Mens womens assets_social protection_oct 2011_v2

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

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

INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Assets: the wealth of families


Different assets can be held by men, women, and

jointly—this varies across cultures

Page 3

INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Page 4

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?

Page 5


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?

Page 6


Survey design and data

Page 7

Page 8

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

and 2010

Page 9

Uganda: Map of study sites of OFSP REU impact

evaluation 2007 and 2009

BUKEDEA

L. Victoria

L. A

lber

t

L. Kyoga

L. Edward

L. George

SO

RO

TI

KUMI

KAMULILUWEERO

MU

KO

NO

KAYUNGAÊÚ

ÊÚ

ÊÚKampala

Jinja

Mbale

Implementation Areas

Non-OFSP Areas

ÊÚ Major Towns

LEGEND

ÊÚÊÚ

ÊÚ

N

50 0 50 Kilometers


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)

Page 10

Assets have grown over time, but there are clear

gender differences in asset ownership

Bangladesh Uganda

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Total value of nonland

assets owned by the

household

Jointly owned nonland assets

Nonland assets

exclusively owned by the

husband

Nonland assets

exclusively owned by the

wife

Total value of assets by ownership status, in '000 taka (2007 values)

2007

2010

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Total value of

household assets

Total value of assets

jointly owned by husband and wife

Total value of assets owned by husband

Total value of assets owned by

wife

Total Value of Assets by ownership status in '000 UGS (2007 values)

2007

2009


Different types of assets are held individually and jointly in

Bangladesh—joint assets dominate, except for land

Page 12

1 2 1 2

33

9

83

36 41

59

10

42

16

6258

39

5749

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Land Consumption durables

Agricultural durables

Nonag durables

Jewelry Livestock

Ownership shares by type of asset, 2010

Wife Husband Joint


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

assets across most categories

Page 13

0.110.07

0.25

0.14

0.41

0.53 0.65

0.44

0.43

0.43

0.360.28 0.31

0.43

0.16

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Consumer durables

Land Livestock Productive equipment

Cash savings

Ownership Shares by type of Asset, 2009

2009 Joint

2009 Husband

2009 Wife


Floods and droughts

Page 14


Bangladesh: Negative shocks and positive events

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

45.00

50.00

Proportion of households reporting shocks and positive events

Type of shock


Uganda: Negative shocks and positive

events

Page 16

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

Percentage of households affected by shocks, 2007-09


Equation to be estimated

Ait-AiB= ß0 + ß1 AiB + ß2AiB2 + ß3AiB

3 + 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

Page 17


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

Page 18


Change in asset as a proportion of baseline holdings,

Bangladesh

Page 19

-45

-40

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

Flood Drought Price shock Illness Death

Hus Land

Hus Assets

Wife Assets


Change in asset as a proportion of baseline holdings,

Uganda

Page 20

-140

-120

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

Flood Drought Price Shock Illness Death

Joint Assets

Hus Land

Wife Assets


Consumer goods, livestock and jewelry: where the action

is in Bangladesh

Page 21

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

Flood Drought Price shock Illness Death

Hus consumer

Jt jewel

Hus jewelry

Wif jewelry

Hus livestock

Wif livestock


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

Page 22


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

Page 23


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)

Page 24


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

Page 25

Date post:	25-May-2015
Category:	Technology
Upload:	ifpri-gender
View:	508 times
Download:	1 times

Mens womens assets_social protection_oct 2011_v2

Technology