Entitlements,Payments,Enterprise: framing pocket money in teenage girls’ consumption practices

Abstract

Despite the widespread provisioning of pocket money across households, young people’s uses and negotiations of money are inadequately addressed by studies of consumption. This reflects a broader neglect of the economic underpinnings in studies of consumer culture. In this article I draw on qualitative research with girls aged 15-17 to demonstrate how different forms of payments and entitlements, and (parental) regulations and conditions are negotiated in girls money and consumption practices. Crucially, I evidence the ways in which girls work to achieve and assert their autonomy in consumption. In doing so, I offer novel insights into the active means through which girls negotiate forms of pocket money to facilitate consumption. I extend and develop Zelizer’s (2017) work on domestic money to incorporate young people’s negotiations of households and markets, and thus challenge the limitations of excluding young people from studies of money and consumption. Framing pocket money in teenage girls’ consumption practices allows us to pay due attention to the economic and social relationships that underpin practice and illuminates how practices involve class and moral valuations.

Introduction

Pocket money rewards good behaviour, or so the UK bank Halifax advises parents ¹ . But is it really that straightforward? This article offers empirical insight into how young people negotiate pocket money from the perspective of teenage girls. Drawing on interview-based research with girls aged 15–17 from cities in the west, south and midlands of England on their uses of fashion, I focus on how girls acquire money to facilitate consumption, and relationships to social class apparent in these practices. This article positions money practices as socially meaningful. I contribute two vital points to the sociology of money. The first is the micro-dynamics of household money from the position of young people. While accounts of domestic provisioning provided by households and parents offer a somewhat romantic view of sacrifice and devotion and investing in the child (Bandelj 2025; Miller 1998; Zelizer 2011), there is little which addresses the accounts of young people. This is at odds with Zelizer’s (2017) social meaning of money, and her emphasis on tensions between autonomy and regulation within household relationships, particularly from the perspective of those with less power. I will demonstrate that young people’s access to money is attached to forms of regulation and modes of acceptability. In turn, the girls have their own calculated means of negotiating these to ringfence monies they can authentically call ‘theirs’. These calculated practices have little consideration for any forms of household devotion or debt, and demonstrate how forms of regulation are subject to negotiation. I will also consider the macro-cultural context of class and privilege to demonstrate that how young people use money has broader social implications. Furthermore, I reveal the narratives of responsibility present in the girls discussions of money and consumption and connect this to a sense of entitlement to money.

While sociological work neglects young people’s access to money, the economic value of young people’s consumption and access to money is not lost on market professionals (West et al., 2006; Zelizer 2011). UK banks such as Halifax and NatWest have taken a particular interest, mapping the scope of pocket money from income and chores to how these are spent and saved. According to the 2023 Halifax Pocket Money Review, 89% of children receive weekly money from their parents, and that the average amount is £5. Pocket money appears broad in terms of how it functions; while approximately half of young people are said to receive this in exchange for their domestic contributions (Halifax 2023), there is no discernible relationship along a class or gendered axis (West et al., 2006). Young people broadly have access to some form of domestic provisioning.

The widespread provisioning of pocket money in the UK poses the question of how it is negotiated and perceived within these households. Pocket money is often framed by ‘adults’ as a tool for the rudimentary economic socialisation of young people (Cook 2008; Furnham 2001) as consumption opportunities opened for them in the post-war era. There is a growing number of children’s books which now propose to teach children financial literacy (e.g. ‘Barefoot Kids’ by Pape 2022). This article centres girls’ own perspectives on their access to money and ensuing consumption practices in analysis. The approach contributes to a long-standing critique in studies of consumer culture that lack acknowledgement of children and young people’s active role in consumption (Cook 2008), which necessitates consideration of how we can connect young people to money. Although there are likely debates on terminologies for how money is provided and accessed by young people, pocket money provides the best point of departure for this article to analyse the fluid and variable means through which money is accrued to facilitate consumption. I will foreground a framework for how young people access money, the basis for which is influenced by both Zelizer’s (2017) conceptualisation of domestic money as entitlements (as received through the household) and payments (as earned forms of income), and McRobbie’s (1989) work on enterprise cultures. This accounts for different forms of household provisioning and how this is supplemented in creative ways. Addressing money in the context of girls elucidates new ways of positioning consumption which pays due attention to the social relationships that underpin practice, and how these are negotiated. The next section positions pocket money as negotiated within family relationships, providing the framing through which the article positions girls’ perspectives.

Towards a sociology of pocket money

Pocket money has a long history in domestic spheres. Zelizer (2017) has emphasised the conditions and regulations that women and children have negotiated throughout time to earmark money they could call ‘theirs’. For example, the 1920s housewives who – dependent on their husband’s wages – ring-fenced room for financial freedoms through multiple means such as keeping leftover change, falsifying or duplicating bills, or even stealing from the pockets of their sleeping husbands. Children also kept some of their earnings ‘off the books’ to enable their consumption. Since the turn of the industrial revolution which saw children and young people removed from the labour market and into compulsory education, pocket money has become a replacement form of payment. Given the significant changes in women’s economic and financial independence from Zelizer’s 1920s housewives to now, girls may be attracted by the promise of increased financial autonomy. Yet opportunities to earn or receive money are often subject to parent/guardian or social regulation. What follows maps the broader household and social contexts that inform access to and motivations behind pocket money and connects these to consumption practices.

Household relationships

Pocket money connects to household income and is subject to the same kinds of volatility as the wider labour market. Halifax (2023) point to a 19% lower weekly average on pocket money rates than 10 years ago. Such a decline suggests the provisioning of pocket money follows similar patterns of wage stagnation for young people, despite wider inflation. This inverse relationship connects to what Evans and Gregson (2023) term the ‘stagflation’ of the UK economy. From a household perspective pocket money is thus positioned in domestic rather than relative terms; subject to the same kinds of regulation that household consumption is in economic downturn. Pocket money is therefore an entitlement rather than a right.

Pocket money indicates broader relationships between parenting style, family values, and household dynamics. Conditions of pocket money vary between and within households (Miller and Yung 1990; West et al., 2006). Subject to localised household rules, there is little consistency between parents motivations for giving pocket money. While some view it as a tool for economic socialisation (Furnham 2001), and recent developments encourage this amongst children (Pape 2022), others may simply feel the pressure to conform to what is considered normal amongst their children’s peer groups (Miller and Yung 1990). Parents are often ambivalent in their motivations. Discussions about children’s household responsibilities and what constitutes responsible purchases also contribute to these tensions (ibid). Drawing on Zelizer’s conceptualisation of the tensions of autonomy and control in uses of money, and Appleford’s (2014) research that highlights the intimacies of power dynamics between mothers and daughters on issues such as what is appropriate to wear, it is not hard to imagine that parents and teenagers’ relationships with money will share similar qualities of regulation. However, the preliminary findings of Miller and Yung (1990) suggest that young people do not view pocket money as educational, or an opportunity for self-reliance but rather as an entitlement. For young people, pocket money is primarily viewed as either not subject to obligation, or as earned by the individual. The motivations for providing pocket money, the forms and conditions under which it is provided, and how pocket money is used and perceived varies between household, and household members. Thus, pocket money is subject to forms of negotiation which consider the social relationships and economic positions of households.

The principles of choice

Young people are connected to consumption through households and parental devotion and sacrifice (Miller 1998), the pressures of parents to ‘keep up’ (Hamilton 2012), and through their own access to and negotiations of money and commodities (Chin 2001; Ruckenstein 2010). Consumption is a practice which requires valuations on account of cost and affordability. The management of money involves forms of earmarking; the constraining the uses of portions of money (Zelizer 2017). In turn, consumption practices rely on valuations in the context of how the money has been earned, under what conditions, and the material and moral cost of commodities (Miller 1998). These valuations are reliant on what Miller (1998) terms a moral economy in which exchanges involve beliefs about what is fair or appropriate. Thus practices of thrift consider avoiding wasteful spending to devote money to the future. Everyday cosmologies of thrift are intertwined in both household consumption choices (Miller 1998), and children’s discussions of money (Ruckenstein 2010).

Children’s consumption practices embody principles of saving, making ‘good’ choices, and perceptions of their parents’ economic situations (Chin 2001; Ruckenstein 2010). Young people’s family economic positions influence their practices, pointing to class inequalities in how money and consumption are negotiated. Chin’s (2001) work on purchasing power for children growing up in low-income and poor families demonstrates how consumption practices are premised around borrowing, sharing, bartering, and managing expectations. Chin suggested that the girls in her study knew how much they cost the family, and this may result in these children maturing faster than children from higher-income families. West et al. (2006) point to an inverse relationship between social class, pocket money and consumer possessions for young people in what they term a ‘material paradox’. They argue that there is a bigger discrepancy in how money is used rather than how it is earned. For young people, not having resources to access fashionable commodities can be ascribed with ‘tramp’ – acting as a form of poverty shaming and creating a pressure to keep up with trends (Croghan et al., 2006). Such research as this, and Hamilton’s (2012) study on low-income families and the use of branded clothing to alleviate stigma and allow children to ‘fit in’, demonstrate the complications of money, shopping, and ability to consume. The individualised responses of young people to inability to participate indicate that appropriate exchanges are aligned with ideas of personal responsibility and the self as enterprise (McNay 2009). As such, a sense of entitlement is evident in how money can be accrued and spent. Thus, there are tensions for young people to manage in consumption choices between household contexts and peer relationships.

Introducing a framework for accessing pocket money

To demonstrate how girls negotiate access to pocket money to facilitate their consumption, and the social class context which informs this, it is first important to outline how money is accessed. Zelizer identifies three core ways domestic money is transferred and organised: payment, entitlement, and gift (2017, pp. 42). This provides a basis for how money can be accrued: Payment: a direct exchange for domestic work (in the household), or forms of employment. Entitlement: the right to share as seen through allowances or pocket money. Gift: the voluntary bestowal when going out, or for rituals such as birthdays or Christmas. Throughout this article, the concept of entitlement will be shown to have a double meaning; both as a form of domestic provisioning, and which connects to a specific class positionality, entitled in economic position. Opportunities for women in employment have changed since the 1920s housewife Zelizer documents, but the connection lies in how creative methods must be used without an established income.

Considering entrepreneurial infrastructures within youth cultures, I offer the additional dimension for how money is transferred and organised: Enterprise: the use of own resources to facilitate economic independence. Enterprising cultures can be a means of participating in cultural spheres in ways that allow for possibilities for economic independence. This article will focus on forms of enterprise within the second-hand market. Building on McRobbie’s (1989) seminal work on the rag market, second-hand allows for practices to extend beyond ‘shopping’ to also selling. There is now an increased ease in engaging with second-hand markets by buying and selling on apps such as Vinted and Depop. Enterprising subcultures connects broader youth cultures to the newer economic and political issues of austerity and neoliberalism which have continuing relevance today. Thus, enterprising cultures can act as an unofficial job market for young people. Much like the unequal access to fashionable commodities documented above, McRobbie emphasised the prevalence of enterprising cultures in “relatively privileged metropolitan spaces” (1989, pp. 39). I therefore position entitlements, payments and enterprise as a framework through which to examine how young people accrue money and how these practices are informed by household dynamics and wider class structures. The next section will outline the methods used to capture this data.

Methodology

This paper investigates how girls pay for things, where their money comes from, and the social relationships that are both informed by and inform access to money. I analyse eight group interviews amongst 2-4 friends, and 11 follow-up individual interviews with 24 girls aged 15-17. Owing to the restrictions of the COVID-19 pandemic, group and individual interviews took place on Zoom. The girls’ ages locate them in a complex economic position, wherein the girls had access to some forms of employment but remained somewhat dependent on parents. I focus this paper on the wider social structures as they pertain to money, social class and parental regulation. While regulation may have had gendered dimensions, this was not the story the girls told. The analysis is shaped by feminist works that account for girls’ own voices (Dennis and Zhao 2022; McRobbie and Garber 1976). Girls’ voices are illuminating of not only their micrological levels but their wider understanding of social structures.

Data was collected using connections from preliminary ethnographic work and my own social networks. Preliminary contacts functioned as a gatekeeper to their friends. Snowball sampling enabled access to friendship groups that were otherwise hard to reach (Browne, 2005). Participants were either 15-year-olds in year 10 at school, or 17-year-olds in their first year of sixth-form or college. The homophilous nature of girls’ friendship groups (Hey 1997) and my own networks meant that the girls were mostly ‘middle-class’ and white. The girls mostly attended state schools, albeit in wealthier areas of cities across the South, Middle and West of England, apart from one friendship group where one friend attended a private school, and one group who attended an international boarding school. All names are changed for confidentiality, and the specific locations of the girls are not disclosed.

My first stage of data collection comprised of group interviews which occurred within girls’ friendship groups. Group interviews lasted approximately 1 hour, and enabled familiarity between the girls and helped to create a comfortable environment (Francombe-Webb and Silk 2016; Ruckenstein 2010). My intention was that the group of friends would help ease interviewer/ee power imbalances as they outnumbered me and thus would be less likely to simply tell me what they thought I wanted to hear. However, friendship groups can involve various dynamics of appeasement and subtle modes of regulation (Hey 1997; Kehily 2004). This was particularly evident in discussions around money. Money can be a difficult topic to elucidate, due to a focus on practices or because it is a sensitive topic that can be harder to for participants to talk about (Davis and Davis 2021). Money often elicited greater response when discussed in the abstract than personally to the respondent. Parents and friends were interwoven into conversations, as key contributors, sharers, and -at times- regulators of money. Thus, while money became a topic raised in discussion groups, it was further explored in individual interviews.

The second stage of data collection comprised on individual interviews. I invited the girls to take part in a further one-to-one interview, of which 11 accepted. Online interviewing provides flexibility in terms of accessing participants (Are 2019), particularly in the climate of the global pandemic. The online nature of the interviews allowed me access to ‘bedroom culture’, which is widely recognised as an important space in which much of girls’ cultural production (both ephemeral and material) takes place in the domestic sphere (Kearney 2007; McRobbie and Garber 1976). Moreover, as this research began during lockdown 2020 and more generally at a time where the high street is at risk because of prevalence of online consumption, these spaces are of relevance, not just as sites of girls’ cultural production and social relationships, but as sites of consumption and enterprise. Thus, extending these earlier analyses of bedrooms as sites for cultural production, to include consideration of economic production through enterprise.

All focus groups and interviews were recorded and transcribed. Themes were coded using the reflexive thematic analysis. I constructed themes from my data as part of a reflexive interpretive process that began with my familiarising myself with the data, identifying initial themes and seeing how they sustained or developed under further review. Braun and Clarke emphasise flexibility in data analysis; analysis was not reliant on rigid coding structures that could have removed some of the subtleties of my approach in reflecting on the intersections of power and practice. Reflexive thematic analysis considers that themes do not ‘emerge’ from data but are generated as part of a creative and critical process in which “meaning and knowledge are understood as situated and contextual” (Braun and Clarke 2021: pp. 334). My research has been informed by a curiosity for what the study of fashion can illuminate about the social lives of teenage girls, and how this connects to power relationships. What became apparent is that money was a central feature in their fashion consumption considerations, illuminating how girls understand themselves and their financial positions.

Negotiating autonomy in entitlements, payments, and enterprise

Entitlements and payments: Strategies for managing money

Akin to Zelizer’s 1920s housewives, the girls in this study have no legal entitlement to their ‘own’ money and, as such, are heavily reliant on wider structures, in particular domestic provisioning. What constituted pocket money varied amongst the girls, with no standardised measures or amounts. Some got specified monthly payments, whereas some earned on a more ad hoc basis, reflecting the broader dynamics between households, values and provisions. The girls negotiated with differences in payments and entitlements between themselves and friends to frame their own circumstances. This included consideration for what payments were meant to cover, and as we will go on to see, what regulations were placed on them by parents. Amounts provided were also subject to whether parents also gifted their children in shopping trips or paid for elements of consumption (like phone contracts) outside of the various agreed amount of money provided. Thus, determining precisely ‘who got what’ was not always straightforward and, at times, required a more general discussion of money than questions of individual practice. In the conversation of what a ‘normal’ amount is, Tamara’s friends vary between those who get ‘quite a lot’ and others who do not get anything. ‘A lot’ was generally classified as £50-70 a month – far exceeding the average as outlined by the Halifax Pocket Money Review. Following West et al. (2006) this likely reflects their ages as well as household income.

For those receiving specific monthly entitlements, there was a sense that money needed to be managed and could limit a sense of freedom in consumption. 17-year-old Tamara disclosed that she gets between £30-40 a month, and this must cover her school lunches, toiletries, and skincare, taking up most of her pocket money. The tutoring job that supplemented her pocket money had been disrupted by the pandemic. Thus, Tamara feels a sense of restriction in what she was able to consume beyond essential purchases. Similarly, 15-year-old Lizzie has a specified monthly allowance, the amount of which she did not disclose with me, although many of her friends tell her she gets a lot. Lizzie did not necessarily think this was fair, comparing her situation to those who receive money on an ad hoc basis. Lizzie argued that if every time her friends go out, they ask, ‘oh mum can I have some money’ they probably get more money overall, but they spend it quicker because they do not have to budget. Lizzie feels she needs to budget to ensure her money lasts. While this could be economic socialisation, for Lizzie and Tamara there is a sense of frustration that accompanies managing money, compounded by perceived differences amongst their friends which influences the principles through which consumption choices are made.

While entitlements can be limited in their structure, there is a precarity in gifting that requires mediation. There are pros and cons to ad hoc payments in terms of how much the girls can get, how much they need to budget monthly, and how much their money is controlled. 17-year-old Frankie is conscious of spending within her limits and maintains some level of savings and security rather than spending all her money. Although she has part-time work, she also receives some of her money from her parents. It is not a set amount, and she did not think her parents would agree to this, but – as Lizzie suspects – Frankie confirms you can get more money out of your parents without them knowing when it is just gifted as and when. Frankie is given £10 for food each time she needs it and maximises her resources by trying to spend less than the whole amount. Reminiscent of the housewives Zelizer (2017) discusses, who would pocket any leftover money allotted to them for the household budget, Frankie does not like spending that much and would rather keep some back. As an example, she could also get an extra £5 a week to tidy her room but rarely bothers with this. Considering the ambivalent motivations for pocket money amongst parents (Miller and Yung 1990), where Frankie’s parents may want to incentivise their daughter into household chores, Frankie is able to circumvent this domestic work by earmarking leftover change instead. Demonstrating the differential views of pocket money, and how the girls manage monies differently from how they are intended by parents.

Earmarking monies offers independence in opportunities both present and imagined futures. Savings were generally cited as being for nothing in particular, or for specific medium to long-term purposes, such as holidays, festivals, or gap years. Both Lizzie and Frankie dedicate money to the future through savings. Normally, Lizzie puts half of her allowance in her savings account and half in her cash account. Although Lizzie had been saving, this changed over lockdown when she moved all her savings into her cash account and with the amount of clothing she had recently bought, she no longer had anything saved. Lizzie laughs as she tells me that it is too easy to transfer between accounts. For this reason, she does not consider herself to be good at saving money but is forced to budget and prioritise more than some of her friends, who get given money as and when they want. Likewise, Frankie emphasises her own moral economy, in which she negotiates her spending (and work) on what she feels to be just, by not spending more than she need on lunches, she is able to hold back small amounts of money here and there. In doing so, Frankie maintains a sense of autonomy in her access to money. Forms of thrift operate in everyday uses of money, enabling the possibility of future desires.

Another way in which entitlements can be supplemented is through forms of payment. Payments are multifaceted, ranging from domestic money in allowances predicated on keeping rooms clean, doing chores at home, to paid employment outside of the house. These jobs were variable in terms of economic legitimacy, from contracted employee to cash-in-hand roles. At the ages of 15-17 some have been able to secure forms of paid work outside the home. For those over 16, more options are available, from working in hairdressers, to delis, to supermarkets, to waitressing. The pandemic had also complicated access to employment; some like Tamara had lost out on income, while others, like Amy, who worked at McDonalds, had pleasantly found herself on the receiving end of the furlough scheme. Parents such as Lydia’s had offered to pay them for general cleaning and helping around the house, recognising that their children still needed to earn money, and because their cleaners could not come over during lockdown. Thus, payments overlap both with outside employment and domestic work. In both cases, the girls discussions illuminate the role of parents in facilitating their access to money.

While the legal working age might be 16, one way in which even ‘under-age’ girls can earn money is through babysitting. Such work remains structured according to age and parental consent. 15-year-old Kate is in the process of cultivating a network for her babysitting business, building on what her older sister (now at university) had already created. As her parents currently only allow her to babysit until 11 pm, she is restricted in what she can do but hopes to do more as she gets older. Kate’s limited scope points to how regulation is also present in their access to paid employment and demonstrates the connection between domestic regulation to broader work structures. Currently, Kate only babysits for a ‘lovely family across the road’. As for many of the girls, payments and provisioning take multiple forms. Kate has found other work in the form of helping to tidy after her drama class on Saturdays, where she and one other girl get paid £20 a week to turn classrooms back into their weekday set-up. However, she wants a new job when she turns 16 because her boss is ‘mean’. As opportunities for earning money outside of the home begin to arise, the girls are figuring out how to negotiate the job market. They contend with regulation not only in how they access income but also means through which they are able to do this.

Negotiating regulation: Learning and circumventing the rules

Entitlements to pocket money are subject to forms of regulation that reveal the values parents attempt to instil in their children. In my interview with 15-year-old Jessica, I learn that she, like some of her other friends, has a GoHenry card ² . A GoHenry card allowed her dad to deposit money into and monitor spending. Jessica found this annoying, because her dad could see everything she buys, and there were always limits on how much she could spend, a naturalised feature of the account. The day before we spoke, her dad had given her money for an upcoming holiday to the Isle of Wight, which she ‘accidentally’ spent in TK Maxx. The accident was the impulsive yet important purchase of some Armani jeans, with Armani written in graffiti style paint. Jessica was told off for her misuse of the allotted money, and that she would not be receiving any more pocket money for a while. Jessica’s experience emphasises how the girls can be subject to sanctions in line with their consumption practices, and the power imbalance in which parents can reprimand young people for not spending in ways considered ‘appropriate’.

Similarly, Kate’s exemplifies how regulation occurs within money provisioning. Kate gets £20 a month from her parents, as well as money for food when she goes out. Kate felt that before she had a job, she was terrible with money because she did not have a concept of it. She would spend her £20 immediately and have nothing left for the rest of the month, which prompted her mum to start giving her £2.50 a week and an additional £10 at the end of the month. Kate’s spending was curbed, ensuring she did not spend all her money at once. However, over the course of our conversation, Kate realised she needed to collect that week’s cash, illustrating how this form of money management is difficult keep on top of. Either Kate or her mum often forgot. This dynamic that is dependent on parental approval would likely apply to the consumption of clothing as a means of aesthetic regulation. Thus, the girls learn to navigate forms of regulation in getting money and spending money. This involves learning to read the rules of entitlement imparted by their parents, which align with broader values of acceptability and responsibility.

As with the social meaning of money, money can be used to manage complex social relations which express love and power, care and control (Zelizer 2017). Forms of control offer opportunities for autonomy. While entitlements and gifts are subject to regulation depending on the provisioner’s approval, and the girls have found ways to work this to their advantage. 15-year-old Beth receives £10 an hour from her parents to do chores around the house, this can be anything from unloading the dishwasher to shredding old work files. She is also gifted money on an ad hoc basis for food and shopping when she goes out. Beth has learned that her parents are more generous with their gifting and give her more freedom to do things when they approve of her friends. For example, Beth tells me how her parents will give her more money when she goes out with her best friend, who her parents love, often enough to treat her friend. While her parents are imparting a form of regulation based on approval of the company she keeps, Beth sees this as an amusing anecdote in which she has worked out what situations she can get the most money from her parents. Beth’s example demonstrates how the girls understand the regulations that are intended to be imposed on them, and go about using these to their own advantage. Emphasising how the girls negotiate domestic provisions in different ways from how parents might view the exchanges.

Enterprising spirit: Strategies for facilitating consumption

The girls can also assert agency in their consumption practices through forms of enterprise. Enterprise offers a form of income for consumption that is less subject to parental regulation. As I mentioned in the section above, Jessica has recently been caught out for spending money her dad had given her for a holiday on a pair of Armani jeans she found in TK Maxx. Her purchase of the jeans might have been an earmarking error as far as her dad is concerned, but to have not bought it would have been an enterprising error for Jessica. Jessica feels more relaxed about being denied pocket money, as she has her own source of income, too, selling her clothes on Depop. Indeed, in recounting her weekly allowance of £4 a week, Jessica was quick to add that she makes most of her own money through selling clothes. Jessica uses Depop to sell clothes she bought that she no longer likes or no longer wears. Her consumption practices operate mostly on the basis that what she buys can always be sold on to facilitate further consumption. This enterprising spirit has served Jessica well. She has a Dolce and Gabbana top which she loves. The top cost £35, which Jessica admits would be the top end of her budget for a top, but she really liked it and felt confident she would be able to sell it on. Her bedroom business thrived during lockdown, meaning she had what she felt was lots of money during quarantine, exemplified through having sold a pair of ‘DollyMix’ ³ joggers for £90, having bought them for £85. Jessica gets ‘all’ her money from Depop turning profits through getting ‘really cheap’ items of clothing which she wears until then they ‘go out’ [of fashion] and then selling them for ‘so much more’ than she got them for. The Dolce and Gabbana top was her maximum spend, which she justified because she really wanted it and knew she could sell it on for the same price or more. In that sense, her consumption feels to her that she is lending money out and will get it back. In the context of regulated domestic provisioning and social pressures, cosmologies of thrift connect to the functioning of enterprise, which can help supplement forms of entitlement or payment. Jessica’s example highlights how enterprising cultures offer a means for young people to invest in available cultural resources, which enables their own strategies for income outside of the regulations of everyday domestic provisioners.

An enterprising spirit is also evident in how the girls work their situations in ways that will best benefit them. 15-year-old Izzy defines her mum as a ‘bit of a shopaholic’. Izzy can work this to her advantage, knowing that her mum will likely buy her clothes if they go shopping together. This presents an opportunity to get things she would not want to buy herself or more expensive items from places like Urban Outfitters. Izzy also knows if she goes shopping with her mum and her sister, her mum will spend the same amount on both to make it fair, thus shopping with both is beneficial. Parents' money, then, could be seen as separate money. In this way, Izzy knows how to get things gifted to her. However, part of her earnings come as an ‘exchange’, either in money earned by doing house chores, cleaning her dad’s workplace, or as part of a settlement package in shopping. The latter is where mum might offer to buy some of the items in a larger purchase. As far as Izzy is concerned, this is fair, and although there is an acknowledgement more broadly that more money can lead to better style owing to the relative freedoms, she seems comfortable with her situation. What this illustrates is the enterprising practices that young people employ to secure their desired means in accessing money and consumption. The girls learn to work their situations for their own purposes in ways which assert their autonomy. The same can be said for Beth who had worked out that her parents will give her more money if they approve of her friends, and those such as Lydia who had picked up cleaning work in the home, or Kate who navigated underage employment within the networks available to her in drama classes and local babysitting. These practices are also indicative of their comfortable classed positions. The strategies the girls employ to facilitate consumption involve astute understandings of their own household dynamics and wider market structures, making use of the resources available to them.

Entitlement: The moralisation of money and consumption

The girls emphasise their autonomy in accruing and spending money, offering insight into how pocket money is negotiated by young people. Yet the underlying sense is that the girls feel entitled to money. If we are to explore the social conditions which underpin money practices, we should also consider the specific class dimensions which define them. This can reveal the moral values parents may wish to impart on their children, and how these are negotiated. But it can also relate pragmatically to the financial in/stability of a household. In the context of this research, clothing brands were often used as a material means to articulate relative costs and spending practices in ways which also articulated social class positions.

Lizzie: I thought about this before, because I think ‘Chav’ is often associated with having less money but a lot of the time they’re wearing branded clothes like Adidas. So, it's interesting how people associate that, and I don't personally think this, but I've heard people who have been like ‘oh ‘chavs’ parents put all their money into their clothes, and like getting their kids branded things’.

Lizzie illustrates an inverse relationship between social positioning and spending that is reflected throughout conversations. While young people from low-income households may face pressure to consume commodities which they feel will allow them to fit in, creating a ‘material paradox’ between pocket money, income and consumption (Croghan et al., 2006; Hamilton 2012; West et al., 2006), Lizzie illuminates how this is morally assessed within her social milieu. Those considered to have ‘less money’ are associated with irresponsible spending, as exemplified by Lizzie’s discussion of branded clothing and ‘Chavs’. ‘Chav’ has been taken up sociologically to explore the significant class-based discrimination of the term as it applies to everyday practice (see Tyler 2008). ‘Chav’ is constructed as a pathologised workless other, everything the self-sufficient girl should not be (Francombe-Webb and Silk 2016). There is a roughness that is anti-feminine, antithetic to success, and activated through critiques of clothing articulated as lacking authenticity based on having made poor choices (ibid). While Lizzie claims to not feel this way herself, she points to what she perceives as a common judgement on ‘Chavs’ consumption practices. However, this example extends this by demonstrating the ways this is denigrated. Taking from Lizzie this broader finding in my research, what is implicit here is that having the means to consume is not enough, but that moral assessments are objectified through what is consumed. Connecting this with the concept of moral economy, beliefs about what is fair or appropriate take on personal responsibility narratives. These are integrated into conceptions of money and spending within consumption, aligning with Croghan et al. (2006) that style failure represents a social code for personal responsibility and self-reliance rather than monetary inequality.

There is a strong sense of entitlement in which the girls’ moral economies function in relation to their uses and negotiations of money. Frankie gave me a deep dive into her and Tamara’s friendship group while discussing how they are thinking of booking an Airbnb together after A-level mocks, which she estimates at £30 each. Everyone has enough money one way or another:

I think most people don’t get an allowance, most people just get topped up on their cards when they ask their parents if they don't earn... Safia earns, and I think everyone gets money from their parents for food. Um I’m not sure about Fantasia just because of how much she earns [working at Waitrose], I’m not sure she’d bother asking... and also Antonia and Ellie they both work at the club [waitressing] they earn a lot. Lilli gets money from her parents who are well off. I don't know what her parents do. She's like, she's a big spender but I don't see her as being irresponsible in my head.

What is striking is how Frankie positions her friend’s access to money, and the relationship she considers between spending and responsibility. As a group, Frankie does not think her friends spend too much, but I use this example to highlight that income is viewed subjectively in relation to each of their own positions. Through this, I learned that Fantasia lives in a small two-bedroom flat where she shares a room with her two siblings. She works relatively more hours than the others in their friendship group, balancing this with her A-Level studies, yet Frankie considers her to have almost too much to ask her parents for money. Conversely, Lilli gets more from her parents, certainly enough to buy most of her wardrobe from Urban Outfitters, commonly denoted amongst the girls in this study as one of the more desirable but expensive shops, and for food and trips. Unlike the findings from Chin (2001), Frankie is not overly conscious of the economic position of her or her friends’ parents and instead projects her own moral economy. Personal responsibility is more actively considered than forms of entitlement in how money is earned and spent. In Frankie’s description, she situates those who earn their own money similarly to those who receive it from their parents. Money is not differentiated between forms of entitlement and forms of payment. Despite what could be considered obvious inequities, these are seen as two sides of the same coin, so to speak. Instead, attention is paid to having money, indicating an entitlement to the means of money. What this conversation reveals goes beyond the different means of payment and entitlement, to also consider how forms of privilege and valuation are illuminated through discussions of money and consumption.

Conclusion

In this article I evidence the socially meaningful practices which underpin girls’ access and uses of money. Far from pocket money being economic or behavioural socialisation, I demonstrate the calculated and sophisticated practices in the negotiation of money to facilitate consumption. I have provided a basis for how pocket money is accessed through entitlements, payments and enterprise, and developed this to establish the forms of social, economic and moral regulations that young people negotiate in their access to money. The strategies employed by the girls in this study to access money demonstrates the nuanced dynamics of households, and the active role of young people in these dynamics and in facilitating their own consumption. Thus, the outline towards a sociology of pocket money duly considers the broader economic context, as well as the relational work in which young people negotiate household finances and values, peer pressures and relationships, and how these are informed by their classed social environments.

Attending to the double meaning of entitlement demonstrates the need to recognise the relationships between domestic provisioning, social class and privilege. This feels particularly timely considering rising wealth inequality (Savage 2021). I demonstrate the ways in which the girls see themselves as autonomous rather than be beholden to their parents in ways which resonate with entitlement (Zelizer 2017). Entitlement can – and in this specific case does - also indicate class position. Discussions of access to and uses of money reveal how the girls make classed assessments of consumption practices, and this in turn leads to moral regulation of practices. Moreover, the lack of distinction drawn between differing forms of access to money concerns a privilege in relation to pocket money and the assumed entitlement to this. In focus on how they are autonomous, there is a reproduction of meritocratic principles which cannot account for inequality in access to resources nor how limited access to resources can lead to poverty shaming (Croghan et al., 2006). The topic of pocket money is far reaching in scope, further work should more keenly acknowledge how money practices inform consumption, and the moral valuations that occur within these.

Centring the girls’ perspectives exemplifies the complex dynamics at play within domestic provisioning and disrupts sociological focus on parents’ devoted practices which assume the rudimentary role of money in young people’s lives. There is an interdependency of entitlements and gifts between domestic provisioners and the girls which offers some freedom but is still subject to forms of regulation. Regulation takes many forms; from parent’s approval of their friends, to how the girls are permitted to spend their money. Jessica’s dad deposits money in her bank account and can thereby oversee her spending, limiting or changing her entitlements to sanction her practices. Lizzie has freedom to spend as she likes but only within a certain amount each month, while Beth can get more money by hanging out with the ‘right’ people. Yet, the girls frame this as a productive tension, in which they learn to read and negotiate situations for their purposes. I evidence how the girls ‘work’ their situations to get the most money, ringfencing their room for autonomy through the calculated and practical understandings of their social relationships. By combining McRobbie’s (1989) work on enterprise culture with Zelizer’s conceptualisation of how money is organised, it is possible to explore the enterprising means of buying and selling their clothes acts as a means of making their money go further, and in circumventing parental control. Thus, this article offers nuanced insight into how enterprising cultures operate. I exemplify both the insidious ways in which a market mentality forms part of the girls consumption practices, but that this enterprising spirit also serves the basis through which they can negotiate forms of control to emphasise their own autonomy. Moreover, in the context of the ‘stagflation’ of pocket money and the wider market (Evans and Gregson, 2023) enterprising cultures offer opportunities for young people to facilitate income using their own resources. While Zelizer’s work clearly documents the tension between autonomy and control in money practices, enterprising cultures enable young people to negotiate these dynamics in order to participate in consumer culture, navigate social pressures and keep up with trends.

Critical reflections on conceptualising pocket money are particularly necessary in positioning the practices of young people in consumption, for whom we cannot explicitly locate within the labour market. Connecting practices of pocket money to the labour market also raises timely questions about the future of work and income. The girls in this study do not adhere to the mechanics of income, but rather evidence their own sophisticated negotiations of employment, work, and enterprising methods to ringfence monies. If the girls in this study are learning their own creative means of income that exist outside of traditions of employment, this may concern their developing negotiations in the labour market. How girls negotiate access to pocket money provides scope to think beyond forms of provisioning and practice, to how cultural reproductions of privilege occur within these and how they become justified through moral valuations. Pocket money is clearly more than just a form of economic socialisation and how we view pocket money effects how we view the future socialisation of economics.