Advertisement

Review of Economics of the Household

, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 1263–1290 | Cite as

Intra-household bargaining over household technology adoption

  • Sandeep Mohapatra
  • Leo Simon
Article

Abstract

We examine the barriers to adoption of improved cook stoves (ICSs) in rural India, using a large, nationally representative dataset. We develop a collective household model to derive testable hypotheses about whether women’s intra-household influence, together with their relatively strong marginal preference for ICSs, affects adoption. Using a joint adoption-influence econometric model, we find compelling evidence that women’s influence over intra-household decisions significantly increases adoption. We further distinguish between alternative sources of women’s influence, and argue that our distinction has potential implications for ICS dissemination policies. We find that while there is significant variation in women’s influence across rural India due to cultural and other sociological factors, the effect of intra-household influence on adoption has a significant bargaining power component. Our results suggest that ICS programs may be able to increase adoption by marketing stoves in ways that empower women.

Keywords

Bargaining power Gender Health Development  Collective household model Stochastic threshold ordered probit 

JEL Classification

D1 I1 01 

References

  1. Allendorf, K. (2007). Do womens land rights promote empowerment and child health in Nepal? World Development, 35(11), 1975–1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amacher, G. S., Hyde, W. F., & Joshee, B. R. (1992). The adoption of consumption technologies under uncertainty: A case of improved stoves in Nepal. Journal of Economic Development, 17(2), 93–105.Google Scholar
  3. Balakrishnan, K., Sankar, S., Parikh, J., Padmavathi, R., Srividya, K., Venugopal, V., et al. (2002). Daily average exposures to respirable particulate matter from combustion of biomass fuels in rural households of southern India. Environmental Health Perspectives, 110(11), 1069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnes, D. F., Openshaw, K., Smith, K. R., Van der Plas, R., & Mundial, B. (1994). What makes people cook with improved biomass stoves? Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  5. Basu, K. (2006). Gender and say: A model of household behaviour with endogenously determined balance of power. The Economic Journal, 116(511), 558–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beyene, A. D., & Koch, S. F. (2013). Clean fuel-saving technology adoption in urban Ethiopia. Energy Economics, 36, 605–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Browning, M., & Chiappori, P.-A. (1998). Efficient intra-household allocations: A general characterization and empirical tests. Econometrica, 66(6), 1241–1278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bruce, N., Perez-Padilla, R., Albalak, R., et al. (2002). The health effects of indoor air pollution exposure in developing countries (Vol. 11). Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  9. Desai, S., Vanneman, R., & NCAER (2008). India human development survey, 2005. New Delhi: University of Maryland and National Council of Applied Economic Research.Google Scholar
  10. Duflo, E., Greenstone, M., & Hanna, R. (2008). Cooking stoves, indoor air pollution and respiratory health in rural Orissa. Economic and Political Weekly, 43(32), 71–76.Google Scholar
  11. Duflo, E. (2003). Grandmothers and granddaughters: Old-age pensions and intrahousehold allocation in South Africa. The World Bank Economic Review, 17(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Edwards, J. H., & Langpap, C. (2005). Startup costs and the decision to switch from firewood to gas fuel. Land Economics, 81(4), 570–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. El Tayeb Muneer, S., & Mukhtar Mohamed, E. W. (2003). Adoption of biomass improved cookstoves in a patriarchal society: An example from Sudan. Science of the Total Environment, 307(1), 259–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. FAO. (2011). Women in agriculture: Closing the gender gap for development. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i2050e/i2082e00.pdf.
  15. Fuglie, K. O., & Kascak, C. A. (2001). Adoption and diffusion of natural-resource-conserving agricultural technology. Review of Agricultural Economics, 23(2), 386–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gebreegziabher, Z., Mekonnen, A., Kassie, M., & Köhlin, G. (2012). Urban energy transition and technology adoption: The case of Tigrai, northern Ethiopia. Energy Economics, 34(2), 410–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Greene, W. H., & Hensher, D. A. (2010). Modeling ordered choices: A primer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harrell, S., & Young, J. (2013). Implementation research on behavior change interventions to improve the acquisition and correct use of improved cookstoves. http://tractionproject.org/content/implementation-research-behavior-change-interventions-improve-acquisition-and-correct-use.
  19. Hart, C., & Smith, G. (2013). Scaling adoption of clean cooking solutions through women’s empowerment: A resource guide. UK: Department for International Development. http://cleancookstoves.org/resources_files/scaling-adoption-womens-empowerment.pdf.Google Scholar
  20. Heckman, J. (1978). Dummy endogenous variables in a simultaneous equation system. Econometrica, 46, 931–959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ierza, J. V. (1985). Ordinal probit: A generalization. Communications in Statistics—Theory and Methods, 14(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jensen, R., & Oster, E. (2009). The power of TV: Cable television and women’s status in India. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(3), 1057–1094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kohlin, G., Sills, E. O., Pattanayak, S. K., & Wilfong, C. (2011). Energy, gender and development: What are the linkages? Where is the evidence?. Washington, DC: World Bank.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lewis, J. J., & Pattanayak, S. K. (2012). Who adopts improved fuels and cookstoves? A systematic review. Environmental Health Perspectives, 120(5), 637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Martin, W. J., Glass, R. I., Balbus, J. M., & Collins, F. S. (2011). A major environmental cause of death. Science, 334(6053), 180–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McVicar, M., & McKee, J. (2002). Part time work during post-compulsory education and examination performance: Help or hindrance. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 49(4), 393–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Miller, G., & Mobarak, A. M. (2011). Intra-household externalities and low demand for a new technology: Experimental evidence on improved cookstoves. http://cleancookstoves.org/resources_files/intra-household-externalities.pdf.
  28. Miranda, A., & Rabe-Hesketh, S. (2006). Maximum likelihood estimation of endogenous switching and sample selection models for binary, ordinal, and count variables. Stata Journal, 6(3), 285–308.Google Scholar
  29. Patel, A. M., Leonar, W. R., Garcia, V. R., McDade, T., Huanca, T., Tanner, S., et al. (2007). Parental preference, bargaining power, and child nutritional status: Evidence from the Bolivian Amazon. Working paper no. 31. Northwestern University, Tsimane Amazonian Panel Study, Department of Anthropology, Evanston, IL, USA.Google Scholar
  30. Reggio, I. (2011). The influence of the mother’s power on her child’s labor in Mexico. Journal of Development Economics, 96(1), 95–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Register General. (2001). Census of India, 2001. Various Tables. http://censusindia.gov.in/Tables_Published/Tables_published.html.
  32. Rivers, D., & Vuong, Q. H. (1988). Limited information estimators and exogeneity tests for simultaneous probit models. Journal of Econometrics, 39(3), 347–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sen, A. (2002). Health: Perception versus observation—Self reported morbidity has severe limitations and can be extremely misleading. British Medical Journal, 324(7342), 860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shanko, M., Abebe, T., & Lakew, H. (2009). A report on Mirt biomass injera stove market penetration and sustainability study in Amhara, Oromiya and Tigray National Regional States. Addis Ababa: GTZ Sun Energy.Google Scholar
  35. Slaski, X., & Thurber, M. (2009). Research note: Cookstoves and obstacles to technology adoption by the poor. Stanford, CA: Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  36. Smith, K. R. (2000). National burden of disease in India from indoor air pollution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97(24), 13286–13293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Smith, K. R., McCracken, J. P., Weber, M. W., Hubbard, A., Jenny, A., Thompson, L. M., et al. (2011). Effect of reduction in household air pollution on childhood pneumonia in Guatemala (RESPIRE): A randomised controlled trial. The Lancet, 378(9804), 1717–1726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Swaminathan, H., Lahoti, R., & Suchitra, J. (2012). Womens property, mobility, and decisionmaking. Evidence from rural Karnataka, India. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. Discussion paper no. 01188.Google Scholar
  39. Weterings, T., Harris, M., & Hollingsworth, B. (2012). Extending unobserved heterogeneity—A strategy for dealing with survey respondent perceptions in the absence of suitable data. Australia: Monash University. Technical report, working paper.Google Scholar
  40. WHO. (2009a). Global health risks: Mortality and burden of disease attributable to selected major risks. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/Glob.Google Scholar
  41. WHO. (2009b). Quantifying environmental health impacts: Global estimates of burden of disease caused by environmental risks. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. http://www.who.int/quantifying_ehimpacts/en/.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  2. 2.University of California, BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations