A partir de l'objet automobile, cette thèse propose une réponse en trois temps à la problématique du rôle de la consommation matérielle dans la stratification sociale. Grâce aux caractéristiques originales du bien automobile, l'objectif poursuivi est d'interroger la question de l'homogénéisation des styles de vie dans le contexte de la France contemporaine sous trois rapports : les phénomènes de diffusion de l'automobile, la distribution sociale des caractéristiques de l'équipement, la répartition des coûts engendrés par la voiture. Comment caractériser la diffusion d'un objet symbolique de la consommation de masse et quelles sont les limites à cette diffusion ? Comment sont distribués les biens selon leurs caractéristiques dans l'espace social ? Comment varient les différents coûts de l'automobile parmi les groupes sociaux ? Nous répondons à de telles questions en recourant à une analyse secondaires de deux séries d'enquêtes réalisées par l'Institut National de la Statistique et des Études Économiques : les Enquêtes Nationales Transports réalisées en 1981, 1993 et 2007 ainsi que les enquêtes Budget de famille réalisées en 1985, 1989, 1995, 2001 et 2006. / By using the automobile as a social object, this thesis provides a threefold answer to the problem of the role of material consumption in social stratification. Thanks to the very original nature of automobile, we aim at address the question of the homogenization of lifestyles in contemporary France in three differents aspects : the phenomenons of social diffusion, the distribution of the characteristics of the automobile in social space and the repartition of the internal and external costs of the car. How can we characterize the diffusion of a good symbolic of mass consumption ? Which limits does this diffusion assume ? How are distributed the characteristics of the material goods in social space ?How do the differents costs of the automobile vary among social groups ? We adress theses questions by using secondary analysis of two series of suveys conducted by the French institute of statistics : the National Travel Surveys realized in 1981, 1993 and 2007 and the French Household Expenditure Surveys conducted in 1985, 1989, 1995, 2001 and 2006.

This dissertation deals with consumption in Swedish households between 1913 and 2001. More specifically, it asks whose resources matter most in determining consumption patterns. As a second question, the dissertation also attempts to establish whether the fact that simple covariance between a spouse’s background variables implies that the spouse has any influence at all over the household’s consumption decisions. The theoretical background is mostly drawn from literature regarding intra-household allocations: on the one hand cooperative game theory and on the other hand sociological theory. Cooperative game theory establishes influence, say or power within the household as a function of the marriage’s or cohabitation’s alternative cost, i.e., the difference between the utility level for a married or cohabiting person as opposed to a single person. Sociological theory considers the contribution one makes to the total level of utility in the household, whether in the form of monetary income, household work or as something else. This is in part conceptualized as a difference between exit and voice. The dissertation’s statistical analysis uses three surveys of household expenditure conducted in 1913, 1952 and 1999-2001. They give us an excellent picture of what they actually purchased during that year. The sample sizes are 552, 596 and 3,501, respectively. The dissertation’s main result is that human capital is a previously underestimated determinant of influence in consumption decisions. As the female stock of human capital increases, so does her influence over the household’s consumption decisions. In an attempt to determine the level of democracy within households, the dissertation uses a complementary data source: a questionnaire called “The Swedish People 1955”. Here, one of the questions directed to females was whether they checked with their husbands before deciding on a purchase, as a measure of intra-household democracy. This was then regressed upon the female share of total income, ideological position and two forms of human capital, one general and one for household work. Both forms of human capital lead to democratic households, which is taken to mean that human capital is important not only because it increases labor opportunities in the event of divorce (exit) but also because it increases female voice.