IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/frd/wpaper/dp2013-01.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Only Mine or All Ours: An Artefactual Field Experiment on Procedural Altruism

Author

Listed:
  • Utteeyo Dasgupta

    (Franklin and Marshall College)

  • Subha Mani

    (Fordham University)

Abstract

In an artefactual field experiment, we introduce a novel allocation game to investigate the role of procedural altruism in household decision-making and study choices of married spouses. Subjects can distribute their earnings from the experiment either on food items (joint consumption good), or on gender specific personal clothing (private consumption good). Subjects' consumption choices are observed under two treatments – earnings with effort, and earnings without effort. At the aggregate we find that subjects exhibit a strong preference for own private consumption good when assigned to the effort treatment. However, further scrutiny suggests that women's choice for the joint consumption good in the household remains largely independent of the treatment. In contrast, men exhibit a strong preference for private consumption good in the effort treatment.

Suggested Citation

  • Utteeyo Dasgupta & Subha Mani, 2013. "Only Mine or All Ours: An Artefactual Field Experiment on Procedural Altruism," Fordham Economics Discussion Paper Series dp2013-01, Fordham University, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:frd:wpaper:dp2013-01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://archive.fordham.edu/ECONOMICS_RESEARCH/PAPERS/DP2013_01_dasgupta_mani.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hoffman Elizabeth & McCabe Kevin & Shachat Keith & Smith Vernon, 1994. "Preferences, Property Rights, and Anonymity in Bargaining Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 346-380, November.
    2. Jonathan Robinson, 2012. "Limited Insurance within the Household: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Kenya," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(4), pages 140-164, October.
    3. Bruno Frey & Matthias Benz & Alois Stutzer, 2004. "Introducing Procedural Utility: Not Only What, but Also How Matters," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 160(3), pages 377-401, September.
    4. Marcel Fafchamps & Agnes R. Quisumbing, 1999. "Human Capital, Productivity, and Labor Allocation in Rural Pakistan," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 34(2), pages 369-406.
    5. Udry, Christopher & Hoddinott, John & Alderman, Harold & Haddad, Lawrence, 1995. "Gender differentials in farm productivity: implications for household efficiency and agricultural policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(5), pages 407-423, October.
    6. 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.
    7. Sendhil Mullainathan & Marianne Bertrand, 2001. "Do People Mean What They Say? Implications for Subjective Survey Data," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(2), pages 67-72, May.
    8. Utteeyo Dasgupta, 2011. "Do procedures matter in fairness allocations? Experimental evidence in mixed gender pairings," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 31(1), pages 820-829.
    9. Gary S. Becker, 1981. "A Treatise on the Family," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number beck81-1, October.
    10. 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.
    11. Jakiela, Pamela, 2015. "How fair shares compare: Experimental evidence from two cultures," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 40-54.
    12. Datt, Gaurav & Jolliffe, Dean, 1999. "Determinants of Poverty in Egypt," FCND briefs 2, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    13. Anandi Mani, 0. "Mine, Yours or Ours? The Efficiency of Household Investment Decisions: An Experimental Approach," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 34(3), pages 575-596.
    14. Akresh, Richard, 2005. "Understanding Pareto Inefficient Intrahousehold Allocations," IZA Discussion Papers 1858, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    15. 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)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Frijters, Paul & Kong, Tao Sherry & Liu, Elaine M., 2015. "Who is coming to the artefactual field experiment? Participation bias among Chinese rural migrants," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 62-74.

    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. Dasgupta, Utteeyo & Mani, Subha, 2015. "Only Mine or All Ours: Do Stronger Entitlements Affect Altruistic Choices in the Household," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 363-375.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Gurven, Michael & Hopfensitz, Astrid & Kaplan, Hillard & Stieglitz, Jonathan, 2016. "Why household inefficiency? An experimental approach to assess spousal resource distribution preferences in a subsistence population undergoing socioeconomic change," TSE Working Papers 16-670, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    5. 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.
    6. Leanne Roncolato & Alex Roomets, 2020. "Who will change the “baby?” Examining the power of gender in an experimental setting," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 823-852, September.
    7. 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.
    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. Michele Tertilt & Matthias Doepke, 2015. "Asymmetric Information in Couples," 2015 Meeting Papers 606, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    10. List, John A. & Rasul, Imran, 2011. "Field Experiments in Labor Economics," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 2, pages 103-228, Elsevier.
    11. Bereket Kebede & Marcela Tarazona & Alistair Munro & Arjan Verschoor, 2014. "Intra-household Efficiency: An Experimental Study from Ethiopia," Journal of African Economies, Centre for the Study of African Economies, vol. 23(1), pages 105-150.
    12. Marie Christine Apedo-Amah & Habiba Djebbari & Roberta Ziparo, 2019. "Gender, information and the efficiency of household production decisions: An experiment in rural Togo," Working Papers halshs-02462673, HAL.
    13. 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.
    14. Sarah Reynolds, 2015. "Behavioral games and intrahousehold allocation: teenage mothers and their mothers in Brazil," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 901-927, December.
    15. Alistair Munro & Bereket Kebede & Marcela Tarazona-Gomez & Arjan Verschoor, 2013. "Autonomy and Efficiency: An Experiment on Household Decisions in Two Regions of India," NBER Chapters, in: Experiments for Development: Achievements and New Directions, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Carolina Castilla, 2015. "Trust and Reciprocity between Spouses in India," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(5), pages 621-624, May.
    17. 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.
    18. Marie Christine Apedo-Amah & Habiba Djebbari & Roberta Ziparo, 2020. "Communication and production in the family farm: Theory and evidence from rural Togo," AMSE Working Papers 1937, Aix-Marseille School of Economics, France, revised Mar 2025.
    19. 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.
    20. Gaudeul, Alexia & Keser, Claudia, 2017. "The social preferences of democratically elected decision makers and the conflict between wealth generation and distribution," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 327, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • D1 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior
    • Z1 - Other Special Topics - - Cultural Economics

    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:frd:wpaper:dp2013-01. 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: Fordham Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/edforus.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.