IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iza/izadps/dp5594.html

Are Intra-Household Allocations Policy Neutral? Theory and Empirical Evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Chiappori, Pierre-André

    (Columbia University)

  • Iyigun, Murat

    (University of Colorado, Boulder)

  • Lafortune, Jeanne

    (Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile)

  • Weiss, Yoram

    (Tel Aviv University)

Abstract

We develop a collective household model with spousal matching in which there exists marital gains to assortative matching and marriage quality for each couple is revealed ex post. Changes in alimony laws are shown to affect existing couples and couples-to-be differently. For existing couples, legislative changes that favor (wo)men benefit them especially if the marriage match quality is low, while, for couples not yet formed, they generate offsetting intra-household transfers and lower intra-marital allocations for the spouses who are the intended beneficiary. We then estimate the effect of granting alimony rights to cohabiting couples in Canada using a triple-difference framework since each province extended these rights in different years and requiring different cohabitation length. We find that obtaining the right to petition for alimony led women to lower their labor force participation. These results, however, do not hold – and, in some cases, are reversed – for newly formed cohabiting couples.

Suggested Citation

  • Chiappori, Pierre-André & Iyigun, Murat & Lafortune, Jeanne & Weiss, Yoram, 2011. "Are Intra-Household Allocations Policy Neutral? Theory and Empirical Evidence," IZA Discussion Papers 5594, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
  • Handle: RePEc:iza:izadps:dp5594
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://docs.iza.org/dp5594.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Are Intra-Household Allocations Policy Neutral? Theory and Empirical Evidence
      by maximorossi in NEP-LTV blog on 2011-04-04 22:33:42

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Schaubert, Marianna, 2018. "Do Alimony Regulations Matter inside Marriage? Evidence from the 2008 Reform of the German Maintenance Law," EconStor Preprints 173193, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    2. Schaubert, Marianna, 2018. "Do Alimony Regulations Matter inside Marriage? Evidence from the 2008 Reform of the German Maintenance Law," VfS Annual Conference 2018 (Freiburg, Breisgau): Digital Economy 181508, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    3. Amy Farmer & Andrew Horowitz, 2015. "Strategic non-marital cohabitation: theory and empirical implications," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 28(1), pages 219-237, January.
    4. Grossbard, Shoshana & Vernon, Victoria, 2014. "Common Law Marriage and Male/Female Convergence in Labor Supply and Time Use," IZA Discussion Papers 7937, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

    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 & Prudence Kwenda & Miracle Ntuli, 2017. "Gender bias and the intrahousehold distribution of resources: Evidence from African nuclear households in South Africa," WIDER Working Paper Series 071, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    2. Kota Ogasawara & Mizuki Komura, 2022. "Consequences of war: Japan’s demographic transition and the marriage market," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 35(3), pages 1037-1069, July.
    3. Emanuela Galasso & Martin Ravallion, 2004. "Social Protection in a Crisis: Argentina's Plan Jefes y Jefas," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 18(3), pages 367-399.
    4. Seungho LeeMA & Inhoe KuPhD & Byongdon ShonPhD, 2019. "The Effects of Old-Age Public Transfer on the Well-Being of Older Adults: The Case of Social Pension in South Korea," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 74(3), pages 506-515.
    5. Eugene Choo & Shannon Seitz & Aloysius Siow, 2008. "The Collective Marriage Matching Model: Identification, Estimation and Testing," Working Papers tecipa-340, University of Toronto, Department of Economics.
    6. Feng, Lyubing & He, Yuxi & Zhan, Peng, 2023. "Economic independence and living arrangements of older women with agricultural Hukou in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    7. Jacobus Hoop & Patrick Premand & Furio Rosati & Renos Vakis, 2018. "Women’s economic capacity and children’s human capital accumulation," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 31(2), pages 453-481, April.
    8. LaFave, Daniel & Thomas, Duncan, 2017. "Extended families and child well-being," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 52-65.
    9. Dileni Gunewardena & Abdoulaye Seck, 2020. "Heterogeneity in entrepreneurship in developing countries: Risk, credit, and migration and the entrepreneurial propensity of youth and women," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(3), pages 713-725, August.
    10. Sun, Ang & Zhao, Yaohui, 2016. "Divorce, abortion, and the child sex ratio: The impact of divorce reform in China," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 53-69.
    11. Olivetti, Claudia & Paserman, M. Daniele & Salisbury, Laura, 2018. "Three-generation mobility in the United States, 1850–1940: The role of maternal and paternal grandparents," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 73-90.
    12. Saku Aura, 2002. "Uncommitted Couples: Some Efficiency and Policy Implications of Marital Bargaining," Working Papers 0217, Department of Economics, University of Missouri.
    13. Bharti Nandwani & cjain@3ieimpact.org, 2022. "Female representation in school management and school quality," Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai Working Papers 2022-002, Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai, India.
    14. O'Hara, Corey & Clement, Floriane, 2018. "Power as agency: A critical reflection on the measurement of women’s empowerment in the development sector," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 111-123.
    15. 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).
    16. van den Bold, Mara & Quisumbing, Agnes R. & Gillespie, Stuart, 2013. "Women’s empowerment and nutrition: An evidence review," IFPRI discussion papers 1294, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    17. Da Ke, 2021. "Who Wears the Pants? Gender Identity Norms and Intrahousehold Financial Decision‐Making," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 76(3), pages 1389-1425, June.
    18. San Vicente Portes, Luis & Atal, Vidya & Juárez Torres, Miriam, 2019. "From households to national statistics: Macroeconomic effects of Women's empowerment," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 286-294.
    19. Valente, Christine, 2014. "Access to abortion, investments in neonatal health, and sex-selection: Evidence from Nepal," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 225-243.
    20. Arthi, Vellore & Fenske, James, 2016. "Intra-household labor allocation in colonial Nigeria," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 69-92.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • J12 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Marriage; Marital Dissolution; Family Structure
    • J16 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Economics of Gender; Non-labor Discrimination
    • J24 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Human Capital; Skills; Occupational Choice; Labor Productivity

    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:iza:izadps:dp5594. 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: Holger Hinte (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/izaaade.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.