I attended a very informative and thought provoking presentation by Peter Baskerville at the University of Guelph today. He postulates that the
shift in wealth from men to women during the period 1860 — 1930 was of similar magnitude to that of the land grab by European settlers from native Canadians. His presentation was based on material from his forthcoming book “Silent Revolution: Wealth and Gender in Canada, 1860–1930.” Baskerville’s work in this book, as in past, rests on his impressive use of cutting edge quantitative analysis and synthesis of census data with other official records. His impressive record of articles, books and edited volumes has shed new light on the life of ordinary Canadians during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
Baskerville’s presentation today was based on the study of wealth in various forms in Victoria, British Columbia and Hamilton, Ontario. His evidence demonstrates that women’s share of wealth rose dramatically during this period:
- Women’s share of all probated wealth increased to 50% by 1930;
- Assessed land held by women increased from 0% in 1871 to 20% by 1930;
- Women’s assessed wealth in Victoria increased to 30% by 1930, as men’s control declined rapidly. Additionally, women share increased faster than that of corporations, despite the fact that women were at a distinct minority in Victoria;
- Women mortgagors as a percent of all mortgagors increasing substantially;
- Women mortgagees presented a different sort of pattern: upward until 1901 in Victoria, at which point the market collapsed and both genders suffered equally;
- Similar growth was demonstrated in chattel mortgage transactions involving women (mapped on either side of the transaction);
- Gender of insurance company shareholders increasingly favoured women in Ontario.
- Gender of bank shareholders also favoured women shareholders, rising from nothing to 60% by 1930 and surpassing men by 1911. Single women were dominant;
- Average probated wealth holdings by gender for all but top 20% of wealth holders in Hamilton and Victoria 1900–1931. Women were dominant if not equal;
Baskerville’s framing question in much of the analysis is: Are women conservative investors?
To answer this question, he qualified risk into three investment categories of increasing riskiness. Overall there was a substantial decline over time in low risk investment. Interestingly, women’s investment strategies are no more risk adverse than that of males.
In Hamilton there is actually an unexplained move of men toward lower risk investment after 1921, while women are actually adopting riskier investment strategies. Why?
Conclusion…women do not (contrary to what we might assume) tend towards conservative investments.
Interesting counterpoint: Chart of the Percent of urban workforce self-employed: Canadian Men and Women, 1901–1996. Women move from 30% of this force in 1901 to closer to 10% by 1996.
Some conclusions:
- Change in married women’s property laws lead to a huge change in inheritance patterns. Daughter began to inherit, as fear of husband taking daughter’s wealth on marriage was removed;
- Men increasingly provided inheritance unfettered to widows…i.e. if widow remarried there was not a demand that inherited wealth be surrendered. This restriction was increasingly rare as a codicil to wills by men.
- The role of women was open to debate…it was not as simple as has been suggested…not necessarily simple spheres…clearly women were considering investment opportunities on their own;
- Married Women’s Property Laws affected women more generally than just married women. Part of this has to do with generational shift
There is strong evidence that women are stretching the liberal state despite ongoing efforts of folks to maintain the status quo.
Baskerville is not trying to conclude that there was a transference of power…and this is the big question left hanging…so there was wealth transfer, so why did it take so long for the accompanying power shift? Why does this change seem to have less impact on the possession and exercise of power?