Why do unmarried mothers return to work earlier after maternity leave than those who are married? Why are their numbers larger in the east of Germany than in the west of the country? And why do couples in which the woman is the main breadwinner spend their money on different things than those in which the roles are reversed? The fact that Miriam Beblo is not a typical economist becomes clear from the questions she tries to answer in her work.
Miriam Beblo is a professor of economics in the Department of Social Economics at the University of Hamburg and researches work, family, migration and gender issues. For many years she has been studying how couples make decisions about work, childcare and housework and what role gender norms play in this.
For a long time these connections were neglected in economics, but now they play a key role. The single-earner model has had its day, but the desire for a family seems to be limited. The birth rate is falling. Beblo’s expertise is therefore in demand. She was or is a member of almost a dozen working groups that advise the Ministry of Family Affairs on family and equality policy, but also on tax issues. Some obstacles have already been removed, at least when it comes to framework conditions such as the expansion of child care and more flexible working time models. But the fact is: “Women are still employed less than men, even though this makes them financially dependent and, according to surveys, many would like to work more,” states the economist. She wants to know why that is. Because one thing is also clear: “The maternity break alone is not enough to justify it.”
Beblo tries to shed light on the role gender plays in decisions. This is where previous surveys quickly reach their limits. “On the one hand, there is hardly any usable data, and on the other hand, the results that do exist are not questioned enough.” An example: There are numerous studies that show that women and men choose different careers and others that show that women are less likely to reach a leadership position. “But we still don’t know exactly why that is.”
The gender pay gap is the accumulation, an accumulation of inequalities in the labor market, which would ultimately be reflected in pay. On average, women still earn around 20 percent less than men. “Even if you take into account that women and men often choose different careers and that women, on average, interrupt their careers more often, the so-called adjusted ‘gender wage gap’, i.e. the wage difference for equivalent jobs, is still between seven and eight percent.”
In order to uncover hidden causes for this disproportion, Beblo has to start elsewhere. She examines which gender-specific ideas shape coexistence, where they come from and why they persist so persistently. Also because there is hardly any reliable data on this. And so she creates new ones through experiments and field studies in which respondents are invited into the laboratory. “The special thing about this approach is that we interview real couples and conduct decision-making experiments with them,” says Beblo. This makes the research more expensive and more complex, but increases its informative value.
The more women earn, the better their negotiating position is
She came across an insight: the level of income affects the dynamics in the couple relationship. Men often call the shots when it comes to financial decisions, especially when they generate the majority of the income. With every additional euro that women contribute to the household, their influence on shared decisions increases. “Those who contribute more economically to the family budget are able to assert their own interests more often,” summarizes Beblo. This showed that if the woman earns more than the money, the money is spent on other purchases than if he is the main earner.
Beblo researches these connections to find out whether and, if so, where laws need to be applied in order to take social change into account. An example: With its coffers empty, the Family Ministry was faced with the question of how to cut parental allowance without losing sight of the original goal. This was to cushion the financial losses for couples who decide to have children. The biggest cut, the lowering of the income limit, is simple: Since April 2025, couples and single parents with a taxable annual income of more than 175,000 euros will no longer receive parental allowance.
But it was also decided that couples will only receive the maximum 14 months of parental allowance if not only the mother but also the father takes on part of the care and both receive at least two months of parental allowance. The thrust is clear: the state leaves it up to couples to decide how they want to live as a family, but only promotes those models in which the parents at least partially share the care of the child.
Laws influence the way people live. Some of them exceed their original goal. This can be illustrated using the example of part-time work. The entitlement was originally introduced to improve the compatibility of work and family, but today it is a model of life that is also used by those without children. A proposal from the business wing of the CDU (MIT) to limit part-time entitlement recently caused heated discussions. The argument for this was that there were too many part-time employees and a simultaneous shortage of skilled workers. On the one hand, Beblo sees the claim as an achievement, “after all, the decision about individual working hours can be the result of an economic consideration.” According to the economist, part-time work becomes a problem when it is examined from a social perspective. “Many people decide to do this because it makes sense to them in the short term, but they neglect their long-term economic independence.”
Proponents of abolition introduced the term “part-time lifestyle”. The claim should not be automatically enforceable if employees simply want to reduce their working hours in favor of more free time. But the truth is that it is usually the state that indirectly punishes overtime. An example: If a family of four in an expensive city like Hamburg increases their income from 3,000 to 5,000 euros, the household income remains almost the same. The additional wages lead to corresponding cuts in state transfer payments.
Another tax policy topic that continues to cause debate is spousal splitting. Since Federal Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil (SPD) proposed replacing the current splitting tariff for future marriages with a “fictitious real splitting”, the debate has gained momentum. The justification is that the previous model no longer corresponds to the modern image of marriage and family and creates false tax incentives. Spousal splitting could weaken the financial incentive to expand employment, especially for the lower-earning partner. In practice, women are often affected by this.
The aim of the reform, the SPD argues, is to increase the participation of women in full-time employment. Beblo explains a misunderstanding in the public debate: "It is not families who benefit from spousal splitting, but rather married couples, regardless of whether they have children or not. If the aim was to support children, there would be much more effective means. In addition, the tax advantage is distributed unequally between spouses." To change this, a first effective step, according to Beblo, would be to abolish the unequal tax burden on spouses with tax classes 3 and 5. A demand that was already in the traffic light government's coalition agreement, but was ultimately not implemented.
The widow's pension tries to create a balance, but does not get to the root of the problem.
The 56-year-old sees the main reason why women in particular are at a disproportionately high risk of poverty in old age elsewhere. But the widow's pension is the wrong approach. "It tries to create a balance, but doesn't get to the root of the problem. Indirectly, it cements the traditional division of labor model." And this despite the fact that it is no longer used by an ever-growing group.
Anyone who wants to get to the root of the cause of poverty in old age, especially among women, cannot avoid abolishing mini-jobs. Certain groups of people could be exempt. For example, schoolchildren, students and pensioners. Miriam Beblo knows: “If you want to get this through politically, you have to put in a lot of effort.” But the truth is also: It would be just one of many thick boards.
