Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Brac_S. Roy_10.16.13
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Brac_S. Roy_10.16.13

113
views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Health & Medicine

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
113
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. How do intrahousehold dynamics change when assets are transferred to women? Evidence from BRAC’s “Targeting the Ultra Poor” Program in Bangladesh CORE Meeting: October 16, 2013 Narayan Das, Rabeya Yasmin, Jinnat Ara, Md. Kamruzzaman BRAC Peter Davis Social Development Research Institute Julia Behrman, Agnes Quisumbing, Shalini Roy International Food Policy Research Institute
  • 2. Motivation • Many development interventions transfer resources directly to households to reduce poverty • Research has shown that women’s control over resources (assets, in particular) may have important implications – More bargaining power for women; improvements in children’s education, health, and nutrition (e.g., Quisumbing 2003) • These findings have led many development interventions to target resource transfers to women – However, “transferring to women” does not guarantee that women’s overall control over resources will increase – Important to study how targeted transfers affect dynamics within the household
  • 3. Motivation • We study the intrahousehold impacts of a targeted asset transfer in Bangladesh – BRAC’s CFPR-TUP program – Program context: • “Ultra poor” in rural Bangladesh lack assets and skills • Sociocultural norms of female seclusion favor women staying within the homestead – – TUP provides transfer of asset that can be maintained at home (primarily livestock) and training to women in “ultra poor” households – Explicit aim is not specifically to increase women’s asset ownership – but to build asset base of poor households in aggregate
  • 4. Motivation Beneficiary woman with livestock Photo credit: BRAC
  • 5. Motivation • We focus on “TUP Phase 2” – running from 2007-2011, allocated using a randomized controlled trial design • Existing quantitative research (e.g., Bandiera et al 2013) shows large positive impacts of the program at the household level • However, little evidence on the intrahousehold impacts of TUP – or of any other targeted asset transfer program • We use mixed quantitative and qualitative methods to explore TUP’s impacts on: – Individual ownership and control over transferred assets (livestock) – Individual ownership and control over other assets • Agricultural and non-agricultural productive assets; consumer durables; land – Women’s mobility and decision-making power – Women’s perceptions of their own well-being
  • 6. Methodology • Quantitative analysis: – Draw on randomized controlled trial design of TUP – Add new survey round in 2012, focusing on gender-disaggregated asset ownership, control, mobility, and decision making – Estimate TUP’s causal impacts by comparing outcomes of 6,066 “treatment” and “control” households, adjusting for attrition • Qualitative analysis: – Conduct focus group discussions & key informant interviews in 2011 – Use local concepts of gendered asset ownership & control to inform design of quantitative survey modules in 2012 follow-up – Explore “intangible” benefits and perceptions that allow interpreting quantitative impacts in light of local context –
  • 7. Key findings • Analysis confirms previous findings that CFPR-TUP significantly improved household-level well-being • But shows new evidence of mixed effects on targeted women
  • 8. Key findings 1. Transferred assets - Livestock: – CFPR-TUP significantly increased household ownership of livestock – Largest increases were in livestock owned by women (including cattle, typically thought to be “men’s assets”) – Corresponding increases in women’s control over livestock – Reflect that high-value livestock transferred to women remained in their control – one dimension of transformation in gender roles –
  • 9. Key findings Women’s ownership of livestock increased more than men’s Treatment impact on number of [LIVESTOCK] Owned total in Owned Owned in Owned Owned HH solely by any part by solely by jointly by female female male male and female Cows/buffalo 0.958*** 0.076*** 0.129*** (0.031) (0.032) (0.013) (0.014) 0.220*** 0.159*** 0.192*** 0.026*** 0.026** (0.037) Chickens/ducks 0.817*** (0.031) Goats/sheep 1.036*** (0.033) (0.036) (0.010) (0.011) 0.883*** 0.779*** 0.803*** 0.079*** 0.027 (0.123) (0.116) (0.121) (0.023) (0.029)
  • 10. Key findings Women experienced corresponding increases in control rights over livestock Whether female has the right to […] [LIVESTOCK] owned in the household Rent out Sell Decide how to spend Decide about money generated from inheriting Cows/buffalo 0.385*** 0.374*** (0.017) (0.018) (0.018) 0.083*** 0.078*** 0.070*** 0.066*** (0.011) Chickens/ducks 0.371*** (0.017) Goats/sheep 0.401*** (0.011) (0.012) (0.012) 0.093*** 0.074*** 0.063*** 0.059*** (0.016) (0.015) (0.016) (0.016)
  • 11. Key findings 2. Other assets: – CFPR-TUP significantly increased household ownership of other assets as well • Agricultural & non-agricultural productive assets; consumer durables; land – However, these mostly translated to increased sole ownership by men – Women did experience increases in rights to use some of these assets – which they perceived as increasing their social capital • e.g., access to consumer durables (such as suitable clothing) – no longer ashamed of their appearance – Suggests that when beneficiary households mobilized resources to acquire new assets (rather than directly transferred), these were typically owned solely by men
  • 12. Key findings Men’s ownership of ag prod assets generally increased more than women’s Treatment impact on number of [AGRICULTURAL ASSET] Owned total Owned Owned in Owned in HH solely by any part by solely by jointly by female female male and male Owned female Choppers 0.121*** -0.007 0.006 0.114*** 0.018 (0.028) (0.022) (0.027) (0.017) (0.013) 1.440* 2.590** 2.238*** 0.018 (1.246) (0.832) (1.069) (0.589) (0.475) 0.258*** 0.075*** 0.121*** 0.138*** 0.036*** (0.023) (0.015) (0.019) (0.012) (0.009) 0.020*** 0.002 0.007** 0.012** 0.001 (0.007) (0.002) (0.003) (0.006) (0.001) 0.162*** 0.039*** 0.073*** 0.088*** 0.025** (0.022) (0.011) (0.016) (0.017) (0.010) Stored crops (kg) 4.905*** Cow sheds Ploughs Axes
  • 13. Key findings Men’s ownership of non-ag prod assets generally increased more than women’s (with the exception of cash) Treatment impact on number of [NON-AGRICULTURAL ASSET] Owned total Owned in any part Owned Owned jointly in HH by female by female solely by by male and male Bicycles Owned solely female 0.026*** -0.002 0.008 0.020*** 0.002 (0.009) (0.002) (0.006) (0.007) (0.001) -0.005 0.018 0.053*** 0.000 (0.005) (0.011) (0.008) (0.003) 1,167.991*** 1,048.181*** 1,206.406*** 25.292* 140.542*** (115.712) (59.224) (74.453) (14.931) (42.552) 0.018*** -0.001 0.001 0.016*** 0.001 (0.006) (0.001) (0.003) (0.005) (0.001) 0.025* -0.017** -0.009 0.033*** 0.003 (0.013) (0.007) (0.009) (0.009) (0.002) Mobile phones 0.076*** (0.014) Cash (taka) Rickshaws Fishnets
  • 14. Key findings Men’s ownership of consumer durables generally increased more than women’s Treatment impact on number of number of [CONSUMER DURABLES] Owned part by female by male male and female 0.180*** -0.025 -0.009 0.204*** 0.025 (0.023) (0.036) (0.029) (0.026) 0.104*** 0.011 0.024 0.076*** 0.001 (0.015) (0.018) (0.012) (0.008) 0.278*** 0.063 -0.079 0.357*** -0.115* (0.103) (0.098) (0.113) (0.058) (0.063) 1.461*** 0.021 0.805*** 0.636*** -0.028* (0.196) (0.022) (0.146) (0.091) (0.017) 0.076 0.554** 0.176*** -0.078*** (0.239) Men’s clothing items Owned jointly by (0.021) Cooking instruments Owned solely (0.033) Almirahs Owned in any total in HH by female Beds (0.126) (0.252) (0.051) (0.024) 0.538* 0.054 0.319 0.035*** -0.003 (0.324) (0.216) (0.296) (0.009) (0.004) Women’s clothing items 0.734*** Gold jewelry items Owned solely
  • 15. Key findings Men’s ownership of land generally increased more than women’s Treatment impact on area of [LAND] Owned total in Owned Owned in any Owned Owned jointly HH solely by part by female solely by by male and male female female Homestead land 0.108 0.420*** 0.028* (0.053) (0.072) (0.092) (0.016) 0.542** 0.134* 0.072 0.519*** -0.001 (0.217) Pond 0.060 (0.120) Cultivable land 0.539*** (0.071) (0.140) (0.149) (0.006) 0.084*** 0.007* 0.031*** 0.053*** 0.002 (0.021) (0.004) (0.012) (0.015) (0.002)
  • 16. Key findings 3. Women’s workload and mobility: – CFPR-TUP did not increase the proportion of women working but did shift work from outside the home to inside the home • Consistent with transferred assets requiring maintenance at home – Women reported increased workloads – which combined to reduce mobility outside the home – However, women also reported preferring reduced mobility to facing the stigma of working outside the home
  • 17. Key findings Women’s work is shifted inside the home Treatment impact on: Whether the main female works 0.009 (0.015) Whether the main female works inside the home 0.167*** (0.024) Whether the main female works outside the home -0.080*** (0.017)
  • 18. Key findings 4. Women’s decision-making power: – CFPR-TUP decreased women’s voice in a range of decisions • Women’s decision-making over their own income, purchases for themselves, and household budgeting was significantly reduced • Men’s voice in household decisions was significantly increased • Consistent with women’s reduced mobility, leading to reduced access to markets
  • 19. Key findings Women’s control over their own income is decreased Treatment impact on whether the main female works and Keeps all of the income earned -0.077*** (0.015) Keeps any of the income earned -0.044** (0.019) Keeps none of the income earned 0.053*** (0.014)
  • 20. Key findings Women’s control over purchases is decreased Treatment impact on whether the woman herself controls the money needed to buy… Food from the market -0.151*** (0.017) Clothes for herself -0.120*** (0.018) Medicine for herself -0.153*** (0.017) Cosmetics for herself -0.068*** (0.019)
  • 21. Key findings Women’s voice in household saving/spending decisions is decreased, while husband’s sole voice is increased Treatment impact on whether [WHO DECIDES] [DECISION] She solely She has any voice Her husband solely She and her decides in deciding decides husband jointly decide How much to save -0.106*** -0.000 0.002 0.123*** (0.015) (0.008) (0.008) (0.016) -0.130*** -0.030** 0.030** 0.098*** (0.015) (0.015) (0.015) (0.016) -0.126*** -0.050*** 0.050*** 0.078*** (0.014) (0.015) (0.015) (0.016) -0.124*** -0.051*** 0.051*** 0.079*** (0.014) (0.015) (0.015) (0.016) How much to spend on… Food Housing Health care
  • 22. Conclusions and implications Summary of key findings: – CFPR-TUP increased asset ownership at household level – In terms of “tangibles,” mixed effects on targeted women : • Increased women’s ownership and control over transferred livestock • However, greater increase in men’s sole ownership over other forms of new investment in assets • Reduced women’s mobility outside the home due to transferred asset requiring maintenance inside the homestead • Reduced women’s voice in a range of decisions
  • 23. Conclusions and implications Summary of key findings: – However, taking into account “intangibles” and context, effects on targeted women appear more favorable (if still mixed) : • Women’s social capital increased (access to better clothing, etc) • Given sociocultural stigma of working outside home, women preferred working at home even with reduced mobility • Women themselves framed project impacts more in terms of intangibles (self-esteem, satisfaction in contributing to household and children’s well-being, etc) than individual rights or material gains
  • 24. Conclusions and implications Take-aways: – Asset transfers targeted to women can increase women’s ownership/control over the transferred asset – May not necessarily increase women’s overall control over resources or bargaining position in the household – If the transferred assets require maintenance at home, targeting them to women may shift women’s work inside the home – Desirability of working inside the home may depend on local context – but may reduce decision making power over use of resources
  • 25. Conclusions and implications Take-aways: – Nuance required in assessing whether interventions improve “women’s empowerment” • Even if a program’s “household-level” impacts are unambiguously positive, effects for individuals within the household may be mixed • Some outcomes valued by individuals may be “intangible,” and some that seem negative from a “Western” viewpoint may be favorable in the local context • However, if increasing women’s asset ownership and decision-making power are explicit goals, a targeted asset transfer may not be sufficient – local sociocultural norms may themselves need to be changed