Control over Money and Wealth Accumulation in Canadian Families – revised version: Control over Money and the Savings Decisions of Canadian Households (with Shelley Phipps)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well known that, in most countries, men have more life insurance than do women, and are more likely to be members of private pension plans. However much less is known about men’s and women’s personal asset holdings. Do private savings counterbalance the inequality in pension access? Or do they exacerbate existing inequalities? Inequality in wealth ownership is of interest as both an outcome and determinant of intra-household resource allocation. Asset holdings reflect decisions made within households about how much to save and the form savings will take. Yet, given that current savings lead to higher levels of future investment income, the decision as to who owns an asset may influence each spouse’s future bargaining position. Government-sponsored savings schemes may ameliorate or exacerbate inequality in wealth ownership within the family. To the extent that tax savings from such schemes are greater for earners with higher marginal tax rates, there is an incentive to concentrate contributions on the higher income earner. On the other hand, limitations on each individual’s total contributions mean that it can be advantageous to spread contributions between spouses for the purposes of future income splitting or to maximize total contributions. In this paper we take advantage of a unique dataset collected by one of the authors on how households manage their finances. The sample is comprised of 300 couples with children in the Ottawa-Gatineau region in Canada. The dataset includes conventional socioeconomic variables, detailed information on savings decisions, and also more sociological variables examining the nature of household financial management (Who decides?). With our dataset we are able to examine the effect of women’s and men’s control over finances on saving decisions. Interestingly, we find a negative relationship between female control and the extent of savings; one that persists across various measures of control over decision-making, and after we control for a variety of economic and demographic characteristics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".