Major Waves and Critical Juncture in Sino-Indian Geopolitical Rivalry in Nepal

In e na ional Jou nal o Mul idisciplina y and Inno a i e Resea ch
ISSN(p in ): 3050-6883, ISSN(online): 3050-6891
Volume 02 Issue 11 No embe 2025
DOI: 10.58806/ijmi .2025. 2i11n03
Page No: 343-357
343 Volume 02 Issue 11 No embe 2025 Co esponding Au ho : Omobolaji Adedasola, A emu
Socio-Economic and Demog aphic De e minan s o Financial Well-Being
Dispa i ies in The Uni ed Kingdom: E idence om The Financial Capabili y
Su ey (2018)
Omobolaji Adedasola, A emu1, Seun And ew, Eyiolawi2, Johnson Sunday, Ojewumi (PhD)3
1,2Uni e si y o Hull, Hull, Uni ed Kingdom
3Adeyemi Fede al Uni e si y o Educa ion, Ondo, Nige ia
ABSTRACT
ARTICLE DETAILS
This s udy in es iga es he socio-economic and demog aphic de e minan s o inancial well-being
(FWB) dispa i ies in he Uni ed Kingdom using he 2018 Financial Capabili y Su ey (𝑛 = 4,492).
Financial well-being was ope a ionalised as a h ee-le el o dinal a iable (“s uggling”, “squeezed”,
“cushioned”) de i ed om a composi e sa is ac ion index. Employing a p opo ional odds model
(POM), he analysis e eals ha e hnici y, gende , income, educa ion, employmen , egion, and
ma i al s a us signi ican ly p edic inancial well-being dispa i ies, while age has no s a is ically
signi ican e ec . The indings showed ha black esponden s (AOR=0.47,95% CI:0.26−0.81)
a e mo e likely o belong o lowe FWB ca ego ies ela i e o Whi e coun e pa s and male
esponden s (AOR=1.40,95% CI:1.19−1.64) a e mo e likely o ha e highe odds a io o
belonging o highe ca ego ies o FWB. Household income was e ealed o ha e a signi ican
p og essi e inc ease e ec on FWB dispa i ies as he odds a io o belonging o highe ca ego ies o
FWB inc eases as household income inc eases (𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝑜𝑓 AOR=1.41−
2.88,𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝑜𝑓 95% CI:1.12−3.90). Highe educa ion, employmen s abili y, and geog aphical
loca ions de e mine FWB ou comes. The indings has e ealed he pe sis en s uc u al inequali ies
in inancial well-being wi hin he UK and sugges s he need o a ge ed policy in e en ions o
p omo e inclusi e inancial esilience.
Published On:
16 No embe 2025
A ailable on:
h ps://ijmi .com
INTRODUCTION
A a pi o al junc u e s ands ou con empo a y wo ld, s i ing o eco e om a se ies o economic dis up ions, en i onmen al
deg ada ion, a global pandemic (COVID-19) (McKibbin & Fe nando, 2023; Gagnon, Kamin & Kea ns, 2023), pe sis en
geopoli ical con lic s (Yan & Piao, 2025; A onso, Al es, & Mon ei o, 2024) and he ecen ade wa s ha ha e p o oundly eshaped
bo h in a- and in e na ional economic ac i i ies. Mo eo e , in an inc easingly in e dependen global economy, no na ion emains
insula ed om he economic and social e e be a ions o hese c ises, e en when geog aphically o poli ically dis an om hei
o igins. The consequences and spillo e s a e mos acu ely bo ne by o dina y ci izens, who expe ience hese dis up ions h ough
successi e in la iona y p essu es, soa ing housing cos s, and s agnan eal wages ha impac cos o li ing, he eby deepening
socioeconomic inequali ies ac oss and wi hin na ions.
Howe e , hese global dis up ions a e no he sole de e minan s o ha dships aced by he common man. Equally culpable is he
adop ion o economic policies ha , while o en no well-in en ioned, p o e ine ec i e in alle ia ing po e y and, in many ins ances,
exace ba e inancial ulne abili y and social inequali y (Walke , D uckman & Jackson, 2021). While hese policies could ha e
os e ed inclusi e g ow h, hey seem o expand exis ing dispa i ies and unde mine he inancial well-being o indi iduals al eady
bu dened by uncon ollable ex e nal shocks. Fo ins ance, he in oduc ion o aus e i y p og ammes in he Uni ed Kingdom (UK)
ollowing he 2008-2009 global inancial c isis disp opo iona ely a ec ed he economically ulne able, deepening he inancial
p eca i y o people wi h disabili ies, single pa en s, and low-income ea ne s (McKee e al., 2012). Wel a e e enchmen s and bene i
caps will no only cons ain disposable incomes bu also e oded he social sa e y ne s upon which many households/indi iduals
elied. This was no ed o ha e led o a signi ican inc ease in he mo ali y a e in he UK (Walsh e al., 2022) and caused abou six-
mon h decline in a e age li e expec ancy, wi h women disp opo iona ely a ec ed (Be man & Ho land, 2025).
Socio-Economic and Demog aphic De e minan s o Financial Well-Being Dispa i ies in The Uni ed Kingdom:
E idence om The Financial Capabili y Su ey (2018)
344 Volume 02 Issue 11 No embe 2025 Co esponding Au ho : Omobolaji Adedasola, A emu
Simila ly, he implemen a ion o he wo-child limi on bene i s has been widely c i icised o i s ad e se implica ions o household
wel a e, as i e ec i ely penalises la ge amilies and exace ba es child po e y (Child Po e y Ac ion G oup, 2025). I was
es ima ed ha 1 in 9 child en is nega i ely impac ed by he policy (Child Po e y Ac ion G oup, 2025). These policy di ec ions,
hough o en jus i ied as measu es o iscal discipline and mac oeconomic s abili y, ha e in p ac ice in ensi ied socio-economic
dispa i ies and weakened he inancial well-being o he mos disad an aged g oups in socie y.
Wi h he iden i ica ion o he join ole o global and na ional economic policies on he inancial well-being o indi iduals, i is
equally succinc o no e ha hese may no be uni o mly expe ienced. Ra he , hey may a y signi ican ly ac oss socio-economic
and demog aphic g oups, e lec ing some le el o dispa i ies in income, educa ion, gende , and age. Concep ually, he no ion o
inancial well-being has been de ined in di e se ways wi hin he li e a u e; howe e , his s udy adop s he con e gence o mos
de ini ions, which is he abili y o indi iduals o mee cu en inancial obliga ions while main aining su icien esou ces o u u e
needs. Fo ins ance, B üggen e al. (2017) p esen ed inancial well-being as “ he pe cep ion o being able o sus ain cu en and
an icipa ed desi ed li ing s anda ds and inancial eedom”, which is simila o he concep ualisa ion o Kempson, Finney and
Poppe (2017). None heless, ce ain s ands o he li e a u e iewed inancial well-being h ough a unidimensional lens ei he
nega i ely, in e ms o inancial h ea s o s ess/ha dship (Kassie e al., 2025; Nasi e al., 2025; Jackson e al., 2025) o posi i ely,
in e ms o sa is ac ion o esilience (Rahadian, Ma dian & Fi li, 2020; Sahi, 2013; DePian o, 2011).
Recen li e a u e has concep ualised and es ablished he mul idimensional na u e o inancial well-being (FWB). I has been well-
es ablished ha FWB encompasses bo h objec i e inancial condi ions (income, asse s, deb ) and subjec i e pe cep ions such as
con idence in mee ing obliga ions and pe cei ed economic con ol (Nanda & Bane jee, 2021; Kuma e al., 2021; B üggen e al.,
2017). FWB is o en concep ualised h ough beha iou al/cogni i e, psychological, and sociological/economic amewo ks,
highligh ing he in e ac ion be ween inancial li e acy, decision-making, and social con ex (Ga g, P iyadashi & Malik, 2024;
So gen e, To enhagen & Lanz, 2021; Seh awa , Vij, & Talan, 2021; Ponchio, Co dei o & Gonçal es, 2019). Psychological
pe spec i es emphasise he ole o subjec i e sel -con ol and op imism (S ömbäck e al., 2020), while sociological and economic
app oaches ocus on ma e ial esou ces, household income, and occupa ional s abili y (Sahi, 2013; A be , Fenn, & Meadows, 2014).
Mo eo e , he in e disciplina y na u e o he app oaches adop ed in heo ising and concep ualising FWB also in oduces some o m
o disc epancies and inconsis encies in empi ical indings in he li e a u e (Ga g e al., 2024).
Al hough inancial well-being is commonly concep ualised as a p oduc o pe sonal capabili ies and indi idual agency, i is equally
suscep ible o exogenous socio-economic and ins i u ional o ces ha can neu alise he e ec i eness o e en s ong inancial
capabili ies. Fo ins ance, mac oeconomic shocks such as he COVID-19 pandemic exace ba ed inancial inequali ies, wi h lowe -
income and p eca ious wo ke s expe iencing g ea e declines in inancial well-being (Bo ha e al., 2021). Simila ly, Ba a em,
Tinghög and Väs jäll (2021) obse ed ha us in go e nmen mi iga ed inancial insecu i y du ing c ises, sugges ing ha
ins i u ional con idence plays a media ing ole in subjec i e economic s abili y.
P io empi ical s udies on inancial well-being ha e in es iga ed he co ela es be ween socio-economic and demog aphic and
pe cei ed inancial well-being in di e en con ex . Al hough a s and o he li e a u e a gues o he insigni icance o income in
de e mining FWB (Roslan e al., 2025; Rahadian e al., 2020), nume ous independen indings om a ious con ex has e eals i s
signi ican impac on FWB (P akash e al., 2022; Bu e e al., 2021; Suh, 2021; Rahman e al., 2021; Cha e jee, Kuma & Dayma,
2019; Ri salu & Mu akas, 2019; A be e al., 2014; Sahi, 2013; DePian o, 2011). Mo eso, income-FWB nexus was ound o be
mode a e by demog aphic and socio-economic ac o s like gende , weal h, and social compa ison among o he s (Zyphu e al., 2015;
Cha e jee e al., 2019). Despi e his, empi ical e idence on b oade socio-economic and demog aphic de e minan s o FWB emains
ela i ely limi ed and inconclusi e, as mos exis ing s udies end o emphasise inancial capabili y cons uc s like inancial li e acy,
educa ion, knowledge, socialisa ion, beha iou , and a i ude o e s uc u al o demog aphic in luences (Che loul e al., 2025; Kuma
e al., 2023; Rahadian e al., 2020; U ka sh e al., 2020). Mo eo e , his is no o a gue ha socio-economic and demog aphic ac o s
a e iable enough o unde s anding FWB bu he no ion o his s udy is ha FWB hough la gely explained by inancial capabili y
cons uc s, i s dis ibu ion may di e based on socio-economic and demog aphic ac o s such as age, gende , educa ion le el, income
le el, and e hnici y.
Fo ins ance, e idence om he Uni ed S a es e eals in e sec ional dispa i ies in FWB, as whi e males ha e been epo ed o ha e
highe le els o inancial sa is ac ion ela i e o o he gende – ace g oups (DePian o, 2011). Simila pa e ns o gende -based
dispa i ies in FWB in he Uni ed S a es we e also obse ed by Zyphu e al (2015). Also, he ela ionship be ween weal h and FWB
a ies by gende and pe sonali y ai s, wi h neu o icism educing FWB and weal h associa ed lowe FWB among women bu no
men in he Uni ed S a es (Chha wani, 2025). This e idence he exis ence o a gende -based dispa i ies in FWB and a he same ime
p o ided an insigh in o he possibili y ha FWB migh be subjec i ely iewed be ween he wo gende s. While one migh ha e
concluded ha he male gende gene ally has highe FWB compa ed o hei emale coun e pa , indings om Japan demons a ed
o he wise wi h women exhibi ing highe FWB and inancial secu i y han men (Sawada e al., 2025). None heless, gende gaps
pe sis in inancial li e acy and access o inancial esou ces, which may obscu e he ue dis ibu ion o FWB (Gonçal es, Ponchio
Socio-Economic and Demog aphic De e minan s o Financial Well-Being Dispa i ies in The Uni ed Kingdom:
E idence om The Financial Capabili y Su ey (2018)
345 Volume 02 Issue 11 No embe 2025 Co esponding Au ho : Omobolaji Adedasola, A emu
& Basilo, 2021; Nanda & Bane jee, 2021). Mo eo e , he e is ye no enough empi ical e idence o u he elucida e gende
dispa i ies in FWB in he UK.
S udies conduc ed ac oss de eloped and eme ging economies ha e consis en ly demons a ed signi ican associa ion be ween
inancial sa is ac ion and key socio-demog aphic a iables such as age, occupa ion, and ma i al s a us (Sahi, 2013; P akash e al.,
2022). Fo ins ance, indings om Canadian- ocused esea ch indica es ha Canadian A med Fo ces membe s wi h dependen s and
lowe anks expe ience g ea e inancial s ain and lowe sa is ac ion, while membe s wi h ma i al s a us o ‘sepa a ed’ epo he
lowes le els o FWB (Peach, 2019). Ma i al s a us was also ound o in e ac wi h income o in luence pe cei ed well-being (Roslan
e al., 2025), while amily esponsibili ies and dependen s shape inancial esilience (So gen e & Ma ghe i a, 2017). This u he
bu ess Peach (2019) ha ma i al dissolu ion o single pa en hood and la ge household size a e commonly ela ed wi h lowe
pe cei ed FWB.
Findings om he Uni ed S a es and Aus alia s udies ha e espec i ely con i med ha olde adul s end o exhibi highe le els o
FWB, mainly because o be e inancial li e acy, accumula ed asse , and educed inancial obliga ions (Xiao, Chen, & Sun, 2015;
Xue e al., 2019). Also, Lelisho, Wogi and Ta eke (2022) a gued ha socioeconomic s a us ends o imp o e among middle aged
indi iduals and ha olde age-g oups we e mo e likely o ha e highe socio-economic s a us. In con as , FWB among younge
adul s appea s mo e s ongly in luenced by inancial socialisa ion, a i ude owa d money, and ea ly inancial expe iences (U ka sh
e al., 2020). This pa e n was pa icula ly e iden in eme ging economics like India (She e al., 2022) and among adolescen s and
young adul s in he Uni ed S a es, whe e lowe FWB is commonly epo ed among hem (Xiao e al., 2015).
Educa ion and employmen ha e also eme ged as c ucial socio-economic and demog aphic ac o s in unde s anding FWB, al hough
empi ical e idence emain mixed ac oss con ex s. Findings om Indonesia, o example, signi ies ha inancial beha iou , inancial
knowledge, and age a e signi ican p edic o s o inancial sa is ac ion whe eas educa ion and income exe no signi ican impac s,
sugges ing he impo ance o beha iou al and age ac o s (Rahadian e al., 2020). This inding pa ially co esponds wi h Kuma e
al. (2023) who ound he limi ed p edic i e capaci y o socio-demog aphic ac o s on FWB o indi iduals in India. Con e sely, in
he Mo occan con ex , a s ong mode a ing ole was ound o educa ion, age, gende , and inancial li e acy in shaping pe cei ed
well-being o people in Mo occo (Che loul e al., 2025). Lelisho e al. (2022) also e ealed ha educa ion s a us as a s a is ically
signi ican p edic o o socioeconomic s a us which is closely ela ed o FWB. Employmen s abili y has also been consis en ly
ecognised as a de e minan o FWB wi h s udies e ealing ha unemploymen in India and insecu e job con ac s in Aus alia is
associa ed wi h signi ican lowe le els o FWB (Cha e jee e al., 2019; Bo ha e al., 2021). Indeed, du ing COVID-19 pandemic,
job insecu i y among Aus alians was linked o a 29% decline in FWB, a pe sis en educ ion ac oss he en i e FWB dis ibu ion,
and a widening o FWB inequali ies (Bo ha e al., 2021).
Mo e so, e y li le has been e ealed abou FWB dispa i ies based on e hnici y/ ace and egional. Fo ins ance, only Mahdzan e
al. (2020; 2019) and DePian o (2011) s udies conside ed ace/e hnici y wi h ace dispa i ies signi ican ly e iden in FWB in
Malaysia and he US espec i ely. Mo eo e , ew s udies ocusing on he UK o e looked his aspec as A be e al. (2014) ocused
on how heal h and income inequali ies in luenced subjec i e FWB. Simila ly, Suh (2021) highligh ed signi ican dispa i ies in
inancial esilience among B i ish adul s, shaped by income, home owne ship, and e i emen planning beha iou s. These indings
esona e wi h b oade e idence ha social inequali y and s uc u al ba ie s in he UK labou and housing ma ke s ansla e in o
pe sis en dispa i ies in FWB.
Al hough he global li e a u e on FWB has inc eased subs an ially, ew s udies ha e sys ema ically examined how FWB a ies
ac oss socio-economic and demog aphic segmen s in he UK. Much o he exis ing e idence has concen a ed on objec i e indica o s
such as income o deb while neglec ing subjec i e dimensions ha cap u e sa is ac ion, pe cei ed secu i y and con idence.
Mo eo e , mos exis ing s udies used sample size ha a e no na ionally ep esen a i e excep o a limi ed numbe o ecen
con ibu ions (Kassie e al., 2025; Sawada e al., 2025; Bo ha e al., 2025; DePian o, 2011), hence, cons aining he gene alisabili y
o hei indings o na ional con ex and limi ing hei applicabili y ac oss di e en socio-economic se ings. This indica es ha he
ocus and na ional con ex o p io s udies a e no applicable o he UK, hence, jus i y he need o his s udy. Fu he mo e, exis ing
UK-based s udies (Suh, 2021; A be e al., 2014) p o ided limi ed insigh in o dispa i ies in FWB ac oss di e en popula ion g oups.
While bo h s udies (Suh, 2021; A be e al., 2014) u ilised na ionally ep esen a i e da a, he da ase s employed a e ou da ed da a
which migh no be sui able in in o ming con empo a y policy. Fo ins ance, Abbe e al. (2014) d ew on 2006 Gene al Household
Su ey da a comp ising 7,743 B i ain households, whe eas Suh (2021) analysed he ou h wa e o Weal h and Asse Su ey o
2012/2014, ocusing solely on indi iduals be ween he age 30 and 49. This indica es a signi ican gap ha needed o be illed o
con empo a y policy ini ia i es as i does no cap u e he en i e wo king age popula ion.
The e o e, he p esen s udy ad ances he exis ing li e a u e by p o iding an upda ed empi ical analysis o socio-economic and
demog aphic dispa i ies in inancial well-being (FWB), d awing on da a om he 2018 Financial Capabili y Su ey (FCS) o he
Uni ed Kingdom. I ex ends exis ing knowledge by (1) ope a ionalising inancial well-being as a mul idimensional, subjec i e
cons uc ; (2) applying su ey-weigh ed o dinal logis ic eg ession, and (3) examining he e ogenei y ac oss gende , age, e hnici y,
income, educa ion, employmen , and ma i al s a us.
Socio-Economic and Demog aphic De e minan s o Financial Well-Being Dispa i ies in The Uni ed Kingdom:
E idence om The Financial Capabili y Su ey (2018)
346 Volume 02 Issue 11 No embe 2025 Co esponding Au ho : Omobolaji Adedasola, A emu
The emaining pa s o his esea ch a e as ollows: Sec ion 2 p esen s he me hods and ma e ials and me hods o da a analysis
p o iding clea explana ion in o he s udy design, da a sou cing and model speci ica ion and diagnos ics. Sec ion 3 p esen s he
esul s o he analysis encompassing he desc ip i e s a is ics and he majo indings om he eg ession analysis. Sec ion 4 is used
o discuss he indings and policy implica ions, while Sec ion 5 p o ides conclusion o he indings
METHODS AND MATERIALS
S udy design
A c oss-sec ional esea ch design is adop ed in examining he socio-economic and demog aphic de e minan s o inancial well-
being dispa i ies in he Uni ed Kingdom. The analysis o his s udy was based on da a collec ed om he Financial Capabili y Su ey
(FCS) which was o iginally commissioned by he Financial Se ices Au ho i y in 2005. Since 2015, Money and Pensions Se ice
( o me ly he Money Ad ice Se ice) has hus been managing he su ey (Money Ad ice Se ice, 2020). The FCS was s uc u ed
as a na ionally ep esen a i e su ey encompassing England and he h ee de ol ed na ions (Sco land, Wales and No he n I eland)
in he UK. Gi en ha he FCS ollows a epea ed c oss-sec ional da a collec ion s uc u e, whe e each su ey cons i u es independen
and na ionally ep esen a i e su ey (Money Ad ice Se ice, 2020), i p o ides an app op ia e amewo k o he p esen s udy,
allowing he assessmen o inancial well-being ac oss di e en socio-economic and demog aphic g oups wi hin he UK.
Da a sou ce and collec ion p ocedu es
This s udy adop s he 2018 Financial Capabili y Su ey (FCS) which is he hi d su ey o he se ies o in e iew conduc ed ac oss
he UK be ween Ma ch and May 2018. This da ase was accessed om UK Da a Se ice po al. This da ase was chosen because i
ep esen s a mo e ecen su ey da a collec ion ela i e o he 2015 su ey, hus, o e ing ecen insigh s in o inancial capabili y
and well-being among UK esiden s. The 2018 FCS is speci ically sui able o his s udy as i con ains comp ehensi e a iables
necessa y o ope a ionalise he cons uc s o his s udy. Since he uni o analysis o his s udy is ocused on indi iduals and equi es
na ionally ep esen a i e da a, he FCS is deemed app op ia e as i p o ides de ailed in o ma ion a bo h indi idual and household
le els and is designed o be ep esen a i e o he UK adul popula ion (see Figu e 1 o he sample sp ead). In designing he su ey,
s udy pa icipan s aged 18 abo e we e a ge ed by he FCS ac oss he en i e UK using a mixed mode app oach o balancing be ween
online and o line in e iew o ensu e highe ep esen a i eness o bo h g oup o pa icipan s. The online in e iew a ge ed hea y
in e ne use s while ace- o- ace in e iew a ge ed indi iduals and households wi h less han six hou s weekly in e ne usage. The
sample design ollowed an exclusi i y app oach a he han an o e lap op ion as used in 2015. The exclusi i y app oach ensu es
s ic compliance o in e iew based on in e ne usage c i e ia. Indi iduals wi h mo e han 7 hou s weekly in e ne usage a e s ic ly
pe mi ed in o he online panel sample while hose wi h less han 6 hou s weekly in e ne usage we e only allowed o comple e he
ace- o- ace sample. This ensu es he e is no o e lap be ween he wo samples and a oidance o complica ion o he p ocess and he
da a collec ed.
Consequen ly, a la ge sample size o 5,974 adul s was success ully in e iewed in 2018 su ey ela i e g ea e han 2015 sample
size (Money Ad ice Se ice, 2020) as opposed o adop ing an o e lapping op ion. Speci ically, he composi ion o he in e iews
achie ed a e 4,035 online in e iews and 1,939 ace- o- ace in e iews. O he en i e sample size, 2,774 indi iduals we e in e iewed
in England, 1,143 in Wales, 1,036 in Sco land and he emaining 1,021 in No he n I eland (Money Ad ice Se ice, 2020). Howe e ,
his s udy u ilised only 4,492 sample size a e cleaning he da a by excluding all cases wi h “Do No Know”, “In Ano he Way”,
and “P e e No o Say”. The ques ionnai e co e ed a ange o opics like e i emen planning, inancial esilience, sa is ac ion,
con idence, sa ings, inance acking, c edi usage, a i udes and mo i a ions, skills and knowledge, and demog aphics and o he
cha ac e is ics.
Socio-Economic and Demog aphic De e minan s o Financial Well-Being Dispa i ies in The Uni ed Kingdom:
E idence om The Financial Capabili y Su ey (2018)
347 Volume 02 Issue 11 No embe 2025 Co esponding Au ho : Omobolaji Adedasola, A emu
Figu e 1: Sample sp ead o he Financial Capabili y Su ey, 2018
Sou ce: Money Ad ice Se ice (2020)
S udy Va iables
The dependen a iable o his s udy is Financial Well-being (FWB), concep ualised as an o dinal ca ego ical a iable ollowing
Money and Pensions Se ice (MaPS) Financial Wellbeing Segmen a ion model. Based on he 2016 MaPS model, FWB is classi ied
in o h ee b oad (‘mac o’) segmen s (i.e., ‘s uggling’, ‘squeezed’, and ‘cushioned’) de i ed om he FWB index.
In his s udy, be o e cons uc ing he FWB index, a eliabili y es was conduc ed on he i ems measu ing inancial sa is ac ion using
C onbach’s alpha. The alpha alue o 0.88 ob ained om he es indica es a high le el o in e nal consis ency which con i ms ha
he i ems a e eliable and measu e he in ended a iable. Subsequen ly, he mean o he six i ems cap u ing inancial sa is ac ion
was compu ed o gene a e he FWB index. This index was hen ca ego ised in o h ee g oups using a quan ile ( e ile) me hod wi h
cu -o s poin s a 0.33 and 0.67 in R so wa e. The quan ile me hod was chosen o ensu e ha he dis ibu ion o he ca ego ies is
s a is ically balanced and ee om dis ibu ion bias. Acco dingly, Financial Well-being (FWB) is ca ego ised as:
𝐹𝑊𝐵= {1,𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑔𝑔𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔
2,𝑆𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑒𝑧𝑒𝑑
3,𝐶𝑢𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑑
Whe e:
FWB = 1 (“s uggling”), ep esen s indi iduals whose FWB index alls wi hin he lowes quan ile (1 - 4), indica ing poo FWB.
FWB = 2 (“Squeezed”), co esponds o indi iduals wi hin he middle quan ile (5 - 8), e lec ing a mode a e le el o FWB.
FWB = 3 (“Cushioned”), ep esen s indi iduals in he highes quan ile (9 - 12), deno ing ela i ely s ong o be e FWB.
The independen a iables in his s udy a e ca ego ical a iables and we e de i ed h ough ecoding and collapsing o hei o iginal
ca ego ies. These include: he age o esponden s (18-24, 25-44, 45-64, 65 – 74, 75+), which was e ained in i s o iginal o m; gende
(male, emale), wi h pa icipan s who selec ed “p e e no o say” excluded; and e hnic g oup (Whi e, Black, Asian, Mixed, A ab
and o he s), whe e “A ab” and “O he s” we e me ged in o a single ca ego y. We collapsed ma i al s a us (single, ma ied,
di o ced/sepa a ed, widowed), pa icula ly he “di o ced” and “sepa a ed” ca ego ies in o one ca ego y, he ea e , e-coded in o
sho o m and meaning names. Educa ion/quali ica ion le el (GCSE o below, A-le el/ oca ional, Diplomas, Uni e si y deg ee o
highe , s udying and o he ) was simila ly e-coded and collapsed. Employmen s a us (employed, unemployed, e i ed/semi- e i ed,
s uden /o he s) was simpli ied h ough he me ging o closely ela ed ca ego ies unde he inal ca ego ies. O iginally, he e a e
se en household income b acke s om he o iginal da ase , mo eo e , we g ouped hese in o ou meaning ul income b acke s as
ollows: up o £11,499, £11,500 - £24,999, £25,000 - £49,999, £50,000+ by collapsing and ecoding hem. Finally, he geog aphical
loca ion a iable “ egion” has he inal ou pu as England, Sco land, Wales, and No he n I eland a e g ouping all he English
egions in o a single ca ego y labelled England.

Socio-Economic and Demog aphic De e minan s o Financial Well-Being Dispa i ies in The Uni ed Kingdom:
E idence om The Financial Capabili y Su ey (2018)
348 Volume 02 Issue 11 No embe 2025 Co esponding Au ho : Omobolaji Adedasola, A emu
METHODS OF DATA ANALYSIS
Desc ip i e da a analysis
P io o conduc ing he main analysis o his s udy, i is conside ed bes p ac ice o examine he desc ip i e s a is ics o he da ase
h ough c oss- abula ions be ween he dependen a iable and each explana o y a iable. This p ocedu e allows o he p esen a ion
o coun and pe cen ages o s udy pa icipan s wi hin each ca ego y o he explained a iable ac oss ca ego ies o he explana o y
a iables. I also encompasses he chi-squa e es p- alue o analyse he ela ionship o he explained and explana o y a iables in
he s udy. The c oss- abula ion, being a leas a wo-dimensional able, he e o e, acili a es s aigh o wa d compa ison and
in e p e a ion o dis ibu ions ac oss a iables and ca ego ies. This analy ical echnique is hus adop ed in his s udy o show bo h
he coun s and he pe cen ages o he esponden s in each ca ego y o inancial well-being (FWB).
P opo ional odds model (POM) analysis
This s udy adop ed a logis ic eg ession model in examining he socio-economic and demog aphic de e minan s o inancial well-
being dispa i ies. Acco ding o Kassie e al. (2025), logis ic eg ession o logi model is a modelling echnique ha enables he
es ima ion o he ela ionship ha exis s be ween a ca ego ical independen a iable and any o m o explana o y a iables. Al hough
logis ic eg ession exis s in se e al o ms, he co e o classical o ms o logi s a e namely bina y logis ic, mul inomial logis ic, and
o dinal logis ic models (also known as p opo ional odds model). Mo eo e , he ap model speci ica ion is la gely de e mined by
he dependen a iable measu emen le el. Fu he mo e, logi models can be speci ically classi ied in o wo based on dicho omous
and poly omous ypes, wi h he la e subdi ided in o mul inomial and o de ed logis ic eg essions, depending on whe he ca ego ies
o he esponse a iable a e o de ed o uno de ed, espec i ely.
Since he esponse a iable o ou model is o de ed ca ego ical a iable (1 – s uggling, 2 – squeezed, 3 – cushioned), he o dinal
logis ic eg ession o p opo ional odds model is he mos apposi e model. Howe e , empi ical s udies do no ely on conjec u e bu
on s a is ical es ing o con i ma ion. In conduc ing he o dinal logis ic eg ession analysis, he key assump ion is he p opo ional
odds assump ion, which posi s ha he ela ionship be ween each pai o ou come ca ego ies is iden ical ac oss all h esholds o he
dependen a iable (Kassie e al., 2025; Liu e al., 2023; Lelisho e al., 2022). Consequen upon he esul o he model diagnos ic,
a p opo ional odds model (POM) was speci ied o he analysis.
Model speci ica ion
Le he o dinal esponse a iable “ inancial well-being (FWB)” be 𝑌 and i s o dinal esponse le els labelled as 1,2,3 ep esen ing
“s uggling”, “squeezed”, and “cushioned”. The ollowing model is hus speci ied o he s udy:
𝑃(𝑌≤𝑗)=1
1+𝑒−(𝛼𝑗+𝛽𝑖′𝑋), 𝑗=1,2,3 (1)
Such ha equa ion (1) becomes
log[ 𝑃(𝑌≤𝑗|𝑋)
1−𝑃(𝑌≤𝑗|𝑋)]=𝛼𝑗+𝛽𝑗′𝑋, 𝑗=1,2,3 (2)
Equa ion (2) can also be e e ed o as a model wi h pa allel o equal slopes (Liu e al., 2023).
Whe e:
𝑃(𝑌≤𝑗|𝑥)
1−𝑃(𝑌≤𝑗|𝑥) is he cumula i e p obabili y link o he esponse a iable in 𝑗𝑡ℎ ca ego y o lowe .
𝑗 s ands o he h esholds/ca ego ies o he esponse a iable.
𝛼𝑗 ep esen s he in e cep o 𝑗𝑡ℎ h eshold.
𝛽𝑗 indica es he ec o o he o dinal logi eg ession coe icien s o he ac o s a he 𝑗𝑡ℎ ca ego y co esponding o each co a ia e.
𝑋 ep esen s he co a ia es ec o wi h dimension q(1,2,…q) con aining he obse a ions on all 𝑞 explana o y a iables.
To es ima e his model, he s udy adop s R S a is ical Language, u ilising packages such as su ey, MASS, b an , and dply , among
o he s. The p e e ence o R o e o he s a is ical so wa e such as STATA, SAS, o STATA s ems om i s open-sou ce na u e and
i s well-es ablished capaci y o handle complex s a is ical analyses. Mo eso, R bene i s om an ex ensi e ecosys em whe e use -
con ibu ed packages help en ich he p og amme and enables he p o ision o specialised and upda ed ools o s a is ical and
empi ical analysis ha enhance ep oducibili y, lexibili y, and e iciency in bo h academic and applied esea ch. The esul s om
he model we e p esen ed as adjus ed odd a ios (AORs) wi h co esponding 95% con idence in e als.
Model diagnos ics
In o de o es he p opo ional odds assump ion, an o dinal logis ic eg ession model was i ed using he “pol ” unc ion in he
MASS package. A e wa ds, he p opo ional odds assump ion was es ed on his model using B an es . The null hypo hesis o
es ing he p opo ional odds assump ion is gi en in equa ion (3) as
𝐻0:𝛽1=𝛽2=⋯ 𝛽𝐽−1 (3)
Socio-Economic and Demog aphic De e minan s o Financial Well-Being Dispa i ies in The Uni ed Kingdom:
E idence om The Financial Capabili y Su ey (2018)
349 Volume 02 Issue 11 No embe 2025 Co esponding Au ho : Omobolaji Adedasola, A emu
Al hough se e al s a is ical p ocedu es such as he Sco e, Wald, Likelihood Ra io (LR), and Wol e-Gould es s can be employed o
assess he p opo ional odds assump ion, his s udy adop s he B an es , simila o he Wol e-Gould es , because i has been shown
o con ol Type I e o mo e e ec i ely han he Wald, LR, and Sco e es s (Liu e al., 2023). Mo eo e , bo h he B an and Wol e-
Gould es s a e pa icula ly sui able o s udies wi h ela i ely small sample sizes, as hey main ain es ima ion e iciency unde such
condi ions (Liu e al., 2023). Consequen ly, o ejec 𝐻0 o unme p opo ional odds assump ion, signi ican p- alues (p<0.05)
o each a iable and he o e all model a e equi ed (Kassie e al., 2025). The e o e, i he B an es ails o ejec he 𝐻0 hen he
p opo ional odds assump ion holds and he p opo ional odds models is adop ed.
RESULTS
Desc ip ion o he pe cei ed inancial well-being
Ou o he 5,974 esponses in he 2018 Financial Capabili y Su ey (FCS), a o al o 4,492 alid esponses we e e ained a e
excluding cases wi h esponses such as “Don’ know”, “P e e no o say”, and “In ano he way”. As shown in Figu e 1, among he
4,492 s udy pa icipan s, 1,509 (33%) we e ca ego ised as s uggling, 1,725 (37.7%) as squeezed, and 1,338 (29.3%) as cushioned,
based on quan ile cu -o s o 0.33 and 0.67 on he calcula ed FWB index. Al hough he dis ibu ion o FWB ca ego ies appea s
ela i ely balanced, he squeezed g oup ep esen s la ges p opo ion, while he cushioned g oup cons i u es he smalles .
Figu e 1: Pie cha o pe cei ed inancial well-being dis ibu ion
The pe cei ed inancial well-being ac oss socio-economic and demog aphic cha ac e is ics
Table 1 p esen s he dis ibu ion o pe cei ed inancial well-being (FWB) ca ego ies (s uggling, squeezed, and cushioned) ac oss
socio-demog aphic ac o s. We examine he associa ion be ween he independen a iables and FWB using chi-squa e (𝝌𝟐) es .
The esul s o he analysis sugges ed ha all explana o y ac o s associa e s a is ically signi ican ly (p < 0.05) wi h FWB. This
signi ies ha pe cei ed FWB sys ema ically a ies ac oss mos socio-economic and demog aphic ac o s in he UK.
The ela ionship be ween e hnici y and pe cei ed FWB was e ealed o be s a is ically signi ican (p = 0.017). Fu he mo e,
Whi e esponden s we e mos ly e enly dis ibu ed ac oss he h ee ca ego ies o FWB (31.9% s uggling, 38.3% squeezed, 29.8%
cushioned). Mo eo e , a la ge pe cen age o e hnic mino i y g oups, pa icula ly Black (45.4%), Asian (49%), Mixed (47.2%), and
A ab and o he e hnic g oups (33.3%), all wi hin he s uggling ca ego y. Howe e , Black e hnic mino i y has he lowes
ep esen a ion in he highes ca ego y le el o FWB (cushioned) wi h jus 12.7%, while o he mino i y g oups ange be ween 23.7%
and 24.3%. The implica ion o his ha people wi h e hnic mino i y backg ounds a e likely o all wi hin lowe inancial well-being
ca ego ies.
I also shows ha a signi ican ela ionship be ween age and FWB (𝑝 < 0.01) exis . The highes p opo ion o indi iduals ound
o be s uggling inancially a e he younge adul s aged 18-24 yea s wi h 47.9% classi ied in his ca ego y. In con as , only 17.1%
o olde adul s aged 65-74 yea s and 18.2% aged 75 yea s and abo e, epo ed o s uggle inancially. A simila pa e n is obse ed
in he cushioned ca ego y, whe e a leas 47.0% o olde adul s a e classi ied as ha ing s ong FWB, compa ed o only 15.5% among
younge adul s. This g adien e lec s ha FWB ends o imp o e wi h age, likely e lec ing li ecycle e ec s such as income
accumula ion, asse owne ship, and educed inancial obliga ions in la e li e.
A la ge pe cen age o he emale sample (37.9%) epo ed o be s uggling inancially compa ed o males (28.2%). Mo eo e , 33.4%
o male sample is ound wi hin he cushioned ca ego y. This pa e n sugges s pe sis en gende dispa i ies in FWB. In addendum,
mo e han hal o he esponden s (50.4%) we e epo ed o be in households wi h he lowes income b acke (up o £11,499) and
we e basically s uggling, while hose in households ea ning £50,000 o mo e a e p edominan ly inancially cushioned (42.9%).
This implies ha income a key economic de e minan o inancial well-being.
Socio-Economic and Demog aphic De e minan s o Financial Well-Being Dispa i ies in The Uni ed Kingdom:
E idence om The Financial Capabili y Su ey (2018)
350 Volume 02 Issue 11 No embe 2025 Co esponding Au ho : Omobolaji Adedasola, A emu
Simila ly, indi iduals wi h a uni e si y deg ee o highe epo he highes p opo ion o cushioned well-being (35.3%). In con as ,
pa icipan s wi h GCSE o below a e mo e concen a ed in he s uggling g oup (38%). This indica es ha highe educa ional
a ainmen migh enhance inancial capabili y and well-being. Mo e han hal o he unemployed (56.6%) and s uden s/o he s (52.5%)
a e s uggling, compa ed o only 30.8% o hose employed. Con e sely, e i ed o semi- e i ed indi iduals a e la gely cushioned
(47.6%), e lec ing pos - e i emen s abili y o accumula ed inancial secu i y.
Regional esul s indica es ha England and Sco land ha e ma ginally highe p opo ions o indi iduals in he squeezed ca ego y,
while Wales and No he n I eland ha e ela i ely mo e esponden s in he s uggling g oup. These di e ences, hough modes ,
sugges he possibili y o geog aphic dispa i ies po en ially ied o labou ma ke s and cos -o -li ing di e ences ac oss UK egions.
Fu he mo e, he esul s show ha single esponden s a e mos likely o be s uggling (46.5%), while widowed and ma ied
esponden s cons i u e he la ges p opo ions o hose in he cushioned g oup (45.8%, 37.6% espec i ely). This pa e n may be
a ibu able o g ea e inancial s abili y a ising om sha ed household esou ces, asse accumula ion, and pension income which
a e ypically associa ed wi h hese g oups.
Table 1: The pe cei ed inancial well-being ac oss socio-economic and demog aphic cha ac e is ics
Va iable
Ca ego y
Pe cei ed inancial well-being
𝝌𝟐
p- alue
S uggling
Squeezed
Cushioned
Coun (%)
Coun (%)
Coun (%)
E hnici y
Whi e
1348 (31.9)
1617 (38.3)
1261 (29.8)
0.017
Asian
86 (49)
47 (26.7)
43 (24.3)
Black
31 (45.4)
29 (41.9)
9 (12.7)
Mixed
33 (47.2)
19 (26.8)
18 (26)
A ab and o he s
10 (33.3)
13 (43)
7 (23.7)
Age
18-24
276 (47.9)
211 (36.6)
89 (15.5)
<0.001
25-44
638 (34)
695 (37)
544 (29)
45-64
474 (33.2)
584 (40.9)
369 (25.9)
65-74
73 (17.1)
155 (35.9)
203 (47)
75+
47 (18.2)
80 (30.7)
133 (51.1)
Gende
Female
856 (37.9)
839 (37.1)
565 (25)
<0.001
Male
653 (28.2)
886 (38.3)
774 (33.4)
Household income
Up o 11,499
578 (50.4)
354 (30.9)
214 (18.6)
<0.001
£11,500 - £24,999
455 (36.7)
453 (36.5)
333 (26.8)
£25,000 - £49,999
353 (25.7)
578 (42)
443 (32.3)
£50,000+
123 (15.1)
340 (41.9)
348 (42.9)
Educa ion
GCSE o below
458 (38)
412 (34.2)
336 (27.9)
<0.001
A-Le el/ oca ional
427 (35.9)
477 (40.1)
285 (24)
Diplomas
(HNC/HND/BTEC)
164 (36.6)
176 (39.3)
107 (24.1)
Uni e si y deg ee o
highe
430 (25.9)
643 (38.7)
586 (35.3)
S udying and o he s
30 (41.8)
18 (25.1)
23 (33.1)
Employmen
Employed
899 (30.8)
1175 (40.2)
846 (29)
<0.001
Unemployed
346 (56.6)
177 (28.9)
89 (14.5)
Re i ed/Semi- e i ed
126 (16.1)
282 (36.2)
370 (47.6)
S uden /O he
138 (52.5)
92 (34.9)
33 (12.6)
Region
England
1243 (32.5)
1430 (37.5)
1145 (30)
0.024
Sco land
140 (33.6)
168 (40.4)
108 (26)
Wales
80 (37)
80 (37.1)
56 (25.8)
No he n I eland
46 (38)
47 (38.2)
29 (23.8)
Ma i al s a us
Single
782 (46.5)
626 (37.2)
274 (16.3)
<0.001
Ma ied
573 (25.2)
847 (37.2)
855 (37.6)
Di o ced/Sepa a ed
119 (28)
183 (43.2)
121 (28.7)
Widowed
35 (18.2)
69 (36)
88 (45.8)
Socio-Economic and Demog aphic De e minan s o Financial Well-Being Dispa i ies in The Uni ed Kingdom:
E idence om The Financial Capabili y Su ey (2018)
351 Volume 02 Issue 11 No embe 2025 Co esponding Au ho : Omobolaji Adedasola, A emu
B an es o pa allel eg ession assump ion
As s a ed ea lie , he B an es is employed o examine he p opo ional odds (pa allel eg ession) assump ion o independen
a iables in he o dinal logis ic eg ession model. The B an es esul s p esen ed in Table 2 show an o e all 𝝌𝟐 alue o 32.76
(d = 25,p= 0.137) indica ing ha he p opo ional odds assump ion holds o he en i e model (p > 0.05). The esul s also
e eal ha all indi idual co a ia es me he assump ion o p opo ional odds, wi h p- alues anging be ween 0.113 and 0.676. This
implies ha he null hypo hesis o a p opo ional odds canno be ejec ed, hence, he jus i ica ion o he adop ion o he p opo ional
odds model o his s udy main ained.
Table 2: B an es o p opo ional odds assump ion
Va iable
𝝌𝟐
d
𝒑>𝝌𝟐
E hnici y
6.706
4
0.152
Age
5.244
4
0.263
Gende
2.514
1
0.113
Household income
5.401
3
0.145
Educa ion
5.436
4
0.245
Employmen
1.526
3
0.676
Region
3.45
3
0.327
Ma i al s a us
1.801
3
0.615
O e all
32.76
25
0.137
The p opo ional odds model: majo indings and es ima es
The esul s om he mul i a iable o dinal logis ic eg ession model p esen ed in Table 3 e eal how socio-economic and
demog aphic cha ac e is ics a e associa ed wi h he likelihood o being in a highe inancial well-being (FWB) ca ego y (squeezed
o cushioned ela i e o s uggling). The able p esen s he adjus ed odds a io (AOR), he s anda d e o (se), he 95% con idence
in e al (CI), and he chi-squa e p- alue. Ou o all he co a ia es, only age has no s a is ically signi ican e ec on FWB (p>0.05)
o he s udy pa icipan s.
F om Table 3, e hnici y has a s a is ically signi ican e ec on pe cei ed FWB (p = 0.01) a e adjus ing o o he co a ia es.
Rela i e o Whi e esponden s, Black indi iduals ha e signi ican ly lowe log odds (AOR = 0.46,95% CI: 0.26−0.81) o being
in a highe FWB ca ego y, sugges ing hey a e mo e likely o expe ience poo inancial well-being. Al hough he o he mino i y
g oups AORs (Asian = 0.67,Mixed = 0.86,A ab and o he s = 0.69) a e g ea e han he Black g oup, hese a e no
s a is ically signi ican (p > 0.05). None heless, he log odds a ios a ibu ed o a e lowe ela i e o Whi e indi iduals. This
sugges s ha e hnic dispa i ies in inancial well-being wi hin he UK a e pa icula ly p onounced be ween Whi e and Black e hnic
g oups.
Fu he mo e, gende has a s a is ically signi ican in luence on di e ences in inancial well-being (p< 0.01). Speci ically, males
we e 1.40 imes mo e likely han emales o belong o a highe inancial well-being ca ego y (AOR=1.40,95% CI:1.19−1.64).
Addi ionally, household income signi ican ly de e mines inancial wellbeing and i s di e ences ac oss di e en income g oup (p<
0.01). Compa ed wi h he e e ence income le el o indi iduals ea ning up o £11,499 annually, he likelihood o being in a highe
FWB ca ego y inc eased p og essi ely ac oss income b acke s. Responden s ea ning be ween £11,500 and £24,999 pe annum we e
1.41 imes mo e likely (AOR=1.41,95% CI:1.12−1.77) o all wi hin a highe inancial well-being ca ego y, while hose ea ning
be ween £25,000 and £49,999 annually a e 2.05 imes mo e likely (AOR=2.05,95% CI:1.60−2.61). Indi iduals wi h annual
incomes o £50,000 o abo e had he highes likelihood, being 2.88 imes mo e likely (AOR=1.40,95% CI:2.13−3.90) han
hose ea ning up o £11,499 o a ain highe inancial well-being le els.
Like e hnici y, educa ion and egion we e s a is ically signi ican a less han 1% signi icance le el o ew ca ego ies. Indi iduals
wi h uni e si y deg ees o highe deg ees a e 1.56 imes mo e likely o all wi hin highe inancial well-being ela i e o hose wi h
GCSE o no o mal quali ica ions in he UK (AOR=1.56,95% CI:1.24−1.97). Al hough A-le el o oca ional quali ica ions
and hose cu en ly s udying ha e highe likelihoods o being in a highe inancial well-being le el ela i e o GCSE holde s, hese
we e no s a is ically signi ican (p>0.05). This implies ha inancial well-being dispa i ies was only explained by uni e si y
deg ee o highe deg ees held by indi iduals in he UK. Addi ionally, he esul s showed ha indi iduals esiding in he de ol ed
coun ies in he UK a e less likely o ha e highe inancial well-being compa ed o hei coun e pa s in England as he AOR anges
be ween 0.70 and 0.93 sugges ing lowe log odds. Though insigni ican o Sco land and Wales a he 0.05% signi icance le el,
indi iduals esiding in No he n I eland ha e lowe log odds (AOR=0.70,95% CI:0.58−0.85) o achie ing highe inancial
well-being ela i e o hose in England.