Mens womens assets_social protection_oct 2011_v2

Men’s and Women’s Asset Accumulation and
Implications for Social Protection:
Evidence from Bangladesh and Uganda
Agnes Quisumbing, Neha Kumar, and Julia Behrman
International Food Policy Research Institute
October 2011

Research supported by AMA-CRSP, the Swiss Development
Corporation, and the World Bank

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Assets: the wealth of families

INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Different assets can be held by men, women, and
jointly—this varies across cultures

INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 3

Presentation overview
1. Motivation: why look at differential impact of shocks on
men’s, women’s, and jointly held assets?
2. Survey design and data
• Bangladesh: CPRC-DATA-IFPRI long-term impact study + food
price crisis survey (2006/7 and 2010)
• Uganda: HarvestPlus OFSP Reaching End User Impact
Evaluation survey (2007 and 2009)
3. Descriptives
4. Impacts of shocks on men’s, women’s, and joint assets
5. Implications for social protection


Motivation: why look at gender-differentiated asset
accumulation?
• Accumulating evidence rejecting unitary model of the household
in many countries—resources are not pooled within the
household
• Growing evidence that risk is not pooled within households and
that risk perceptions may also differ between men and women
• Anthropological evidence (Thailand, Indonesia, Bangladesh)
suggests that men and women have different asset
accumulation strategies, and use their assets in different ways
to cope with shocks
• If this is true, how do we help women, men, and their families
protect their livelihoods in the face of adverse events?


Research questions
• Is the impact of negative events and processes (flood
shocks, dowries, illness, death) different on husband-,
wife- and jointly-owned assets? Are these mitigated by
positive events?
• Do these impacts differ depending on country and
context?

• …And a policy-related question
• What are the implications for the design of social
protection systems?


Survey design and data


Bangladesh: Map of study sites of longitudinal study 2006/7
and 2010

Page 8

Uganda: Map of study sites of OFSP REU impact
evaluation 2007 and 2009

N

rt

TI
L. Kyoga

be

O
R
Al

SO
KUMI

L.
BUKEDEA

LUWEERO
KAMULI Ú
Ê
Ú
Ê
Mbale

KampalaÊ Ú
Ê
Ú
Ê
Ú
Ê

MU
Ú KAYUNGA

KO
L. George Jinja

N O
LEGEND
L. Edward
L. Victoria
Ú
Ê Major Towns

Non-OFSP Areas
Implementation Areas

50 0 50 Kilometers

Page 9

In both countries
• Surveys conducted with baseline in 2007 and
follow-up after the food price crisis
• Detailed gender disaggregated data (in Uganda,
baseline gender disaggregation collected
retrospectively)
• Ownership categories: joint, husband, wife
assets
• Analysis limited to intact, monogamous couples
(couples that stayed together between 2007 and
2009/10, excluding polygamous households)


Assets have grown over time, but there are clear
gender differences in asset ownership
Bangladesh Uganda
Total value of assets by ownership
status, in '000 taka (2007 values) Total Value of Assets by ownership
70 status in '000 UGS (2007 values)
7000
60
6000
50
5000
40
4000

30 3000
2007
2007
20 2010 2000
2009
1000
10
0
0 Total value Total value Total value Total value
Total value of Jointly owned Nonland Nonland of of assets of assets of assets
nonland nonland assets assets household jointly owned by owned by
assets owned assets exclusively exclusively assets owned by husband wife
by the owned by the owned by the husband
household husband wife and wife

Different types of assets are held individually and jointly in
Bangladesh—joint assets dominate, except for land
Ownership shares by type of asset, 2010
100%

90% 16

80% 39
49
70% 58 57
62

60%

50%
83
40%
10
30% 59 42

20% 36 41
33
10%
9
0% 1 2 1 2

Land Consumption Agricultural Nonag Jewelry Livestock
durables durables durables
Wife Husband Joint


In Uganda, joint assets are less important than husband’s
assets across most categories

Ownership Shares by type of Asset, 2009
100%

90% 0.16
0.28 0.31
80% 0.36
0.43

70%

60% 0.43

50%
0.44 2009 Joint
40%
0.53 0.65
0.43
2009 Husband
30% 2009 Wife
20% 0.41
0.25
10%
0.11 0.14
0.07
0%

Consumer Land Livestock Productive Cash
durables equipment savings


Floods and droughts


Bangladesh: Negative shocks and positive events
Proportion of households reporting shocks and positive events
50.00
45.00
40.00
35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00 Type of shock
10.00
5.00
0.00

INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Uganda: Negative shocks and positive
events
Percentage of households affected by shocks, 2007-09
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00


Equation to be estimated

Ait-AiB= ß0 + ß1 AiB + ß2AiB2 + ß3AiB3 + ß4AiB4+
Zi(Shocks, Positive events)i + Ci(HH demographics,
baseline wealth, village dummies)i + εit
Dependent variable: Asset growth
Regressors: Lagged assets (linear, squared, cubed, fourth)
Covariate shocks (floods, drought)
Idiosyncratic shocks (illness, death, dowry/wedding expenses)
Positive events (remittances, inheritance, received dowry)
HH demographic characteristics: age of head, age squared, hh size,
proportion in age-sex categories
Value of (assets) land at baseline [assets in land equation; land in
assets equation)
Location dummies


What is the impact of shocks?
• Look at the coefficients on shocks from
Zi(Shocks, Positive events)I
• Depending on specification, this is the change
(or percentage change) in assets as a result of
the shock
• We obtain this separately for men’s, women’s,
and joint assets, and for different types of shocks


Change in asset as a proportion of baseline holdings,
Bangladesh
0

Flood Drought Price shock Illness Death
-5

-10

-15

-20 Hus Land
Hus Assets
-25
Wife Assets
-30

-35

-40

-45


Change in asset as a proportion of baseline holdings,
Uganda
40

20

0

Flood Drought Price Shock Illness Death
-20

-40 Joint Assets
Hus Land
-60
Wife Assets
-80

-100

-120

-140


Consumer goods, livestock and jewelry: where the action
is in Bangladesh
0

Flood Drought Price shock Illness Death
-10

-20 Hus consumer
Jt jewel
Hus jewelry
-30
Wif jewelry
Hus livestock
-40 Wif livestock

-50

-60


Conclusions--1

• Shocks appear to have differential impacts depending on
ownership, and depending on context
• In Bangladesh:
• women’s assets are negatively affected by illness—a really big
hit (40% of her baseline assets)
• Joint assets are protected, men’s are affected but only to a
limited extent
• Illness is the shock most frequently reported by
households=>implications for asset disposal and social
protection?
• Analysis for disaggregated assets indicates that there is a lot of
movement in consumer durables, livestock, and jewelry
• Floods have negligible impacts on assets in Bangladesh,
possibly because emergency assistance system works


Conclusions--2
• In Uganda:
• Husband’s land negatively affected by death, impact of flood
needs to be looked into
• Wife’s assets are negatively affected by drought, price shocks,
and death, and to a greater degree than husband’s assets
• Joint assets are also negatively affected by price shocks
• Indications are that men’s assets (aside from land) are protected,
but women’s assets and joint assets are sacrificed
• In both countries, women’s assets are a small proportion
of household assets, but they take a big hit


Implications--1
• Need to devise social protection strategy to provide
insurance against shocks
• Health insurance may help protect asset stocks (as well
as individual health)
• Social safety nets (public works, income transfer
programs) may help prevent asset depletion, which
would also help protect future livelihoods
• We are now developing experiments that will look at
men’s and women’s willingness to pay for flood
insurance (as part of gender and climate change project)


Implications--2
• Need to provide mechanisms for poor to save and build
up asset stocks, and to rebuild them after shocks
• Need to provide mechanisms to prepare adequately for
(anticipated) life-cycle events
• Women, in particular, need to be able to build up assets
(savings?) that they can control, not only while the
couple is together, but perhaps more importantly if the
marriage dissolves through death or divorce


Mens womens assets_social protection_oct 2011_v2

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

En vedette

En vedette (11)

Plus de IFPRI Gender

Plus de IFPRI Gender (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Mens womens assets_social protection_oct 2011_v2