Women ‘not more deprived’ if partner sole earner

Women do not have higher deprivation levels in households where their male partners are the sole earner, it has emerged.

However, researchers at the Economic and Social Research Institute found where women were the only earner, the opposite was the case.

They did not find any evidence that the deprivation burden was more likely to fall on women, but not having a job slightly increased the deprivation for men.

ESRI senior research officer and co-author of the study, Bertrand Maitre, said research on poverty usually assumed that household income was shared equally.

However, the assumption had been criticised by some who argued that differences in power within the household meant that some would enjoy better access to goods and services than others.

To test the assumption, researchers used the Survey of Income and Living Conditions conducted by the Central Statistics Office in 2010.

The survey of over 4,000 households contained a special module about how households pool income and make decisions.

“It looks like the assumption is true. If women are not earning, they are not more deprived than their male partners,” said Mr Maitre.

“But when the woman is the only earner in the household, the opposite is the case. The male partner is more deprived than the female.”

Mr Maitre said they did not find people were being deprived in a household just because they were not bringing in as much money as the others.

In the case of four-out-of-five couples, both partners had an income when all income sources were included. Account was taken of social assistance payments and other social transfers.

Two-out-of-three couples shared decisions on shopping and other financial issues, while three-out-of-five couples had their partners’ incomes fully pooled for common use. The most common couple financial regime was a dual income, fully pooled system, with partners sharing decision-making.

Both partners were asked if they could pay for goods and services if they wanted them. These included adequate food, heating, a mobile phone, the ability to socialise, and having some money to spend on themselves.

In nearly 30% of couples, at least one partner lacked one or more of these goods or services but there was no gender difference.

Unsurprisingly, low income was associated with an increased risk of both partners being deprived but it was not associated with the likelihood of male-only or female-only deprivation.

The researchers were surprised when they found that individual deprivation of both partners was higher where there was full income pooling than where there was partial income pooling.

“The most likely explanation is that partial income pooling takes place only when the partners know that retaining part of their incomes does not leave the other partner deprived,” they state. There was little support for the concern that female poverty might be underestimated.