IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea16/236280.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Intrahousehold valuation, preference heterogeneity, and demand of an agricultural technology in Bihar, India

Author

Listed:
  • Gulati, Kajal
  • Ward, Patrick
  • Lybbert, Travis
  • Spielman, David

Abstract

Measuring intrahousehold preferences for the production activities of the household is challenging as the decisions are made jointly and it is often not possible to switch spheres of influence within a household. An example of a situation where divergent preferences may exist amongst household members even though household constraints masks the household decision is that of rice transplanting in India. In many parts of India, manual rice transplanting in puddled conditions tends to be a task primarily reserved for women, and is highly labor-intensive and arduous. Quite recently, mechanical rice transplanters (MRT), which are a labor-saving production technology, are being promoted in rice-producing areas in the country. We elicit intrahousehold heterogeneity in preferences for mechanical rice transplanting by combining hypothetical and experimental elicitation mechanisms. After informing randomly selected agricultural households about mechanical rice transplanting, we elicited attribute-based non-monetary preferences and monetary hypothetical willingness to pay measures for mechanical and traditional transplanting for women and men in the same household from a sample of 965 households in Bihar, India. Soon after, we conducted village-level, incentive-compatible auctions for providing actual mechanical rice transplanting services, which allowed us to elicit experimental measures of household heads’ willingness to pay. Our study finds evidence of deviations from hypothetical to experimental valuations. However, most individuals did not change their pure preferences for the technology and instead refined their willingness to pay. Knowing the technology service provider during the auctions reduced the difference between hypothetical and individual valuations. Bargaining power of female household members did not play any role in shifting the willingness to pay measures. Women in households where only family labor is used for transplanting value MRTs higher than men by Rs. 162.69, which is driven by their preferences instead of a difference in their individual characteristics.

Suggested Citation

  • Gulati, Kajal & Ward, Patrick & Lybbert, Travis & Spielman, David, 2016. "Intrahousehold valuation, preference heterogeneity, and demand of an agricultural technology in Bihar, India," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 236280, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea16:236280
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.236280
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/236280/files/AAEA%20-%20MRT%20in%20Bihar.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.236280?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Duflo, Esther & Udry, Christopher R., 2003. "Intrahousehold Resource Allocation in Cote D'Ivoire: Social Norms, Separate Accounts and Consumption Choices," Center Discussion Papers 28404, Yale University, Economic Growth Center.
    3. Gary S. Becker, 1981. "A Treatise on the Family," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number beck81-1, March.
    4. Jacquemet, Nicolas & Joule, Robert-Vincent & Luchini, Stéphane & Shogren, Jason F., 2013. "Preference elicitation under oath," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 110-132.
    5. Jayson L. Lusk, 2003. "Effects of Cheap Talk on Consumer Willingness-to-Pay for Golden Rice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(4), pages 840-856.
    6. Duncan Thomas, 1990. "Intra-Household Resource Allocation: An Inferential Approach," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 25(4), pages 635-664.
    7. John G. McPeak & Cheryl R. Doss, 2006. "Are Household Production Decisions Cooperative? Evidence on Pastoral Migration and Milk Sales from Northern Kenya," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(3), pages 525-541.
    8. Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June.
    9. John A. Fox & Jason F. Shogren & Dermot J. Hayes & James B. Kliebenstein, 1998. "CVM-X: Calibrating Contingent Values with Experimental Auction Markets," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(3), pages 455-465.
    10. Norwood, F. Bailey & Lusk, Jayson L., 2011. "A calibrated auction-conjoint valuation method: Valuing pork and eggs produced under differing animal welfare conditions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 80-94, July.
    11. Fortin, Nicole & Lemieux, Thomas & Firpo, Sergio, 2011. "Decomposition Methods in Economics," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 1, pages 1-102, Elsevier.
    12. Oaxaca, Ronald, 1973. "Male-Female Wage Differentials in Urban Labor Markets," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 14(3), pages 693-709, October.
    13. Jason Shogren, 2006. "Valuation in the Lab," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 34(1), pages 163-172, May.
    14. Jayson L. Lusk & Ted C. Schroeder, 2004. "Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 467-482.
    15. Kosec, Katrina & Hameed, Madeeha & Hausladen, Stephanie, 2012. "Aspirations in rural Pakistan: An empirical analysis," PSSP working papers 9, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. Champ, Patricia A. & Bishop, Richard C. & Brown, Thomas C. & McCollum, Daniel W., 1997. "Using Donation Mechanisms to Value Nonuse Benefits from Public Goods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 151-162, June.
    19. Feder, Gershon & Just, Richard E & Zilberman, David, 1985. "Adoption of Agricultural Innovations in Developing Countries: A Survey," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 33(2), pages 255-298, January.
    20. Frode Alfnes & Kyrre Rickertsen, 2003. "European Consumers' Willingness to Pay for U.S. Beef in Experimental Auction Markets," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(2), pages 396-405.
    21. Chiappori, Pierre-Andre, 1992. "Collective Labor Supply and Welfare," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 100(3), pages 437-467, June.
    22. Pascaline Dupas, 2014. "Short‐Run Subsidies and Long‐Run Adoption of New Health Products: Evidence From a Field Experiment," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82(1), pages 197-228, January.
    23. Christopher R. Gustafson & Travis J. Lybbert & Daniel A. Sumner, 2016. "Consumer sorting and hedonic valuation of wine attributes: exploiting data from a field experiment," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 47(1), pages 91-103, January.
    24. Nerlove, Marc, 1995. "Hedonic price functions and the measurement of preferences: The case of Swedish wine consumers," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 39(9), pages 1697-1716, December.
    25. Loomis, John B., 2014. "2013 WAEA Keynote Address: Strategies for Overcoming Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Surveys," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 39(1), pages 1-13, April.
    26. Lybbert, Travis J. & Magnan, Nicholas & Spielman, David J. & Bhargava, Anil K. & Gulati, Kajal, 2013. "Targeting technology to reduce poverty and conserve resources: Experimental delivery of laser land leveling to farmers in Uttar Pradesh, India:," IFPRI discussion papers 1274, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    27. Amartya Sen, 1987. "Gender and Cooperative Conflicts," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-1987-018, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    28. Becker, Gary S, 1973. "A Theory of Marriage: Part I," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 81(4), pages 813-846, July-Aug..
    29. Thomas, Duncan & Contreras, Dante & Frankerberg, Elizabeth, 2002. "Distribution of power within the household and child health," MPRA Paper 80075, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised Mar 2002.
    30. David Aadland & Arthur J. Caplan, 2003. "Willingness to Pay for Curbside Recycling with Detection and Mitigation of Hypothetical Bias," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(2), pages 492-502.
    31. Smith, Lisa C. & Ramakrishnan, Usha & Ndiaye, Aida & Haddad, Lawrence James & Martorell, Reynaldo, 2003. "The importance of women's status for child nutrition in developing countries:," Research reports 131, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    32. 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.
    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. Matthias Doepke & Michèle Tertilt, 2019. "Does female empowerment promote economic development?," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 309-343, December.
    2. Rubalcava, L. & Thomas, D., 2000. "Family Bargaining and Welfare," Papers 00-10, RAND - Labor and Population Program.
    3. 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.
    4. Robert A. Pollak, 2016. "Marriage Market Equilibrium," NBER Working Papers 22309, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Laurens CHERCHYE & Thomas DEMUYNCK & Bram DE ROCK, 2010. "Noncooperative household consumption with caring," Working Papers of Department of Economics, Leuven ces10.34, KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB), Department of Economics, Leuven.
    6. Agnes R. Quisumbing & John A. Maluccio, 2003. "Resources at Marriage and Intrahousehold Allocation: Evidence from Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Indonesia, and South Africa," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 65(3), pages 283-327, July.
    7. Levin, Mark (Левин, Марк) & Matrosova, Ksenia (Матросова, Ксения), 2018. "Development and Research of Economic Behavior of Households in Changing Conditions [Разработка И Исследование Экономического Поведения Домохозяйств В Изменяющихся Условиях]," Working Papers 041825, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration.
    8. Wang, Shing-Yi, 2014. "Property rights and intra-household bargaining," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 192-201.
    9. Akresh, Richard, 2005. "Understanding Pareto Inefficient Intrahousehold Allocations," IZA Discussion Papers 1858, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    10. Hofstetter, Reto & Miller, Klaus M. & Krohmer, Harley & Zhang, Z. John, 2021. "A de-biased direct question approach to measuring consumers' willingness to pay," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 70-84.
    11. Robert A. Pollak, 2019. "How Bargaining in Marriage Drives Marriage Market Equilibrium," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 37(1), pages 297-321.
    12. Shelly Lundberg & Aloysius Siow, 2017. "Canadian contributions to family economics," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(5), pages 1304-1323, December.
    13. Marcos A. Rangel & Duncan Thomas, 2019. "Decision-Making in Complex Households," Working Papers 2019-070, Human Capital and Economic Opportunity Working Group.
    14. Arthur-Holmes, Francis & Abrefa Busia, Kwaku, 2020. "Household dynamics and the bargaining power of women in artisanal and small-scale mining in sub-Saharan Africa: A Ghanaian case study," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    15. Thomas, Duncan & Contreras, Dante & Frankerberg, Elizabeth, 2002. "Distribution of power within the household and child health," MPRA Paper 80075, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised Mar 2002.
    16. Fifer, Simon & Rose, John M., 2016. "Can you ever be certain? Reducing hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments via respondent reported choice certaintyAuthor-Name: Beck, Matthew J," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 149-167.
    17. Thomas, Duncan & Rangel, Marcos, 2020. "Decision-Making in Complex Households," CEPR Discussion Papers 14278, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    18. Loomis, John B., 2014. "2013 WAEA Keynote Address: Strategies for Overcoming Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Surveys," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 39(1), pages 1-13, April.
    19. Patricia Apps & Ray Rees, 2007. "Household Models: An Historical Perspective," CESifo Working Paper Series 2172, CESifo.
    20. Alam, Saad, 2012. "The Effect of Gender-Based Returns to Borrowing on Intra-Household Resource Allocation in Rural Bangladesh," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 1164-1180.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Demand and Price Analysis; International Development; Production Economics;
    All these keywords.

    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:ags:aaea16:236280. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.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.