IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/agy/dpaper/202013.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Bargaining Leverage in Family Planning: A Gender-based Analysis of Filipino Couples' Reproductive Choices

Author

Listed:
  • Cristina M. Baustista

    (Economics Department, Ateneo de Manila University)

Abstract

At the heart of the Philippines' population problem is the high fertility rate among low-income households. The country’s total fertility rate remains the highest in Southeast Asia, averaging 2.7 births per woman as of 2017. Numerous studies have established the positive association between poverty and large family size. Most economic studies point to inadequate women’s education and lack of access or ineffective use of family planning methods as the main reasons behind high fertility. Less studied is the effect of the distribution of “power†or influence between the spouses. This research examined the problem using the collective household model as theoretical framework. The model recognizes individual preferences of spouses, thereby allowing a gender-based analysis of intrahousehold decision-making. This research utilized the 2003 Philippine national demographic data because, to date, this is the only survey where men were surveyed separately from women on a national scale, with a data subset of matched husbands and wives. The method of analysis employed independent multinomial probit regression, utilizing three dependent variables representing three categories of family planning based on the level of involvement of one or both spouses. These are (1) women-only methods, (2) couple participation method, and (3) irreversible methods that required consent of both spouses. The econometric results reveal the gender-based differences in the way some power-related factors affected the probability of the man or the woman using certain types of method: (1) support from extended family lowers the probability of using women-only contraception; (2) women’s discussion of family planning with other people—which can indicate some social capital— raises the probability of family planning use across categories; (3) exposure to family planning media messages affects men and women differently; and (4) difference in the couple’s education matters only in the use of women-based contraception. Interestingly, in contrast to the finding on women, the men’s discussion of family planning did not appear as a significant factor in the use of any type of family planning method.

Suggested Citation

  • Cristina M. Baustista, 2020. "Bargaining Leverage in Family Planning: A Gender-based Analysis of Filipino Couples' Reproductive Choices," Department of Economics, Ateneo de Manila University, Working Paper Series 202013, Department of Economics, Ateneo de Manila University.
  • Handle: RePEc:agy:dpaper:202013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ateneo.edu/sites/default/files/2022-06/ADMU%20WP%202020-13.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Browning,Martin & Chiappori,Pierre-André & Weiss,Yoram, 2014. "Economics of the Family," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521795395, September.
    2. François Bourguignon & Martin Browning & Pierre-André Chiappori, 2009. "Efficient Intra-Household Allocations and Distribution Factors: Implications and Identification," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 76(2), pages 503-528.
    3. M. Browning & P. A. Chiappori, 1998. "Efficient Intra-Household Allocations: A General Characterization and Empirical Tests," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(6), pages 1241-1278, November.
    4. Doss, Cheryl, 2013. "Intrahousehold bargaining and resource allocation in developing countries," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6337, The World Bank.
    5. Bourguignon, Francois & Chiappori, Pierre-Andre, 1992. "Collective models of household behavior : An introduction," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(2-3), pages 355-364, April.
    6. Karen Mason & Herbert Smith, 2000. "Husbands’ versus wives’ fertility goals and use of contraception: The influence of gender context in five Asian countries," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 37(3), pages 299-311, August.
    7. Cheryl Doss, 2013. "Intrahousehold Bargaining and Resource Allocation in Developing Countries-super-1," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 28(1), pages 52-78, February.
    8. Rasul, Imran, 2008. "Household bargaining over fertility: Theory and evidence from Malaysia," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 215-241, June.
    9. Connie Bayudan, 2006. "Wives' time allocation and intrahousehold power: evidence from the Philippines," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(7), pages 789-804.
    10. Lorelei Crisologo Mendoza & Lodewijk Berlage, 2006. "Bargaining in rural households : a study of decisions on labor market participation in the Cordillera," Philippine Review of Economics, University of the Philippines School of Economics and Philippine Economic Society, vol. 43(2), pages 75-99, December.
    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. Donni, Olivier & Molina, José Alberto, 2018. "Household Collective Models: Three Decades of Theoretical Contributions and Empirical Evidence," IZA Discussion Papers 11915, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Denni Tommasi, 2016. "Household Responses to cash Transfers," Working Papers ECARES ECARES 2016-20, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    3. D’Exelle, Ben & Ringdal, Charlotte, 2022. "Women’s use of family planning services: An experiment on the husband’s involvement," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    4. 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.
    5. Nobuyuki NAKAMURA & Aya SUZUKI, 2023. "Impact of foreign domestic workers on the fertility decision of households: evidence from Hong Kong," JODE - Journal of Demographic Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 89(1), pages 105-135, March.
    6. Lamia Kandil & Hélène Perivier, 2017. "La division sexuée du travail dans les couples selon le statut marital en France - une étude à partir des enquêtes emploi du temps de 1985-1986, 1998-1999, et 2009-2010," Documents de Travail de l'OFCE 2017-03, Observatoire Francais des Conjonctures Economiques (OFCE).
    7. Laurens CHERCHYE & Thomas DEMUYNCK & Bram DE ROCK, 2010. "Noncooperative household consumption with caring," Working Papers of Department of Economics, Leuven ces10.34, KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB), Department of Economics, Leuven.
    8. Dauphin, Anyck & Fortin, Bernard & Lacroix, Guy, 2015. "How Falsifiable is the Collective Model? A New Test with an Application to Monogamous and Bigamous Households in Burkina Faso," IZA Discussion Papers 9002, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    9. Paula E. Gobbi & Juliane Parys & Gregor Schwerhoff, 2018. "Intra‐household allocation of parental leave," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(1), pages 236-274, February.
    10. Rama Lionel Ngenzebuke, 2016. "Female say on income and child outcomes: Evidence from Nigeria," WIDER Working Paper Series 134, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    11. Chiappori, Pierre-André & Gimenez-Nadal, José Ignacio & Molina, José Alberto & Theloudis, Alexandros & Velilla, Jorge, 2020. "Intrahousehold Commitment and Intertemporal Labor Supply," IZA Discussion Papers 13545, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    12. Robert A. Pollak, 2016. "Marriage Market Equilibrium," NBER Working Papers 22309, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. 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.
    14. Ulugbek Aminjonov & Olivier Bargain & Maira Colacce & Luca Tiberti, 2022. "Culture, Intra-household Distribution and Individual Poverty," Working Papers - Economics wp2022_21.rdf, Universita' degli Studi di Firenze, Dipartimento di Scienze per l'Economia e l'Impresa.
    15. Wilman J. Iglesias & Alexandre B. Coelho, 2020. "Poverty and inequality within Brazilian households: an application of a collective consumption model," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 58(4), pages 1923-1952, April.
    16. Lamia Kandil & Hélène Périvier, 2017. "La division sexuée du travail dans les couples selon le statut marital en France," Working Papers hal-03457505, HAL.
    17. Kazianga, Harounan & Wahhaj, Zaki, 2017. "Intra-household resource allocation and familial ties," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 109-132.
    18. Alexandra Peralta, 2022. "The role of men and women in agriculture and agricultural decisions in Vanuatu," Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(1), pages 59-80, January.
    19. M. Niaz Asadullah & Zaki Wahhaj, 2019. "Early Marriage, Social Networks and the Transmission of Norms," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 86(344), pages 801-831, October.
    20. Gutierrez, Federico H., 2018. "A Sharing Model of the Household: Explaining the Deaton-Paxson Paradox and Computing Household Indifference Scales," GLO Discussion Paper Series 166, Global Labor Organization (GLO).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    intrahousehold bargaining; collective household model; family economics; family planning; fertility;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D1 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior
    • J13 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Fertility; Family Planning; Child Care; Children; Youth

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:agy:dpaper:202013. 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: Jat Tancangco (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deadmph.html .

    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.