Unequal distribution of assets in favor of men within heterosexual parental couples

On the basis of INSEE’s “Family budget” survey (2016), based on a nationally representative sample, it can be observed that the higher a couple is within the upper class, the more frequently its members report different levels of investment (in savings accounts, stocks, life insurance policies, etc.). Among the least wealthy 20% of these couples, 35% report equal investment levels. Among the wealthiest 20%, only 10% report equal investment levels. Moreover, more men report higher investments than their spouse or partner the higher they are on the income scale—even as the richest actually tend to underestimate their wealth.

Analyzing relations between partner differences in education, income, and savings or financial investment levels by household resources brings out correlations. When the woman in a particularly wealthy household has higher educational attainment than her spouse or partner and a good position on the labor market, she tends to report a higher investment level than he does. In couples where the woman has invested more than her spouse or partner (as in those where the opposite is true), we find amounts at least twice as high. However, the absolute figures are much lower for women. They tend to report investment amounts below 50,000€ whereas for men the amounts are above 100,000€. Money distribution within the household is therefore the most sharply unequal in couples where the man has both higher income and higher educational attainment than his female partner. Moreover couples showing much higher male educational attainment, incomes, and investment amounts constitute the largest single category: 35.7% of survey couples with at least one child.

Most spouses or partners in the poorest 20% of couples report equal investment levels—either very low or nil. In these families, gender still determines who chooses and imposes the household spending model and who has to adapt. Women are only in charge of purchasing immediate consumables. When spending constitutes an economic investment—in the form of mortgage payments, for example—men are more involved than women and may be the only ones to make decisions and manage spending. This distribution of spending categories bolsters inequality in household wealth appropriation, the level of which depends once again on disparities in spouses’ or partners’ income and educational attainment. In couples where the man’s are higher, those men may claim that they alone own wealth that was nonetheless acquired during a long resource-pooling period. Specifically, they may claim ownership of the family’s primary residence, even if the household is still pooling its income and the mortgage is still being paid off.

Analysis of wealth inequalities between members of different-sex couples with at least one child—couples who might be expected to pool their resources in conjunction with the plan to grow a family— shows instead marked inequalities in wealth between male and female spouses. These inequalities are found up and down the social scale, though they manifest differently. There are two non-contradictory explanations for these findings. On the one hand, in couples where the income gap is wide, partners do not pool those incomes entirely, especially when the man’s is higher. The fact that gender norms specialize women in unpaid domestic work and men in paid work increases wealth inequalities within couples in cases where spouses’ incomes are not pooled. On the other, when incomes are pooled and it is observed that men claim to own certain goods acquired during the pooling period, we are dealing with male appropriation of household goods. This can turn out to be particularly problematic if the partners decide to separate, as women then find themselves more vulnerable economically.