Brac_S. Roy_10.16.13

286 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Health & Medicine
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Brac_S. Roy_10.16.13

  1. 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. 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. 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. 4. Motivation Beneficiary woman with livestock Photo credit: BRAC
  5. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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

×