IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/femeco/v5y1999i2p61-78.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patriarchal Monopoly and Economic Development

Author

Listed:
  • Dipankar Purkayastha

Abstract

On the basis of a simple stylized neoclassical model, this paper attempts to define the concept of intra-household rent-seeking behavior. The intra-household rent is determined within the intra-household market for "patriarchal goods." The paper shows that inefficient rent-seeking behavior can explain marginalization of women as economic growth increases men's real income. The model may be used to understand why women's household work may have a lower perceived value in some households.

Suggested Citation

  • Dipankar Purkayastha, 1999. "Patriarchal Monopoly and Economic Development," Feminist Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(2), pages 61-78.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:femeco:v:5:y:1999:i:2:p:61-78
    DOI: 10.1080/135457099337941
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/135457099337941
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/135457099337941?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. Peter Kooreman & Arie Kapteyn, 1990. "On the Empirical Implementation of Some Game Theoretic Models of Household Labor Supply," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 25(4), pages 584-598.
    2. Haddad, Lawrence & Hoddinott, John & Alderman, Harold & DEC, 1994. "Intrahousehold resource allocation : an overview," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1255, The World Bank.
    3. Gronau, Reuben, 1977. "Leisure, Home Production, and Work-The Theory of the Allocation of Time Revisited," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 85(6), pages 1099-1123, December.
    4. Eric J. Solberg & David C. Wong, 1992. "Family Time Use: Leisure, Home Production, Market Work, and Work Related Travel," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 27(3), pages 485-510.
    5. Manser, Marilyn & Brown, Murray, 1980. "Marriage and Household Decision-Making: A Bargaining Analysis," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 21(1), pages 31-44, February.
    6. Haddad, Lawrence & Kanbur, Ravi, 1990. "How Serious Is the Neglect of Intra-Household Inequality?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 100(402), pages 866-881, September.
    7. Lundberg, Shelly & Pollak, Robert A, 1993. "Separate Spheres Bargaining and the Marriage Market," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 101(6), pages 988-1010, December.
    8. Chiappori, Pierre-Andre & Haddad, Lawrence & Hoddinott, John & Kanbur, Ravi, 1993. "Unitary versus collective models of the household : time to shift theburden of proof?," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1217, The World Bank.
    9. Kanbur, Ravi & Haddad, Lawrence, 1994. "Are Better Off Households More Unequal or Less Unequal?," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 46(3), pages 445-458, July.
    10. Elizabeth Katz, 1997. "The Intra-Household Economics of Voice and Exit," Feminist Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(3), pages 25-46.
    11. R. Melvin, James & Warne, Robert D., 1973. "Monopoly and the theory of international trade," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(2), pages 117-134, May.
    12. Lee Lillard & Linda Waite, 1993. "A joint model of marital childbearing and marital disruption," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 30(4), pages 653-681, November.
    13. Marjorie B. McElroy, 1990. "The Empirical Content of Nash-Bargained Household Behavior," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 25(4), pages 559-583.
    14. Amartya Sen, 1987. "Africa and India: What Do We Have to Learn from Each Other?," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-1987-019, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    15. Lantican, Clarita P & Gladwin, Christina H & Seale, James L, Jr, 1996. "Income and Gender Inequalities in Asia: Testing Alternative Theories of Development," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(2), pages 235-263, January.
    16. Folbre, Nancy R, 1984. "Market Opportunities, Genetic Endowments, and Intrafamily Resource Distribution: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(3), pages 518-520, June.
    17. Chatterjee, Meera, 1990. "Indian women, health, and productivity," Policy Research Working Paper Series 442, The World Bank.
    18. Vousden,Neil, 1990. "The Economics of Trade Protection," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521346696.
    19. Jane H. Leuthold, 1968. "An Empirical Study of Formula Income Transfers and the Work Decision of the Poor," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 3(3), pages 312-323.
    20. Bina Agarwal, 1997. "''Bargaining'' and Gender Relations: Within and Beyond the Household," Feminist Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(1), pages 1-51.
    21. McElroy, Marjorie B & Horney, Mary Jean, 1981. "Nash-Bargained Household Decisions: Toward a Generalization of the Theory of Demand," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 22(2), pages 333-349, June.
    22. 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.
    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. Olivier Bargain & Miriam Beblo & Denis Beninger & Richard Blundell & Raquel Carrasco & Maria-Concetta Chiuri & François Laisney & Valérie Lechene & Nicolas Moreau & Michal Myck & Javier Ruiz-Castillo , 2006. "Does the Representation of Household Behavior Matter for Welfare Analysis of Tax-benefit Policies? An Introduction," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 4(2), pages 99-111, June.
    2. 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).
    3. Chiappori, Pierre-André & Donni, Olivier, 2006. "Les modèles non unitaires de comportement du ménage : un survol de la littérature," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 82(1), pages 9-52, mars-juin.
    4. Fafchamps, Marcel, 1998. "Efficiency in intrahousehold resource allocation," FCND discussion papers 55, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    5. Jara-Díaz, Sergio & Rosales-Salas, Jorge, 2017. "Beyond transport time: A review of time use modeling," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 209-230.
    6. Katharina Mader & Alyssa Schneebaum, 2013. "Zur geschlechtsspezifischen Intrahaushaltsverteilung von Entscheidungsmacht in Europa," Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft - WuG, Kammer für Arbeiter und Angestellte für Wien, Abteilung Wirtschaftswissenschaft und Statistik, vol. 39(3), pages 361-403.
    7. 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.
    8. Bargain, Olivier & Moreau, Nicolas, 2005. "Cooperative Models in Action: Simulation of a Nash-Bargaining Model of Household Labor Supply with Taxation," IZA Discussion Papers 1480, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    9. repec:clr:wugarc:y:2013:v:39i:3p:361 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Jaime Andrés Sarmiento Espinel, 2012. "Parental investment in their children’s education," Serie documentos de trabajo del Centro de Estudios Económicos 2012-09, El Colegio de México, Centro de Estudios Económicos.
    11. Adam, Christopher & Hoddinott, John & Ligon, Ethan A., 2011. "Dynamic intrahousehold bargaining, matrimonial property law and suicide in Canada," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt4dm5w8v1, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    12. Malapit, Hazel Jean L., 2012. "Why do spouses hide income?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(5), pages 584-593.
    13. Xu, Zeyu, 2007. "A survey on intra-household models and evidence," MPRA Paper 3763, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Hina Nazli & Shahnaz Hamid, 1999. "Concerns of Food Security, Role of Gender and Intra-household Dynamics in Pakistan," PIDE Research Report 1999:3, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics.
    15. M. Fafchamps & A. R. Quisumbing, 2002. "Control and Ownership of Assets Within Rural Ethiopian Households," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(6), pages 47-82.
    16. Olivier Bargain & Nicolas Moreau, 2013. "The Impact of Tax-Benefit Reforms on Labor Supply in a Simulated Nash-bargaining Framework," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 77-86, March.
    17. Michael Bittman & Paula England & Nancy Folbre & George Matheson, 2001. "When Gender Trumps Money: Bargaining and Time in Household Work," JCPR Working Papers 221, Northwestern University/University of Chicago Joint Center for Poverty Research.
    18. GholamReza Haddad, 2015. "Gender ratio, divorce rate, and intra-household collective decision process: evidence from iranian urban households labor supply with non-participation," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 48(4), pages 1365-1394, June.
    19. Martin Browning & Valérie Lechene, 2001. "Caring and Sharing: Tests Between Alternative Models of Intra-household Allocation," Discussion Papers 01-07, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics.
    20. Therese Jefferson & John King, 2001. ""Never Intended to be a Theory Of Everything": Domestic Labor in Neoclassical and Marxian Economics," Feminist Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(3), pages 71-101.
    21. Holvoet, Nathalie, 2003. "Household matters: on the usefulness of an institutional approach for understanding intrahousehold allocation," IOB Discussion Papers 2003.03, Universiteit Antwerpen, Institute of Development Policy (IOB).

    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:taf:femeco:v:5:y:1999:i:2:p:61-78. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RFEC20 .

    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.