also received the carer's allowance. One, whose husband was employed, saw this allowance as her contribution, her own money, meaning she did not have to ‘keep asking him’ for money; the other valued her carer's allowance as her wage, and also because ‘you haven't had to ask anybody else for [it] or anything’. (Her husband had put the mortgage and bills in his name.) This emphasis on not having to ask for money demonstrates the importance of financial autonomy, in this sense of (some limited) economic independence, to these women.

To explore whether our interviewees felt entitled to any income, we asked about ‘money in your own right’. Although one man said ‘money in your own right’ was important for him (‘in a relationship . . . you still need a bit of independence’), men tended to say they found this meaningless, or to resist what they interpreted as separate, individualised money. In turn, the resistance was often linked to the idea(l) of family togetherness (Ribbens McCarthy, Reference Ribbens McCarthy2012) and the role of a (good) man:

This recalls Lewis's finding (Reference Lewis2001) that the behaviour of the older men in her study had meaning to them only in relation to their families. Some women also resisted the idea of ‘money in your own right’, because they saw all money coming in as joint. But women were more likely to sound as though they were aware of, indeed lived, the tensions between financial togetherness and autonomy – whilst men found it hard to conceive of these in tandem and, if ‘money in your own right’ was interpreted as individual money, saw this as undermining togetherness (Bennett et al., Reference Bennett, Henau, Himmelweit, Sung, Scott, Plagnol and Dex2012).

The only meaning some men could attach to ‘money in your own right’ was the cash in their wallet, which a few received regularly as pocket money from their partners, often (though not always) in couples in which the woman was unwaged. Whilst this can be seen as men having privileged access to personal spending (see, e.g., Goode et al., Reference Goode, Callender and Lister1998), the amounts involved here tended to be minimal. Men could imply that all their needs were met, so they saw no need for individual money; financial autonomy seemed to be taken for granted, and getting ‘pocket money’ appeared not to carry connotations of dependence for them.

However, the major differences between men and women – and the most significant findings in relation to financial autonomy as economic independence – emerged in relation to questions about whether ‘money in your own right’ was important, and, if so, why. In the largest proportion of couples (nearly half), the man said it was not important, whilst the woman said it was. Men, however, were more likely to see this as having an income that allowed for more than just the basics:

But women referred instead to its personal importance to them – often linking this to autonomy (Stocks et al., Reference Stocks, Diaz and Hallerod2007):

‘Money in your own right’, however, was often seen by both men and women in our sample as referring to extras. Indeed, a few interviewees identified presents they received as the only ‘money in their own right’ they could think of. Thus, financial autonomy in this sense was inherently very limited, in particular for couples living on lower incomes.

The privacy dimension

Pahl (Reference Pahl1999) suggests that couples pooling their incomes value equality, whereas those with independent finances value privacy and autonomy. Couples’ financial management systems are becoming more independent (Vogler et al., Reference Vogler, Lyonette and Wiggins2008a). But the joint assessment of resources and needs involved in means testing precludes financial privacy for couples. And no couples in our sample had completely independent finances.

In a number, one or both partners did have individual bank accounts. Interpreting this is not straightforward, however. Lewis (Reference Lewis2001: 165) has warned against drawing conclusions about money management from couples’ accounts; and Ashby and Burgoyne (Reference Burgoyne2008) found some couples who saw pooled money as being separately owned, and vice versa. The sharing implied (and equality sometimes assumed) by pooling income may not exist in practice (Burgoyne et al., Reference Burgoyne, Clarke and Burns2011; Yodanis and Lauer, Reference Yodanis and Lauer2007). Similarly, we found a number of couples with no joint account, but wide variation in the degree of their financial jointness. For instance, both partners in one couple had their own accounts; the man's wage went into his account, but his partner held his debit card and was responsible for household spending. She was out of work due to chronic illness, but managed her partner's bank account, and gave him pocket money – and her husband said he completely trusted her.

Research in the UK (Pahl, Reference Pahl1999) and elsewhere (Singh and Morley, Reference Singh and Morley2011) suggests that women are more likely to have individual accounts. This was evident in our study. A few women did say that having an individual account was not significant for them, as everything should be shared in marriage; but the majority said it was important. The reasons, however, varied. For women, it meant not having to ask their partner for money, or justify their spending (Sung and Bennett, Reference Sung, Bennett, Clarke, Maltby and Kennett2007). In general, more women seemed concerned about financial privacy.

One man said, ‘I'd rather my own account . . . it feels important to me.’ In practice, his wife managed the money and gave him pocket money weekly; they had no joint account. However, most men said that an individual account was not important, or even implied that it potentially undermined togetherness. The partners in one couple expressed different views, the man favouring jointness, whilst the woman was more ambivalent, recalling his attempts to supervise how she spent the money:

For this man, therefore, financial privacy via an individual account could threaten the idea of togetherness, whereas for the woman this was a way to make togetherness work in practice. (They now had individual accounts, and no joint account; but their wages were paid into each other's accounts, to facilitate their gendered spending roles.) On the other hand, in another couple the man said that they both had individual accounts so that neither was beholden to the other or controlled everything; this did seem to be related to a desire for equality.

Phipps and Woolley (Reference Phipps and Woolley2006: 19) found women's earnings more likely to be paid into individual, and men's into joint, accounts: ‘men's incomes seem to be more “joint” in some sense’. This is consistent with male breadwinner ideology; but it could also stem from concern about the man keeping money for himself, rather than using it for the family – potentially important for low-income families in particular. In our research, when men seemed sensitive to their partner's financial privacy, this could relate to their role as the main family income provider, with the woman's money available for her to spend as she wished because it was not seen as essential. This was therefore somewhat double-edged: whilst it afforded the woman some autonomy, it could also reinforce the man's breadwinner status (Bennett et al., Reference Bennett, Henau, Sung, Scott, Crompton and Lyonette2010). It is one example of potential tensions between different dimensions of financial autonomy.

There were also two couples in each of which the woman said she had no knowledge of elements of the man's financial dealings (in one case, a business account, and in the other, a loan secured on the house) (Bennett et al., Reference Bennett, Henau, Himmelweit, Sung, Scott, Plagnol and Dex2012). Both these husbands were self-employed, probably making concealment easier. Privacy may not always be positive, especially when combined with unequal power and/or separate decision-making. We found no evidence of ‘secret saving’ by women (Eroglu, Reference Eroglu2009), however; though in one of the two cases above the woman mentioned a loan taken out without telling her husband.

The agency dimension

Gendered implications of current welfare reform for low-income couples

Conceptualising financial autonomy as having these dimensions facilitates analysis of the gendered implications of welfare reform affecting low-/moderate-income families. The example chosen here is universal credit, a ‘super means-tested benefit’ to be introduced from 2013 to 2017 in the UK, that will bring together most means-tested benefits for those out of work with tax credits for those in work in one single payment, paid monthly. Major aims include simplification and improving incentives to work (DWP, 2010). But the scheme appears to have been devised with a traditional family in mind and without any in-depth gender analysis, despite various equality impact assessments (DWP, 2011).

The dimension of economic independence for women in couples in particular will be compromised by the increased ‘marginal deduction rate’ (the partial withdrawal of an increase in income through reduced benefit and/or higher tax and national insurance contributions) for many so-called ‘second earners’ who enter employment, or increase their hours/pay, compared with the current situation. The government says it prioritises getting at least one earner into work in households with children in particular (DWP, 2011: para. 68). More fundamentally, receipt of means-tested benefits for a couple results in each partner's decisions about employment (etc.) inevitably being affected by the actions of the other. Under universal credit, and similar benefits in other countries, both partners in many couples have to meet conditionality rules, undertaking to jobseek, etc. If one refuses to agree to these requirements, benefit may not be payable.

As noted above, the dimension of privacy is already compromised by any means-tested benefit, the calculation of which for couples requires joint assessment of resources and needs. But, in addition, couples must make joint claims for universal credit, and are jointly responsible and liable for the claim and the reporting. Information about the claim will, it appears, be shared with both partners in virtually all cases.

In addition, the dimension of agency may be affected by universal credit, because for couples the benefit must be paid into one account, nominated by the couple. (If they cannot agree, the Secretary of State decides.) This is a significant decision because so many means-tested payments are brought together in universal credit, including those for children and rent. For couples out of work without a joint account, this amounts to nominating one payee for virtually all their income. Even having a joint account, as noted above, does not necessarily guarantee equal access or control. So one partner's agency in relation to household income may be diminished by the decision the couple makes about payment of universal credit. Yet we know that couples use their mix of income streams and bank accounts to manage the complexity of the relationships in their lives, including their own.