Free money for government individuals

The family is a space for cooperation, in the sense that it is a question of pooling resources but also of building together a life and a common lineage or of preserving or maintaining a name, a reputation, the identity of a lineage . The family is also a space of conflict, in the sense that it is a question of sharing resources, but also of asserting one's own identity, asserting one's rights, maintaining self-esteem, etc. This permanent tension between conflict and cooperation nevertheless takes very diverse forms and expressions depending on contexts and times, depending on the place given to women and the functions performed by the family group (reproduction / production), according to the degree of " individualism ”and the value placed on the notions of freedom and individual autonomy. The existing literature opposes two ideal types of "family forms" [Guyer and Peters, 1987; Kabeer, 1995]. The first, qualified as “conjugal”, is based on conjugal ties and on the superimposition of the functions of production, procreation, consumption and residence. It is often accompanied by reduced spatial mobility of women and a free money for low income familiesstrong separation between public and private spaces. Most of the financial obligations rest on men, considered as the main "providers of [monetary] income" ( It is often accompanied by reduced spatial mobility of women and a strong separation between public and private spaces. Most of the financial obligations rest on men, considered as the main "providers of [monetary] income" ( It is often accompanied by reduced spatial mobility of women and a strong separation between public and private spaces. Most of the financial obligations rest on men, considered as the main "providers of [monetary] income" (breadwinner ) and responsible for ensuring the protection of women and children. Women have little or no financial obligations, but in return enjoy very limited autonomy. The second refers to the “lineage-segmented” model based on lineage rather than conjugal ties and on the separation of the functions of production, procreation, consumption and residence. It is accompanied by a higher mobility of women and a much less strict demarcation between public and private spaces. Men and women have access to separate financial resources (historically, in the form of separate agricultural production), also exercise separate financial responsibilities and are more likely to go “separate purse”.These are only standard ideals with a heuristic vocation. The models described are only norms of behavior However, if reality shows a certain flexibility and a great movement, the social norms which these two models underlie express a resistance to time which is sometimes remarkable, hence the interest to keep them in mind for understand certain behavioral traits.This permanent tension between conflict and cooperation is expressed primarily in the form of compromises and negotiations , the content and outcome of which depend on the social, economic and political resources of the various family members: property rights (formal and informal), control over heritage and income, access to collective resources, social networks outside the private-domestic space and involvement in forms of collective action (self-help groups, associations, unions, etc.) finally support from the State or other forms of public action (charitable associations, NGOs)