IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/deveco/v163y2023ics0304387823000470.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sanitation and marriage markets in India: Evidence from the Total Sanitation Campaign

Author

Listed:
  • Augsburg, Britta
  • Baquero, Juan P.
  • Gautam, Sanghmitra
  • Rodriguez-Lesmes, Paul

Abstract

This paper measures the additional value of sanitation within the marriage arrangement. We use data from the Indian human development household survey (IHDS) to model the marital decisions of men and women in rural India and to estimate the marital surplus (the gains from being married). We use the model to demonstrate that the government’s Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC) increased marital surplus and changed marriage market outcomes for men and women. Decomposition reveals (i) that sanitation makes it more attractive to be in a marriage for both gender, and (ii) that TSC exposure led to a decrease in the wife’s surplus share, implying a redistribution of gains within the marriage.

Suggested Citation

  • Augsburg, Britta & Baquero, Juan P. & Gautam, Sanghmitra & Rodriguez-Lesmes, Paul, 2023. "Sanitation and marriage markets in India: Evidence from the Total Sanitation Campaign," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:deveco:v:163:y:2023:i:c:s0304387823000470
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jdeveco.2023.103092
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304387823000470
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2023.103092?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Abramovsky, Laura & Augsburg, Britta & Lührmann, Melanie & Oteiza, Francisco & Rud, Juan Pablo, 2023. "Community matters: Heterogeneous impacts of a sanitation intervention," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
    2. Rao, Vijayendra, 1993. "The Rising Price of Husbands: A Hedonic Analysis of Dowry Increases in Rural India," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 101(4), pages 666-677, August.
    3. Adams-Prassl, Abigail & Andrew, Alison, 2019. "Preferences and Beliefs in the Marriage Market for Young Brides," CEPR Discussion Papers 13567, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    4. Attanasio, Orazio P. & Kaufmann, Katja M., 2017. "Education choices and returns on the labor and marriage markets: Evidence from data on subjective expectations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 35-55.
    5. Maristella Botticini & Aloysius Siow, 2003. "Why Dowries?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(4), pages 1385-1398, September.
    6. Iyigun, Murat & Walsh, Randall P., 2007. "Endogenous gender power, household labor supply and the demographic transition," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 138-155, January.
    7. Pierre-André Chiappori & Monica Costa Dias & Costas Meghir, 2018. "The Marriage Market, Labor Supply, and Education Choice," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 126(S1), pages 26-72.
    8. Kerwin Kofi Charles & Ming Ching Luoh, 2010. "Male Incarceration, the Marriage Market, and Female Outcomes," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 92(3), pages 614-627, August.
    9. Pierre-André Chiappori & Murat Iyigun & Yoram Weiss, 2009. "Investment in Schooling and the Marriage Market," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(5), pages 1689-1713, December.
    10. Jeremy Greenwood & Nezih Guner & Georgi Kocharkov & Cezar Santos, 2016. "Technology and the Changing Family: A Unified Model of Marriage, Divorce, Educational Attainment, and Married Female Labor-Force Participation," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 1-41, January.
    11. Pierre-André Chiappori & Sonia Oreffice & Climent Quintana-Domeque, 2012. "Fatter Attraction: Anthropometric and Socioeconomic Matching on the Marriage Market," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 120(4), pages 659-695.
    12. Grant Miller & A. Mushfiq Mobarak, 2013. "Gender Differences in Preferences, Intra-Household Externalities, and Low Demand for Improved Cookstoves," NBER Working Papers 18964, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Josh Angrist, 2002. "How Do Sex Ratios Affect Marriage and Labor Markets? Evidence from America's Second Generation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 117(3), pages 997-1038.
    14. Pierre-André Chiappori & Bernard Salanié & Yoram Weiss, 2017. "Partner Choice, Investment in Children, and the Marital College Premium," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(8), pages 2109-2167, August.
    15. Gunter J. Hitsch & Ali Hortaçsu & Dan Ariely, 2010. "Matching and Sorting in Online Dating," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(1), pages 130-163, March.
    16. Zuin, Valentina & Delaire, Caroline & Peletz, Rachel & Cock-Esteb, Alicea & Khush, Ranjiv & Albert, Jeff, 2019. "Policy Diffusion in the Rural Sanitation Sector: Lessons from Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS)," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 1-1.
    17. Alaka Malwade Basu, 1999. "Fertility Decline and Increasing Gender Imbalance in India, Including a Possible South Indian Turnaround," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 30(2), pages 237-263, April.
    18. Dean Spears & Sneha Lamba, 2016. "Effects of Early-Life Exposure to Sanitation on Childhood Cognitive Skills: Evidence from India’s Total Sanitation Campaign," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 51(2), pages 298-327.
    19. Orgill-Meyer, Jennifer & Pattanayak, Subhrendu K., 2020. "Improved sanitation increases long-term cognitive test scores," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    20. Timo Hener & Tanya Wilson, 2018. "Marital Age Gaps and Educational Homogamy – Evidence from a Compulsory Schooling Reform in the UK," ifo Working Paper Series 256, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    21. Stopnitzky, Yaniv, 2012. "The Bargaining Power of Missing Women: Evidence from a Sanitation Campaign in India," MPRA Paper 37841, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    22. Manuela Angelucci & Daniel Bennett, 2021. "Adverse Selection in the Marriage Market: HIV Testing and Marriage in Rural Malawi [Marrying Up: The Role of Sex Ratio in Assortative Matching]," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 88(5), pages 2119-2148.
    23. Hammer, Jeffrey & Spears, Dean, 2016. "Village sanitation and child health: Effects and external validity in a randomized field experiment in rural India," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 135-148.
    24. Abhijit Banerjee & Esther Duflo & Maitreesh Ghatak & Jeanne Lafortune, 2013. "Marry for What? Caste and Mate Selection in Modern India," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 5(2), pages 33-72, May.
    25. Jeanne Lafortune, 2013. "Making Yourself Attractive: Pre-marital Investments and the Returns to Education in the Marriage Market," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 5(2), pages 151-178, April.
    26. Ran Abramitzky & Adeline Delavande & Luis Vasconcelos, 2011. "Marrying Up: The Role of Sex Ratio in Assortative Matching," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 3(3), pages 124-157, July.
    27. Imran Rasul, 2006. "Marriage Markets and Divorce Laws," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 22(1), pages 30-69, April.
    28. Eugene Choo & Aloysius Siow, 2006. "Who Marries Whom and Why," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 114(1), pages 175-201, February.
    29. Monica Das Gupta & Jiang Zhenghua & Li Bohua & Xie Zhenming & Woojin Chung & Bae Hwa-Ok, 2003. "Why is Son preference so persistent in East and South Asia? a cross-country study of China, India and the Republic of Korea," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(2), pages 153-187.
    30. Amy J. Pickering & Habiba Djebbari & Carolina Lopez & Massa Coulibaly & Maria Laura Alzua, 2015. "Effect of a community-led sanitation intervention on child diarrhoea and child growth in rural Mali: a cluster-randomised controlled trial," Post-Print hal-01456117, HAL.
    31. Stopnitzky, Yaniv, 2017. "No toilet no bride? Intrahousehold bargaining in male-skewed marriage markets in India," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 269-282.
    32. Zovanga L Kone & Maggie Y Liu & Aaditya Mattoo & Caglar Ozden & Siddharth Sharma, 2018. "Internal borders and migration in India," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(4), pages 729-759.
    33. Pierre-André Chiappori & Bernard Salanié, 2016. "The Econometrics of Matching Models," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 54(3), pages 832-861, September.
    34. André, Pierre & Dupraz, Yannick, 2023. "Education and polygamy: Evidence from Cameroon," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    35. Bishnupriya Gupta, 2014. "Where have all the brides gone? Son preference and marriage in India over the twentieth century," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 67(1), pages 1-24, February.
    36. Pierre-André Chiappori, 2020. "The Theory and Empirics of the Marriage Market," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 12(1), pages 547-578, August.
    37. Alfred Galichon & Bernard Salani'e, 2021. "Cupid's Invisible Hand: Social Surplus and Identification in Matching Models," Papers 2106.02371, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2023.
    38. Abi Adams & Alison Andrew, 2019. "Preferences and beliefs in the marriage market for young brides," IFS Working Papers W19/05, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    39. Decker, Colin & Lieb, Elliott H. & McCann, Robert J. & Stephens, Benjamin K., 2013. "Unique equilibria and substitution effects in a stochastic model of the marriage market," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(2), pages 778-792.
    40. Raquel Fernández & Joyce Cheng Wong, 2017. "Free to Leave? A Welfare Analysis of Divorce Regimes," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 9(3), pages 72-115, July.
    41. Andres,Luis Alberto & Deb,Saubhik & Joseph,George & Larenas,Marna Isabel & Grabinsky Zabludovsky,Jonathan, 2020. "A Multiple-Arm, Cluster-Randomized Impact Evaluation of the Clean India (Swachh Bharat) Mission Program in Rural Punjab, India," Policy Research Working Paper Series 9249, The World Bank.
    42. Sonalde Desai & Lester Andrist, 2010. "Gender scripts and age at marriage in India," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 47(3), pages 667-687, August.
    43. Gautam, Sanghmitra, 2023. "Quantifying welfare effects in the presence of externalities: An ex-ante evaluation of sanitation interventions," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    44. Shelly Lundberg & Robert A. Pollak, 1996. "Bargaining and Distribution in Marriage," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 10(4), pages 139-158, Fall.
    45. Pencavel, John, 1998. "Assortative Mating by Schooling and the Work Behavior of Wives and Husbands," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(2), pages 326-329, May.
    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. Benjamin Goldman & Jamie Gracie & Sonya R. Porter, 2024. "Who Marries Whom? The Role of Segregation by Race and Class," Working Papers 24-30, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    2. Ran Abramitzky & Adeline Delavande & Luis Vasconcelos, 2011. "Marrying Up: The Role of Sex Ratio in Assortative Matching," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 3(3), pages 124-157, July.
    3. Hani Mansour & Terra McKinnish, 2018. "Same-occupation spouses: preferences or search costs?," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 31(4), pages 1005-1033, October.
    4. Anisha Sharma & Garima Rastogi, 2020. "Unwanted daughters: The impact of a ban on sex-selection on the educational attainment of women," Working Papers 37, Ashoka University, Department of Economics.
    5. Eva Raiber & Weiwei Ren & Jeanne Bovet & Paul Seabright & Charlotte Wang, 2023. "What Do Parents Want? Parental Spousal Preferences in China," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 71(3), pages 903-939.
    6. Nicola Barban & Elisabetta De Cao & Sonia Oreffice & Climent Quintana-Domeque, 2016. "Assortative Mating on Education: A Genetic Assessment," Working Papers 2016-034, Human Capital and Economic Opportunity Working Group.
    7. Adams-Prassl, Abigail & Andrew, Alison, 2019. "Preferences and Beliefs in the Marriage Market for Young Brides," CEPR Discussion Papers 13567, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    8. Abi Adams & Alison Andrew, 2019. "Preferences and beliefs in the marriage market for young brides," IFS Working Papers W19/05, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    9. Adda, Jérôme & Pinotti, Paolo & Tura, Giulia, 2020. "There's More to Marriage than Love: The Effect of Legal Status and Cultural Distance on Intermarriages and Separations," CEPR Discussion Papers 14432, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    10. Daiji Kawaguchi & Soohyung Lee, 2017. "Brides For Sale: Cross-Border Marriages And Female Immigration," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 55(2), pages 633-654, April.
    11. Hanzhe Zhang, 2021. "An Investment-and-Marriage Model with Differential Fecundity: On the College Gender Gap," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 129(5), pages 1464-1486.
    12. Abramovsky, Laura & Augsburg, Britta & Lührmann, Melanie & Oteiza, Francisco & Rud, Juan Pablo, 2023. "Community matters: Heterogeneous impacts of a sanitation intervention," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
    13. Qinyou Hu, 2024. "Social status and marriage markets: Evaluating a Hukou policy in China," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 477-509, June.
    14. Alberto Bisin & Giulia Tura, 2019. "Marriage, Fertility, and Cultural Integration of Immigrants in Italy," Working Papers 2019-063, Human Capital and Economic Opportunity Working Group.
    15. Quentin Lippmann & Khushboo Surana, 2022. "The Hierarchy of Partner Preferences," Discussion Papers 22/08, Department of Economics, University of York.
    16. Alberto Bisin & Giulia Tura, 2019. "Marriage, Fertility, and Cultural Integration in Italy," NBER Working Papers 26303, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Alfred Galichon & Simon Weber, 2024. "Matching under Imperfectly Transferable Utility," Papers 2403.05222, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2024.
    18. Marcassa, Stefania & Pouyet, Jérôme & Trégouët, Thomas, 2020. "Marriage strategy among the European nobility," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    19. Gavrilova, Evelina, 2019. "A partner in crime: Assortative matching and bias in the crime market," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 598-612.
    20. Rodríguez-González, Ana, 2021. "The Impact of the Female Advantage in Education on the Marriage Market," Working Papers 2021:5, Lund University, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Matching; Intra-household; Marriage markets; Sanitation; Sorting;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C78 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Bargaining Theory; Matching Theory
    • D13 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Household Production and Intrahouse Allocation
    • J12 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Marriage; Marital Dissolution; Family Structure
    • O18 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Urban, Rural, Regional, and Transportation Analysis; Housing; Infrastructure

    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:eee:deveco:v:163:y:2023:i:c:s0304387823000470. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/devec .

    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.