IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/not/notcre/06-01.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

She Could or She Didn't? A Revisionist Analysis of the Failure of the Widow Remarriage Act of 1856

Author

Listed:
  • Indraneel Dasgupta,
  • Diganta Mukherjee

Abstract

Under pressure from a progressive social movement, the British government in Bengal passed the (Hindu) Widow Remarriage Act in 1856. Yet few such remarriages subsequently occurred. Standard explanations for this failure rest on demand side arguments – few contemporary men were enlightened enough to wish to marry widows. We question this hypothesis. Using Census data from 1881, we argue that far too many contemporary men were single for it to be plausible. We advance a supply-side hypothesis instead – far too many men wished to marry widows for predatory reasons. This made it rational for widows (or their parents) to withdraw from the marriage market. Thus, the marriage market failed to implement feasible welfare gains from remarriage due to problems of informational asymmetry. We formalize our argument in terms of asimple model of adverse selection.

Suggested Citation

  • Indraneel Dasgupta, & Diganta Mukherjee, 2006. "She Could or She Didn't? A Revisionist Analysis of the Failure of the Widow Remarriage Act of 1856," Discussion Papers 06/01, University of Nottingham, CREDIT.
    • Handle: RePEc:not:notcre:06/01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/credit/documents/papers/06-01.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. S. Agarwala, 1967. "Widow remarriages in some rural areas of Northern India," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 4(1), pages 126-134, March.
    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. James G. Scoville, 2003. "Discarding Facts: the Economics of Caste," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 7(3), pages 378-391, August.

    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:notcre:06/01. 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: Hilary Hughes (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cenotuk.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.