IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/esprep/179520.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Have a son, gain a voice: Son preference and female participation in household decision making

Author

Listed:
  • Javed, Rashid
  • Mughal, Mazhar

Abstract

Son preference is common in many Asian countries. Though a growing body of literature examines the drivers and socioeconomic impacts of phenomenon in case of China and India, work on other Asian countries is scarce. This study uses nationally representative survey of over 13 thousand households from Pakistan (PDHS 2012-13) to analyze the effects of observed preference for sons on women's participation in intra-household decision-making. Four key intra-household decisions are considered: decisions regarding healthcare, family visits, large household purchases and spending husband's income. These correspond to four categories of household decisions, namely healthcare, social, consumption and financial. Probit and Ordered Probit are employed as the main estimation techniques and other determinants of household decision-making are controlled for. Besides, a number of matching routines are employed to account for the possibility of potential selection bias. We find that women with at least one son have more say in household decisions. Bearing at least one son is associated with 5%, 7% and 5% higher say in decisions involving healthcare, social and consumption matters respectively. Women's role in financial affairs, however, does not differ significantly from women with no sons. Female participation in decision-making grows significantly with the number of sons but only up to the third parity. These results are particularly visible among younger, wealthier and educated women, and those who got married earlier. The findings suggest a limited improvement in women's bargaining power at home resulting from the birth of one or more sons. This in part explains higher desire for sons expressed by women compared to men in household surveys.

Suggested Citation

  • Javed, Rashid & Mughal, Mazhar, 2018. "Have a son, gain a voice: Son preference and female participation in household decision making," EconStor Preprints 179520, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:esprep:179520
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/179520/1/Have%20a%20son%2c%20gain%20a%20voice%20son%20preference%20and%20female%20participation%20in%20household%20decision%20making.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Frances R. Woolley & Judith Marshall, 1994. "Measuring Inequality Within The Household," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 40(4), pages 415-431, December.
    2. Rossi, Pauline & Rouanet, Léa, 2015. "Gender Preferences in Africa: A Comparative Analysis of Fertility Choices," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 326-345.
    3. Douglas Almond & Lena Edlund & Kevin Milligan, 2013. "Son Preference and the Persistence of Culture: Evidence from South and East Asian Immigrants to Canada," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 39(1), pages 75-95, March.
    4. Wooldridge, Jeffrey M., 2007. "Inverse probability weighted estimation for general missing data problems," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 141(2), pages 1281-1301, December.
    5. Christophe Z. Guilmoto, 2009. "The Sex Ratio Transition in Asia," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 35(3), pages 519-549, September.
    6. Alyssa Schneebaum & Katharina Mader, 2013. "The gendered nature of intra-household decision making in and across Europe," Department of Economics Working Papers wuwp157, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Department of Economics.
    7. Chai Park, 1983. "Preference for Sons, Family Size, and Sex Ratio: An Empirical Study in Korea," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 20(3), pages 333-352, August.
    8. Woolley, Frances R & Marshall, Judith, 1994. "Measuring Inequality within the Household," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 40(4), pages 415-431, December.
    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. Rashid Javed & Mazhar Mughal, 2022. "Changing patterns of son preference and fertility in Pakistan," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(6), pages 1086-1109, August.
    2. Javed, Rashid & Mughal, Mazhar, 2020. "Preference for boys and length of birth intervals in Pakistan," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(2), pages 140-152.
    3. Awaworyi Churchill, Sefa & Iqbal, Nasir & Nawaz, Saima & Yew, Siew Ling, 2021. "Unconditional cash transfers, child labour and education: theory and evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 186(C), pages 437-457.

    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. Rashid Javed & Mazhar Mughal, 2019. "Have a Son, Gain a Voice: Son Preference and Female Participation in Household Decision Making," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(12), pages 2526-2548, December.
    2. Jinhee Kim & Mariana K. Falconier & C. Andrew Conway, 2023. "Relationships Among Emotion Regulation, Financial Self-Efficacy, and Financial Management Behaviors of Couples," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 342-355, June.
    3. Bárcena-Martín, Elena & Blázquez, Maite & Moro-Egido, Ana I., 2020. "The role of income pooling and decision-making responsibilities in material deprivation," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 416-428.
    4. Eleanor Jawon Choi & Jisoo Hwang, 2020. "Transition of Son Preference: Evidence From South Korea," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 57(2), pages 627-652, April.
    5. Bárcena-Martín, Elena & Blázquez, Maite & Moro-Egido, Ana I., 2020. "Intra-household arrangements: How important are they in terms of male-female subjective well-being?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    6. Eleonora Mussino & Vitor Miranda & Li Ma, 2019. "Transition to third birth among immigrant mothers in Sweden: Does having two daughters accelerate the process?," Journal of Population Research, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 81-109, June.
    7. Sehar Ezdi & Ahmet Melik Baş, 2020. "Gender preferences and fertility: Investigating the case of Turkish immigrants in Germany," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 43(3), pages 59-96.
    8. Valentine Becquet & Nicolás Sacco & Ignacio Pardo, 2022. "Disparities in Gender Preference and Fertility: Southeast Asia and Latin America in a Comparative Perspective," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 41(3), pages 1295-1323, June.
    9. Haijun Wang & Fang Ye & Yan Wang & Dale Huntington & the study group for Economic Impact of Maternal Deaths in China, 2013. "Economic Impact of Maternal Death on Households in Rural China: A Prospective Cohort Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(10), pages 1-9, October.
    10. Grzywińska-Rąpca Małgorzata & Grzybowska-Brzezińska Mariola & Gornowicz Mirosław, 2023. "Income inequality among European households and their biological type," International Journal of Management and Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, Collegium of World Economy, vol. 59(3), pages 197-208, September.
    11. Edwin S. Wong, 2013. "Gender preference and transfers from parents to children: an inter-regional comparison," International Review of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(1), pages 61-80, January.
    12. Chiuri, Maria Concetta, 2000. "Individual decisions and household demand for consumption and leisure," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 277-324, September.
    13. Tina Haussen, 2018. "Intra-Household Income Inequality and Preferences for Redistribution," Jena Economics Research Papers 2018-004, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    14. Gerlinde Verbist & Ron Diris & Frank Vandenbroucke, 2018. "Solidarity between generations in extended families. Direction, size and intensity," Working Papers 1816, Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy, University of Antwerp.
    15. Schneebaum, Alyssa & Mader, Katharina, 2013. "The gendered nature of intra-household decision making in and across Europe," Department of Economics Working Paper Series 157, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business.
    16. Tina Haussen, 2019. "Intra-household income inequality and preferences for redistribution," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 499-530, June.
    17. Theresa Mannah-Blankson, 2018. "Gender Inequality and Access to Microfinance: Evidence from Ghana," Journal of African Development, African Finance and Economic Association (AFEA), vol. 20(2), pages 21-33.
    18. Romane FRECHEVILLE-FAUCON, 2023. "”Defamilializing” how women’s economic independence is measured," Working Papers of BETA 2023-27, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    19. Pedro Quintín Quílez, 2008. "Vida conyugal y desigualdades de género en Cali (Colombia)," Revista Sociedad y Economía, Universidad del Valle, CIDSE, August.
    20. F. le R. Booysen, 2001. "Non‐Payment Of Services: A Problem Of Ability‐To‐Pay," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 69(4), pages 674-697, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Son preference; Gender bias; Sex selection; Female decision-making; intrahousehold bargaining; Pakistan;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D13 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Household Production and Intrahouse Allocation
    • J13 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Fertility; Family Planning; Child Care; Children; Youth
    • C13 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Estimation: General
    • C70 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - General

    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:zbw:esprep:179520. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zbwkide.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.