Gender Bias in Intrahousehold Allocation: Evidence from an Unintentional Experiment

Abstract

We use data from a Brazilian social program to investigate the existence of gender bias in intrahousehold allocations of resources. The program makes cash transfers to mothers and pregnant women in poor households. Bureaucratic mistakes, beyond the control of the applicants, have inadvertently excluded many households that had applied and were accepted to the program. This unintentional natural experiment is used to identify the impact of an exogenous variation in female nonlabor income over household consumption. We find that program participation led to an increase in food expenditure, but this effect is not due to women being the benefit recipients.

Labour Supply and Childcare: Allowing Both Parents to Choose

“…Evidence from other countries is more mixed, for example, those finding against income pooling include Duflo (2003) in South Africa, Attanasio and Lechene (2010) in Brazil, and Duflo and Udry (2004) for the Cote d'Ivoire. Those finding for income pooling include Braido et al (2012) in Brazil, Thomas et al (1999) in areas of Indonesia, and, importantly for our study, Bradbury (2004) and Breunig and McKibbin (2012) in Australia. The latter paper captures much of the inherent concerns with papers testing for income pooling when it concludes "one could speculate that with a better-fitting model we might find income pooling holds for all categories of husbands and wives" (Breunig and McKibbin, 2012;page 254).…”

Revisiting the “Cash versus Food” Debate: New Evidence for an Old Puzzle?

“…As such, intra-household and gender-specific preferences are more complex and dynamic than often assumed. For instance, very few studies support the unitary model of household behavior, and even fewer, if any, are experimenting with the differential impacts (e.g., on nutrition) of cash versus food transfers as provided to men and women (Braido et al 2012).…”

The Perspectives of Young Women in Rural Western Kenya on Unconditional Cash Transfers

“…Thus, it seems that given their lack of basic needs, both interviewees and their husbands generally agreed to spend UCTs on essentials such as housing. This potential for consensus about prioritizing basic needs is supported by two other studies of cash transfer programs (Braido, Olinto, & Perrone, 2012;Hunter & Adato, 2007). There certainly may be other reasons to give UCTs to women rather than men, but the idea that cash given to women will result in better family outcomes may not be one of them (Yoong et al, 2012).…”