1. The financial practices and perceptions behind separate systems of household financial management Dr Katherine Ashby, Faculty of Law and Social Sciences, SOAS, University of London.

2. Overview Why investigate money management Money management of cohabiting couples Qualitative findings Survey study findings Conclusions Directions for future research

3. Why investigate the household financial management of unmarried cohabitants? 25% of all unmarried heterosexuals in the UK aged 16-59 yrs were cohabiting in 2002 (National Statistics, 2004) Current policy debates surrounding the legal financial rights and obligations of cohabitants How money management fits in Stack versus Dowden (2007)

4. Money management of cohabiting couples Cohabitants are more likely to use separate systems of money management (Elizabeth, 2001; Vogler, 2005).  Independent management - no joint sources of money  Partial pooling - income paid into separate accounts, joint pool for household expenses Qualitative study with 18 cohabiting couples: explored meanings and practices behind separate systems

5. Behind the category labels: Meanings and practices 14/18 used IM 3/18 used PP Potential for variation in financial practices Money held in separate accounts could be seen as ‘belonging’ to both partners Three ownership groups - Shared - Blurred - Distinct

6. DISTINCT BLURRED COLLECTIVE Separate financial entities Viewed and treated money in an independent way Paid back any money they borrowed Own responsibility to pay for joint expenses Less clear sense of who owned the money Viewed money as really there for their partner and for the relationship Give versus loan money More flexible about paying for joint expenses Expressed a very strong view that all (or nearly all) of the money coming into the household was jointly owned Joint decision how the money in each account was used Separate accounts were not private Ownership perceptions

7. Summary and implications of qualitative findings Diversity hidden under category labels of IM and PP Imply a level of separateness many couples do not have Moving beyond typology to include perceptions of ownership

8. Survey study Conducted online 190 cohabitants Divided into 11 sections, including detailed look at financial arrangements and perceptions of ownership Female viewpoint Dual earners, without children

9. Ownership perceptions in the survey study 8 items averaged to create a measure of ownership perceptions (a =.88) Categorical variable also created by dividing the scale into 3 categories: Shared, blurred and distinct  “I would say that overall I see the money that I earn as money for the relationship, rather than just my money”  “I would say my partner and I usually just give rather than loan each other money”  “We see ourselves as separate from each other financially”

10. Money management system by ownership perceptions

11. Regression Hierarchical logistic regression analyses Predictors of cohabitants using separate systems making equal or different contributions to joint household expenses First step: - children under 18 years (yes/no) & - earning disparity (one partner earns a great deal more, one partner earns slightly more, earn roughly the same) Second step - ownership perceptions (scores 1-5)

12. Regression

13. Predicting equal (compared to different) contributions Cohabitants who earn roughly the same amount as their partner, and perceive money as more distinctly (separately) owned are more likely to make equal contributions towards household expenses. When one partner earns a great deal more than the other and money is perceived as more shared, cohabitants are more likely to make different contributions.

14. Meanings and practices behind separate systems Vogler et al (2008) - separate systems reflecting a desire by higher earner to retain greater access to and control over money? Looking at practices and perceptions behind category labels in detail indicates this is not always the case Earning disparity and different contributions Extent partners feel they have separate control seems to depends on how they perceive ownership of money

15. Summary and conclusions Limitations Strength - detailed financial information Typology not always able to capture how those using separate systems perceive and handle money Qualitative study provided rich base of data from which to develop survey study

16. Directions for the future Rigorous testing in future research Fruitful and novel way of capturing detailed financial information that researchers have not previously been able to capture in quantitative research