Savings, investments, debts and psychological well-being in married and cohabiting couples

Man Yee Kan University of Oxford Heather Laurie University of Essex

DRAFT for discussion please do not quote without authors permission.

Address for correspondence: Man Yee Kan Department of Sociology, University of Oxford, Manor Road, OX1 3UQ, UK. man-yee.kan@sociology.ox.ac.uk

w w w. ise r.e ss ex .a c. uk

Savings, investments, debts and psychological well-being in married and cohabiting couples1

ABSTRACT This paper builds on the existing literature about the distribution of financial resources within the household between couple members. Using data from the British Household Panel Study (BHPS) we examine the ownership of housing, savings, investments and debts by couple members, and how these vary by individual and household characteristics. A particular focus is the extent to which financial resources derived from paid employment may be allocated within the household through the ownership of assets and debts by couple members. We then examine the relationship between the ownership of assets and liabilities with individual psychological well-being. The analysis finds that most couples who own their own home do so in joint names even though cohabiting couples are significantly less likely to have joint home ownership compared with married couples. Savings are more commonly held in joint names than investments or debts and there is evidence of an increasing independence in financial arrangements between couple members through the period 1995 to 2005. Cohabitation reduces the likelihood of shared financial arrangements. Both partners labour market income affects the likelihood of having any savings or investments for both men and women but as mens labour income increases, the likelihood of men having jointly held savings and investments with their female partner reduces. Psychological well-being is improved where individuals have any

savings or investments either solely or jointly held with their partner. Womens well-being is improved where they have jointly held investments with their partner while men suffer worse well-being if they have debts.

Key words: savings, investments, debts, gender, couples, psychological well-being

Introduction There is a growing literature on womens wealth holdings compared to men. This focuses on the impact of womens patterns of labour market participation and the gender wage gap on womens ability to build up assets and savings for the future. Rowlingson et al (1999) highlight the importance of the lifecycle for understanding how people accrue assets over time and the implications for womens wealth holdings over the longer term. A major policy concern is the longer term impact on pensions and financial well-being in retirement for women who are unable to accrue savings due to having taken breaks from paid employment to raise children or earning low wages when they are in employment (Warren et al. 2001; Ginn and Arber 2002; Arber 2003). Women tend to be more likely to be either out of the labour market altogether due to caring responsibilities or to work part-time. Even if women work full-time across the lifecourse there is a well-documented gender wage gap with women tending to have on average lower wages than men even when in equivalent occupations (Bardasi and Gornick 2000). This affects womens long-term ability to save and reduces their pension income in later life relative to men (Warren, Rowlingson and Whyley 2001), an effect which Bardasi and Jenkins (2004) find is primarily due to differences in personal characteristics between men and women rather than differences in life-time employment patterns. On the other side of the savings and wealth equation, levels of personal debt have on average increased markedly throughout the last two decades, with those who are least able to afford to service credit commitments likely to be hardest hit by the current recession. Household wealth is typically estimated at the level of the household rather than the individual or couple (see for example Banks, Smith and Wakefield 2002). In this paper we examine an aspect of patterns of asset and debt holdings which is rarely considered, namely the housing, saving, investment and debt ownerships of men and women within married and

cohabiting couples. A key outcome of concern for this paper is the effect of potentially gendered patterns of holdings between couple members on individual psychological well-being as measured by the short-form of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ12). The paper focuses on home ownership, as it usually forms the largest part of the household assets, as well as liquid assets, in the form of savings and investments, and debts as a means to unpack gender differences in the distribution of wealth between couple members and the implications for their psychological well-being.

Theoretical Background and Research Questions There is an extensive sociological literature on the distribution of financial resources between couple members in terms of the management and control of money entering the household from employment and non-employment sources (Pahl 1989; Vogler and Pahl 1993; Rake and Jayatilaka 2002). This work has demonstrated that an assumption that financial resources are equally distributed within the household does not necessarily reflect the reality of financial sharing. There is considerable variation in the way couples manage their money and the access each partner has to money entering the household, processes which produce gendered patterns of consumption for individual household members. Analysing US data in the 1980s, Treas (1993) suggests that whether couples hold joint or independent bank accounts depends on the transaction cost of their money management. She argues that couples tend to pool their financial assets rather than to hold separate accounts in order to maximize efficiency in money management and minimize costs associated with metering each others contribution. More recent qualitative research in the UK has revealed that the financial well-being of each partner depends on negotiations internal to the household about who should have access to money entering the household and how that money should be

spent (Goode 2009) even though, as Hand (2006) points out, negotiation may be based more on assumptions and understandings that have developed over time than rational discussion and clear decision-making. Sung and Bennett (2007:169) find that loyalty to an ideal of coupledom continues to be strong even if more often expressed as jointness and mutuality rather than equality, shedding some light on broader issues of gender relations within the household and how these are mediated both by social norms and the socio-economic characteristics of individuals. Burgoyne and Morison (1997) suggest that re-partnering following a relationship breakdown can lead to greater independence in financial arrangements in the new relationship as couples are more reluctant to adopt a joint model of shared finances. The majority of married and cohabiting couples describe their financial arrangements as being jointly managed (Pahl 1989; Laurie and Gershuny 2000; Sung and Bennett 2007). Vogler, Brockman and Wiggins (2006) suggest that we are seeing a shift towards greater independence in money management between couple members, particularly for cohabiting rather than married couples. They argue that we are seeing a shift to partially independent or independent financial management, where each partner contributes equally to household expenditure regardless of income levels. This may lead to greater inequalities between couple members as gender inequalities generated in the labour market are translated more directly into inequalities within the household. When considering housing, savings, investments and debts, we might expect to see similar gender inequalities within the household especially if some forms of these resources are more likely to be held as individual assets or liabilities. We would also expect that womens labour market participation and income levels will be associated with patterns of managing financial resources. Analysis of the savings, investment and debt holdings of men and women using quantitative data reveals significant gender inequalities at the aggregate level which reflect

the broader gender inequalities in paid and unpaid work (Westaway and McKay 2007). This study finds that women are more likely than men to have savings but womens savings are worth less on average, women owe less money but are more likely to have problems with debt than men, and women start off saving into pensions as much as men but end up with smaller pensions. Recent qualitative research in the UK provides insights into the distribution not only of income within the household but of savings and debt holdings between couple members. Rowlingson and Joseph (2010) find that there is an important distinction between formal legal ownership of assets and debts and how these are perceived by couple members. Savings may be held in one name but seen as a joint resource for the couple, a situation which has the potential to disadvantage cohabiting women in particular on the break-up of a relationship if there are inequalities in the value of assets and liabilities held by each partner. This study also found that women were more likely to say they had problem debts due to debts they had been left with from a previous relationship and the use of credit cards, combined with a greater willingness than men to admit to debt problems when being interviewed. Assets and debts were not equally shared within couples nor did couple members play an equal role in decision-making about assets and debts while relative resources in terms of socio-economic status were important in determining ownership of assets and debts. Rowlingson and Joseph (2010) find that while couples are together, the unequal distribution of assets and debts can cause anxiety for one couple member and where couple members feel relaxed with such inequality, the experiences some report on the break-down of a relationship suggest this might be something they could regret in the future. There is also a possibility of financial exclusion within couples where one member of the couple knows little about their partners financial situation which may vary widely from their own. As Pahl (2008) observes, the use of credit cards for example is an individualised form of money

which can privilege those with good credit ratings and an independent income while disadvantaging others. In addition to research into savings behaviour, the levels of unsecured personal debt in the UK have been of increasing concern, especially in the context of the recession where households and individuals may be over-stretched and unable to meet their commitments. Kempson et al. (2004), in a longitudinal analysis of data from the British Household Panel Study found that just under half (45 per cent) of individuals interviewed in 1995 and again in 2000 owed nothing in both years while 25 per cent owed money in both years. The proportion who owed money did not change between 1995 and 2000 but the amount owed had doubled over the five year period. There were also some shifts in the type of borrowing with credit card use increasing and hire purchase and mail order becoming less common. They also found that certain types of households were more likely to be using credit with 68 per cent of family households and 75 per cent of lone parents owing money. While we have evidence at the household level that credit use and the amounts owed varies by household composition and income, we have limited quantitative evidence about how debt is distributed within couples. Being financially independent may be an important factor for women as a safeguard for their own future, for example in the face of unexpected events such as relationship breakdown where women typically fare worse than men financially (Jarvis and Jenkins 1999; Rowlingson and Joseph 2010; Goode 2009; Westaway and McKay 2007). Additionally, it could be expected that feeling financially secure, with some savings and no debts would be associated with higher reported levels of psychological well-being with worries about debt being likely to reduce individual levels of well-being. A clear relationship between income and life satisfaction at the individual level has been demonstrated by many (Clarke and Oswald 1996; Blanchflower and Oswald 2004; Ferrer-i-Carbonell 2005) even though it is comparison income with a reference

group or rank income, rather than income level alone which may be most strongly associated with psychological well-being as measured by self-reported life satisfaction scales. Focusing solely on income levels to look at the association between economic circumstances and self-reported well-being, the findings usually show that an increase in income does not necessarily increase personal happiness (Boyce, Brown and Moore 2010). However, as Headey and Wooden (2004) find, measures of wealth are positively associated with life satisfaction and in Britain these effects are larger than income effects when comparing households at the top and bottom end of the wealth distributions. When considering the effect of a lack of savings and problems managing financially, a recent study by Taylor, Jenkins and Sacker (2009) showed a strong association between financial incapability (defined as people who said they were struggling financially and had no savings) and psychological well-being. After controlling for a range of demographic and socio-economic characteristics, higher financial incapability was associated with higher mental stress, lower reported life satisfaction, and health problems associated with anxiety or depression. They also find that the relationship between financial incapability and psychological well-being varies and is strongest at the bottom of the financial incapability distribution, compounding the already psychologically harmful effects of life events such as unemployment or divorce. In this paper, we examine the ownership of housing, savings, investments and debts within married and cohabiting couples to start to unpack the gender differences which are hidden in family or household approaches. We examine labour market and other factors associated with the ownerships of these assets and debts, and whether or not these are sole or joint ownerships. We then examine the association between mens and womens holdings and psychological wellbeing reported by each couple member. We expect that holdings of housing, savings and investments are likely to increase psychological well-being while holding debts is likely to

decrease levels of well-being. We have two main research questions. First whether there is evidence of increasing independence in financial arrangements between couple members over time and secondly, whether sole or jointly held housing or other assets or debts affect psychological well-being. We consider both household and individual characteristics including partners and own employment status, annual income, age, education, marital status, whether cohabiting, the presence of children and how these factors affect married and cohabiting women and men differently in terms of their wealth and debt holdings and psychological well-being.

Data and Methods The data used are from the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS), which collected detailed information on savings, investments and debts at the individual level in the 1995, 2000 and 2005 waves. The sample includes married or cohabiting couples where both partners are of working age (i.e. women aged < 60 and men aged < 65) in the three waves2. There are repeated observations of some respondents in the pooled sample. In our analytical models, robust standard errors are used in most of the models to take account of these multiple observations of individuals.

Three main sets of dependent variables are used in the analysis: The ownership of housing, savings, investments and debts Whether assets and debts are held jointly or in sole names Psychological well-being as measured by the 12 item General Health Questionnaire scores (GHQ12)

10

Ownership of housing, savings, investments and debts The main dependent variables in our models are whether or not respondents own their housing, have savings, investment and debts respectively, as well as whether or not they hold these assets and debts jointly or solely. The BHPS asked respondents about whether they had a number of types of liquid assets and debts3. If respondents reported having one or more types of savings, investments or debts, they were then asked about whether these were in their sole name, in joint names, or held solely and jointly with someone else. As for housing ownership, the BHPS asked in the household questionnaire about the housing tenure of respondents current accommodation (e.g. owned outright, owned with a mortgage, rented private accommodation, council housing). If the home was owned outright or with a mortgage, respondents were then asked about the names under which the property was held. The number of missing values for these questions about home ownership is negligible (less than 1 per cent). We run multinomial logistic regressions in a set of models to compare the characteristics of people with no ownership, sole ownership and joint ownerships of assets and debts4. In the final set of models, we examine the possible impacts of having or not having assets and debts on psychological well-being. We measure psychological well-being using the 12 item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ12) score. The score is derived from 12 items which measure individuals self-reported of mental well-being. The score ranges from 0 to 36, where a higher value indicates a more stressful, poorer mental state. OLS regressions are used in these models. The main independent variables in the models are both partners employment statuses, and annual income. We are interested in the extent to which resources derived from labour market participation may be allocated through the ownership of assets and the holding of joint assets and how these are associated with psychological well-being. The control variables include

11

the year of the study, age group, marital status (married, cohabiting or remarried, i.e. either one or both partners were married more than once), housing tenure status, presence of a child under 16, as these variables have been shown to be important predictors of both wealth holding and well-being in past studies.

Results Descriptive Findings Table I gives the proportion of married or cohabiting men and women in the sample by year who reported having no ownership, sole ownership and joint ownership of housing, savings, investments and debts respectively. In the UK, due to policies promoting house ownerships since the 1970s, it is common for people to purchase their houses outright or by mortgage. More than 70 per cent of people own their homes. Nevertheless, non-ownership is more common among women (28 per cent) than men (26 per cent). Turning to liquid assets, just over 70 per cent of men and women had savings, and just under 50 per cent had debts. However, women were less likely than men to have investments: 37 per cent of women had investments compared to 41 per cent of men. Of the three years 1995, 2000 and 2005, the proportions of men and women holding investments were the lowest in 2005 (just above 35 per cent) as were the proportions having debts (around 45 per cent).

[Table I here ]

Focusing on sole ownership or joint ownership, 66 per cent of couples (or over 85 per cent of home owners) own their housing in joint names. Among liquid assets and debts, sole holdings are more common than joint holdings: 42 per cent of men and 48 per cent of women (or above 60 per cent of couples who have savings) hold these in their sole name. We also see an
12

upward trend towards sole holdings from 1995 to 2000 and 2005. This is due in part to the increasing prevalence of cohabitation. But our findings, as will be seen from the multivariate analysis, show that sole holdings have also become more prevalent than joint holdings among married couples over this period. There are relatively higher proportions of women and men who do not have any investments or debts compared to the case of savings. Investments are most commonly held as sole assets amongst the different types of liquid assets and debts. About 77 per cent of men and women who have investments hold them under their sole name.

Findings of Multivariate Analyses: Determinants of ownership of housing and having savings, investment and debts Tables II to V present models of multinomial regressions predicting the ownership and sole ownership (contrasting with joint ownership) of housing and liquid assets and debts. Here we are particularly interested in the associations between the individuals own and their spouses labour market income and their ownership of housing or holding any assets or debts. We find that the ownership status of all types of assets and debts is strongly associated with life stage factors. Net of other factors, men and women in younger age groups are less likely to have housing assets, savings and investments than older couples but those in younger age groups are less likely to hold debts, reflecting the lower level of financial resources available to them in the earlier stage of the life course. After controlling for age and other factors, cohabitation is negatively

associated with the ownership of housing and having savings, investments and debts. Remarried individuals5 are also less likely than those who have not been remarried to have housing and other assets, and except for men, the association with savings status is insignificant. The association between remarriage and having debts is also insignificant. Controlling for other

13

characteristics, having a dependent child reduces the likelihood of owning housing and of having savings. Having a dependent child also makes men more likely to have debts. As for labour market income, the respondents own income is positively associated with the likelihood of home ownership and having savings and investments for both men and women. Spouses labour income has similar positive associations. In addition, there is no significant difference between ones own and the spouses associations. The associations of both partners income and the holding of debts are weak after controlling for other factors concerning economic background and stage of the life course. As expected, home ownership has a strong association with having liquid assets and debts. Those who jointly own their home with their spouse are more likely to have savings and investments and less likely to have debts than either non-home owners or those who hold their housing in their sole names.

[Tables II to V here]

In sum, the ownership of housing and having liquid assets are associated with both the individuals own and their partners labour income. We have found a relatively symmetrical association of the ownerships with both partners income.

Determinants of sole ownership (contrasting with joint ownership) We now focus on the results of the multinomial logistic regression models in Tables II to V predicting sole ownership of housing and sole holdings of savings, investments and debts6. Differing from the case of liquid assets, it is common for couple members to jointly own their housing. From Table II, we see that the likelihood of joint housing ownership increases between 1995 and 2005, a result which is not surprising given the increase in house prices over this period and the need for two incomes to qualify for a mortgage in many cases7 . Compared with married
14

couples, cohabiting couples are far more likely to own housing under one partners name. Remarriage, however, makes no significant difference to the likelihood of sole ownership of housing. While age and whether or not having a dependent child are significant predictors of home ownership, they do not predict sole versus joint ownership of housing. Most remarkably, for both men and women, the partners income rather than ones own income, decreases the likelihood of sole ownership. Turning to the models in Tables III to V, we see again that cohabitation is a key factor influencing whether or not assets and debt are held in sole or joint names. Cohabiting couples are significantly less likely to hold their assets and debts in joint names than married couples, even controlling for home ownership, age, and other factors. Women who have remarried are also more likely than those who have not remarried to hold their savings in their sole name. In contrast to housing, there is a period effect on the likelihood of having joint holdings for all three types of liquid assets and liabilities. After controlling for other factors in the models, the likelihood of having joint holdings is reduced over the ten years from 1995. Cohabitation is also major factor. Cohabiting couples have a lower chance of having joint holdings in all the three types of assets and debts compared to married couples. This may reflect their lower commitment to the relationship, greater independence within the relationship, or the fact that those who choose to cohabit hold different views on how finances should be managed within a relationship. In addition, some cohabitees in the sample are cohabiting following the breakdown of a marriage, with an experience in a previous relationship potentially affecting how they manage their finances in future relationships (Rowlingson and Joseph 2010; Burgoyne and Morison 1997). Having a dependent child increases the likelihood of reporting joint investments and debts for women, but only investments for men.

15

Most strikingly, we find that whether liquid assets and debts are held in sole or joint names depends largely on the status of property ownership. From Table III, compared with couple members who have joint housing assets, those who hold housing in their sole name are more likely to have sole saving accounts only (the corresponding coefficients are positive in both the mens and the womens models). The likelihood of sole ownership of savings is significantly higher when housing is held under the spouses name only. In Tables IV and V, we can also identify similar patterns of association between sole home ownership and sole holdings of investments and debts. Housing assets usually constitute the major share of total assets of the household. One might therefore expect that joint home ownership would predict a higher chance of sole ownership in other types of assets, which are typically of lower financial value than housing and should be deemed less important once the major part of the assets is shared. Nevertheless, our findings do not support this conjecture as the majority of couples hold savings, investments and debts in their sole name even if housing is in joint names. In contrast, sole holding of housing assets is likely to reflect a disposition for independent financial management among couple members as these couples tend towards an independent model across all types of financial dealings rather than adopting a mixture of the two. Next we turn to the associations between labour market income and the joint/sole holding of liquid assets and debts. The likelihood of men having joint or sole accounts in savings or investments is not associated with their own or their partners annual income. On the other hand, women are less likely to have joint savings accounts with increases in their partners income. They are more likely to have joint holdings of savings and investments with increases in their own annual income. Generally, increases in womens income relative to her partner increases the tendency that she will hold her savings jointly with her partner. However, women with partners with higher incomes are less likely to have joint access to savings and investments.

16

Turning to debts, men have a lower chance of having jointly held debts as their income increases. But womens likelihood of having joint debts rather than sole debts is not associated significantly with either their own or their partners income, net of other controls. This shows that, unlike savings and investments, the joint or sole holding of debts is independent of the partners labour income.

Savings, investment and debts and psychological well-being In this section, we explore the relationship between assets and debts and psychological well-being. The dependent variable of the models in Table VI is the psychological well-being score from the GHQ12. This ranges from 0 to 36, where a higher score indicates more stress and poorer psychological well-being. The background variables behave within our expectations. People in the youngest age group have significantly better well-being than those in the oldest age group which is the reference category. Council tenants are worse off in their well-being than home owners, after controlling for other characteristics. Well-being is generally positively associated with annual income, although the coefficients in some of the models become marginally insignificant after controlling for having any liquid assets and debts. Turning to the housing background variables, compared with those who own their home jointly with their spouse, council tenants have worse psychological well-being (the coefficients are greater than 1 in all the models). Interestingly, when housing is owned under the womans name only, men suffer worse psychological wellbeing (the coefficients in the mens models are greater than 0.7).

[Table VI here]

17

Both mens and womens well-being increases where they have savings, but there is no statistically significant difference between having solely held or jointly held savings. As for investments, mens well-being is positively influenced if they have solely held investments. Womens well-being is associated significantly with jointly held investments, but the coefficient for solely held investments is marginally insignificant. Men who have solely held debts have worse well-being scores than those who do not, after taking account of other characteristics. However, womens debt status does not have a significant association with their psychological well-being. This contrasts with some qualitative studies which suggest that women are more likely than men to express anxiety related to debts (Rowlingson and Joseph, 2010). In summary, mens and womens psychological well-being is generally better where they have savings and investments. However, the results show that whether or not those savings are held in sole or joint names does not make any significant difference to psychological well-being. Womens well-being is improved where they have jointly held investments with their partner while men suffer worse well-being if they have debts.

Summary and conclusions We have investigated the ownership of housing, liquid assets and debts within cohabiting and married relationships and their implications for psychological well-being. Most couples who own their home do so in joint names rather than in one persons name. Nevertheless, most couple members hold liquid assets and debts under their sole names. Among the three types of liquid assets and debts, savings are relatively more commonly shared between partners. Both partners labour market income affects the likelihood of having any savings and investments, and psychological well-being is more or less equally influenced by solely held and jointly held savings. These findings support earlier qualitative studies

18

(Rowlingson and Joseph 2010) which show that savings, in tangible and psychological terms, are commonly perceived as shared assets in marital relationships even if in reality the savings are held in one partners name only. The findings also show a more or less symmetrical association of both partners income with the likelihood of having housing and other assets and debts. The association between joint versus sole holding of assets and debts and income is less clear. The partners income is negatively associated with sole housing ownership. We also see that increases in mens labour income are negatively associated with the likelihood that women have joint holdings in savings and investments with their partner. These findings suggest that inequalities between men and women in the labour market with respect to levels of income do translate into inequalities within the household. The results reveal there is independence in some aspects of financial management within couple relationships as Vogler, Brockman and Wiggins (2006) suggest. Whether this indicates a broader secular shift towards more independent forms of financial management in all aspects of household financial resource allocation remains open. Net of other characteristics, there is a strong negative period effect in the likelihood of having joint holdings across the period from 1995 to 2005 in all the three types of assets and debts. Controlling for age and other characteristics, cohabiting couples are also much less likely than married couples to have joint arrangements, suggesting that there are characteristics and attitudes held by cohabiting couples towards financial management which differ from those of married couples. Furthermore, sole ownership of housing is a strong predictor of sole holdings of liquid assets and debts. This finding suggests these couples, whether married or cohabiting, reject a sharing model across all their financial arrangements and maintain an independent model.

19

The weak relationship between having debts and psychological well-being is most likely due to the fact that most of these debts are short-term or can be managed within available income (Kempson et al., 2004). Annual income is therefore a better predictor of well-being than having assets or debts. Further research will examine the relationship between well-being and the amount and duration of debts in order to understand under what circumstances debt becomes problematic within couple relationships.

Notes
1. The research is part of the programme for the for the ESRC Research Centre on Micro-social Change (MISOC) at the University of Essex, RES-518-28-0001 The number of homosexual couples in the BHPS is too small for analysis so these cases are excluded from the analysis. Types of savings include: savings or deposit account, national savings bank (post office), Tessa (tax exempted saving accounts) only ISA (individual saving account) or cash ISA, national savings certificates. Types of investments include: premium bonds, unit trusts/investment trusts (excluding ISAs, PEPs (personal equity plans)), stocks and shares ISA or PEP, shares (UK or foreign), national savings bonds, other investments, gilts, government securities. Types of debts include: hire purchase, personal loans from bank or financial institution, credit cards (including store cards), catalogue or mail order, Department of Work and Pensions Social Fund loan, loans from individuals, overdrafts, student loan, and other loans. We also ran logistic regression models estimating the determinants of ownerships of housing, savings, investments and debts. The results are similar with the multinomial models which contrast between nonownership with joint ownership. Remarriage includes those who have reported being legally married more than once. It does not include those who may have had multiple cohabitation spells. We ran Heckman probit selection models in our earlier analyses. The findings are similar with the present ones. mens model; the one for Year 2000 is negative and significant in the womens model.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7. The coefficients regarding sole ownership are negative and significant for Year 2000 and Year 2005 in the

20

Bibliography Arber, S. 2003 Gender and generation: Changing pension inequalities over time. in Atkinson, G.A., McKay, S.D., Kempson, E. and Collard, S. (eds) Levels of financial capability in the UK: Results of a baseline survey. Bristol, UK: Financial Services Authority. Banks, J., Smith, Z. and Wakefield, M. 2002 The Distribution of Financial Wealth in the UK: Evidence from 2000 BHPS Data. Working Paper 02/21, Institute for Fiscal Studies. London Bardasi, E. and Gornick, J.C. 2000 Women and Part-time Employment: workers' "choices" and wage penalties in five industrialised countries Working Paper of the Institute for Social and Economic Research, 2000-11. Colchester: University of Essex. Bardasi, E. and Jenki ns, S.P. 2004 The gender gap in private pensions ISER Working Paper Series 2004-29, Institute for Social and Economic Research: University of Essex Blanchflower, D.G. and Oswald, A.J. 2004 Well-being over time in Britain and the USA. Journal of Public Economics 88:1359 - 1386. Boyce, C. J., Brown G. D. A. and Moore, S. C. 2010 Money and happiness: Rank of income, not income, affects life satisfaction. Psychological Science 21:471-475 Burgoyne, C. and Morison, V. 1997 Money in remarriage: Keeping things simple and separate. The Sociological Review 45(3):363-395. Clark, A.E. and Oswald, A.J. 1996 Satisfaction and comparison income. Journal of Public Economics 61:359-381. Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A. 2005. Income and well-being: An empirical analysis of the comparison income effect. Journal of Public Economics 89:997 - 1019. Ginn, J. and Arber, S. 2002 Degrees of freedom: Can graduate women avoid the motherhood gap in pensions? Sociological Research Online 7(2) http://www.socresonline.org.uk/

21

Goode, J. 2009 For love or money? Couples negotiations of credit and debt in low-income families in the UK. Benefits 17(3):213-224. Hand, K. 2006 Mothers accounts of work and family decision-making in couple families. Family Matters 75:70 - 75. Headey, B. and Wooden, M. 2004 The Effects of Wealth and Income on Psychological WellBeing and Ill-Being. IZA Discussion Papers 1032, Institute for the Study of Labor: Berlin Jarvis, S. and Jenkins, S.P. 1999 Marital splits and income changes: Evidence from the British Household Panel Survey. Population Studies 53(2):237-254. Kempson, E., McKay, S. and Willitts, M. 2004 Characteristics of families in debt and the nature of indebtedness DWP Research Report 211 Leeds: Corporate Document Services. Laurie, H. and Gershuny, J. 2000 Couples, work and money. in Berthoud, R. and Gershuny, J. (eds) Seven Years in the Lives of British Families: Evidence on the dynamics of social change from the British Household Panel Survey. Bristol: Policy Press. Pahl, J. 1989 Money and Marriage. London: Macmillan. Pahl, J. 1999 Invisible Money: Family finances in the electronic economy. Bristol: The Policy Press. Pahl, J. 2008 Family Finances, individualisation, spending patterns and access to credit. The Journal of Socio-Economics 37:577-591. Rake, K. and Jayatilaka, G. 2002 Home Truths: An analysis of financial decision-making within the home. London: Fawcett Society. Rowlingson, K. and Joseph, R. 2010 Assets and debts within couples. London: Friends Provident Foundation. Rowlingson, K., Whyley, C. and Warren, T. 1999 Wealth in Britain. A lifecycle Perspective. London: Policy Studies Institute.

22

Sung, S. and Bennett, F. 2007 Dealing with money in low- to moderate-income families: Insights from individual interviews. in Clarke, K., Maltby, T. and Kennett, P. (eds) Social Policy Review 19: Analysis and debates in social policy 2007. Bristol: Policy Press in association with Social Policy Association. Taylor, M., Jenkins, S.P. and Sacker, A. 2009 Financial Capability and well-being: Evidence from the BHPS Financial Services Authority Occasional Paper (34) London: Financial Services Authority. Treas, J. 1993 Money in the Bank: Transaction Cost and the Economic Organization of Marriage. American Sociological Review 58(5):723-734. Vogler, C., Brockman, M. and Wiggins, R.D. 2006 Intimate relationships and changing patterns of money management at the beginning of the twenty-first century. British Journal of Sociology 57(3):455 482. Vogler, C. and Pahl, J. 1993 Social and economic change and the organisation of money within marriage. Work, Employment and Society 7(1):71-95. Warren, T., Rowlingson, K. and Whyley, C. 2001 Female finances: Gender Wage Gaps and Gender Asset Gaps. Work, Employment and Society 15(3):465-488. Westaway, J. and McKay, S. 2007 Womens Financial Assets and Debts. London: Fawcett Society.

23

Table I. Percentage of men owning housing and having savings, investments and debts by year and gender
Housing - Men Nil Overall 1995 2000 2005 25.9 26.4 27.2 23.8 Nil Overall 1995 2000 2005 58.8 57.3 57.4 62.1 Joint 65.5 64.6 64.0 Sole 8.6 9.0 8.7 Nil 28.4 29.8 28.9 Housing - Women Joint 66.0 65.6 64.2 Sole 5.6 4.6 6.9 Nil 29.3 32.2 26.7 28.8 Nil 52.0 52.5 49.1 54.7 Savings - Men Joint 41.5 32.0 46.0 47.6 Debts - Men Joint 31.6 27.7 34.6 32.8 Sole 29.2 35.8 27.3 23.6 Sole 16.4 19.8 16.3 12.4 Nil 27.1 29.8 23.6 27.9 Nil 52.8 51.7 51.5 55.4 Savings - Women Joint 47.7 39.0 51.7 Sole 25.3 31.1 24.7

68.2 8.0 Investments - Men Joint 31.7 27.7 34.7 32.7 Sole 9.6 15.0 7.8 5.2

26.3 68.6 5.2 Investment - Women Nil 62.9 62.5 61.2 65.1 Joint 29.1 24.5 31.6 31.6 Sole 8.0 13.0 7.2 3.3

53.0 19.1 Debts - Women Joint 31.3 28.0 33.9 32.0 Sole 16.0 20.3 14.6 12.6

Note : Data from the British Household Panel Survey 1995, 2000, and 2005. The sample contains married and cohabiting men

and women at working age. For men, N = 6,151; for women, N = 6,106.

24

Table II Multinomial Logistic Regression Models of Ownership of Housing Assets (Contrasts with joint ownership)
Men No ownership B Year 2000 Year 2005 Aged 24 or below Aged between 25 and 44 Cohabiting Remarried Having a dependent child Annual labour income/1000 Spouse annual labour income/1000 Constant Wald (df)
2

Women Sole ownership B -0.08* -0.26

*

No ownership B 0.16* 0.27

**

Sole ownership B 0.36** -0.05 -0.31 0.18 1.97*** 0.35 -0.17 0.01 -0.02* -2.82***
***

Robust SE

Robust SE

Robust SE

Robust SE

0.24*** 0.31
**

0.07 0.09 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.16 0.09 0.01 0.01 0.13 653.58
***

0.10 0.12 0.18 0.15 0.13 0.35 0.13 0.003 0.01 0.15

0.06 0.08 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.16 0.09 0.01 0.005 0.12 688.93

0.13 0.17 0.23 0.18 0.17 0.32 0.16 0.01 0.01 0.20

0.60*** 0.27** 1.66*** 0.68*** 0.25** -0.06*** -0.03*** -0.50*** 25.9

-0.07 0.19 1.79*** -0.54 -0.17 0.003 -0.03*** -2.10*** (18) 8.6

0.78*** 0.31** 1.49*** 0.34* 0.13 -0.05*** -0.04*** -0.48*** 28.4

(18) 5.6

%N

Note: Data from the British Household Panel Survey 1995, 2000, and 2005. The sample contains married and cohabiting men and women at working age. For men, N = 6,151; for women, N = 6,106. The omitted categories in the independent variables are: Year 1995, Aged 45 or over, Married, Having no dependent child. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001

25

Table III Multinomial Logistic Regression Models of Holding Savings (Contrasts with joint holdings)
Men No savings B Year 2000 Year 2005 Aged 24 or below Aged between 25 and 44 Cohabiting Remarried Private property - self-owned Private property spouse-owned Private renter Council tenant Having a dependent child Annual labour income/1000 Spouse annual labour income/1000 Constant Wald (df)
2

Women Sole holdings B 0.62*** 0.82

***

No savings B 0.09 0.80

***

Sole holdings B 0.48*** 0.74

***

Robust SE

Robust SE

Robust SE

Robust SE

0.16* 0.63
***

0.08 0.09 0.13 0.10 0.12 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.15 0.15 0.09 0.004 0.005 0.12 724.68 29.3
***

0.07 0.08 0.12 0.08 0.11 0.16 0.14 0.17 0.15 0.15 0.08 0.002 0.003 0.09

0.08 0.10 0.13 0.11 0.13 0.182 0.19 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.10 0.01 0.004 0.13 726.52
***

0.07 0.09 0.11 0.09 0.11 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.08 0.003 0.003 0.09

-0.25 -0.05 0.91*** 0.04 0.46** 0.93*** 0.75*** 1.58 0.44*** -0.03*** -0.02*** -0.22
***

-0.33** -0.20* 0.93*** 0.11 0.89*** 0.70*** 0.49** 0.48 -0.06

**

-0.32* -0.11 1.09*** 0.62** 0.17 0.84*** 0.66*** 1.56 0.55*** -0.04*** -0.02*** -0.18 27.1
***

-0.60*** -0.30** 1.08*** 0.34* 0.31* 0.82*** 0.29 0.46 0.02

**

-0.001 -0.001 -0.26** (26) 41.5

-0.01* 0.01** 0.11 (26) 47.7

%N

Note: Data from the British Household Panel Survey 1995, 2000, and 2005. The sample contains married and cohabiting men and women at working age. For men, N = 6,151; for women, N = 6,106. The omitted categories in the independent variables are: Year 1995, Aged 45 or over, Married, Private property jointly owned by both partners, and Having no dependent child. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001

26

Table IV Multinomial Logistic Regression Models of Holding of Investments (Contrasts with joint holdings)
Men No investments B Year 2000 Year 2005 Aged 24 or below Aged between 25 and 44 Cohabiting Remarried Private property - self-owned Private property spouse-owned Private renter Council tenant Having a dependent child Annual labour income/1000 Spouse annual labour income/1000 Constant Wald (df)
2

Women Sole holdings B 0.91*** 1.33

***

No investments B 0.72*** 1.90

***

Sole holdings B 0.85*** 1.71

***

Robust SE

Robust SE

Robust SE

Robust SE

0.85*** 1.71
***

0.10 0.13 0.21 0.12 0.23 0.21 0.22 0.24 0.27 0.35 0.11 0.003 0.01 0.13 742.74
***

0.10 0.13 0.22 0.12 0.23 0.22 0.21 0.25 0.27 0.37 0.11 0.002 0.004 0.11

0.11 0.16 0.19 0.14 0.26 0.21 0.27 0.25 0.30 0.38 0.13 0.01 0.003 0.14 586.67
***

0.11 0.16 0.20 0.14 0.26 0.22 0.27 0.25 0.30 0.40 0.13 0.01 0.003 0.13

1.31*** 0.65*** 1.44*** 0.64** 0.42 0.40 0.71** 2.32 -0.08

***

0.52* 0.20 1.28*** 0.35 0.88*** 0.32 0.25 0.78 -0.26* -0.001 -0.01 0.44*** (26) 31.7
*

1.03*** 0.51*** 1.55*** 0.45* 0.57* 0.76** 0.60* 2.17 -0.18

***

0.22 0.09 1.25*** 0.20 0.50 0.72** 0.22 0.56 -0.27 -0.02** 0.01 0.53*** (26) 29.1

-0.03*** -0.02*** 1.17*** 58.8

-0.05*** -0.01** 1.33*** 62.9

%N

Note: Data from the British Household Panel Survey 1995, 2000, and 2005. The sample contains married and cohabiting men and women at working age. For men, N = 6,151; for women, N = 6,106. The omitted categories in the independent variables are: Year 1995, Aged 45 or over, Married, Private property jointly owned by both partners, and Having no dependent child. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001

27

Table V Multinomial Logistic Regression Models of Holding of Debts (Contrasts with joint holdings)
Men No debts B Year 2000 Year 2005 Aged 24 or below Aged between 25 and 44 Cohabiting Remarried Private property - self-owned Private property spouse-owned Private renter Council tenant Having a dependent child Annual labour income/1000 Spouse annual labour income/1000 Constant Wald (df)
2

Women Sole holding B 0.35*** 0.52

***

No debts B 0.31*** 0.53

***

Sole holding B 0.49*** 0.58

***

Robust SE

Robust SE

Robust SE

Robust SE

0.10 0.49
***

0.08 0.10 0.14 0.10 0.13 0.17 0.18 0.21 0.19 0.14 0.09 0.003 0.004 0.11 424.76 52.0
***

0.09 0.11 0.14 0.11 0.13 0.19 0.19 0.21 0.18 0.15 0.10 0.003 0.004 0.12

0.08 0.10 0.13 0.11 0.13 0.18 0.20 0.18 0.18 0.14 0.10 0.005 0.003 0.11 434.97
***

0.09 0.11 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.19 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.15 0.10 0.004 0.003 0.12

-1.09*** -0.75*** 0.70*** -0.06 0.65*** 0.62** 0.53** 0.33 -0.22* 0.001 -0.01* 1.44***
*

-0.25 -0.23* 1.07*** 0.12 0.80*** 0.47* 0.72*** 0.32 -0.18

*

-1.16*** -0.89*** 0.33** -0.01 0.40* 0.98*** 0.60** 0.29 -0.12

*

-0.33* -0.36** 0.67*** 0.19 0.80*** 0.93*** 0.80*** 0.58 -0.27**

***

0.010** -0.004 0.10 (26) 31.6

-0.01** 0.01* 1.47*** 52.8

0.0001 0.001 0.33** (26) 31.3

%N

Note: Data from the British Household Panel Survey 1995, 2000, and 2005. The sample contains married and cohabiting men and women at working age. For men, N = 6,151; for women, N = 6,106. The omitted categories in the independent variables are: Year 1995, Aged 45 or over, Married, Private property jointly owned by both partners, and Having no dependent child. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001

28

Table VI. OLS Models of Associations between Holdings of Assets and Debt, and Psychological Well-being Savings & Psychological well-being Men B
Robust SE

Investments & Psychological wellbeing Men B

Robust SE

Debts & Psychological well-being Men B

Robust SE

Women B
Robust SE

Women B
Robust SE

Women B
Robust SE

Year 2000 Year 2005 Aged 24 or below Aged between 25 and 44 Cohabiting Remarried Private property - self-owned Private property spouse-owned Private renter Council tenant Having a dependent child Annual income/1000 Spouse annual income/1000 Jointly held savings/investments/debts Solely held savings/investments/debts Constant
R
2

-0.05 -0.11 -1.48*** -0.25 -0.04 -0.19 0.04 0.75* 0.41 1.06*** 0.33* -0.01* -0.0004 -0.41* -0.59** 11.29*** 0.02 15

0.14 0.16 0.22 0.18 0.20 0.36 0.23 0.36 0.26 0.29 0.16 0.01 0.01 0.17 0.19 0.24

0.09 0.01 -0.97*** -0.40 -0.02 0.40 0.06 -0.001 0.39 1.11*** 0.02 -0.01 -0.01 -0.97*** -0.98*** 13.01*** 0.02 15

0.16 0.18 0.25 0.21 0.23 0.36 0.34 0.28 0.29 0.32 0.19 0.01 0.01 0.20 0.22 0.28

-0.09 -0.14 -1.53*** -0.27 -0.02 -0.21 0.02 0.79* 0.46 1.18*** 0.38* -0.01* -0.0009 0.01 -0.52* 11.01*** 0.02 15

0.14 0.16 0.22 0.18 0.19 0.36 0.23 0.36 0.26 0.29 0.16 0.01 0.01 0.16 0.21 0.21

0.05 0.01 -1.03*** -0.43* 0.002 0.44 0.04 0.02 0.45 1.30*** 0.11 -0.02* -0.01 -0.44* -0.41 12.46*** 0.02 15

0.16 0.18 0.25 0.21 0.23 0.36 0.34 0.28 0.29 0.32 0.19 0.01 0.01 0.17 0.27 0.24

-0.07 -0.07 -1.58*** -0.30 -0.01 -0.20 0.05 0.83* 0.47 1.23*** 0.36* -0.02** -0.002 0.41** 0.29 10.81 0.02 15

0.14 0.16 0.22 0.18 0.19 0.36 0.23 0.36 0.26 0.29 0.16 0.01 0.01 0.16 0.20 0.21

0.05 0.06 -0.94*** -0.38 0.04 0.47 0.07 0.04 0.50 1.42*** 0.11 -0.02* -0.012 -0.10 -0.003 12.30*** 0.02 15

0.16 0.18 0.25 0.21 0.23 0.36 0.34 0.28 0.29 0.32 0.19 0.01 0.01 0.17 0.21 0.24

Df

Note: Data from the British Household Panel Survey 1995, 2000, and 2005. The sample contains married and cohabiting men and women at working age. Cases with missing values in psychological well being are drop (<1%). For men, N = 6,089; for women, N = 6,046. The dependent variable is the psychological well-being score, measured by 12 items, ranging from 0 to 36. A higher GHQ score indicates worse psychological well-being. The omitted categories in the independent variables are: Year 1995, Aged 45 or over, Married, Private property jointly owned by both partners, Having no dependent child, Having no savings/investments/debts. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.