Decision-Making in the Household May 25, 2017, J-PAL Research Day - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
decision making in the household
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Decision-Making in the Household May 25, 2017, J-PAL Research Day - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Mar 10, 2024 480 likes •632 views

Decision-Making in the Household May 25, 2017, J-PAL Research Day Anja Sautmann, J-PAL and Brown University Decision-Making Questions DHS: Who makes decision about x? Example: health Participant survey: vague, too

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Decision-Making in the Household

May 25, 2017, J-PAL Research Day Anja Sautmann, J-PAL and Brown University

slide-2
SLIDE 2
  • DHS: “Who makes decision about x?”

– Example: health

  • Participant survey:

– “vague, too broad, unclear what they measure” – Broad categories mask heterogeneity in degree of involvement and “subcategories” e.g. what type of health decisions – Validation exercises by several participants

  • Anja: some thoughts on the theory on HH decision making
  • Alessandra:
  • Markus:

Decision-Making Questions

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Decision-Making in the Household

  • Spheres of empowerment:
  • Within public life – (male) figures of authority (employer, law

enforcement, teacher), criminal perpetrators, harassers

  • Within the household – (male) family members and cohabitants
  • Types of decisions
  • Important life decisions: education, labor force participation, marriage,

fertility

  • Day-to-day, repeated activities and consumption
  • Bargaining models:
  • How are groups sharing (utility) surplus that is not allocated through the

market?

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Decision-Making in the Household

  • Spheres of empowerment:
  • Within public life – (male) figures of authority (employer, law

enforcement, teacher), criminal perpetrators, harassers

  • Within the household – (male) family members and cohabitants
  • Types of decisions
  • Important life decisions: education, labor force participation, marriage,

fertility

  • Day-to-day, repeated activities and consumption
  • Bargaining models:
  • How are groups sharing (utility) surplus that is not allocated through the

market?

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Allocation in the Household

Woman Man

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Allocation in the Household

Woman Man Threat point man Threat point woman

  • Threatpoint: e.g. divorce
slide-7
SLIDE 7

Allocation in the Household

Woman Man Threat point man Threat point woman

  • Threatpoint: e.g. divorce
  • Axiomatized bargaining

solutions: point on utility frontier

  • Pareto weight θ determines location
  • n utility frontier (in maximization of

weighted utilities)

E

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Allocation in the Household

Woman Man Threat point man Threat point woman

  • Threatpoint: e.g. divorce
  • Axiomatized bargaining

solutions: point on utility frontier

  • Pareto weight θ determines location
  • n utility frontier (in maximization of

weighted utilities)

  • Nash: Rubinstein bargaining

E N

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Allocation in the Household

Woman Man E K N Threat point man Threat point woman

  • Threatpoint: e.g. divorce
  • Axiomatized bargaining

solutions: point on utility frontier

  • Pareto weight θ determines location
  • n utility frontier (in maximization of

weighted utilities)

  • Nash: Rubinstein bargaining
slide-10
SLIDE 10

”Structural” vs. intra-household inequality

  • Structural inequality = threat point

– Legal framework, job opportunities, option of living alone – Each may be correlated with

  • Demographics (age, education)
  • Who earns the income (labor market value)
  • Gender
  • Bargaining = split ”after market”

– Browning-Chiappori: “distribution factors” can shift θ , e.g.

  • Demographics (age, education)
  • Who earns the income (labor market value)
  • Gender
slide-11
SLIDE 11

”Structural” vs. intra-household inequality

  • What do we want to measure?

– Probably NOT structural inequality:

  • Not likely affected by interventions in the short term/within the same household
  • Better measured directly

– Bargaining power: want to look at

  • Decisions about ‘non-market surplus’ – uncorrelated with threatpoint
  • Potential for conflict/rivalry – private consumption or differently valued public

goods

  • Cooperative/full information decisions
  • Relative change of total utility/happiness – ‘compensated change’, or pre-/post

differences in specific (validated) goods

  • Possibly: de-facto allocation determinants: e.g. psychosocial power imbalance
  • Emergence of conflict in re-negotiation process(?)
slide-12
SLIDE 12

Allocation in the Household

Woman Man before after Threat point man Threat point woman

Can we measure change in the slope of the utility frontier?

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Discussion

  • What is the group’s experience with decision-making questions?

– Which questions respond to interventions, and how? – What’s their variability?

  • Based on reported findings: suggestions for improvements on these

questions? Validation exercises that should be done before using?

  • What is these questions’ independent value compared to other

measures of intra-household bargaining, e.g. outcomes (health, education e.g. of children…), and structural determinants of inequality?