IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sza/wpaper/wpapers289.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The effect of old age pensions on child deprivation: revisiting the role of gender

Author

Listed:
  • Chloé van Biljon

    (Research on Socio-Economic Policy, Department of Economics, Stellenbosch University)

Abstract

Existing work suggests that the South African state old age pension, through, increasing female decision-making, has a positive impact on the well being of children. This study investigates this concept in two parts. Part 1 aims to answer the question of whether the old age pension has a different impact on child depravation depending on the gender of the pension recipient. Part 2 investigates whether the old age pension influences household decision-making dynamics. Using all four waves of the national income dynamics study, identification comes from comparing each individual before and after receiving a pension. This study finds some evidence of a gender bias by both male and female pension recipients; females favour girls while males favour boys. The effect of the state old age pension on child deprivation (as measured by weight for height) is however not found to be robust to different model specifications. This paper exploits the effect of income on bargaining power to explain the effect of pensions on the relative decision making power within a household. We find evidence of shifts in the decision-making dynamics with pension receipt. These shifts are greater when the pension recipient is female. The results indicate that resources held by grandmothers enable woman within the household to be primary decision makers. We conclude that the reason we see a differential effect on child outcomes depending on the gender of the pension recipient is because of a change in household decision-making dynamics. The gains in decision-making power of females, caused by the pensions, lead to lower child deprivation rates. The evidence indicates that although the state old age pension is meant for the elderly it has important implications for child deprivation. Some light is shed on the mechanism through which the pension results in positive impacts for children – by increasing the decision making power of women. The evidence supports the hypothesis that resource control matters for intra-household allocation.

Suggested Citation

  • Chloé van Biljon, 2017. "The effect of old age pensions on child deprivation: revisiting the role of gender," Working Papers 13/2017, Stellenbosch University, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:sza:wpaper:wpapers289
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ekon.sun.ac.za/wpapers/2017/wp132017/wp132017.1.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2017
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Becker, Gary S, 1974. "A Theory of Social Interactions," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 82(6), pages 1063-1093, Nov.-Dec..
    2. Anne Case, 2004. "Does Money Protect Health Status? Evidence from South African Pensions," NBER Chapters, in: Perspectives on the Economics of Aging, pages 287-312, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Edmonds, Eric V., 2006. "Child labor and schooling responses to anticipated income in South Africa," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 386-414, December.
    4. Esther Duflo, 2000. "Child Health and Household Resources in South Africa: Evidence from the Old Age Pension Program," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(2), pages 393-398, May.
    5. Ashraf, Nava & Karlan, Dean & Yin, Wesley, 2010. "Female Empowerment: Impact of a Commitment Savings Product in the Philippines," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 333-344, March.
    6. Marisa Coetzee, 2013. "Finding the Benefits: Estimating the Impact of The South African Child Support Grant," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 81(3), pages 427-450, September.
    7. Majlesi, Kaveh, 2016. "Labor market opportunities and women's decision making power within households," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 34-47.
    8. Chiappori, Pierre-Andre, 1988. "Rational Household Labor Supply," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 56(1), pages 63-90, January.
    9. Anderson, Siwan & Eswaran, Mukesh, 2009. "What determines female autonomy? Evidence from Bangladesh," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(2), pages 179-191, November.
    10. Abhijit Banerjee & Esther Duflo & Rachel Glennerster & Cynthia Kinnan, 2015. "The Miracle of Microfinance? Evidence from a Randomized Evaluation," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 7(1), pages 22-53, January.
    11. Shelly J. Lundberg & Robert A. Pollak & Terence J. Wales, 1997. "Do Husbands and Wives Pool Their Resources? Evidence from the United Kingdom Child Benefit," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 32(3), pages 463-480.
    12. Chiappori, Pierre-Andre, 1992. "Collective Labor Supply and Welfare," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 100(3), pages 437-467, June.
    13. Kate Ambler, 2016. "Bargaining with Grandma: The Impact of the South African Pension on Household Decision-Making," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 51(4), pages 900-932.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Inés Berniell & Dolores de la Mata & Matilde Pinto Machado, 2020. "The Impact of a Permanent Income Shock on the Situation of Women in the Household: The Case of a Pension Reform in Argentina," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 68(4), pages 1295-1343.
    2. Kate Ambler & Alan de Brauw & Susan Godlonton, 2019. "Lump-sum Transfers for Agriculture and Household Decision Making," Department of Economics Working Papers 2019-19, Department of Economics, Williams College.
    3. Malghan, Deepak & Swaminathan, Hema, 2021. "Global trends in intra-household gender inequality," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 515-546.
    4. Klein, Matthew J. & Barham, Bradford L., 2018. "Point Estimates of Household Bargaining Power Using Outside Options," Staff Paper Series 590, University of Wisconsin, Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    5. Alidou, Sahawal & Verpoorten, Marijke, 2019. "Only women can whisper to gods: Voodoo, menopause and women’s autonomy," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 40-54.
    6. Bergolo, Marcelo & Galván, Estefanía, 2018. "Intra-household Behavioral Responses to Cash Transfer Programs. Evidence from a Regression Discontinuity Design," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 100-118.
    7. André de Palma & Nathalie Picard & Ignacio Inoa, 2014. "Discrete choice decision-making with multiple decision-makers within the household," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 16, pages 363-382, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Matthias Doepke & Michèle Tertilt, 2019. "Does female empowerment promote economic development?," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 309-343, December.
    9. Dubois, Pierre & Ligon, Ethan, 2009. "Nutrition and Risk Sharing Within the Household," CEPR Discussion Papers 7574, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    10. Chiappori, Pierre-André & Donni, Olivier, 2009. "Non-unitary Models of Household Behavior: A Survey of the Literature," IZA Discussion Papers 4603, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    11. Evans, Mary F. & Poulos, Christine & Kerry Smith, V., 2011. "Who counts in evaluating the effects of air pollution policies on households? Non-market valuation in the presence of dependencies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 65-79, July.
    12. Maria Porter, 2016. "Effects of microcredit and other loans on female empowerment in Bangladesh: the borrower's gender influences intra-household resource allocation," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 47(2), pages 235-245, March.
    13. Werner Güth & Radosveta Ivanova‐Stenzel & Sigve Tjotta, 2004. "Please, Marry Me! An Experimental Study of Risking a Joint Venture," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(1), pages 1-21, February.
    14. Brett, Craig, 1998. "Tax reform and collective family decision-making," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 425-440, December.
    15. Smith, V. Kerry & Van Houtven, George, 1998. "Non-Market Valuation and the Household," RFF Working Paper Series dp-98-31, Resources for the Future.
    16. Stephanie Lluis & Yazhuo (Annie) Pan, 2018. "Marital Property Laws and Women’s Labour Supply," Working Papers 1809, University of Waterloo, Department of Economics, revised 12 Nov 2018.
    17. Robert Pollak, 2003. "Gary Becker's Contributions to Family and Household Economics," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 111-141, January.
    18. Panayiota Lyssiotou, 2017. "The impact of targeting policy on spouses’ demand for public goods, labor supplies and sharing rule," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 853-878, September.
    19. Jaime Andres Sarmiento Espinel, 2012. "Children and non-participation in a model of collective household labor supply," Serie documentos de trabajo del Centro de Estudios Económicos 2012-14, El Colegio de México, Centro de Estudios Económicos.
    20. Molina, José Alberto & Gimenez-Nadal, José Ignacio & Velilla, Jorge, 2018. "Intertemporal Labor Supply: A Household Collective Approach," IZA Discussion Papers 11276, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Female autonomy; Household decision-making; Child nutrition; Public pensions; South Africa;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J16 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Economics of Gender; Non-labor Discrimination
    • C21 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Cross-Sectional Models; Spatial Models; Treatment Effect Models
    • D13 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Household Production and Intrahouse Allocation
    • H57 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - Procurement

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sza:wpaper:wpapers289. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Melt van Schoor (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/desunza.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.