Table 2b: Impact on Aggregate Household Decision-making Power, by gender
Sample: Individuals who have children and whose spouses/partners live in the same household
|
__________________Female__________________ |
_________________Male__________________ | |||||||
|
Index 1 (mean) |
Index 2 (3) |
(factor) |
Index 1 (mean) |
Index 2 (factor) | ||||
|
Level (1) |
Change |
Level |
Change |
Level |
Change | |||
|
Panel A: Household decision making power below median in baseline | ||||||||
|
Treatment |
0.089*** |
0.094** |
0.291*** |
0.341*** |
0.018 |
0.021 |
0.041 |
0.025 |
|
(0.032) |
(0.039) |
(0.097) |
(0.102) |
(0.036) |
(0.047) |
(0.102) |
(0.115) | |
|
Marketing |
0.023 |
0.061 |
0.123 |
0.223* |
0.051 |
0.075 |
0.133 |
0.132 |
|
(0.040) |
(0.050) |
(0.117) |
(0.131) |
(0.040) |
(0.051) |
(0.117) |
(0.128) | |
|
Constant |
0.800*** |
0.075** |
-0.124 |
0.233*** |
0.751*** |
0.105*** |
-0.128 |
0.296*** |
|
(0.068) |
(0.030) |
(0.090) |
(0.080) |
(0.056) |
(0.037) |
(0.101) |
(0.095) | |
|
Observations |
322 |
322 |
303 |
303 |
296 |
296 |
284 |
284 |
|
R-squared |
0.08 |
0.02 |
0.07 |
0.03 |
0.06 |
0.01 |
0.07 |
0.00 |
|
Panel B: Household decision making power above median in baseline | ||||||||
|
Treatment |
0.026 |
0.022 |
0.111 |
0.109 |
-0.027 |
0.015 |
-0.061 |
-0.004 |
|
(0.032) |
(0.037) |
(0.098) |
(0.103) |
(0.049) |
(0.058) |
(0.137) |
(0.149) | |
|
Marketing |
0.027 |
0.019 |
0.068 |
0.045 |
-0.030 |
0.027 |
-0.092 |
-0.027 |
|
(0.037) |
(0.048) |
(0.120) |
(0.137) |
(0.053) |
(0.062) |
(0.145) |
(0.157) | |
|
Constant |
0.879*** |
-0.342*** |
0.115 |
-0.380*** |
0.954*** |
-0.440*** |
0.123 |
-0.579*** |
|
(0.103) |
(0.027) |
(0.096) |
(0.078) |
(0.137) |
(0.047) |
(0.139) |
(0.122) | |
|
Observations |
321 |
321 |
297 |
297 |
245 |
245 |
230 |
230 |
|
R-squared |
0.04 |
0.00 |
0.03 |
0.00 |
0.01 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
Robust standard errors in parentheses, * significant at 10%; ** significant at 5%; *** significant at 1%. Dependent
Variable: Index of household decision making power on what to buy at the market, expensive purchases, giving
assistance to family members, family purchases, recreational use of the money, personal use of the money, number of
children, schooling of children, and use of family planning. The value for each item takes zero if the decision making is
done by spouse, one if the decision making is done by the couple, and two if decision making is done by the respondent.
See notes under Table 1 for the exact definition of each index. Regressions in columns (1) and (3) control for the
household decision making power in the baseline (August 2003).
More intriguing information
1. Spatial agglomeration and business groups: new evidence from Italian industrial districts2. Output Effects of Agri-environmental Programs of the EU
3. Consumption Behaviour in Zambia: The Link to Poverty Alleviation?
4. Protocol for Past BP: a randomised controlled trial of different blood pressure targets for people with a history of stroke of transient ischaemic attack (TIA) in primary care
5. LABOR POLICY AND THE OVER-ALL ECONOMY
6. A Study of Prospective Ophthalmology Residents’ Career Perceptions
7. Critical Race Theory and Education: Racism and antiracism in educational theory and praxis David Gillborn*
8. The name is absent
9. Improvements in medical care and technology and reductions in traffic-related fatalities in Great Britain
10. References