WOMEN’s PROPERTY, Mobility and DECISION-MAKING: EVIDENCE FROM rural Karnataka, India

1. WOMEN’s PROPERTY, Mobility and DECISION-MAKING: EVIDENCE FROM rural Karnataka, India HemaSwaminathan, Rahul Lahoti, Suchitra J. Y. Centre for Public Policy Indian Institute of Management Bangalore Annual Conference of the International Association for Feminist Economics Barcelona, June 27 2012

2. Motivation • Women’s asset ownership has several welfare outcomes • Greater control over income • Improvements in prenatal care, children’s schooling status, nutrition • Bargaining power • Reduced experience of violence

3. Property - Decision making - Welfare + Schooling status Women’s asset ownership + Bargaining power (participation in decision-making) + Nutrition - Violence

4. Literature • Allendorf (2007): Nepal DHS – land ownership enhances decision-making power pertaining to own health, household purchases, family visits • Garikipati (2009): South Indian state of Andhra Pradesh – land + other productive assets leads to greater autonomy in household decision-making and labour markets • Datta (2006): North Indian city of Chandigarh – joint titling policy enhances participation in household decision-making

5. Research Question • What is the impact of women’s property ownership on their mobility and decision-making status?

6. Data and Methods • Data from the Gender Asset Gap Project (2010-11) • Karnataka Household Asset Survey (KHAS) • Rural area focus • Asset ownership of individuals • Enables a true gendered analysis instead of having to rely on analysis based on sex of household head • Valuation of assets

7. Asset Ownership • Principal residence • Agricultural land • Together account for 87% of gross physical worth in rural areas • Two specifications: • Incidence of ownership • Share in household worth of these assets

8. Decision-making • Whether to be employed (1=decide independently, 0 otherwise) • Accessing health services (1=decide independently, 0 otherwise) • Use of money (2=have money and decide independently, 1=have money and cannot decide independently, 0=no money)

9. Mobility • Mobility • Market • Health facility • Outside the community • Index combining the above – 1 if travel to all three alone, 0 otherwise

10. Empirical Specification

11. Endogeneity Concerns • Instruments (?) • Modes of asset acquisition • Use of assets acquired only exogenously by women: natal inheritance, inheritance upon death of spouse, government programmes, gifts • Assets acquired through modes that could be endogenous excluded: self-acquisition, natal inheritance of spouse

12. RESULTS

13. Incidence of Asset Ownership by Sex (%)

14. Asset Ownership and Mobility (%) All women Currently married women

15. Asset Ownership and Decision-making (%) All women Currently married women

16. Summary Statistics Exogenously Acquired Assets

17. Property Ownership, Mobility, and Decision-making: Marginal Effects

18. Predicted Probability for Wealth Shares, All Women

19. Predicted Probability for Wealth Shares, Currently Married Women

20. Other determinants – Incidence specification

21. Other determinants – Incidence specification

22. Concluding thoughts • Vast gender asset gap prevails in home and land ownership • Women’s channels of asset acquisition overall are restricted • Property ownership enhances their ability to travel alone and independently make decisions in areas important to their lives

23. Role of employment – any form of employment improves autonomy • Education – not as strong an impact as expected • Household economic status – negative impact

24. Thank You! For the country studies & comparative report see: http://genderassetgap.iimb.ernet.in Indian Institute of Management Bangalore Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore – 560 076, INDIA www.iimb.ernet.in