IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/indgen/v10y2003i3p405-429.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gender Bias in Resource Allocation in India: Where do Household Models and Empirical Evidence Intersect?

Author

Listed:
  • Sunny Jose

    (Centre for Development Studies, Prasanth Nagar, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala 695 011 E-mail: sunny@cds.ac.in)

Abstract

This paper attempts to examine whether the predictions of the neo-classical economic models concerning intra-household resource allocation converge or conflict with the empirical findings on gender bias in resource allocation in India. While differentials in resource allocation are consistent with unitary models, biases and conflicts in resource allocation are not. Also, they suggest that women's earnings may enhance their well-being as a part of a rise in household welfare. Bargaining models and em pirical studies acknowledge the scope for, as well as the prevalence of, conflicts and gender bias in resource allocation. Further, both bargaining models and empirical studies suggest that women's earnings and education may enhance their bargaining power and thereby lead to favourable resource allocation. Thus, both have some amount of convergence. However, both models assume away the differences in individuals' interests and abilities, and their impingement on resource allocation decisions. Further, both models undermine the varying influence of sociocultural norms on household members in terms of hierarchy, power and resource allocation. Convergence and con flict have policy and welfare implications.

Suggested Citation

  • Sunny Jose, 2003. "Gender Bias in Resource Allocation in India: Where do Household Models and Empirical Evidence Intersect?," Indian Journal of Gender Studies, Centre for Women's Development Studies, vol. 10(3), pages 405-429, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:indgen:v:10:y:2003:i:3:p:405-429
    DOI: 10.1177/097152150301000302
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/097152150301000302
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/097152150301000302?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sen, Gita, 1996. "Gender, markets and states: A selective review and research agenda," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 24(5), pages 821-829, May.
    2. Becker, Gary S, 1974. "A Theory of Social Interactions," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 82(6), pages 1063-1093, Nov.-Dec..
    3. Lundberg, Shelly & Pollak, Robert A, 1993. "Separate Spheres Bargaining and the Marriage Market," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 101(6), pages 988-1010, December.
    4. Marjorie B. McElroy, 1990. "The Empirical Content of Nash-Bargained Household Behavior," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 25(4), pages 559-583.
    5. Sudhir Anand and Amartya Sen, 1995. "Gender Inequality in Human Development: Theories and Measurement," Human Development Occasional Papers (1992-2007) HDOCPA-1995-01, Human Development Report Office (HDRO), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
    6. Chiappori, Pierre-Andre, 1988. "Rational Household Labor Supply," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 56(1), pages 63-90, January.
    7. Kai A. Konrad & Kjell Erik Lommerud, 2000. "The bargaining family revisited," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 33(2), pages 471-487, May.
    8. Chen, Zhiqi & Woolley, Frances, 2001. "A Cournot-Nash Model of Family Decision Making," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 111(474), pages 722-748, October.
    9. Folbre, Nancy R, 1984. "Market Opportunities, Genetic Endowments, and Intrafamily Resource Distribution: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(3), pages 518-520, June.
    10. Manser, Marilyn & Brown, Murray, 1980. "Marriage and Household Decision-Making: A Bargaining Analysis," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 21(1), pages 31-44, February.
    11. Francis Bloch & Vijayendra Rao, 2002. "Terror as a Bargaining Instrument: A Case Study of Dowry Violence in Rural India," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(4), pages 1029-1043, September.
    12. Rosenzweig, Mark R & Schultz, T Paul, 1982. "Market Opportunities, Genetic Endowments, and Intrafamily Resource Distribution: Child Survival in Rural India," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(4), pages 803-815, September.
    13. Elizabeth Katz, 1997. "The Intra-Household Economics of Voice and Exit," Feminist Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(3), pages 25-46.
    14. Jere R. Behrman & Anil B. Deolalikar, 1990. "The Intrahousehold Demand for Nutrients in Rural South India: Individual Estimates, Fixed Effects, and Permanent Income," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 25(4), pages 665-696.
    15. Behrman, Jere R, 1988. "Intrahousehold Allocation of Nutrients in Rural India: Are Boys Favored? Do Parents Exhibit Inequality Aversion?," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 40(1), pages 32-54, March.
    16. Laurie F. DeRose & Maitreyi Das & Sara R. Millman, 2000. "Does Female Disadvantage Mean Lower Access to Food?," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 26(3), pages 517-547, September.
    17. Santow, Gigi, 1995. "Social roles and physical health: The case of female disadvantage in poor countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 147-161, January.
    18. McElroy, Marjorie B & Horney, Mary Jean, 1981. "Nash-Bargained Household Decisions: Toward a Generalization of the Theory of Demand," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 22(2), pages 333-349, June.
    19. Dasgupta, Indraneel, 2000. "Women's Employment, Intra-household Bargaining, and Distribution: A Two-Sector Analysis," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 52(4), pages 723-744, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rudra Narayan Mishra, 2011. "Right to Food Security Bill: Challenges and Opportunities," Working Papers id:4679, eSocialSciences.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Xu, Zeyu, 2007. "A survey on intra-household models and evidence," MPRA Paper 3763, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Malapit, Hazel Jean L., 2012. "Why do spouses hide income?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(5), pages 584-593.
    3. Chiappori, Pierre-André & Donni, Olivier, 2009. "Non-unitary Models of Household Behavior: A Survey of the Literature," IZA Discussion Papers 4603, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    4. Olivier Bargain & Miriam Beblo & Denis Beninger & Richard Blundell & Raquel Carrasco & Maria-Concetta Chiuri & François Laisney & Valérie Lechene & Nicolas Moreau & Michal Myck & Javier Ruiz-Castillo , 2006. "Does the Representation of Household Behavior Matter for Welfare Analysis of Tax-benefit Policies? An Introduction," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 4(2), pages 99-111, June.
    5. Jara-Díaz, Sergio & Rosales-Salas, Jorge, 2017. "Beyond transport time: A review of time use modeling," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 209-230.
    6. J. Gimenez-Nadal & Jose Molina, 2013. "Parents’ education as a determinant of educational childcare time," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 26(2), pages 719-749, April.
    7. Hina Nazli & Shahnaz Hamid, 1999. "Concerns of Food Security, Role of Gender and Intra-household Dynamics in Pakistan," PIDE Research Report 1999:3, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics.
    8. Keita, Moussa, 2011. "Influence de la négociation intra-ménage sur les dépenses d’éducation dans les ménages au Mali [Influence of intra-household bargaining on education expenditures in households in Mali]," MPRA Paper 57592, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Nobuhiko FUWA & Seiro ITO & Kensuke KUBO & Takashi KUROSAKI & Yasuyuki SAWADA, 2006. "Introduction To A Study Of Intrahousehold Resource Allocation And Gender Discrimination In Rural Andhra Pradesh, India," The Developing Economies, Institute of Developing Economies, vol. 44(4), pages 375-397, December.
    10. Bargain, Olivier B. & Moreau, Nicolas, 2005. "Cooperative Models in Action: Simulation of a Nash-Bargaining Model of Household Labor Supply with Taxation," IZA Discussion Papers 1480, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    11. Olivier Bargain & Nicolas Moreau, 2013. "The Impact of Tax-Benefit Reforms on Labor Supply in a Simulated Nash-bargaining Framework," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 77-86, March.
    12. Anyck Dauphin & Bernard Fortin & Guy Lacroix, 2018. "Is consumption efficiency within households falsifiable?," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 737-766, September.
    13. Martin Browning & Pierre-André Chiappori & Valérie Lechene, 2006. "Collective and Unitary Models: A Clarification," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 5-14, March.
    14. Silvia Pasqua, 2005. "Gender Bias in Parental Investments in Children’s Education: A Theoretical Analysis," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 3(3), pages 291-314, September.
    15. Laurens Cherchye & Thomas Demuynck & Bram De Rock, 2013. "Nash‐Bargained Consumption Decisions: A Revealed Preference Analysis," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 123, pages 195-235, March.
    16. Janet Currie, 2004. "Viewpoint: Child research comes of age," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 509-527, August.
    17. Haizhen Mou & Stanley L. Winer, 2010. "Fiscal Incidence When Both Individual Welfare and Family Structure Matter: The Case of Subsidization of Home -care for the Elderly," ICER Working Papers 15-2010, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research.
    18. Claude d’Aspremont & Rodolphe Dos Santos Ferreira, 2019. "Enlarging the collective model of household behavior: A revealed preference analysis," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 68(1), pages 1-19, July.
    19. Martin Browning & Valérie Lechene, 2001. "Caring and Sharing: Tests Between Alternative Models of Intra-household Allocation," Discussion Papers 01-07, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics.
    20. Chiappori, Pierre-André & Donni, Olivier, 2006. "Les modèles non unitaires de comportement du ménage : un survol de la littérature," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 82(1), pages 9-52, mars-juin.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:indgen:v:10:y:2003:i:3:p:405-429. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.