Experimental Economics

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 383–401 | Cite as

The influence of spouses on household decision making under risk: an experiment in rural China

  • Fredrik Carlsson
  • Peter Martinsson
  • Ping Qin
  • Matthias Sutter
Article

Abstract

We study household decision making in a high-stakes experiment with a random sample of households in rural China. Spouses have to choose between risky lotteries, first separately and then jointly. We find that spouses’ individual risk preferences are more similar the richer the household and the higher the wife’s relative income contribution. A couple’s joint decision is typically very similar to the husband’s preferences, but women who contribute relatively more to the household income, women in high-income households, and women with communist party membership have a stronger influence on the joint decision.

Keywords

Household decision making Risk Experiment in the field China 

JEL Classification

C91 C92 C93 D10 

References

  1. Abdellaoui, M., L’Haridon, O., & Paraschiv, C. (2011). Individual vs. collective behaviour: an experimental investigation of risk and time preferences in couple. Working Paper at Group HEC, France. Google Scholar
  2. Ashraf, N. (2009). Spousal control and intra-household decision making: an experimental study in the Philippines. American Economic Review, 99, 1245–1277. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker, R. J., Laury, S. K., & Williams, A. W. (2008). Comparing group and individual behavior in lottery-choice experiments. Southern Economic Journal, 75, 367–382. Google Scholar
  4. Bateman, I., & Munro, A. (2005). An experiment on risky choice amongst households. Economic Journal, 115, C176–C189. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bone, J. (1998). Risk-sharing CARA individuals are collectively EU. Economics Letters, 58, 311–317. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bone, J., Hey, J., & Suckling, J. (1999). Are groups more (or less) consistent than individuals? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 8, 63–81. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bone, J., Hey, J., & Suckling, J. (2004). A simple risk-sharing experiment. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 28, 23–38. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carlsson, F., He, H., Martinsson, P., Qin, P., & Sutter, M. (2012). Household decision making in rural China. Using experiments on intertemporal choice to estimate the relative influence of spouses. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2012.08.010.
  9. Croson, R., & Gneezy, U. (2009). Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature, 47, 1–27. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. de Palma, A., Picard, N., & Ziegelmeyer, A. (2011). Individual and couple decision behavior under risk: evidence on the dynamics of power balance. Theory and Decisions, 70(1), 45–64. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., Sunde, U., Schupp, J., & Wagner, G. G. (2011). Individual risk attitudes: measurement, determinants and behavioral consequences. Journal of the European Economic Association, 9, 522–550. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Duflo, E. (2003). Grandmothers and granddaughters: old age pension and intra-household allocation in South Africa. World Bank Economic Review, 17, 1–25. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eliaz, K., Raj, D., & Razin, R. (2006). Choice shifts in groups: a decision-theoretic basis. American Economic Review, 96, 1321–1332. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Guo, Z. L., & Bernstein, T. P. (2004). The impact of election on the village structure of power: the relation between village committees and the party branches. Journal of Contemporary China, 13, 257–275. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hannum, E. (2005). Market transition, educational disparities, and family strategies in rural China: new evidence on gender stratification and development. Demography, 42, 275–299. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harrison, G. W., Morten, I. L., Rutström, E. E., & Tarazona-Gómez, M. (2005). Preferences over social risk. Unpublished Manuscript. Google Scholar
  17. He, H., Martinsson, P., & Sutter, M. (2012). Group decision making under risk: An experiment with student couples. Economics Letters, 117, 691–693. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Holt, C. A., & Laury, S. K. (2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects. American Economic Review, 92, 1644–1655. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kachelmeier, S., & Shehata, M. (1992). Examining risk preferences under high monetary incentives: experimental evidence from the People’s Republic of China. American Economic Review, 82, 1120–1141. Google Scholar
  20. Lundberg, S., Pollak, R. A., & Wales, T. J. (1997). Do husbands and wives pool their resources? Evidence from the U.K. child benefit. Journal of Human Resources, 22, 463–480. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lundberg, S., & Pollak, R. A. (1996). Bargaining and distribution in marriage. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10(4), 139–158. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Masclet, D., Colombier, N., Denant-Boemont, L., & Loheac, Y. (2009). Group and individual risk preferences: a lottery-choice experiment with self-employed and salaried workers. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 70, 470–484. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mazzocco, M. (2004). Savings, risk sharing and preferences for risk. American Economic Review, 94, 1169–1182. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. NBS (2008). China statistical yearbooks. Beijing: China Statistical Publishing House. Google Scholar
  25. Peters, E. A., Ünür, S., Clark, J., & Schulze, W. D. (2004). Free-riding and the provision of public goods in the family: a laboratory experiment. International Economic Review, 45, 283–299. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Phipps, S., & Burton, P. (1998). What’s mine is yours? The influence of male and female income on pattern of household expenditure. Economica, 65, 599–613. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Qian, N. (2008). Missing women and the price of tea in China: the effect of sex-specific earnings on sex imbalance. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123, 1251–1285. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rockenbach, B., Sadrich, A., & Mathauschek, B. (2007). Teams take the better risks. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 63, 412–442. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shupp, R. S., & Williams, A. W. (2008). Risk preference differentials of small groups and individuals. Economic Journal, 118, 258–283. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tanaka, T., Camerer, C. F., & Nguyen, Q. (2010). Risk and time preferences: experimental and household survey data from Vietnam. American Economic Review, 100, 557–571. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Thomas, D. (1994). Like father, like son: like mother, like daughter: parental resources and child height. Journal of Human Resources, 29, 950–988. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vermeulen, F. (2002). Collective household models: principles and main results. Journal of Economic Surveys, 16(4), 533–564. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zhang, J., & Casari, M. (2011). How groups reach agreement in risky choices: an experiment. Economic Inquiry, 50(2), 502–515. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Economic Science Association 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fredrik Carlsson
    • 1
  • Peter Martinsson
    • 1
  • Ping Qin
    • 2
  • Matthias Sutter
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden
  2. 2.School of EconomicsRenmin University of ChinaBeijingChina
  3. 3.Department of Public FinanceUniversity of InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria

Personalised recommendations