IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/ajagec/v106y2024i2p684-711.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Intrahousehold preference heterogeneity and demand for labor‐saving agricultural technology

Author

Listed:
  • Kajal Gulati
  • Patrick S. Ward
  • Travis J. Lybbert
  • David J. Spielman

Abstract

Evaluations of agricultural technologies rarely consider the implications of how adoption may alter the labor allocation of different individuals within a household. We examine intrahousehold decision‐making dynamics that shape smallholder households' decision to use mechanical rice transplanting (MRT), a technology that disproportionately influences demand for women's labor. To study the adoption decision, we experimentally estimate the willingness to pay for MRT services both at the individual and household level. We find that women value MRT more than men, especially when they participate in transplanting on their own farms. This preference heterogeneity is evident in the unconditional differences between women's and men's valuation and differences conditional on their individual observable characteristics. Despite having stronger preferences for MRT, women have less influence on the household's technology adoption decision than men. This differential influence over the MRT adoption decision reflects the intrahousehold power structure: in households where women have less control over assets, they also have less influence over the MRT adoption decision. Our results highlight how technological changes interact with unobserved, gender‐based intrahousehold power relations to influence agricultural production decisions and, by extension, the gendered allocation of labor and welfare of women.

Suggested Citation

  • Kajal Gulati & Patrick S. Ward & Travis J. Lybbert & David J. Spielman, 2024. "Intrahousehold preference heterogeneity and demand for labor‐saving agricultural technology," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 106(2), pages 684-711, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:ajagec:v:106:y:2024:i:2:p:684-711
    DOI: 10.1111/ajae.12430
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajae.12430
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ajae.12430?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. Anderson, Michael L., 2008. "Multiple Inference and Gender Differences in the Effects of Early Intervention: A Reevaluation of the Abecedarian, Perry Preschool, and Early Training Projects," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 103(484), pages 1481-1495.
    2. Alan S. Blinder, 1973. "Wage Discrimination: Reduced Form and Structural Estimates," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 8(4), pages 436-455.
    3. Binswanger, Hans, 1986. "Agricultural Mechanization: A Comparative Historical Perspective," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 1(1), pages 27-56, January.
    4. Farzana Afridi & Monisankar Bishnu & Kanika Mahajan, 2023. "Gender and mechanization: Evidence from Indian agriculture," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 105(1), pages 52-75, January.
    5. Quisumbing, Agnes R. & Pandolfelli, Lauren, 2010. "Promising Approaches to Address the Needs of Poor Female Farmers: Resources, Constraints, and Interventions," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 581-592, April.
    6. Nazaire Houssou & Xinshen Diao & Frances Cossar & Shashidhara Kolavalli & Kipo Jimah & Patrick Ohene Aboagye, 2013. "Agricultural Mechanization in Ghana: Is Specialized Agricultural Mechanization Service Provision a Viable Business Model?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 95(5), pages 1237-1244.
    7. Rosenzweig, Mark R & Stark, Oded, 1989. "Consumption Smoothing, Migration, and Marriage: Evidence from Rural India," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 97(4), pages 905-926, August.
    8. Anderson, Siwan & Eswaran, Mukesh, 2009. "What determines female autonomy? Evidence from Bangladesh," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(2), pages 179-191, November.
    9. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    10. Takeshima, Hiroyuki & Adhikari, Rajendra Prasad & Poudel, Mahendra Nath & Kumar, Anjani, 2015. "Farm household typologies and mechanization patterns in Nepal Terai: Descriptive analysis of the Nepal living standards survey:," IFPRI discussion papers 1488, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    11. David Aadland & Arthur J. Caplan, 2003. "Willingness to Pay for Curbside Recycling with Detection and Mitigation of Hypothetical Bias," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(2), pages 492-502.
    12. Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June.
    13. 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.
    14. Hiroyuki Takeshima, 2017. "Custom-hired tractor services and returns to scale in smallholder agriculture: a production function approach," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 48(3), pages 363-372, May.
    15. Rachel Heath & Xu Tan, 2020. "Intrahousehold Bargaining, Female Autonomy, and Labor Supply: Theory and Evidence from India," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 18(4), pages 1928-1968.
    16. Paris, Thelma & Pede, Valerien & Luis, Joyce & Sharma, Raman & Singh, Abha & Stipular, Jeffrey & Villanueva, Donald, 2015. "Understanding men’s and women’s access to and control of assets and the implications for agricultural development projects: A case study in rice-farming households in eastern Uttar Pradesh, India:," IFPRI discussion papers 1437, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    17. Naila Kabeer, 1999. "Resources, Agency, Achievements: Reflections on the Measurement of Women's Empowerment," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 30(3), pages 435-464, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Bergolo, Marcelo & Galván, Estefanía, 2018. "Intra-household Behavioral Responses to Cash Transfer Programs. Evidence from a Regression Discontinuity Design," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 100-118.
    2. Rama Lionel Ngenzebuke & Bram De Rock & Philip Verwimp, 2018. "The power of the family: kinship and intra-household decision making in rural Burundi," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 323-346, June.
    3. Stephan Klasen & Janneke Pieters, 2015. "What Explains the Stagnation of Female Labor Force Participation in Urban India?," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 29(3), pages 449-478.
    4. Catherine Bros & Véronique Gille & François Maniquet, 2023. "Female labour, status and decision power," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 90(358), pages 453-476, April.
    5. Gulati, Kajal & Ward, Patrick & Lybbert, Travis & Spielman, David, 2016. "Intrahousehold valuation, preference heterogeneity, and demand of an agricultural technology in Bihar, India," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 236280, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Schling, Maja & Pazos, Nicolás, 2024. "Effective land ownership, female empowerment, and food security: Evidence from Peru," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    7. Hiroyuki Takeshima, 2024. "Agricultural mechanisation and gendered labour activities across sectors: Micro‐evidence from multi‐country farm household data," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(1), pages 425-456, February.
    8. Mishra, Khushbu & Sam, Abdoul G., 2016. "Does Women’s Land Ownership Promote Their Empowerment? Empirical Evidence from Nepal," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 360-371.
    9. B, Ranjula & Wallentin, Fan Yang, 2008. "Economic or Non-Economic Factors – What Empowers Women?," Working Paper Series 2008:11, Uppsala University, Department of Economics.
    10. Rajkhowa, Pallavi & Qaim, Matin, 2022. "Mobile phones, women's physical mobility, and contraceptive use in India," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 305(C).
    11. Klaiman, Kimberly & Ortega, David L. & Garnache, Cloé, 2016. "Consumer preferences and demand for packaging material and recyclability," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 1-8.
    12. Antonia Grohmann & Annekathrin Schoofs, 2018. "Financial Literacy and Intra-Household Decision Making: Evidence from Rwanda," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1720, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    13. Totouom, Armand, 2024. "Women's decision-making power and the adoption of liquefied petroleum gas for cooking in Cameroon," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    14. Nkechi S. Owoo, 2022. "Couple’s Decision-Making Power, Women’s Labour Market Outcomes, and Asset Ownership," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 41(6), pages 2365-2391, December.
    15. Amirapu, Amrit & Asadullah, M. Niaz & Wahhaj, Zaki, 2022. "Social barriers to female migration: Theory and evidence from Bangladesh," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    16. Chloé van Biljon & Dieter von Fintel & Atika Pasha, 2018. "Bargaining to work: the effect of female autonomy on female labour supply," Working Papers 04/2018, Stellenbosch University, Department of Economics.
    17. Giles Atkinson & Sian Morse-Jones & Susana Mourato & Allan Provins, 2012. "‘When to Take “No” for an Answer’? Using Entreaties to Reduce Protests in Contingent Valuation Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 497-523, April.
    18. Liu, Ruifeng & ,, 2021. "What We Can Learn from the Interactions of Food Traceable Attributes? a Case Study of Fuji Apple in China," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315916, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. Rania Salem & Yuk Fai Cheong & Kathryn M. Yount, 2018. "Is Women’s Work a Pathway to their Agency in Rural Minya, Egypt?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 136(2), pages 807-831, April.
    20. Alice Tianbo Zhang & Sasmita Patnaik & Shaily Jha & Shalu Agrawal & Carlos F. Gould & Johannes Urpelainen, 2022. "Evidence of multidimensional gender inequality in energy services from a large-scale household survey in India," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 7(8), pages 698-707, August.

    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:wly:ajagec:v:106:y:2024:i:2:p:684-711. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1467-8276 .

    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.