Independent or Joint? How Relative Income and Wealth Relate to Couples' Money Management in Eastern and Western Germany

IF 3.5 1区 社会学 Q1 FAMILY STUDIES
Journal of Marriage and Family Pub Date : 2026-10-07 Epub Date: 2026-04-28 DOI:10.1111/jomf.70075
Agnieszka Althaber, Nicole Kapelle, Kathrin Leuze
{"title":"Independent or Joint? How Relative Income and Wealth Relate to Couples' Money Management in Eastern and Western Germany","authors":"Agnieszka Althaber,&nbsp;Nicole Kapelle,&nbsp;Kathrin Leuze","doi":"10.1111/jomf.70075","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>To assess the prevalence of independent money management (IMM) versus joint management among Eastern and Western German couples and examine how partners' relative income and wealth relate to IMM across regional contexts.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>IMM is often linked to contexts with higher levels of gender equality and greater resource equality between partners. It remains unclear whether IMM is more prevalent than joint management in contexts that differ in historical legacies but operate under a shared institutional framework.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Method</h3>\n \n <p>Using pooled data from the German Socio-Economic Panel, we estimate cross-sectional logistic regression models for large samples of different-sex couples, distinguished as Eastern (<i>N</i> = 4298) and Western German couples (<i>N</i> = 9983).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Eastern German couples were slightly less likely to manage money independently, reflecting a higher prevalence of joint management. Equal labor incomes increased IMM in the West but less so in the East. Wealth parity was consistently associated with lower IMM and higher joint management in both regions, though more weakly in the West.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>The findings challenge the assumption that resource equality between partners universally fosters separation of money in couple households and highlight the importance of distinguishing between income and wealth as distinct types of economic resources. Despite a shared institutional framework, small regional differences indicate that the meaning of resource equality for money management may vary across historical contexts.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":48440,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Marriage and Family","volume":"88 5","pages":"1249-1265"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jomf.70075","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Marriage and Family","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jomf.70075","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/4/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"FAMILY STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

To assess the prevalence of independent money management (IMM) versus joint management among Eastern and Western German couples and examine how partners' relative income and wealth relate to IMM across regional contexts.

Background

IMM is often linked to contexts with higher levels of gender equality and greater resource equality between partners. It remains unclear whether IMM is more prevalent than joint management in contexts that differ in historical legacies but operate under a shared institutional framework.

Method

Using pooled data from the German Socio-Economic Panel, we estimate cross-sectional logistic regression models for large samples of different-sex couples, distinguished as Eastern (N = 4298) and Western German couples (N = 9983).

Results

Eastern German couples were slightly less likely to manage money independently, reflecting a higher prevalence of joint management. Equal labor incomes increased IMM in the West but less so in the East. Wealth parity was consistently associated with lower IMM and higher joint management in both regions, though more weakly in the West.

Conclusion

The findings challenge the assumption that resource equality between partners universally fosters separation of money in couple households and highlight the importance of distinguishing between income and wealth as distinct types of economic resources. Despite a shared institutional framework, small regional differences indicate that the meaning of resource equality for money management may vary across historical contexts.

独立的还是联合的?东德和西德夫妇的相对收入和财富如何影响他们的理财
目的评估独立资金管理(IMM)与共同管理在东德和西德夫妇中的流行程度,并研究伴侣的相对收入和财富在不同地区背景下与IMM的关系。IMM通常与性别平等程度较高和伙伴之间资源平等程度较高的情况有关。目前尚不清楚,在历史遗产不同但在共同制度框架下运作的背景下,IMM是否比联合管理更普遍。方法使用来自德国社会经济面板的汇总数据,我们估计了不同性别夫妇的大样本的横断面逻辑回归模型,分别为东德夫妇(N = 4298)和西德夫妇(N = 9983)。结果:东德夫妇独立理财的可能性略低,反映出共同理财的普遍程度较高。平等的劳动收入增加了西方的国际通货膨胀率,但在东方却没有。在这两个地区,财富平等始终与较低的综合管理水平和较高的联合管理水平相关联,尽管在西方这种关联更弱。研究结果挑战了伴侣之间资源平等普遍导致夫妻家庭中金钱分离的假设,并强调了将收入和财富作为不同类型的经济资源加以区分的重要性。尽管有共同的制度框架,但小的地区差异表明,资源平等对资金管理的意义可能因历史背景而异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.20
自引率
6.70%
发文量
81
期刊介绍: For more than 70 years, Journal of Marriage and Family (JMF) has been a leading research journal in the family field. JMF features original research and theory, research interpretation and reviews, and critical discussion concerning all aspects of marriage, other forms of close relationships, and families.In 2009, an institutional subscription to Journal of Marriage and Family includes a subscription to Family Relations and Journal of Family Theory & Review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书