PROPERTY STATUS AND INTER SPOUSAL DYNAMICS IN DECISION-MAKING IN KARNATAKA

1. PROPERTY STATUS AND INTER SPOUSAL DYNAMICS IN DECISION-MAKING IN KARNATAKA Hema Swaminathan, Suchitra J. Y., Rahul Lahoti Centre for Public Policy Indian Institute of Management Bangalore ASSA meetings, Chicago, IL January 6-8, 2012 URPE/IAFFE Panel on Asset Ownership, the Intra-Household Distribution of Wealth and Household Decision-Making in Ecuador, Ghana and India

2. Why assets? Livelihoods Shocks Assets Ease liquidity constraints Poverty Store of wealth Overall well being Swaminathan et al 2012, ASSA

3. Gender and assets • Unitary model does not fully capture intra-household resource allocations • Inequalities are masked, especially those across gender • Most databases world over collect asset information using ‘household’ as unit • NSSO All India Debt and Investment Survey collects asset data at the household level Swaminathan et al 2012, ASSA

4. Research questions • Exploring spousal (dis) agreement in household decision-making • Understanding the role of property ownership on women’s say in the household and on decision-making processes Swaminathan et al 2012, ASSA

5. KHAS: A different approach Individuals not households Move away from headship concept Primary Two interviews within a household Primary and secondary Swaminathan et al 2012, ASSA

6. Assets • Principal residence • Agricultural land • Other real estate • Livestock • Agricultural tools and equipment • Non-farm businesses • Consumer durables • Financial assets Swaminathan et al 2012, ASSA

7. Study districts Qualitative Quantitative Qualitative & Quantitative

8. Sample description • Households with principal couple respondents • 2,511 households • 71% rural, 29% urban Swaminathan et al 2012, ASSA

9. Modes of acquisition Swaminathan et al 2012, ASSA

10. Decision-making • Two decisions of both spouses: • Employment • Use of earnings • Four responses possible for each decision: • Alone • In consultation • With permission • Cannot decide Swaminathan et al 2012, ASSA

11. Decision-making (contd.) • Four outcome variables defined: • Autonomous: wife decides alone about her employment and earnings • Agreement in consulting (wife): both spouses agree that wife’s employment and earnings decisions are made consultatively with each other • Agreement in consulting (husband): both spouses agree that husband’s employment and earnings decisions are made consultatively with each other • Egalitarian: both spouses agree that their decisions are made consultatively with each other Swaminathan et al 2012, ASSA

12. Property status variable • Property defined as • Principal residence • Agricultural land • Variable • Only wife owns • Only husband owns • Both own • Neither owns Swaminathan et al 2012, ASSA

13. Empirical model Swaminathan et al 2012, ASSA

14. RESULTS Swaminathan et al 2012, ASSA

15. Incidence of ownership (%) Swaminathan et al 2012, ASSA

16. Property status & autonomy (%) Swaminathan et al 2012, ASSA

17. Property status & agreement in consultation (wife), % Swaminathan et al 2012, ASSA

18. Property status & agreement in consultation (husband), % Swaminathan et al 2012, ASSA

19. Property status & egalitarianism (%) Swaminathan et al 2012, ASSA

20. Property status & decision-making, odds ratios (employment) Swaminathan et al 2012, ASSA

21. Property status & decision-making, odds ratios (earnings) Swaminathan et al 2012, ASSA

22. Egalitarian outcome is ‘ideal’ and restrictive • For property status to impact egalitarianism, it would have to • Impact her own involvement in decisions • Her spouse’s perception of her involvement • May not be the case as women rarely acquire property independently (natal inheritance, purchase); mostly co-owners on husband’s property Swaminathan et al 2012, ASSA

23. Other determinants • Women’s education - No effect on employment decisions • If more educated than husband, more likely to be engaged in his employment decision - Use of her earnings • Increased her ability to decide independently • Decreased odds of agreeing it was consultative • Broadly, any form of paid employment is better for her ‘voice’ than unpaid work Swaminathan et al 2012, ASSA

24. Other determinants (contd.) • Increase in number of adult women negatively impacts egalitarian process (employment) • Household wealth does not show a systematic effect • Rural couples - More likely to be egalitarian - Women less likely to be autonomous • Women in DK (matrilineal district) more likely to make decisions alone, less likely to be consultative and egalitarian Swaminathan et al 2012, ASSA

25. Concluding thoughts • Women’s property status does matter • Renders them more autonomous in making key economic decisions concerning themselves • Agreement on consultation in both spouses’ decisions not systematically impacted • Asset acquisition of women largely mediated through husbands • Property ownership by itself may not be sufficient; how it is acquired also important Swaminathan et al 2012, ASSA

26. Thank You! Indian Institute of Management Bangalore Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore – 560 076, INDIA www.iimb.ernet.in Swaminathan et al 2012, ASSA