01.17.2013 - Garance Genicot
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

01.17.2013 - Garance Genicot

on

  • 253 views

Suicide and Property Rights in India

Suicide and Property Rights in India

Statistics

Views

Total Views
253
Views on SlideShare
253
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    01.17.2013 - Garance Genicot 01.17.2013 - Garance Genicot Presentation Transcript

    • Suicide and Property Rights in India Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson IFPRI January 17,20132Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 1 / 49
    • MotivationGarance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 2 / 49
    • Motivation Women’s ability to inherit property is restricted in many societies.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 2 / 49
    • Motivation Women’s ability to inherit property is restricted in many societies. Evidence that improving women’s asset ownership improves their bargaining power, female education & expenditures for children.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 2 / 49
    • Motivation Women’s ability to inherit property is restricted in many societies. Evidence that improving women’s asset ownership improves their bargaining power, female education & expenditures for children. → frequent justification for policies targeting women.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 2 / 49
    • Motivation Women’s ability to inherit property is restricted in many societies. Evidence that improving women’s asset ownership improves their bargaining power, female education & expenditures for children. → frequent justification for policies targeting women. In most econ models, ownership of assets matters via outside options → affects intra-household bargaining.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 2 / 49
    • Motivation Women’s ability to inherit property is restricted in many societies. Evidence that improving women’s asset ownership improves their bargaining power, female education & expenditures for children. → frequent justification for policies targeting women. In most econ models, ownership of assets matters via outside options → affects intra-household bargaining. When wives contribute a greater share of the family wealth they expect, and are more likely to get, a more equitable sharing of decision power.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 2 / 49
    • However, female empowerment can increase intra-household conflictGarance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 3 / 49
    • However, female empowerment can increase intra-household conflict by challenging traditional roles & more need for negotiation.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 3 / 49
    • However, female empowerment can increase intra-household conflict by challenging traditional roles & more need for negotiation. Large sociological literature on female empowerment and suicides: Durkheim (1897) Stack (1986) - US labor participation Pampel (1998) - cross country Das Gupta et al (2000) - China marriage law (1950)Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 3 / 49
    • Conflicting information on domestic violence and women’s empowerment Panda and Agarwal (2005) - India: lower violence for women with greater economic resources, such as land or employment. Eswaran and Malhorta (2010) - India: employed women report violence more frequently. Bobonis et al. (2006)- Progresa: less physical but more emotional abuse for recipient households, and more likely to separate. Luke and Munshi (2011) - Indian tea plantation: violence increases with female income. Hjort and Villanger (2012) – Ethiopia, randomized job offers, 13 % (34 %) increase in physical ( emotional ) violence when women get job.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 4 / 49
    • This paper studies the impact of female property rights on male and female suicide rates in India.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 5 / 49
    • This paper studies the impact of female property rights on male and female suicide rates in India. State level variation in women’s property right generated by state Amendments to the Hindu Succession ActGarance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 5 / 49
    • This paper studies the impact of female property rights on male and female suicide rates in India. State level variation in women’s property right generated by state Amendments to the Hindu Succession Act & state reforms to agricultural land rights.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 5 / 49
    • This paper studies the impact of female property rights on male and female suicide rates in India. State level variation in women’s property right generated by state Amendments to the Hindu Succession Act & state reforms to agricultural land rights. Better property rights for women are associated with a decrease in the difference between female and male suicide rates,Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 5 / 49
    • This paper studies the impact of female property rights on male and female suicide rates in India. State level variation in women’s property right generated by state Amendments to the Hindu Succession Act & state reforms to agricultural land rights. Better property rights for women are associated with a decrease in the difference between female and male suicide rates, but an increase in both male and female suicides.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 5 / 49
    • These changes have been shown to matter:Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 6 / 49
    • These changes have been shown to matter: Deiniger, Gopal and Nagarajan (2010): amendment increased women’s likelihood to inherit land, their age at marriage & daughter’s education.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 6 / 49
    • These changes have been shown to matter: Deiniger, Gopal and Nagarajan (2010): amendment increased women’s likelihood to inherit land, their age at marriage & daughter’s education. Roy, Sanchari (2010): amendments increase human capital investment of women in NFHS data.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 6 / 49
    • These changes have been shown to matter: Deiniger, Gopal and Nagarajan (2010): amendment increased women’s likelihood to inherit land, their age at marriage & daughter’s education. Roy, Sanchari (2010): amendments increase human capital investment of women in NFHS data. Besley and Burgess (2002): land reforms decrease poverty.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 6 / 49
    • These changes have been shown to matter: Deiniger, Gopal and Nagarajan (2010): amendment increased women’s likelihood to inherit land, their age at marriage & daughter’s education. Roy, Sanchari (2010): amendments increase human capital investment of women in NFHS data. Besley and Burgess (2002): land reforms decrease poverty. Stylized facts on suicide points to marital discord as a major cause of suicides for both gender.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 6 / 49
    • These changes have been shown to matter: Deiniger, Gopal and Nagarajan (2010): amendment increased women’s likelihood to inherit land, their age at marriage & daughter’s education. Roy, Sanchari (2010): amendments increase human capital investment of women in NFHS data. Besley and Burgess (2002): land reforms decrease poverty. Stylized facts on suicide points to marital discord as a major cause of suicides for both gender. → Suggests intra-household conflict as an explanation.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 6 / 49
    • We build a model of intra-household bargaining in which conflict is an intrinsic part of bargainingGarance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 7 / 49
    • We build a model of intra-household bargaining in which conflict is an intrinsic part of bargaining Basic framework: spouses bargain over the allocation of consumptions under the threat of separation/’separate spheres’.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 7 / 49
    • We build a model of intra-household bargaining in which conflict is an intrinsic part of bargaining Basic framework: spouses bargain over the allocation of consumptions under the threat of separation/’separate spheres’. add 2 crucial elements:Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 7 / 49
    • We build a model of intra-household bargaining in which conflict is an intrinsic part of bargaining Basic framework: spouses bargain over the allocation of consumptions under the threat of separation/’separate spheres’. add 2 crucial elements: asymmetry of information (Bloch & Rao 2003)Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 7 / 49
    • We build a model of intra-household bargaining in which conflict is an intrinsic part of bargaining Basic framework: spouses bargain over the allocation of consumptions under the threat of separation/’separate spheres’. add 2 crucial elements: asymmetry of information (Bloch & Rao 2003) rejecting offer initiates conflict.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 7 / 49
    • We build a model of intra-household bargaining in which conflict is an intrinsic part of bargaining Basic framework: spouses bargain over the allocation of consumptions under the threat of separation/’separate spheres’. add 2 crucial elements: asymmetry of information (Bloch & Rao 2003) rejecting offer initiates conflict. At any point, individuals may choose the ultimate exit: suicideGarance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 7 / 49
    • We build a model of intra-household bargaining in which conflict is an intrinsic part of bargaining Basic framework: spouses bargain over the allocation of consumptions under the threat of separation/’separate spheres’. add 2 crucial elements: asymmetry of information (Bloch & Rao 2003) rejecting offer initiates conflict. At any point, individuals may choose the ultimate exit: suicide Separations and suicides are predicted by the model (see also Ligon, Hoddinott and Adam (2003))Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 7 / 49
    • Not to say that promoting women’s rights is bad: Deiniger et al (2010), Roy (2010), Rosenblum (2010).Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 8 / 49
    • Outline of the Talk. Inheritance Law Suicides Estimation Results Model Other possible explanations ConclusionGarance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 9 / 49
    • India Inheritance LawGarance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 10 / 49
    • India Inheritance Law Hindu Succession Act 1956 governs Hindus property rights applies to Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists & Jains. applies to all states but J&KGarance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 10 / 49
    • India Inheritance Law Hindu Succession Act 1956 governs Hindus property rights applies to Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists & Jains. applies to all states but J&K In the absence of will, ’separate’ property is divided equally between sons and daughters.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 10 / 49
    • India Inheritance Law Hindu Succession Act 1956 governs Hindus property rights applies to Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists & Jains. applies to all states but J&K In the absence of will, ’separate’ property is divided equally between sons and daughters. But it does NOT apply to: property stemming from tenancy rightGarance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 10 / 49
    • India Inheritance Law Hindu Succession Act 1956 governs Hindus property rights applies to Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists & Jains. applies to all states but J&K In the absence of will, ’separate’ property is divided equally between sons and daughters. But it does NOT apply to: property stemming from tenancy right joint property: sons are automatic coparceners in joint family property daughter have rights only to father’s separate propertyGarance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 10 / 49
    • An Example   Father  1/3 Son 1  Daughter  Son 2  1/3  1/3Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 11 / 49
    • An Example   Father  1/3 Son 1  Daughter  Son 2  1/3  1/3   Father  deceased Son 1  Daughter  Son 2  1/3 + 1/3 * 1/3 = 4/9 1/3 * 1/3 = 1/9  1/3 + 1/3 * 1/3 = 4/9Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 11 / 49
    • Amendments Some state amendments for equal inheritance of joint property.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 12 / 49
    • Amendments Some state amendments for equal inheritance of joint property. Kerela in 1975; Andhra Pradesh in 1986; Tamil Nadu in 1989; Maharashtra and Karnataka in 1994Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 12 / 49
    • Amendments Some state amendments for equal inheritance of joint property. Kerela in 1975; Andhra Pradesh in 1986; Tamil Nadu in 1989; Maharashtra and Karnataka in 1994 The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005:Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 12 / 49
    • Amendments Some state amendments for equal inheritance of joint property. Kerela in 1975; Andhra Pradesh in 1986; Tamil Nadu in 1989; Maharashtra and Karnataka in 1994 The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005: brings all agricultural land on par with other property;Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 12 / 49
    • Amendments Some state amendments for equal inheritance of joint property. Kerela in 1975; Andhra Pradesh in 1986; Tamil Nadu in 1989; Maharashtra and Karnataka in 1994 The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005: brings all agricultural land on par with other property; includes all daughters, especially married daughters, as coparceners in joint family property.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 12 / 49
    • Suicides in India Official data from the National Crime Records BureauGarance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 13 / 49
    • Suicides in India Official data from the National Crime Records Bureau Average suicide rates 1967-2004: 10 for men & 7 for women (per 100,000)Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 13 / 49
    • Suicides in India Official data from the National Crime Records Bureau Average suicide rates 1967-2004: 10 for men & 7 for women (per 100,000) 70 % of suicides victims are marriedGarance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 13 / 49
    • Suicides in India Official data from the National Crime Records Bureau Average suicide rates 1967-2004: 10 for men & 7 for women (per 100,000) 70 % of suicides victims are married main reported cause: ’family problems’ for men & women 15-44Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 13 / 49
    • Suicides in India Official data from the National Crime Records Bureau Average suicide rates 1967-2004: 10 for men & 7 for women (per 100,000) 70 % of suicides victims are married main reported cause: ’family problems’ for men & women 15-44 (28%) female 15-29; (33%) female 30-44; (26%) male 15-29 & (30%) male 0-44Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 13 / 49
    • Suicides in India Official data from the National Crime Records Bureau Average suicide rates 1967-2004: 10 for men & 7 for women (per 100,000) 70 % of suicides victims are married main reported cause: ’family problems’ for men & women 15-44 (28%) female 15-29; (33%) female 30-44; (26%) male 15-29 & (30%) male 0-44 Main means: poison (34.8%) & hanging (23.4%).Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 13 / 49
    • Suicides in India Official data from the National Crime Records Bureau Average suicide rates 1967-2004: 10 for men & 7 for women (per 100,000) 70 % of suicides victims are married main reported cause: ’family problems’ for men & women 15-44 (28%) female 15-29; (33%) female 30-44; (26%) male 15-29 & (30%) male 0-44 Main means: poison (34.8%) & hanging (23.4%). Under-reporting but similar pattern in detailed micro-level analysis:Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 13 / 49
    • Suicides in India Official data from the National Crime Records Bureau Average suicide rates 1967-2004: 10 for men & 7 for women (per 100,000) 70 % of suicides victims are married main reported cause: ’family problems’ for men & women 15-44 (28%) female 15-29; (33%) female 30-44; (26%) male 15-29 & (30%) male 0-44 Main means: poison (34.8%) & hanging (23.4%). Under-reporting but similar pattern in detailed micro-level analysis: same female:male ratio, most married, rural background, lower socio-economic classes & marital disharmony is a main cause (35%)Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 13 / 49
    • Annual Suicide Rates by State Rates .05 .1 .15 .2 .25 Suicides 0 .02 .04 .06 .04.06.08 .1 .12 0 .05 .1 .15 .2 GU AP AS BI 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 year year year year 0 .05 .1 .15 0 .05 .1 .15 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .1 .15 .2 .25 .3 MP HA KA KE 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 year year year year .15 0 .02.04.06.08 .05 .1 .15 .2 .05 .1 MA OR PU RA .1 .05 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 year year year year .05 .1 .15 .2 .25 .02.04.06.08 .1 .14 .18.2 .1.12 .16 WB UP TN 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 year year year female maleGarance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 14 / 49
    • Variable Mean Std dev Female Suicide Rate 0.07 0.048 Male Suicide Rates 0.104 0.085 Amendment 0.163 0.369 Legal Hindus, pop share 0.827 0.154 Muslims, pop share 0.152 0.173 Schedule Tribes, pop share 0.074 0.074 Schedule Castes, pop share 0.151 0.058 Real State Domestic Product pc (log) 7.144 0.456 Rural food product p.c. 0.307 0.273 Yield 30.283 17.982 Food Shock 0.261 0.439 Flood 0.118 0.323 Drought 0.113 0.317 Rainfall 335.826 256.696 Health Expenditure, rel to State income 0.012 0.005 Development Expenditure, rel to State income 0.109 0.041 Education Expenditure, rel to State income 0.035 0.012 Bank per capita 0.057 0.027 Urban Population Share 0.234 0.083 Seats won by State Parties 0.114 0.232 Seats won by Congress 0.418 0.259Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 15 / 49
    • Estimation OLS i Sst = β0 + β1 Xst + β2 Ast + λs + γt + εst (1) where i Sst is the suicide rate of females (i = F ) or males (i = M) Ast = 1 if state s, in year t, has already passed an Amendment Act. λs and γt are state and year fixed effects. Xst are cultural and economic controls.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 16 / 49
    • Table 1 - Suicides and Female Inheritance - OLS Variable Female Female Female Amendment 0.03 (0.003)*** 0.02 (0.003)*** 0.003 (0.003) Cultur Ctrls NO YES YES Econ Ctrls NO NO YES Observations 603 569 489 2 R 0.91 0.92 0.94 Variable Male Male Male Amendment 0.06 (0.007)*** 0.05 (0.007)*** 0.03 (0.007)*** Cultur Ctrls NO YES YES Econ Ctrls NO NO YES Observations 603 569 489 2 R 0.89 0.89 0.92Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 17 / 49
    • Table 2 - Relative Suicide Rate and Female Inheritance - OLS Variable Female-Male Female-Male Female-Male Amendment -0.03 (0.004)*** -0.03 (0.005)*** -0.02 (0.005)*** Cultural Controls NO YES YES Economic Controls NO NO YES Observations 603 569 489 2 R 0.85 0.85 0.88 Variable Female/Male Female/Male Female/Male Amendment -0.09 (0.02)*** -0.08 (0.02)*** -0.05 (0.02)*** Cultural Controls NO YES YES Economic Controls NO NO YES Observations 603 569 489 2 R 0.54 0.56 0.64Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 18 / 49
    • Suicide Rates with Years of Amendment- OLS Estimations Variable Female Male Female-Male Years of Amend. 0.002 (0.0002)*** 0.006 (0.0005)*** -0.005 (0.0003)*** Cultural Controls YES YES YES Economic Controls YES YES YES Observations 531 531 531 2 R 0.94 0.93 0.91Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 19 / 49
    • Robustness Check Exclude Kerala.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 20 / 49
    • Robustness Check Exclude Kerala. Exclude Bihar, Punjab and Uttar Pradesh.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 20 / 49
    • Robustness Check Exclude Kerala. Exclude Bihar, Punjab and Uttar Pradesh. Add state specific time trends.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 20 / 49
    • Robustness Check Exclude Kerala. Exclude Bihar, Punjab and Uttar Pradesh. Add state specific time trends. Placebo test: add dummy Ast−10 which equals to 1 for all years greater or equal to t − 10, if state s passed the Amendment Act in year t.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 20 / 49
    • Robustness Check Exclude Kerala. Exclude Bihar, Punjab and Uttar Pradesh. Add state specific time trends. Placebo test: add dummy Ast−10 which equals to 1 for all years greater or equal to t − 10, if state s passed the Amendment Act in year t. Cluster standard errors by state.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 20 / 49
    • Table 3 - Suicides and Female Inheritance - Placebo Variable Female Suicide Male Suicide Ratio Amendment 0.01 (0.003)** 0.03 (0.008)*** -0.07 (0.02)*** Amendment -10 years 0.004 (0.003) -0.006 (0.006) -0.02 (0.03) Cultural Controls YES YES YES Economic Controls YES YES YES Observations 520 520 520 2 R 0.94 0.92 0.64Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 21 / 49
    • Estimation i Sst = α0 +α1 Xst +α1 Lst +α1 FLs ∗Lst +α1 Tst +α1 FTs ∗Tst +δs +θt + st (2) Lst - cumulative state-level landholding reforms, Besley & Burgess 00 FLs - degree to which landholding reforms favored women, Agarwal 95. FLs = 0 no daughter recognized; FLs = 1 only married daughters recognized; FLs = 2 all daughters recognized.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 22 / 49
    • Estimation i Sst = α0 +α1 Xst +α1 Lst +α1 FLs ∗Lst +α1 Tst +α1 FTs ∗Tst +δs +θt + st (2) Lst - cumulative state-level landholding reforms, Besley & Burgess 00 FLs - degree to which landholding reforms favored women, Agarwal 95. FLs = 0 no daughter recognized; FLs = 1 only married daughters recognized; FLs = 2 all daughters recognized. Tst - cumulative state-level tenancy reforms, BB 00, FTs - degree to which tenancy reforms favored women, Agarwal 95. FTs = 0 only male heirs; FTs = 1 daughters and sisters are recognized but very low; FTs = 2 personal law applies. δs & θt are state and year fixed effects.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 22 / 49
    • Table 4 - Suicides and Land Reforms - OLS Variable Female Female Female Landholding Acts -0.07 (0.008)*** -0.07 (0.01)*** -0.07 (0.01)*** Tenancy Acts -0.01 (0.005)*** -0.009 (0.005)** -0.01 (0.004)*** Female*Landhld Acts 0.03 (0.004)*** 0.03 (0.005)*** 0.03 (0.005)*** Female*Tenancy Acts 0.007 (0.003)*** 0.005 (0.003)** 0.006 (0.002)*** Cultural Controls NO YES NO Economic Controls NO NO YES 2 R 0.90 0.90 0.93 Variable Male Male Male Landholding Acts -0.15 (0.02)*** -0.15 (0.02)*** -0.11 (0.02)*** Tenancy Acts -0.03 (0.007)*** -0.03 (0.009)*** -0.02 (0.008)*** Female*Landhld Acts 0.07 (0.01)*** 0.07 (0.01)*** 0.05 (0.01)*** Female*Tenancy Acts 0.02 (0.004)*** 0.02 (0.005)*** 0.01 (0.005)*** Cultural Controls NO YES YES Economic Controls NO NO YES Observations 360 354 306 2 R 0.91 0.92 0.94Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 23 / 49
    • Table 5 - Relative Suicide Rate and Female Reforms - OLS Variable Female-Male Female-Male Female-Male Landholding Acts 0.07 (0.02)*** 0.08 (0.02)*** 0.04 (0.02)*** Tenancy Acts 0.01 (0.005)*** 0.02 (0.006)*** 0.01 (0.006)** Female*Land Acts -0.03 (0.008)*** -0.04 (0.008)*** -0.02 (0.008)*** Female*Ten Acts -0.009 (0.003)*** -0.01 (0.003)*** -0.008 (0.003)** Variable Female/Male Female/Male Female/Male Landholding Acts 0.19 (0.05)*** 0.36 (0.08)*** 0.14 (0.09) Tenancy Acts 0.20 (0.07)*** 0.22 (0.07)*** 0.13 (0.06)** Female*Landhold. Acts -0.08 (0.02)*** -0.13 (0.03)*** -0.07 (0.04)* Female*Tenancy Acts -0.09 (0.04)*** -0.09 (0.04)*** -0.06 (0.03)* Cultural Controls NO YES YES Economic Controls NO NO YES Observations 472 466 403 2 R 0.88 0.88 0.92Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 24 / 49
    • Estimation Unobservables could determine both suicides and property legislation.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 25 / 49
    • Estimation Unobservables could determine both suicides and property legislation. → Follow BB (2000) & instrument for these legislations using lagged seat sharesGarance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 25 / 49
    • Estimation Unobservables could determine both suicides and property legislation. → Follow BB (2000) & instrument for these legislations using lagged seat shares Ast = γ0 + γ1 Xst + γ2 Zst−1 + ϕs + ψt + ηstGarance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 25 / 49
    • Table 6 - Suicides and Female Inheritance - IV-2SLS First-Stage Female Male Female/Male Vars Amendment Suicides Suicides Suicides Amend. 0.04 (0.01)*** 0.10 (0.03)*** -0.45 (0.13)*** Hard Left -0.12 (0.17) Soft Left -0.67 (0.16)*** State Part 0.33 (0.12)*** Congress 0.13 (0.07)** Cult Ctls YES YES YES YES Econ Ctls YES YES YES YES F-stat 9.76 Obs. 486 485 485 485 2 R 0.68 0.91 0.89 0.62Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 26 / 49
    • Estimation For land and tenancy reforms, need to instrument both cumulative indexes of reforms: Lst , and Tst and interaction with female oriented policy indices, FLs ∗ Lst and FTs ∗ Tst .Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 27 / 49
    • Estimation For land and tenancy reforms, need to instrument both cumulative indexes of reforms: Lst , and Tst and interaction with female oriented policy indices, FLs ∗ Lst and FTs ∗ Tst . → following Angrist and Pischke (2009), first estimate : Lst = δ0 + δ1 Xst + δ2 Zst−1 + πs + σt + µst then use predicted values, Lst & interaction with female policy index, FLs ∗ Lst as instruments in 2 first-stage estimations of Lst & FLs ∗ Lst in 2SLS procedure: Lst = λ0 + λ1 Xst + λ2 Lst + λ3 FLs ∗ Lst + τs + χt + ιst FLs ∗ Lst = ρ0 + ρ1 Xst + ρ2 Lst + ρ3 FLs ∗ Lst + ωs + δt + ζstGarance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 27 / 49
    • Table 7 - Suicides and Female Landholding Acts - IV-2SLS First-Stage First-Stage First-Stage Variable Landholding Landholding Female*Landholding Hard Left 3.20 (0.65)*** Soft Left -3.03 (0.50)*** State Parties -0.87 (0.18)** Congress -0.17 (0.11) Landholding -0.58 (0.18)*** -0.86 (0.45)** Female*Landholding 0.53 (0.07)*** 0.95 (0.17)*** Cult Ctls YES YES YES Econ Ctls YES YES YES F-stat on Instr 30.25 45.7 23.4 Observations 441 441 380 2 R 0.92 0.94 0.92Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 28 / 49
    • Table 8 - Suicides and Female Landholding Acts - IV-2SLS Female Male Female/Male Variable Suicides Suicides Suicides Landholding Acts -0.07 (0.04)* -0.19 (0.07)*** 0.72 (0.45) Female*Landholding Acts 0.04 (0.01)*** 0.10 (0.03)*** -0.27 (0.18) Cult Ctls YES YES YES Econ Ctls YES YES YES Observations 380 380 380 2 R 0.91 0.91 0.88Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 29 / 49
    • Table 9 - Suicides and Female Tenancy Acts- IV-2SLS Estimations First-Stage First-Stage First-Stage Variable Tenancy Tenancy Female*Tenancy Hard Left 5.35 (0.97)*** Soft Left 1.60 (2.05) State Parties -0.21 (0.24) Tenancy 1.82 (0.33)*** 2.76 (0.71)*** Female*Tenancy -0.45 (0.14)*** -0.43 (0.31) Cultural Controls YES YES YES Economic Controls YES YES YES F-stat on Instruments 10.8 17.8 13.6 Observations 333 310 310 2 R 0.91 0.92 0.91Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 30 / 49
    • Table 10 - Suicides and Female Tenancy Acts - IV-2SLS Female-Male Variable Female Suicides Male Suicides Suicides Tenancy Acts -0.02 (0.008)*** -0.05 (0.01)*** 0.02 (0.008)*** Female*Tenancy Acts 0.01 (0.005)** 0.02 (0.008)*** -0.01 (0.005)** Cult Ctls YES YES YES Econ Ctls YES YES YES Observations 310 310 310 2 R 0.93 0.93 0.92Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 31 / 49
    • Due to Conflict? We can use the suicide rate by ”cause”.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 32 / 49
    • Table 11 - Suicide Rates from Family Conflict and Female Inheritance- OLS Estimations Variable Female Male Amendment 0.005 (0.001)*** 0.008 (0.002)*** Cultural Controls YES YES Economic Controls YES YES Obs. 439 439 2 R 0.86 0.85Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 33 / 49
    • Table 12 - Proportion of Total Suicides from Family Conflict and Female Inheritance- OLS Estimations Female Male Variable (All Suicides) (All Suicides) Amendment 0.06 (0.01)*** 0.04 (0.01)*** Cultural Controls YES YES Economic Controls YES YES Observations 438 438 2 R 0.58 0.61Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 34 / 49
    • Domestic ViolenceGarance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 35 / 49
    • Domestic Violence National Family Health Surveys of India: married women aged 15-49.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 35 / 49
    • Domestic Violence National Family Health Surveys of India: married women aged 15-49. Two measures: Yis equals 1 if a given female i (residing in state s) thinks that wife beating (by her husband) is justified under any of a number of circumstances (mean around 0.5) Yis equals 1 if a given female i (residing in state s) has been beaten by her husband (mean around 0.25)Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 35 / 49
    • Domestic Violence National Family Health Surveys of India: married women aged 15-49. Two measures: Yis equals 1 if a given female i (residing in state s) thinks that wife beating (by her husband) is justified under any of a number of circumstances (mean around 0.5) Yis equals 1 if a given female i (residing in state s) has been beaten by her husband (mean around 0.25) estimate Yis = ψ0 + ψ1 Xis + ψ2 Ais + αs + εis (3) where Xis include: education, age, occupation of wives & husbands; caste & religion of wives; rural/urban; and hhd durable good ownership.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 35 / 49
    • Table 13 - Domestic Violence and Female Inheritance (1998 NFHS-2) - Probit Estimations Wife Beating Wife Variable Justified Beaten Years Amendment 0.01 (0.003)*** 0.03 (0.005)** Individual Controls YES YES Household Controls YES YES Clustering at State Level YES YES Observations 70673 70673 2 R 0.12 0.07Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 36 / 49
    • Table 14 - Domestic Violence and Female Inheritance (2005 NFHS-3) - Probit Estimations Wife Beating Wife Variable Justified Beaten Years Amendment 0.008 (0.005)* 0.03 (0.004)** Individual Controls YES YES Household Controls YES YES Clustering at State Level YES YES Observations 47095 47095 2 R 0.09 0.07Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 37 / 49
    • Main Elements of the ModelGarance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 38 / 49
    • Main Elements of the Model Model of Intra-household bargaining.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 38 / 49
    • Main Elements of the Model Model of Intra-household bargaining. Surplus generated under cooperation.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 38 / 49
    • Main Elements of the Model Model of Intra-household bargaining. Surplus generated under cooperation. Bargain over allocation under threat of separation: ’separate spheres’.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 38 / 49
    • Main Elements of the Model Model of Intra-household bargaining. Surplus generated under cooperation. Bargain over allocation under threat of separation: ’separate spheres’. Asymmetry of Information: private satisfaction from the marriage.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 38 / 49
    • Main Elements of the Model Model of Intra-household bargaining. Surplus generated under cooperation. Bargain over allocation under threat of separation: ’separate spheres’. Asymmetry of Information: private satisfaction from the marriage. → bargaining failure occursGarance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 38 / 49
    • Main Elements of the Model Model of Intra-household bargaining. Surplus generated under cooperation. Bargain over allocation under threat of separation: ’separate spheres’. Asymmetry of Information: private satisfaction from the marriage. → bargaining failure occurs Rejecting offers initiate conflict.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 38 / 49
    • Main Elements of the Model Model of Intra-household bargaining. Surplus generated under cooperation. Bargain over allocation under threat of separation: ’separate spheres’. Asymmetry of Information: private satisfaction from the marriage. → bargaining failure occurs Rejecting offers initiate conflict. conflict is costly to both spouse, cost uncertain ex-ante.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 38 / 49
    • Main Elements of the Model Model of Intra-household bargaining. Surplus generated under cooperation. Bargain over allocation under threat of separation: ’separate spheres’. Asymmetry of Information: private satisfaction from the marriage. → bargaining failure occurs Rejecting offers initiate conflict. conflict is costly to both spouse, cost uncertain ex-ante. Suicide is a way out of the pain.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 38 / 49
    • Main Elements of the Model Consistent with the main views in psychology on suicide: Leenars (1996), Schneidman (1985).Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 39 / 49
    • Main Elements of the Model Consistent with the main views in psychology on suicide: Leenars (1996), Schneidman (1985). suicide often linked to events involving loss or conflict in existing interpersonal relationships.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 39 / 49
    • Main Elements of the Model Consistent with the main views in psychology on suicide: Leenars (1996), Schneidman (1985). suicide often linked to events involving loss or conflict in existing interpersonal relationships. it is not just the stress or pain but the inability to copeGarance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 39 / 49
    • Main Elements of the Model Consistent with the main views in psychology on suicide: Leenars (1996), Schneidman (1985). suicide often linked to events involving loss or conflict in existing interpersonal relationships. it is not just the stress or pain but the inability to cope unendurable psychological pain is stimulus & person desperately wants a way outGarance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 39 / 49
    • Main Elements of the Model Consistent with the main views in psychology on suicide: Leenars (1996), Schneidman (1985). suicide often linked to events involving loss or conflict in existing interpersonal relationships. it is not just the stress or pain but the inability to cope unendurable psychological pain is stimulus & person desperately wants a way out cognitive constriction (ie, rigidity in thinking, narrowing of focus, tunnel vision, etc.) is common.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 39 / 49
    • Preferences Preferences depend on the status of the marriage.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 40 / 49
    • Preferences Preferences depend on the status of the marriage. If the marriage is intact V h (Ih + Iw , x, θh ) & V w (Ih + Iw , x, θw )Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 40 / 49
    • Preferences Preferences depend on the status of the marriage. If the marriage is intact V h (Ih + Iw , x, θh ) & V w (Ih + Iw , x, θw ) Ij for j ∈ {h, w } represent the resources of the husband & wifeGarance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 40 / 49
    • Preferences Preferences depend on the status of the marriage. If the marriage is intact V h (Ih + Iw , x, θh ) & V w (Ih + Iw , x, θw ) Ij for j ∈ {h, w } represent the resources of the husband & wife x indicates how pro-wife the division of non public goods are within the household.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 40 / 49
    • Preferences Preferences depend on the status of the marriage. If the marriage is intact V h (Ih + Iw , x, θh ) & V w (Ih + Iw , x, θw ) Ij for j ∈ {h, w } represent the resources of the husband & wife x indicates how pro-wife the division of non public goods are within the household. θj for j ∈ {h, w } are the husband and wife’s private level of satisfaction with the marriage, drawn from distribution Gj .Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 40 / 49
    • Preferences Preferences depend on the status of the marriage. If the marriage is intact V h (Ih + Iw , x, θh ) & V w (Ih + Iw , x, θw ) Ij for j ∈ {h, w } represent the resources of the husband & wife x indicates how pro-wife the division of non public goods are within the household. θj for j ∈ {h, w } are the husband and wife’s private level of satisfaction with the marriage, drawn from distribution Gj . If the husband and wife separate or revert to ”separate spheres” (Lundberg and Pollak (2003)) U h (Ih ) & U w (Iw ).Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 40 / 49
    • TimingGarance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 41 / 49
    • Timing Personal levels of satisfaction with the marriage are revealed.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 41 / 49
    • Timing Personal levels of satisfaction with the marriage are revealed. Husband makes an offer x.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 41 / 49
    • Timing Personal levels of satisfaction with the marriage are revealed. Husband makes an offer x. Wife accepts or rejects.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 41 / 49
    • Timing Personal levels of satisfaction with the marriage are revealed. Husband makes an offer x. Wife accepts or rejects. If she accepts, they enjoy the utilities V h and V w .Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 41 / 49
    • Timing Personal levels of satisfaction with the marriage are revealed. Husband makes an offer x. Wife accepts or rejects. If she accepts, they enjoy the utilities V h and V w . If she refuses, it triggers marital discord or conflict within the household:Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 41 / 49
    • Timing Personal levels of satisfaction with the marriage are revealed. Husband makes an offer x. Wife accepts or rejects. If she accepts, they enjoy the utilities V h and V w . If she refuses, it triggers marital discord or conflict within the household: husband and wife incur costs κh and κw drawn from distribution F .Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 41 / 49
    • Timing Personal levels of satisfaction with the marriage are revealed. Husband makes an offer x. Wife accepts or rejects. If she accepts, they enjoy the utilities V h and V w . If she refuses, it triggers marital discord or conflict within the household: husband and wife incur costs κh and κw drawn from distribution F . then they separate and enjoy utilities U h and U w .Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 41 / 49
    • Timing Personal levels of satisfaction with the marriage are revealed. Husband makes an offer x. Wife accepts or rejects. If she accepts, they enjoy the utilities V h and V w . If she refuses, it triggers marital discord or conflict within the household: husband and wife incur costs κh and κw drawn from distribution F . then they separate and enjoy utilities U h and U w . At any point in this process, individuals may instead choose to exit: end the pain and commit suicide → get 0.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 41 / 49
    • DecisionsGarance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 42 / 49
    • Decisions Assume that an offer has been rejectedGarance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 42 / 49
    • Decisions Assume that an offer has been rejected Costs of conflict κh and κw are realizedGarance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 42 / 49
    • Decisions Assume that an offer has been rejected Costs of conflict κh and κw are realized j stays alive if κj ≤ U j (Ij ) for j ∈ {w , h}Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 42 / 49
    • Decisions Assume that an offer has been rejected Costs of conflict κh and κw are realized j stays alive if κj ≤ U j (Ij ) for j ∈ {w , h} this assumes that cost of conflict and cost of dealing the spouse’s suicide are the same, to remove any strategic aspect.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 42 / 49
    • Decisions Assume that an offer has been rejected Costs of conflict κh and κw are realized j stays alive if κj ≤ U j (Ij ) for j ∈ {w , h} this assumes that cost of conflict and cost of dealing the spouse’s suicide are the same, to remove any strategic aspect. → E j (Ij ), for j ∈ {w , h}, is j’s expected utility if the wife rejects an offer U j (Ij ) E j (Ij ) ≡ Fj [U j (Ij )]U j (Ij ) − κdFj (κ) 0Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 42 / 49
    • Wife accepts offer x if V w (I , x, θw ) ≥ E w (Iw ) where I = Iw + Ih .Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 43 / 49
    • Wife accepts offer x if V w (I , x, θw ) ≥ E w (Iw ) where I = Iw + Ih . → threshold θ(x)Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 43 / 49
    • Wife accepts offer x if V w (I , x, θw ) ≥ E w (Iw ) where I = Iw + Ih . → threshold θ(x) → Gw [θ(x)] is the probability that an offer x is rejected.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 43 / 49
    • Wife accepts offer x if V w (I , x, θw ) ≥ E w (Iw ) where I = Iw + Ih . → threshold θ(x) → Gw [θ(x)] is the probability that an offer x is rejected. Husband chooses an offer x that maximizes his expected utility 1 − Gw [θ(x)] V h (I , x, θh ) + Gw [θ(x)] E h (Ih ) .Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 43 / 49
    • Pro-women RedistributionGarance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 44 / 49
    • Pro-women Redistribution Pro-women redistribution of wealth, an increase in I w that is exactly compensated by a decrease in I h .Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 44 / 49
    • Pro-women Redistribution Pro-women redistribution of wealth, an increase in I w that is exactly compensated by a decrease in I h . Suicides rates are the expected probability of conflict times the likelihood of suicide in case of conflict.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 44 / 49
    • Pro-women Redistribution Pro-women redistribution of wealth, an increase in I w that is exactly compensated by a decrease in I h . Suicides rates are the expected probability of conflict times the likelihood of suicide in case of conflict. → Proposition: When suicide rates are positive, pro-women redistribution decreases the ratio of female to male suicide rate.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 44 / 49
    • Pro-women Redistribution Pro-women redistribution of wealth, an increase in I w that is exactly compensated by a decrease in I h . Suicides rates are the expected probability of conflict times the likelihood of suicide in case of conflict. → Proposition: When suicide rates are positive, pro-women redistribution decreases the ratio of female to male suicide rate. Effect of a pro-women redistribution on suicides for both genders is ambiguous.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 44 / 49
    • Pro-women Redistribution Pro-women redistribution of wealth, an increase in I w that is exactly compensated by a decrease in I h . Suicides rates are the expected probability of conflict times the likelihood of suicide in case of conflict. → Proposition: When suicide rates are positive, pro-women redistribution decreases the ratio of female to male suicide rate. Effect of a pro-women redistribution on suicides for both genders is ambiguous. It depends crucially on the effect on the likelihood of conflict.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 44 / 49
    • Example with linear utility Assume linear utilitiesGarance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 45 / 49
    • Example with linear utility Assume linear utilities V w (I , x, θw ) = xbI + θw & V h (I , x, θh ) = (1 − x)bI + θh . and uniform distribution of θs between 0 and θ.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 45 / 49
    • Example with linear utility Assume linear utilities V w (I , x, θw ) = xbI + θw & V h (I , x, θh ) = (1 − x)bI + θh . and uniform distribution of θs between 0 and θ. When wives own nothing they’ll accept anything → husbands offer x = 0 & no conflict.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 45 / 49
    • Example with linear utility Assume linear utilities V w (I , x, θw ) = xbI + θw & V h (I , x, θh ) = (1 − x)bI + θh . and uniform distribution of θs between 0 and θ. When wives own nothing they’ll accept anything → husbands offer x = 0 & no conflict. If relatively small surplus, (b − 1)I < θ, husbands with low valuations offer nothing as long as women’s share of wealth is low enough→ Conflict necessarily rises over this interval.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 45 / 49
    • Example with linear utility Assume linear utilities V w (I , x, θw ) = xbI + θw & V h (I , x, θh ) = (1 − x)bI + θh . and uniform distribution of θs between 0 and θ. When wives own nothing they’ll accept anything → husbands offer x = 0 & no conflict. If relatively small surplus, (b − 1)I < θ, husbands with low valuations offer nothing as long as women’s share of wealth is low enough→ Conflict necessarily rises over this interval. As we keep on raising women’s share of wealth, conflict will then decrease as women and men are becoming more equal.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 45 / 49
    • Example with linear utility Let b = 1.2, θ = 50 and U j (I ) = I for j ∈ {h, w }.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 46 / 49
    • Example with linear utility Let b = 1.2, θ = 50 and U j (I ) = I for j ∈ {h, w }. Costs of conflict follow a Pareto distribution (κ = 0.5 and α = 1.1Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 46 / 49
    • Example with linear utility Let b = 1.2, θ = 50 and U j (I ) = I for j ∈ {h, w }. Costs of conflict follow a Pareto distribution (κ = 0.5 and α = 1.1 I = 100Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 46 / 49
    • Example with linear utility Let b = 1.2, θ = 50 and U j (I ) = I for j ∈ {h, w }. Costs of conflict follow a Pareto distribution (κ = 0.5 and α = 1.1 I = 100 We progressively raise the level of resources owned by the wife I w from 1 to 99.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 46 / 49
    • −3 x 10 0.07 2.5 Female Suicide Rate 0.06 Probability of Conflict Male Suicide Rate 2 0.05 1.5 0.04 0.03 1 0.02 0.5 0.01 0 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Wife Wealth Wife Wealth (a) likelihood of conflict (b) suicide rates Figure: Effect of Pro-Women RedistributionGarance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 47 / 49
    • Other Possible ExplanationGarance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 48 / 49
    • Other Possible Explanation Brothers and SistersGarance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 48 / 49
    • Other Possible Explanation Brothers and Sisters Theoretically similarGarance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 48 / 49
    • Other Possible Explanation Brothers and Sisters Theoretically similar Marital discord more relevant in stylized evidenceGarance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 48 / 49
    • Other Possible Explanation Brothers and Sisters Theoretically similar Marital discord more relevant in stylized evidence Women pushed to suicidesGarance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 48 / 49
    • Other Possible Explanation Brothers and Sisters Theoretically similar Marital discord more relevant in stylized evidence Women pushed to suicides Does not explain men’s suicidesGarance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 48 / 49
    • Other Possible Explanation Brothers and Sisters Theoretically similar Marital discord more relevant in stylized evidence Women pushed to suicides Does not explain men’s suicides Indian Evidence Act: when a woman commits suicide within 7 years of her married life, her husband quickly come under suspicion.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 48 / 49
    • Conclusion We study the impact of female property rights on male and female suicides in India.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 49 / 49
    • Conclusion We study the impact of female property rights on male and female suicides in India. State level variation in women’s property right generated by state Amendments to the Hindu Succession Act and to agricultural land rightsGarance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 49 / 49
    • Conclusion We study the impact of female property rights on male and female suicides in India. State level variation in women’s property right generated by state Amendments to the Hindu Succession Act and to agricultural land rights Better property rights for women are associated with a decrease in the difference between female and male suicide rates,Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 49 / 49
    • Conclusion We study the impact of female property rights on male and female suicides in India. State level variation in women’s property right generated by state Amendments to the Hindu Succession Act and to agricultural land rights Better property rights for women are associated with a decrease in the difference between female and male suicide rates, but an increase in both male and female suicides.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 49 / 49
    • Conclusion We study the impact of female property rights on male and female suicides in India. State level variation in women’s property right generated by state Amendments to the Hindu Succession Act and to agricultural land rights Better property rights for women are associated with a decrease in the difference between female and male suicide rates, but an increase in both male and female suicides. We build a model of intra-household bargaining with asymmetry of information and conflict.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 49 / 49
    • Conclusion We study the impact of female property rights on male and female suicides in India. State level variation in women’s property right generated by state Amendments to the Hindu Succession Act and to agricultural land rights Better property rights for women are associated with a decrease in the difference between female and male suicide rates, but an increase in both male and female suicides. We build a model of intra-household bargaining with asymmetry of information and conflict. Pro-women redistribution decreases the female:male suicide ratioGarance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 49 / 49
    • Conclusion We study the impact of female property rights on male and female suicides in India. State level variation in women’s property right generated by state Amendments to the Hindu Succession Act and to agricultural land rights Better property rights for women are associated with a decrease in the difference between female and male suicide rates, but an increase in both male and female suicides. We build a model of intra-household bargaining with asymmetry of information and conflict. Pro-women redistribution decreases the female:male suicide ratio Pro-women redistribution can raise marital conflict.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 49 / 49
    • Conclusion We study the impact of female property rights on male and female suicides in India. State level variation in women’s property right generated by state Amendments to the Hindu Succession Act and to agricultural land rights Better property rights for women are associated with a decrease in the difference between female and male suicide rates, but an increase in both male and female suicides. We build a model of intra-household bargaining with asymmetry of information and conflict. Pro-women redistribution decreases the female:male suicide ratio Pro-women redistribution can raise marital conflict. In which case male suicides increase and female suicides can increase or decrease.Garance Genicot & Siwan Anderson (GU) Suicide and Property Rights January 17,20132 49 / 49