IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jesaex/v10y2024i1d10.1007_s40881-023-00148-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Private lives: experimental evidence on information completeness in spousal preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Anirudh Tagat

    (Monk Prayogshala)

  • Hansika Kapoor

    (Monk Prayogshala)

  • Savita Kulkarni

    (Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics)

Abstract

Experimental work using real married couples has shown that efficiency in intra-household allocations is influenced by information asymmetry between spouses. We conduct a lab-in-the-field experiment in rural India to test the extent to which lack of complete information on spousal preferences related to a bundle of private goods can affect allocation dynamics as well as expectations about allocations. We first show that there exist information asymmetries in spousal preferences, and that our information intervention helps reduce gendered misperception in beliefs about allocations and actual allocations, especially for men. However, information on spousal preferences does not significantly affect the final allocation decision, suggesting that husbands and wives may be responding to existing gender norms. We outline implications for experimental work on intra-household bargaining, and for policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Anirudh Tagat & Hansika Kapoor & Savita Kulkarni, 2024. "Private lives: experimental evidence on information completeness in spousal preferences," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(1), pages 62-75, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:jesaex:v:10:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s40881-023-00148-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s40881-023-00148-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40881-023-00148-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40881-023-00148-0?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 search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Uzma Afzal & Giovanna d'Adda & Marcel Fafchamps & Farah Said, 2022. "Intrahousehold Consumption Allocation and Demand for Agency: A Triple Experimental Investigation," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 400-444, July.
    2. Sumit Sarkar & Arundhati Sarkar Bose, 2018. "Partially Altruistic Choice in Presence of Consensus Bias," Journal of Quantitative Economics, Springer;The Indian Econometric Society (TIES), vol. 16(3), pages 853-861, September.
    3. M. Browning & P. A. Chiappori, 1998. "Efficient Intra-Household Allocations: A General Characterization and Empirical Tests," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(6), pages 1241-1278, November.
    4. Esther Duflo, 2003. "Grandmothers and Granddaughters: Old-Age Pensions and Intrahousehold Allocation in South Africa," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 17(1), pages 1-25, June.
    5. Matthias Doepke & Michèle Tertilt, 2019. "Does female empowerment promote economic development?," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 309-343, December.
    6. Munro, Alistair & Kebede, Bereket & Tarazona-Gomez, Marcela & Verschoor, Arjan, 2014. "Autonomy and efficiency. An experiment on household decisions in two regions of India," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 114-133.
    7. Augsburg, Britta & Malde, Bansi & Olorenshaw, Harriet & Wahhaj, Zaki, 2023. "To invest or not to invest in sanitation: The role of intra-household gender differences in perceptions and bargaining power," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    8. Hélène Couprie & Elisabeth Cudeville & Catherine Sofer, 2020. "Efficiency versus gender roles and stereotypes: an experiment in domestic production," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(1), pages 181-211, March.
    9. Kaushik Basu, 2006. "Gender and Say: a Model of Household Behaviour with Endogenously Determined Balance of Power," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 116(511), pages 558-580, April.
    10. Muthoo, Abhinay, 1992. "Revocable Commitment and Sequential Bargaining," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 102(411), pages 378-387, March.
    11. François Cochard & Hélène Couprie & Astrid Hopfensitz, 2016. "Do spouses cooperate? An experimental investigation," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 1-26, March.
    12. Hoel, Jessica B., 2015. "Heterogeneous households: A within-subject test of asymmetric information between spouses in Kenya," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 123-135.
    13. Fletschner, Diana & Mesbah, Dina, 2011. "Gender Disparity in Access to Information: Do Spouses Share What They Know?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 39(8), pages 1422-1433, August.
    14. Iversen, Vegard & Jackson, Cecile & Kebede, Bereket & Munro, Alistair & Verschoor, Arjan, 2011. "Do Spouses Realise Cooperative Gains? Experimental Evidence from Rural Uganda," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 569-578, April.
    15. Muthoo, Abhinay, 1996. "A Bargaining Model Based on the Commitment Tactic," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 134-152, April.
    16. Bram De Rock & Tom Potoms & Denni Tommasi, 2022. "Household Responses to Cash Transfers," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 70(2), pages 625-652.
    17. Nava Ashraf, 2009. "Spousal Control and Intra-household Decision Making: An Experimental Study in the Philippines," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(4), pages 1245-1277, September.
    18. François Cochard & Hélène Couprie & Astrid Hopfensitz, 2016. "Do spouses cooperate? An experimental investigation," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 1-26, March.
    19. Carolina Castilla & Thomas Walker, 2013. "Is Ignorance Bliss? The Effect of Asymmetric Information between Spouses on Intra-household Allocations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(3), pages 263-268, May.
    20. Castilla, Carolina, 2019. "What's yours is mine, and what's mine is mine: Field experiment on income concealing between spouses in India," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 125-140.
    21. Garret Ridinger & Michael McBride, 2015. "Money Affects Theory of Mind Differently by Gender," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-15, December.
    22. Mani, Anandi, 2011. "Mine, Yours or Ours? The Efficiency of Household Investment Decisions: An Experimental Approach," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 64, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    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. Savita Kulkarni & Anirudh Tagat & Hansika Kapoor, 2016. "An experimental investigation of intra-household resource allocation in rural India," Working Papers PIERI 2016-20, PEP-PIERI.
    2. Miriam Beblo & Denis Beninger, 2017. "Do husbands and wives pool their incomes? A couple experiment," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 779-805, September.
    3. Charlotte Ringdal & Ingrid Hoem Sjursen, 2021. "Household Bargaining and Spending on Children: Experimental Evidence from Tanzania," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 88(350), pages 430-455, April.
    4. Arjan Verschoor & Bereket Kebede & Alistair Munro & Marcela Tarazona, 2019. "Spousal Control and Efficiency of Intra-household Decision-Making: Experiments among Married Couples in India, Ethiopia and Nigeria," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 31(4), pages 1171-1196, September.
    5. Ambler, Kate & Jones, Kelly & Recalde, María P., 2024. "Experimental measures of intra-household resource control," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    6. Alistair Munro, 2018. "Intra†Household Experiments: A Survey," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 134-175, February.
    7. Uzma Afzal & Giovanna d'Adda & Marcel Fafchamps & Farah Said, 2016. "Gender and Agency within the Household: Experimental Evidence from Pakistan," Framed Field Experiments 00555, The Field Experiments Website.
    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. Bjorvatn, Kjetil & Getahun, Tigabu Degu & Halvorsen, Sandra Kristine, 2020. "Conflict or cooperation? Experimental evidence on intra-household allocations in Ethiopia," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    10. Castilla, Carolina, 2019. "What's yours is mine, and what's mine is mine: Field experiment on income concealing between spouses in India," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 125-140.
    11. Jean-Marie Baland & Roberta Ziparo, 2017. "Intra-household bargaining in poor countries," WIDER Working Paper Series 108, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    12. Sevias Guvuriro & Frederik Booysen, 2020. "Intra-household cooperation and inter-generational communication in the extended family: a field experiment in a poor urban community in Africa," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 635-653, September.
    13. Luise Görges, 2021. "Of housewives and feminists: Gender norms and intra-household division of labour," Working Paper Series in Economics 400, University of Lüneburg, Institute of Economics.
    14. Anderson, C. Leigh & Reynolds, Travis W. & Gugerty, Mary Kay, 2017. "Husband and Wife Perspectives on Farm Household Decision-making Authority and Evidence on Intra-household Accord in Rural Tanzania," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 169-183.
    15. Ringdal, Charlotte & Sjursen, Ingrid Hoem, 2017. "Household bargaining and spending on children: Experimental evidence from Tanzania," Discussion Paper Series in Economics 19/2017, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Economics.
    16. Abbink, Klaus & Islam, Asad & Nguyen, Chau, 2020. "Whose voice matters? An experimental examination of gender bias in intra-household decision-making," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 337-352.
    17. Donni, Olivier & Molina, José Alberto, 2018. "Household Collective Models: Three Decades of Theoretical Contributions and Empirical Evidence," IZA Discussion Papers 11915, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    18. Hoel, Jessica B., 2015. "Heterogeneous households: A within-subject test of asymmetric information between spouses in Kenya," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 123-135.
    19. François Cochard & Hélène Couprie & Astrid Hopfensitz, 2018. "What if women earned more than their spouses? An experimental investigation of work-division in couples," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(1), pages 50-71, March.
    20. Jean-Marie Baland & Roberta Ziparo, 2017. "Intra-household bargaining in poor countries," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2017-108, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Information asymmetry; Beliefs; Intra-household bargaining; India;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D13 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Household Production and Intrahouse Allocation
    • D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments

    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:spr:jesaex:v:10:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s40881-023-00148-0. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.