IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/not/notcdx/2020-06.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Financial decision-making, gender and social norms in Zambia: Preliminary report on the quantitative data generation, analysis and results

Author

Listed:
  • Abigail Barr

    (University of Nottingham)

  • Marlene Dekker

    (African Studies Center, Leiden University)

  • Floyd Mwansa

    (Financial Sector Deepening Zambia)

  • Tia Linda Zuze

    (Financial Sector Deepening Zambia, and Stellenbosch University)

Abstract

This document presents the preliminary findings from the quantitative data generation and analysis conducted as part of the project 'Financial decision-making, gender and social norms in Zambia'. Using a series of specially designed behavioural experiments, we generated an extensive set of insights into the normative environment within which spouses in Eastern Province, Zambia, make decisions about individual money holding and saving. Here are some of those insights. Spouses in Eastern Province, Zambia, are willing to compromise household-level earnings in order to maintain individual control over money. Wives, but not husbands, are more likely to compromise household-level earnings in order to maintain individual control over money, when they can keep that money and their actions hidden from their spouses. Individually-held behavioural prescriptions, i.e., the 'shoulds' and 'oughts' that individuals have in mind and reference as guides for their own behaviour and as benchmarks against which to evaluate others’ behaviour, inform decision-making about maintaining individual control over money at a cost to the household. Further, when individuals know that their spouses will find out about their decisions regarding maintaining individual control over money (or not) at a cost to the household, the individuals take their spouses’ opinions about what they should do into account, i.e., they compromise. There is strong but not unequivocal evidence pointing to the existence of a social norm, i.e., a 'should' or 'ought' that is collectively held and enforced by members of a community, forbidding saving in secret from one’s spouse, with the secrecy not the saving being the problem. Assuming it exists, this social norm forbidding saving in secret from one’s spouse applies to both husbands and wives, and this is acknowledged by both husbands and wives. However, the extent to which violations of this norm are tolerated depends on who is doing the violating and who the evaluating. In patrilineal communities (as compared to matrilineal communities), both husbands and wives are especially intolerant of secret saving by husbands and in both patrilineal and matrilineal communities, wives are less tolerant than husbands of secret saving by husbands and more tolerant than husbands of secret saving by wives. This relative tolerance of secret saving by wives notwithstanding, just under one in three wives and one in six husbands think that a man is justified in beating his wife if he discovers that she is saving in an e-wallet or has joined a savings group without his knowledge and, as grounds for wife beating, saving in secret is on a par with neglecting the children, visiting friends or family in secret and refusing to have sex. For further insights, see the main text of the report.

Suggested Citation

  • Abigail Barr & Marlene Dekker & Floyd Mwansa & Tia Linda Zuze, 2020. "Financial decision-making, gender and social norms in Zambia: Preliminary report on the quantitative data generation, analysis and results," Discussion Papers 2020-06, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
  • Handle: RePEc:not:notcdx:2020-06
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/cedex/documents/papers/cedex-discussion-paper-2020-06.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ingvild Almås & Alex Armand & Orazio Attanasio & Pedro Carneiro, 2018. "Measuring and Changing Control: Women's Empowerment and Targeted Transfers," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 128(612), pages 609-639, July.
    2. Bereket Kebede & Marcela Tarazona & Alistair Munro & Arjan Verschoor, 2014. "Intra-household Efficiency: An Experimental Study from Ethiopia," Journal of African Economies, Centre for the Study of African Economies, vol. 23(1), pages 105-150.
    3. Pamela Jakiela & Owen Ozier, 2016. "Does Africa Need a Rotten Kin Theorem? Experimental Evidence from Village Economies," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 83(1), pages 231-268.
    4. Abigail Barr & Marleen Dekker & Wendy Janssens & Bereket Kebede & Berber Kramer, 2019. "Cooperation in Polygynous Households," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 11(2), pages 266-283, April.
    5. Erin L. Krupka & Roberto A. Weber, 2013. "Identifying Social Norms Using Coordination Games: Why Does Dictator Game Sharing Vary?," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 11(3), pages 495-524, June.
    6. Iversen, Vegard & Jackson, Cecile & Kebede, Bereket & Munro, Alistair & Verschoor, Arjan, 2011. "Do Spouses Realise Cooperative Gains? Experimental Evidence from Rural Uganda," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 569-578, April.
    7. Fafchamps, Marcel & Said, Farah & d Adda, Giovanna, 2016. "Gender and Agency within the Household: Experimental Evidence from Pakistan," CEPR Discussion Papers 11464, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    8. Nava Ashraf, 2009. "Spousal Control and Intra-household Decision Making: An Experimental Study in the Philippines," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(4), pages 1245-1277, September.
    9. Stephen V. Burks & Erin L. Krupka, 2012. "A Multimethod Approach to Identifying Norms and Normative Expectations Within a Corporate Hierarchy: Evidence from the Financial Services Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(1), pages 203-217, January.
    10. Bicchieri,Cristina, 2006. "The Grammar of Society," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521574907.
    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. Jayachandran, Seema & Biradavolu, Monica & Cooper, Jan, 2021. "Using Machine Learning and Qualitative Interviews to Design a Five-Question Women's Agency Index," IZA Discussion Papers 14221, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Jayachandran, Seema & Biradavolu, Monica & Cooper, Jan, 2023. "Using machine learning and qualitative interviews to design a five-question survey module for women’s agency," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    3. Eugen Dimant & Michele Gelfand & Anna Hochleitner & Silvia Sonderegger, 2022. "Strategic Behavior with Tight, Loose and Polarized Norms," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 198, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    4. Alempaki, Despoina & Doğan, Gönül & Yang, Yang, 2021. "Lying in a foreign language?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 946-961.
    5. Eugen Dimant & Michele Gelfand & Anna Hochleitner & Silvia Sonderegger, 2023. "Strategic Behavior with Tight, Loose and Polarized Norms," CESifo Working Paper Series 10233, CESifo.

    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. Baland, Jean-Marie & Bequet, Ludovic & Guirkinger, Catherine & Manuel, Clarice, 2024. "Sharing norm, household efficiency and female demand for agency in the Philippines," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    2. Charlotte Ringdal & Ingrid Hoem Sjursen, 2021. "Household Bargaining and Spending on Children: Experimental Evidence from Tanzania," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 88(350), pages 430-455, April.
    3. Farah Said, 2016. "Access to Finance and Agency: An Overview of the Constraints to Female-Run Enterprises," Lahore Journal of Economics, Department of Economics, The Lahore School of Economics, vol. 21(Special E), pages 331-349, September.
    4. Abbink, Klaus & Islam, Asad & Nguyen, Chau, 2020. "Whose voice matters? An experimental examination of gender bias in intra-household decision-making," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 337-352.
    5. Uzma Afzal & Giovanna d'Adda & Marcel Fafchamps & Farah Said, 2016. "Gender and Agency within the Household: Experimental Evidence from Pakistan," Framed Field Experiments 00555, The Field Experiments Website.
    6. Bulte, Erwin H. & Lensink, Robert & Winkel, Anne B., 2018. "The impact of a gender and business training on income hiding: An experimental study in Vietnam," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 241-259.
    7. Deschênes, Sarah & Dumas, Christelle & Lambert, Sylvie, 2020. "Household resources and individual strategies," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    8. Castilla, Carolina, 2019. "What's yours is mine, and what's mine is mine: Field experiment on income concealing between spouses in India," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 125-140.
    9. Ringdal, Charlotte & Sjursen, Ingrid Hoem, 2017. "Household bargaining and spending on children: Experimental evidence from Tanzania," Discussion Paper Series in Economics 19/2017, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Economics.
    10. Hoel, Jessica B., 2015. "Heterogeneous households: A within-subject test of asymmetric information between spouses in Kenya," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 123-135.
    11. Fromell, Hanna & Nosenzo, Daniele & Owens, Trudy & Tufano, Fabio, 2021. "One size does not fit all: Plurality of social norms and saving behavior in Kenya," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 192(C), pages 73-91.
    12. Simon Gächter & Daniele Nosenzo & Martin Sefton, 2013. "Peer Effects In Pro-Social Behavior: Social Norms Or Social Preferences?," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 11(3), pages 548-573, June.
    13. Hanna Fromell & Daniele Nosenzo & Trudy Owens & Fabio Tufano, 2019. "One Size Doesn’t Fit All: Plurality of Social Norms and Saving Behavior in Kenya," Discussion Papers 2019-12, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    14. Francesco Fallucchi & Daniele Nosenzo, 2022. "The coordinating power of social norms," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(1), pages 1-25, February.
    15. Desmet, Pieter T.M. & Engel, Christoph, 2021. "People are conditional rule followers," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    16. Cheryl R. Doss & Agnes R. Quisumbing, 2020. "Understanding rural household behavior: Beyond Boserup and Becker," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(1), pages 47-58, January.
    17. Gächter, Simon & Gerhards, Leonie & Nosenzo, Daniele, 2017. "The importance of peers for compliance with norms of fair sharing," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 72-86.
    18. Hoel, Jessica B. & Hidrobo, Melissa & Bernard, Tanguy & Ashour, Maha, 2021. "What do intra-household experiments measure? Evidence from the lab and field," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 337-350.
    19. Erin L. Krupka & Stephen Leider & Ming Jiang, 2017. "A Meeting of the Minds: Informal Agreements and Social Norms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(6), pages 1708-1729, June.
    20. Stephen V. Burks & Daniele Nosenzo & Jon Anderson & Matthew Bombyk & Derek Ganzhorn & Lorenz Goette & Aldo Rustichini, 2015. "Lab Measures of Other-Regarding Preferences Can Predict Some Related on-the-Job Behavior: Evidence from a Large Scale Field Experiment," Discussion Papers 2015-21, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    financial decision-making; Zambia; gender; social norms;
    All these keywords.

    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:not:notcdx:2020-06. 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: Jose V Guinot Saporta (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cdnotuk.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.