Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Mens womens assets_social protection_oct 2011_v2
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

Mens womens assets_social protection_oct 2011_v2

494
views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
494
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
11
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. Men’s and Women’s Asset Accumulation and Implications for Social Protection: Evidence from Bangladesh and Uganda Agnes Quisumbing, Neha Kumar, and Julia Behrman International Food Policy Research Institute October 2011Research supported by AMA-CRSP, the Swiss DevelopmentCorporation, and the World Bank Wednesday, October 19, 2011
  • 2. Assets: the wealth of familiesINTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
  • 3. Different assets can be held by men, women, and jointly—this varies across culturesINTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 3
  • 4. Presentation overview1. Motivation: why look at differential impact of shocks on men’s, women’s, and jointly held assets?2. Survey design and data • Bangladesh: CPRC-DATA-IFPRI long-term impact study + food price crisis survey (2006/7 and 2010) • Uganda: HarvestPlus OFSP Reaching End User Impact Evaluation survey (2007 and 2009)3. Descriptives4. Impacts of shocks on men’s, women’s, and joint assets5. Implications for social protectionINTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 4
  • 5. Motivation: why look at gender-differentiated asset accumulation?• Accumulating evidence rejecting unitary model of the household in many countries—resources are not pooled within the household• Growing evidence that risk is not pooled within households and that risk perceptions may also differ between men and women• Anthropological evidence (Thailand, Indonesia, Bangladesh) suggests that men and women have different asset accumulation strategies, and use their assets in different ways to cope with shocks• If this is true, how do we help women, men, and their families protect their livelihoods in the face of adverse events? INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 5
  • 6. Research questions• Is the impact of negative events and processes (flood shocks, dowries, illness, death) different on husband-, wife- and jointly-owned assets? Are these mitigated by positive events?• Do these impacts differ depending on country and context?• …And a policy-related question• What are the implications for the design of social protection systems?INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 6
  • 7. Survey design and dataINTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 7
  • 8. Bangladesh: Map of study sites of longitudinal study 2006/7 and 2010 Page 8
  • 9. Uganda: Map of study sites of OFSP REU impact evaluation 2007 and 2009 N rt TI L. Kyoga be O R Al SO KUMI L. BUKEDEA LUWEERO KAMULI Ú Ê Ú Ê Mbale KampalaÊ Ú Ê Ú Ê Ú Ê MU Ú KAYUNGA KO L. George Jinja N O LEGEND L. Edward L. Victoria Ú Ê Major Towns Non-OFSP Areas Implementation Areas 50 0 50 Kilometers Page 9
  • 10. In both countries• Surveys conducted with baseline in 2007 and follow-up after the food price crisis• Detailed gender disaggregated data (in Uganda, baseline gender disaggregation collected retrospectively)• Ownership categories: joint, husband, wife assets• Analysis limited to intact, monogamous couples (couples that stayed together between 2007 and 2009/10, excluding polygamous households)INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 10
  • 11. Assets have grown over time, but there are clear gender differences in asset ownership Bangladesh Uganda Total value of assets by ownership status, in 000 taka (2007 values) Total Value of Assets by ownership70 status in 000 UGS (2007 values) 700060 600050 500040 400030 3000 2007 200720 2010 2000 2009 100010 0 0 Total value Total value Total value Total value Total value of Jointly owned Nonland Nonland of of assets of assets of assets nonland nonland assets assets household jointly owned by owned by assets owned assets exclusively exclusively assets owned by husband wife by the owned by the owned by the husband household husband wife and wife
  • 12. Different types of assets are held individually and jointly in Bangladesh—joint assets dominate, except for land Ownership shares by type of asset, 2010100%90% 1680% 39 4970% 58 57 6260%50% 8340% 1030% 59 4220% 36 41 3310% 9 0% 1 2 1 2 Land Consumption Agricultural Nonag Jewelry Livestock durables durables durables Wife Husband JointINTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 12
  • 13. In Uganda, joint assets are less important than husband’s assets across most categories Ownership Shares by type of Asset, 2009 100% 90% 0.16 0.28 0.31 80% 0.36 0.43 70% 60% 0.43 50% 0.44 2009 Joint 40% 0.53 0.65 0.43 2009 Husband 30% 2009 Wife 20% 0.41 0.25 10% 0.11 0.14 0.07 0% Consumer Land Livestock Productive Cash durables equipment savingsINTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 13
  • 14. Floods and droughtsINTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 14
  • 15. Bangladesh: Negative shocks and positive events Proportion of households reporting shocks and positive events 50.00 45.00 40.00 35.00 30.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 Type of shock 10.00 5.00 0.00INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
  • 16. Uganda: Negative shocks and positive events Percentage of households affected by shocks, 2007-09 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 16
  • 17. Equation to be estimatedAit-AiB= ß0 + ß1 AiB + ß2AiB2 + ß3AiB3 + ß4AiB4+ Zi(Shocks, Positive events)i + Ci(HH demographics, baseline wealth, village dummies)i + εitDependent variable: Asset growthRegressors: Lagged assets (linear, squared, cubed, fourth)Covariate shocks (floods, drought)Idiosyncratic shocks (illness, death, dowry/wedding expenses)Positive events (remittances, inheritance, received dowry)HH demographic characteristics: age of head, age squared, hh size, proportion in age-sex categoriesValue of (assets) land at baseline [assets in land equation; land in assets equation)Location dummiesINTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 17
  • 18. What is the impact of shocks?• Look at the coefficients on shocks fromZi(Shocks, Positive events)I• Depending on specification, this is the change (or percentage change) in assets as a result of the shock• We obtain this separately for men’s, women’s, and joint assets, and for different types of shocksINTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 18
  • 19. Change in asset as a proportion of baseline holdings, Bangladesh 0 Flood Drought Price shock Illness Death -5 -10 -15 -20 Hus Land Hus Assets -25 Wife Assets -30 -35 -40 -45INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 19
  • 20. Change in asset as a proportion of baseline holdings, Uganda 40 20 0 Flood Drought Price Shock Illness Death -20 -40 Joint Assets Hus Land -60 Wife Assets -80 -100 -120 -140INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 20
  • 21. Consumer goods, livestock and jewelry: where the action is in Bangladesh 0 Flood Drought Price shock Illness Death -10 -20 Hus consumer Jt jewel Hus jewelry -30 Wif jewelry Hus livestock -40 Wif livestock -50 -60INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 21
  • 22. Conclusions--1• Shocks appear to have differential impacts depending on ownership, and depending on context• In Bangladesh: • women’s assets are negatively affected by illness—a really big hit (40% of her baseline assets) • Joint assets are protected, men’s are affected but only to a limited extent • Illness is the shock most frequently reported by households=>implications for asset disposal and social protection? • Analysis for disaggregated assets indicates that there is a lot of movement in consumer durables, livestock, and jewelry • Floods have negligible impacts on assets in Bangladesh, possibly because emergency assistance system worksINTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 22
  • 23. Conclusions--2• In Uganda: • Husband’s land negatively affected by death, impact of flood needs to be looked into • Wife’s assets are negatively affected by drought, price shocks, and death, and to a greater degree than husband’s assets • Joint assets are also negatively affected by price shocks • Indications are that men’s assets (aside from land) are protected, but women’s assets and joint assets are sacrificed• In both countries, women’s assets are a small proportion of household assets, but they take a big hitINTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 23
  • 24. Implications--1• Need to devise social protection strategy to provide insurance against shocks• Health insurance may help protect asset stocks (as well as individual health)• Social safety nets (public works, income transfer programs) may help prevent asset depletion, which would also help protect future livelihoods• We are now developing experiments that will look at men’s and women’s willingness to pay for flood insurance (as part of gender and climate change project)INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 24
  • 25. Implications--2• Need to provide mechanisms for poor to save and build up asset stocks, and to rebuild them after shocks• Need to provide mechanisms to prepare adequately for (anticipated) life-cycle events• Women, in particular, need to be able to build up assets (savings?) that they can control, not only while the couple is together, but perhaps more importantly if the marriage dissolves through death or divorceINTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 25