Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Are girls the fairer sex in India? Revisiting intra-household allocation of education expenditure

Contents:

Author Info

  • Mehtabul Azam

    ()
    (The World Bank and IZA.)

  • Geeta Kingdon

    ()
    (Institute of Education, University of London.)

Abstract

This paper revisits the issue of the intra-household allocation of education expenditure with the recently available India Human Development Survey which refers to 2005 and covers both urban and rural areas. In addition to the traditional Engel method, the paper utilizes a Hurdle model to disentangle the decision to enroll (incur any educational expenditure) and the decision of how much to spend on education, conditional on enrolling. Finally the paper also uses household fixed effects to examine whether any gender bias is a within-household phenomenon. The paper finds that the traditional Engel method often fails to pick up gender bias where it exists not only because of the aggregation of data at the household-level but also because of aggregation of the two decisions in which gender can have opposite signs. It is found that pro-male gender bias exists in the primary school age group for several states but that the incidence of gender bias increases with age – it is greater in the middle school age group (10-14 years) and greater still in the secondary school age group (15-19 years). However, gender discrimination in the secondary school age group 15-19 takes place mainly through the decision to enroll boys and not girls, and not through differential expenditure on girls and boys. The results also suggest that the extent of pro-male gender bias in educational expenditure is substantially greater in rural than in urban areas. Finally, our results suggest that an important mechanism through which households spend less on girls than boys is by sending sons to fee-charging private schools and daughters to the fee-free government-funded schools.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://repec.ioe.ac.uk/repec/pdf/qsswp1103.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by Department of Quantitative Social Science - Institute of Education, University of London in its series DoQSS Working Papers with number 11-03.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation: 01 Jun 2011
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:qss:dqsswp:1103

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Department of Quantitative Social Science. 20 Bedford Way London WC1H 0AL
Phone: (44) (0)20 7612 6654. Eliminate (44) and add (0) if calling from inside the UK. Add (44) and eliminate (0) if calling from abroad.
Fax: (44) (0)20 7612 6686
Web page: http://www.ioe.ac.uk/research/departments/qss/35445.html
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: Gender bias; educational expenditure; Engel curve; Hurdle model; India;

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Monazza Aslam & Geeta Kingdon, 2005. "Gender and Household Education Expenditure in Pakistan," Economics Series Working Papers GPRG-WPS-025, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
  2. McMahon, Walter W., 2002. "Education and Development: Measuring the Social Benefits," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199250721, September.
  3. Geeta Gandhi Kingdon, 2007. "The progress of school education in India," Economics Series Working Papers GPRG-WPS-071, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
  4. Dreze, Jean & Kingdon, Geeta Gandhi, 2001. "School Participation in Rural India," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 5(1), pages 1-24, February.
  5. Deaton, A. & Paxson, C., 1997. "Economies of Scale, Household Size, and the Demand for Food," Papers 178, Princeton, Woodrow Wilson School - Development Studies.
  6. Geeta Gandhi Kingdon, 1998. "Does the labour market explain lower female schooling in India?," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(1), pages 39-65.
  7. Geoffrey Lancaster & Pushkar Maitra & Ranjan Ray, 2008. "Household Expenditure Patterns and Gender Bias: Evidence from Selected Indian States," Oxford Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(2), pages 133-157.
  8. Deaton, Angus S, 1989. "Looking for Boy-Girl Discrimination in Household Expenditure Data," World Bank Economic Review, World Bank Group, vol. 3(1), pages 1-15, January.
  9. Abu-Ghaida, Dina & Klasen, Stephan, 2004. "The Costs of Missing the Millennium Development Goal on Gender Equity," IZA Discussion Papers 1031, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
  10. Rozana Himaz, 2010. "Intrahousehold Allocation of Education Expenditure: The Case of Sri Lanka," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 58(2), pages 231-258, 01.
  11. Nancy Birdsall & David Ross & Richard Sabot, 1993. "Underinvestment in Education: How Much Growth has Pakistan Foregone?," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 32(4), pages 453-499.
  12. Christopher Colclough & Geeta Kingdon & Harry Patrinos, 2010. "The Changing Pattern of Wage Returns to Education and its Implications," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 28(6), pages 733-747, November.
  13. Kingdon, Geeta Gandhi, 2005. "Where Has All the Bias Gone? Detecting Gender Bias in the Intrahousehold Allocation of Educational Expenditure," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 53(2), pages 409-51, January.
  14. Monazza Aslam, 2009. "The relative effectiveness of government and private schools in Pakistan: are girls worse off?," Education Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(3), pages 329-354.
  15. Paul Schultz, T., 2002. "Why Governments Should Invest More to Educate Girls," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 207-225, February.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. Stephan Klasen & Janneke Pieters, 2013. "What explains the stagnation of female labor force participation in urban India?," Courant Research Centre: Poverty, Equity and Growth - Discussion Papers 146, Courant Research Centre PEG.
  2. Maurice CATIN & Mohamed HAZEM, 2012. "Les Disparités De Taux D’Alphabétisation Selon Les Genres Dans Les Délégations Tunisiennes : Une Approche Par L’Économétrie Spatiale," Region et Developpement, Region et Developpement, LEAD, Universite du Sud - Toulon Var, vol. 35, pages 177-193.
  3. Zimmermann, Laura, 2012. "Remember When It Rained: The Elusiveness of Gender Discrimination in Indian School Enrollment," IZA Discussion Papers 6833, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
  4. Dercon, Stefan & Singh, Abhijeet, 2013. "From Nutrition to Aspirations and Self-Efficacy: Gender Bias over Time among Children in Four Countries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 31-50.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:qss:dqsswp:1103. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Lindsey Macmillan).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.