IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Children, Inequality and the Intra-household Allocation of Healthcare Resources in Three Transition Countries

Listed author(s):

This paper focuses on how the distribution of household health resources can be influenced by bargaining within the household with a particular focus on gender biases across children for four countries; Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. The framework utilised is owed to McElroy and Horney (1981). Following McElroy and Horney the value function for our bargainers is derived and it is on this that our empirical specification is based. Our measure of healthcare resources at an individual level is $USD spent on preventative care and our analysis therefore has a multi-level structure with individuals clustered within households. The Hausman Taylor estimator is utilised to allow for certain explanatory variables to be endogenous with the household effects. The Asian Development Bank (ADB) through a household survey compiled the dataset used in this study in early 2007. The results reject the unitary model for all four countries, with the education gap between spouses being the most influential characteristic with respect to bargaining. The results also indicate a pro-boy bias with respect to resource allocation across children for all countries. In addition, a female offset of some of this pro-boy bias is found when a female is the household leader (excluding Kyrgyzstan). For these three countries pro-boy bias is worse in male lead households. Given that previous research suggests that a blanket increase in healthcare access may simply aid the advantaged group � in this case boys- it is our recommendation that schemes to offset this bias should provide free access to girls only, with particular attention being paid to the 4-16 female age group, where these biases are argued to be irrational and are certainly larger in magnitude as illustrated by our quantitative results.

To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

Paper provided by School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia in its series Discussion Papers Series with number 401.

in new window

Date of creation: 2009
Handle: RePEc:qld:uq2004:401
Contact details of provider: Postal:
St. Lucia, Qld. 4072

Phone: +61 7 3365 6570
Fax: +61 7 3365 7299
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:qld:uq2004:401. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (SOE IT)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.