Nonunitary Models of Household Behavior: A Survey of the Literature

Chapter
Part of the International Series on Consumer Science book series (ISCS)

Abstract

This chapter considers nonunitary models of household behavior. These models suppose explicitly that households consist of a number of different members with preferences that are different from each other. They can be split up into two principal categories: cooperative (or collective) models, in which the allocations are supposed to be Pareto efficient, and noncooperative (or strategic) models, which are based on the concept of Cournot–Nash equilibrium. The demand functions that describe household behavior in these models are subject to constraints that differ from the traditional Slutsky conditions. In addition, in a certain number of specific cases, the preferences of the different household members can be identified from observable behavior.

Keywords

Households Collective model Strategic model Testability Identification 

References

  1. Alderman H., P.A. Chiappori, L. Haddad, J. Hoddinott and R. Kanbur, 1995, “Unitary versus Collective Models of the Household: Is It Time to Shift the Burden of the Proof,” World Bank Research Observer, vol. 10, pp. 1–19.Google Scholar
  2. Altonji J.G., F. Hayashi and L. Kotlikoff, 1992, “Is the Extended Family Altruistically Linked? Direct Tests Using Micro-data,” American Economic Review, vol. 82, pp. 1177–1198.Google Scholar
  3. Apps P.F., 1981, A Theory of Inequality and Taxation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Apps P.F., 1982, “Institutional Inequality and Tax Incidence”, Journal of Public Economics, vol. 18, pp. 217–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Apps P.F. and G.S. Jones, 1986, “Selective Taxation of Couples”, Zeitscrift für Nationalökonomie, vol. 5 (supplement), pp. 63–74.Google Scholar
  6. Apps P.F. and R. Rees, 1988, “Taxation and the Household”, Journal of Public Economics, vol. 35, pp. 355–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Apps P.F. and R. Rees, 1996, “Labour Supply, Household Production and Intra-family Welfare Distribution”, Journal of Public Economics, vol. 60, pp. 199–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Apps P.F. and R. Rees, 1997, “Collective Labour Supply and Household Production”, Journal of Political Economy, vol. 105, pp. 178–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Apps P.F. and R. Rees, 2009, Public Economics and the Household, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Aronsson T., S.O. Daunfeldt and M. Wikström, 2001, “Estimating Intrahousehold Allocation in a Collective Model with Household Production”, Journal of Population Economics, vol. 14, pp. 569–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ashworth J. and D.T. Ulph, 1981, “Household Models”. In: C.V. Brown (ed.), Taxation and Labour Supply, George Allen and Ulwin, London.Google Scholar
  12. Aura S., 2004, “Uncommitted Couples: Some Eficiency and Policy Implications of Marital Bargaining”, Working Paper no. 04–08, Department of Economics, University of Missouri.Google Scholar
  13. Basu K., 2006, “Gender and Say: A Model of Household Behavior with Endogenously-determined Balance of Power”, Economic Journal, vol. 116, pp. 558–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Basu K. and R. Ray, 2008, “The Collective Model of the Household and An Unexpected Implication for Child Labor: Hypothesis and an Empirical Test”. In: Dhar, Arpita (ed.), Some Contemporary Issues in Development and Growth Economics, Allied Publishers, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  15. Becker G.S., 1974, “A Theory of Social Interactions”, Journal of Political Economy, vol. 82, pp. 1063–1093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Becker G.S., 1991, A Treatise on the Family, Enl. Edition, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Becker G.S. and K.M. Murphy, 2000, Social Economics, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Behrman J., 1988, “Intrahousehold Allocation of Nutrients in Rural India: Are Boys Favoured? Do Parents Exhibit Inequality Aversion?”, Oxford Economic Papers, vol. 40, pp. 32–54.Google Scholar
  19. Bergstrom T., 1989, “A Fresh Look at the Rotten-Kid Theorem and Other Household Mysteries”, Journal of Political Economy, vol. 97, pp. 1138–1159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bergstrom T., 1996, “Economics in a Family Way”, Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 34, pp. 1903–1934.Google Scholar
  21. Bergstrom T., L. Blume and H. Varian, 1986, “On the Private Provision of Public Goods”, Journal of Public Economics, vol. 29, pp. 25–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Bjorn P.A. and Q.H. Vuong, 1985, “Econometric Modeling of a Stackelberg Game with an Application to Labor Force Participation”, Social Science Working Paper 577, California Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  23. Bjorn P.A. and Q.H. Vuong, 1997, “Modèle d’équations simultanées pour variables endogènes fictives: une formulation par la théorie de jeux avec application à la participation au marché du travail”, Actualité économique: revue d’analyse économique, vol. 73, pp. 161–205.Google Scholar
  24. Bloemen H., 2010, “An Empirical Model of Collective Household Labour Supply with Nonparticipation”, Economic Journal, vol. 120(543), pp. 183–214.Google Scholar
  25. Blundell R., P.A. Chiappori and C. Meghir, 2005, “Collective Labour Supply with Children”, Journal of Political Economy, vol. 105, pp. 1277–1306.Google Scholar
  26. Blundell R., P.A. Chiappori, T. Magnac and C. Meghir, 2007, “Collective Labor Supply: Heterogeneity and Non-participation”, Review of Economic Studies, vol. 74, pp. 417–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Bourguignon F., 1984, “Rationalité individuelle ou rationalité stratégique: le cas de l’offre familiale de travail”, Revue économique, vol. 1, pp. 147–162.Google Scholar
  28. Bourguignon F. and P.A. Chiappori, 1992, “Collective Models of Household Behavior: An Introduction”, European Economic Review, vol. 36, pp. 355–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Bourguignon F., M. Browning, P.A. Chiappori and V. Lechene, 1993, “Intra Household Allocation of Consumption: A Model and Some Evidence from French Data”, Annales d’économie et de statistique, vol. 29, pp. 137–156.Google Scholar
  30. Bourguignon F., 1999, “The Cost of Children: May the Collective Approach to Household Behaviour Help?”, Journal of Population Economics, vol. 12, pp. 503–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Bourguignon F., M. Browning and P.A. Chiappori, 2009, “Efficient Intra-household Allocations and Distribution Factors: Implications and Identification”, Review of Economic Studies, vol. 76, pp. 503–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Brett C., 1998, “Tax Reform and Family Decision-making”, Journal of Public Economics, vol. 70, pp. 425–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Browning M., 1996, “Saving and the Intra-household Allocation of Income”, Ricerche Economiche, vol. 48, pp. 277–292.Google Scholar
  34. Browning M., 2000, “The Saving Behaviour of a Two-person Household”, Scandinavian Journal of Economics, vol. 102, pp. 235–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Browning M. and P.A. Chiappori, 1998, “Efficient Intrahousehold Allocations: A General Characterization and Empirical Tests”, Econometrica, vol. 66, pp. 1241–1278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Browning M. and C. Meghir, 1991, “The Effect of Male and Female Labor Supply on Commodity Demands”, Econometrica, vol. 59, pp. 925–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Browning M., F. Bourguignon, P.A. Chiappori and V. Lechene, 1994, “Income and Outcomes: A Structural Model of Intrahousehold Allocation”, Journal of Political Economy, vol. 102, pp. 235–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Browning M., P.A. Chiappori and V. Lechene, 2006, “Collective and unitary models: a clarification”, Review of Economics of the Household, vol. 4(1), pp. 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Browning M., P.A. Chiappori and V. Lechene, 2010, “Distributional Effects in Household Models: Separate Spheres and Income Pooling”, Economic Journal, vol. 120(545), pp. 786–799.Google Scholar
  40. Browning M., P.A. Chiappori and A. Lewbel, 2006, “Estimating Consumption Economies of Scale, Adult Equivalence Scales, and Household Bargaining Power”, Manuscript, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Carrasco R. and B. Zamora, 2007, “The Causal Effect of Female Labour Participation on Household Consumption”, Manuscript, University Carlos III.Google Scholar
  42. Carter M.R. and E. Katz, 1997, “Separate Sphere and the Conjugal Contract: Understanding the Impact of Gender-biased Development”. In: Haddad L., Hoddinott J. and Alderman H. (eds), Intrahousehold Resource Allocation in Developing Countries, Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Chen Z. and F. Woolley, 2000, “A Cournot-Nash Model of Family Decision Making”, Economic Journal, vol. 111, pp. 722–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Chiappori P.A., 1988a, “Rational Household Labor Supply”, Econometrica, vol. 56, pp. 63–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Chiappori P.A., 1988b, “Nash-bargained Household Decisions: A Comment”, International Economic Review, vol. 29, pp. 791–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Chiappori P.A., 1990, “Nash-bargained Household Decisions: A Rejoinder”, International Economic Review, vol. 32, pp. 761–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Chiappori P.A., 1992. “Collective Labor Supply and Welfare”, Journal of Political Economy, vol. 100, pp. 437–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Chiappori P.A., 1997a, “Collective Models of Household Behavior: The Sharing Rule Approach”. In: Haddad L., Hoddinott J. and Alderman H. (eds), Intrahousehold Resource Allocation in Developing Countries, Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Chiappori P.A., 1997b, “Introducing Household Production in Collective Models of Labor Supply”, Journal of Political Economy, vol. 105, pp. 191–209.Google Scholar
  50. Chiappori P.A., 1999, “Labor Supply and Efficient Risk Sharing”, Manuscript, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  51. Chiappori P.A., O. Donni and I. Komunjer, 2011, “Learning from a Piece of Pie”, Review of Economic Studies (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  52. Chiappori P.A, B. Fortin and G. Lacroix, 2002, “Household Labor Supply, the Sharing Rule and the Marriage Market”, Journal of Political Economy, vol. 110, pp. 37–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Chiappori P.A. and I. Ekeland, 2006, “The Micro-economics of Group Behavior: General Characterization”, Journal of Economic Theory, vol. 130, pp. 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Chiappori P.A. and I. Ekeland, 2009, “The Micro-economics of Efficient Group Behavior: Identification”, Econometrica, vol. 77, pp. 763–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Cherchye L. and F. Vermeulen, 2008, “Nonparametric Analysis of Household Labor Supply: Goodness-of-fit and Power of the Unitary and the Collective Model”, Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 90, pp. 267–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Cherchye L., B. De Rock and F. Vermeulen, 2007, “The Collective Model of Household Consumption: A Nonparametric Characterization”, Econometrica, vol. 75, 553–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Chiuri M.C., 2000, “Individual Decisions and Household Demand for Consumption and Leisure”, Research in Economics, vol. 54, pp. 277–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Chiuri M.C. and P. Simmons, 1997, “Universal Decentralisation: A Demand System For Collective and Unitary Models With Household Public Goods”, Economic Journal, vol. 107, pp. 372–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Clark A., H. Couprie and C. Sofer, 2004, “La modélisation collective de l’offre de travail: mise en perspective et application”, Revue économique, vol. 56, pp. 277–284.Google Scholar
  60. Couprie H., 2007, “Time Allocation within the Family: Welfare Implication of Life in Couple”, Economic Journal, vol. 117, pp. 287–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Dauphin A., 2003, “Rationalité collective des ménages comportant plusieurs membres: résultats théoriques et applications au Burkina Faso”, Thèse de doctorat, Université Laval.Google Scholar
  62. Dauphin A. and B. Fortin, 2001, “A Test of Collective Rationality for Multi-person Households”, Economic Letters, vol. 71, pp. 211–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Dercon S. and P. Krishnan, 2000, In Sickness and in Health: Risk Sharing within Households in Rural Ethiopia”, Journal of Political Economy, vol. 108, pp. 688–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Donni O., 2003, “Collective Household Labor Supply: Non-participation and Income Taxation”, Journal of Public Economics, vol. 87, pp. 1179–1198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Donni O., 2006a, “Collective Consumption and Welfare”, Canadian Journal of Economics, vol. 39, pp. 124–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Donni O., 2006b, “Les modèles non coopératifs d’offre de travail: théorie et évidence”, Actualité économique: revue d’analyse économique, vol. 82, pp. 181–206.Google Scholar
  67. Donni O., 2007a, “Collective Female Labour Supply: Theory and Application”, Economic Journal, vol. 117, pp. 94–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Donni O., 2007b, “Choix collectif du temps travaillé, consommation publique, et équilibre de Lindahl”, Revue économique, vol. 58, pp. 535–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Donni O., 2008, “Labor Supply, Domestic Production, and Welfare Comparisons”, Journal of Public Economics, vol. 92, pp. 1720–1737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Donni O., 2009, “A Simple Approach to Investigate Intra-household Allocation of Private and Public Goods”, Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 91, pp. 617–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Donni O. and N. Moreau, 2007, “Collective Labor Supply: A Single-equation Model and Some Evidence from French Data”, Journal of Human Resources, vol. 42, pp. 214–246.Google Scholar
  72. Duflo E., 2000, “Child Health and Household Resources: Evidence from the South African Old-Age Pension Program”, American Economic Review, Papers & Proceedings, vol. 90, pp. 393–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Folbre N., 1986, “Cleaning House”, Journal of Development Economics, vol. 2, pp. 5–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Folbre N., 1997, “Gender Coalitions: Extrafamily Influences on Intrafamily Inequality”. In: Haddad L., Hoddinott J. and Alderman H. (eds), Intrahousehold Resource Allocation in Developing Countries, Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Fong Y. and J. Zhang, 2001, “The Identification of Unobservable Independent and Spousal Leisure”, Journal of Political Economy, vol. 109, pp. 191–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Fortin B. and G. Lacroix, 1997, “A Test of the Collective and Unitary Model of Labour Supply”, Economic Journal, vol. 107, pp. 933–955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Gersbach H. and H. Haller, 2001, “Collective Decisions and Competitive Markets”, Review of Economic Studies, vol. 68, pp. 347–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Gray J.S., 1998, “Divorce-Law Changes, Household Bargaining, and Married Women’s Labor Supply”, American Economic Review, vol. 88, pp. 628–642.Google Scholar
  79. Grossbard-Schechtman S. and S. Neuman, 2003, Marriage and Work for Pay. In: Grossbard-Schechtman S. (eds), Marriage and the Economy: Theory and Evidence from Advanced Societies, Cambridge, United-Kingdom: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Haddad L. and J. Hoddinott, 1994, “Women’s Income and Boy-girl Anthropometric Status in the Côte d’Ivoire”, World Development, vol. 22, pp. 543–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Haddad L. and R. Kanbur, 1992a, “Intrahousehold Inequality and the Theory of Targeting”, European Economic Review, vol. 36, pp. 372–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Haddad L. and R. Kanbur, 1992b, “Is There an Intrahousehold Kuznets Curve? Some Evidence from the Philippines”, Public Finance, vol. 47 (supplement), pp. 77–93.Google Scholar
  83. Hayashi F., J.G. Altonji and L.F. Kotlikoff, 1996, “Risk-sharing between and within Families”, Econometrica, vol. 64, pp. 261–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Kanbur R. and L. Haddad, 1994, “Are Better Off Households More Onequal or Less Unequal?”, Oxford Economic Papers, vol. 46, pp. 445–458.Google Scholar
  85. Kapan T., 2009, Essays on Household Behavior, PhD dissertation, Columbia University.Google Scholar
  86. Kemp M., 1984, “A note on the theory of international transfers”, Economics Letters, vol. 14, pp. 259–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Klassen S., 1998, “Marriage, Bargaining, and Intrahousehold Resource Allocation: Excess Female Mortality among Adults during Early German Development, 1740–1860”, Journal of Economic History, vol. 58, pp. 432–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. van Klaveren C., B. van Praag and H. Maassen van den Brink, 2008, “A public good version of the collective household model: an empirical approach with an application to British household data”, Review of Economics of the Household, vol. 6(2), pp. 169–191.Google Scholar
  89. Konrad K.A. and K.E. Lommerud, 1995, “Family Policy with Non-cooperative Families”, Scandinavian Journal of Economics, vol. 97, pp. 581–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Konrad K.A. and K.E. Lommerud, 2000, “The Bargaining Family Revisited”, Canadian Journal of Economics, vol. 33, pp. 471–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Kooreman P., 1994, “Estimation of Econometric Models of some Discrete Games”, Journal of Applied Econometrics, vol. 9, pp. 255–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Kooreman P., 2000, “The Labelling Effect of a Child Benefit System”, American Economic Review, vol. 90, pp. 571–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Kooreman P. and A. Kapteyn, 1990, “On the Empirical Implementation of some Game Theoretic Models of Household Labor Supply”, Journal of Human Resources, vol. 25, pp. 584–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Laisney F. (eds), 2006, “Welfare Analysis of Fiscal and Social Security Reforms in Europe: Does the Representation of Family Decision Process Matter?”, Review of Economics of the Household, vol. 4, pp. 99–180.Google Scholar
  95. Leuthold J., 1968, “An Empirical Study of Formula Transfers and the Work Decision of the Poor”, Journal of Human Resources, vol. 1, pp. 312–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Lechene V. and O. Attanasio, 2002, “Tests of Income Pooling in Household Decisions”, Review of Economic Dynamics, vol. 5, pp. 720–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Lechene V. and I. Preston, 2000, “Noncooperative Household Demand”, Working Paper WP08/14, The Institute for Fiscal Studies.Google Scholar
  98. Lewbel A. and K. Pendakur, 2008, “Estimation of Collective Household Models With Engel Curves,”  Journal of Econometrics, special issue on Estimating Demand Systems and Consumer Preferences, vol. 147, pp. 350–358.Google Scholar
  99. Lich-Tyler S., 2001, “The Dynamics of Bargained Household Decisions”, Manuscript, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
  100. Lich-Tyler S., 2003, “The Consumption Dynamics and Savings Behavior of Pluralistic Households”, Manuscript, University of Michigan at Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  101. Ligon E., 2002, “Dynamic Bargaining in Households (with an Application to Bangladesh)”, Working Paper CUDARE 972, University of California at Berkley.Google Scholar
  102. Lise J. and S. Seitz, 2008, “Consumption Inequality and Intra-household Allocations”, Manuscript, Queen’s University.Google Scholar
  103. Lundberg S. and R.A. Pollak, 1993, “Separate Spheres Bargaining and the Marriage Market”, Journal of Political Economy, vol. 101, pp. 988–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Lundberg S. and R.A. Pollak, 1994, “Non-cooperative Bargaining Models of Marriage”, American Economic Review (Papers & Proceedings), vol. 84, pp. 132–137.Google Scholar
  105. Lundberg S. and R.A. Pollak, 1996, “Bargaining and Distribution in Marriage”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 10, pp. 139–158.Google Scholar
  106. Lundberg S., 2002, “Limits to Specialization: Family Policy and Economic Efficiency”, Manuscript, University of Washington.Google Scholar
  107. Lundberg S. and R.A. Polak, 2003, “Efficiency in Marriage”, Review of Economics of the Household, vol. 1, pp. 153–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Lundberg S., R.A. Pollak and T. Wales, 1997, “Do Husbands and Wives Pool their Resources? Evidence from the UK Child Benefit”, Journal of Human Resources, vol. 32, pp. 463–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Lundberg S., R. Startz and S. Stillman, 2003, “The Retirement-Consumption Puzzle: A Marital Bargaining Approach”, Journal of Public Economics, vol. 87, pp. 1199–1218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Luo G.Y., 2002, “Collective-Decision Making and Heterogeneity in Tastes”, Journal of Business and Economics Statistics, vol. 20, pp. 213–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Manser M. and M. Brown, 1980, “Marriage and Household Decisionmaking: A Bargaining Analysis”, International Economic Review, vol. 21, pp. 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Mazzocco M., 2003, “Intertemporal Behavior and Household Structure”, Manuscript, University of Wisconsin-Madison.Google Scholar
  113. Mazzocco M., 2004, “Individual Euler Equations rather than Household Euler Equations”, Manuscript, University of Wisconsin-Madison.Google Scholar
  114. Mazzocco M., 2005, “Savings, Risk Sharing and Preferences For Risk”, American Economic Review, vol. 94, pp. 1169–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Mazzocco M., 2007, “Household Intertemporal Behavior: A Collective Characterization and a Test of Commitment”, Review of Economic Studies, vol. 79, pp. 857–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. McElroy M.B. and M.J. Horney, 1981, “Nash-bargained Household Decisions: Toward a Generalization of the Theory of Demand”, International Economic Review, vol. 22, pp. 333–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. McElroy M.B., 1990, “The Empirical Content of Nash-bargained Household Behavior”, Journal of Human Resources, vol. 25, pp. 559–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. McElroy M.B., 1997, “The Policy Implications of Family Bargaining and Marriage Markets”. In: Haddad L., Hoddinott J. and Alderman H. (eds), Intrahousehold Resource Allocation in Developing Countries, Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  119. Moehling C., 2005, “‘She has suddenly become powerful’: Youth Employment and Household Decision-Making in the Early Twentieth Century”, Journal of Economic History, vol. 65, pp. 414–438.Google Scholar
  120. Moreau N. and O. Donni O., 2002, “Un modèle collectif d’offre de travail avec taxation”, Annales d’économie et de statistique, vol. 65, pp. 55–81.Google Scholar
  121. Orefficce S., 2007, “Did the Legalization of Abortion Increase Women’s Household Bargaining Power: Evidence from Labor Supply”, Review of Economics of the Household, vol. 5, pp. 181–207.Google Scholar
  122. Ott N., 1992, Intrafamily bargaining and household decisions. Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  123. Phipps S. and P. Burton, 1992, “What’s Mine is Yours? The Influence of Male and Female Incomes on Patterns of Household Expenditure”, Economica, vol. 65, pp. 599–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Pollak R.A., 1969, “Conditional Demand Function and Consumption Theory”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 83, pp. 70–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Pollak R.A., 1977, “Price Dependent Preferences”, American Economic Review, vol. 67, pp. 64–75.Google Scholar
  126. Pollak R.A., 1985, “A Transaction Cost Approach to Families and Households”, Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 23, pp. 581–608.Google Scholar
  127. Rapallini C., 2004, “Scelte di consumo e modello colletivo: test della razionalità colletiva e stima della regola di ripartizione con i dati italiani”  (“Consumption choices and collective models: testing collective rationality and the sharing rule with italian data”), Rivista di Politica Economia, vol. 9–10, pp. 249–271.Google Scholar
  128. Rapoport B., C. Sofer and A. Solaz, 2011, “Household Production in a Collective Model: Some New Results”, Journal of Population Economics, vol. 24(1), pp. 23–45, January.Google Scholar
  129. Rubalcava L. and D. Thomas, 2005, “Family Bargaining and Welfare”, Manuscript, University of California at Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  130. Robin J.M. and R. Smith, 2000, “Test of Rank”, Econometric Theory, vol. 16, pp. 151–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Samuelson P., 1956, “Social Indifference Curves”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 70, pp. 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Schultz T.P., 1990, “Testing the Neoclassical Model of Family Labor Supply and Fertility”, Journal of Human Resources, vol. 25, pp. 599–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Seaton J.S., 1997, “Neoclassical and Collective Rationality in Household Labour Supply”, Applied Economics Letters, vol. 4, pp. 529–533.Google Scholar
  134. Seaton J.S., 2001, “Bargaining versus Non-cooperation; Transaction Costs within Marriage”, Applied Economics Letters, vol. 8, pp. 37–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Seitz S., 2009, “Accounting for Racial Differences in Marriage and Employment”, Journal of Labor Economics, vol. 27(3), pp. 385–437.Google Scholar
  136. Strauss J., G. Mwabu and K. Beegle, 2000, “Intraousehold Allocations: A Review of Theories and Empirical Evidence”, Journal of African Economies, vol. 9 (AERC supplement), pp. 83–143.Google Scholar
  137. Thomas D., 1990, “Intra-household Resource Allocation: An Inferential Approach”, Journal of Human Resources, vol. 25, pp. 635–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Thomas D., 1992, “The Distribution of Income and Expenditures within the Household”, Annales d’économie et de statistique, vol. 29, pp. 109–135.Google Scholar
  139. Thomas D., 1994, “Like Father, like Son: like Mother, like Daughter: Parental Resources and Child Height”, Journal of Human Resources, vol. 25, pp. 950–988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Thomas D. and C.L. Chen, 1994, “Income Shares and Shares of Income: Empirical Tests of Models of Household Resources Allocations”, Working Paper 94–08, RAND, University of California at Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  141. Thomas D., D. Contreras and E. Frankenberg, 2004, “Child Health and the Distribution of Household Resources at Marriage”, Manuscript, University of California at Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  142. Townsend R. (1994), “Risk and Insurance in Village India”,  Econometrica, vol. 62, pp. 539–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Udry C., 1996, “Gender, Agricultural Production, and the Theory of the Household”, Journal of Political Economy, vol. 104, pp. 1010–1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Ulph D., 2006, “Un modèle non-coopératif de Nash  appliqué à l’étude du comportement de consommation du ménage”, Actualité économique: revue d’analyse économique, vol. 82, pp. 53–86.Google Scholar
  145. Vermeulen F., 2002, “Collective Household Models: Principles and Main Results”, Journal of Economic Surveys, vol. 16, pp. 533–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Vermeulen F., 2005, “And the Winner is... An Empirical Evaluation of Two Competing Approaches to Household Labour Supply”, Empirical Economics, vol. 30, pp. 711–734.Google Scholar
  147. Vermeulen F., 2006, “A Collective Model for Female Labour Supply with Nonparticipation and Taxation”, Journal of Population Economics, vol. 19, pp. 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. Vermeulen F. and A. Watteyne, 2006, “Quand un et un ne font plus deux. Calcul d’échelles d’équivalences intrafamiliales au moyen d’un modèle collectif”, Actualité économique: revue d’analyse économique, vol. 82, pp. 155–180.Google Scholar
  149. Warr P., 1983, “The Private Provision of a Public Good Is Independent of the Distribution of Income”, Economic Letters, vol. 13, pp. 207–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Wilson R., 1968, “The Theory of Syndicates”, Econometrica, vol. 36, pp. 119–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. Zamora B., 2011, “Does Female Participation Affect the Sharing Rule?”, Journal of Population Economics, vol. 24(1), pp. 47–83.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.THEMA, University of Cergy-PontoiseCergy-PontoiseFrance
  2. 2.Columbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations