Skip to main content

Modeling Gender Inequity in Household Decision-Making

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Social, Cultural, and Behavioral Modeling (SBP-BRiMS 2019)

Abstract

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that if female farmers in developing countries had access to the same resources as men, the number of undernourished people would decrease by 12%–17% [9]. Clearly, gender equity is a vital part of increasing agricultural production to feed the world’s projected 9.7 billion people by 2050. However, programs designed to empower women in agricultural systems are expensive, and no quantitative model exists to define and explore the efficacy of policies in cultural contexts. We introduce a formal model of household decisions embedded in an agent-based model of community gender dynamics and show how the explicit definition of gender inequity can help inform decision-making about programs intended to empower women.

Supported by the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Agarwal, B.: “Bargaining" and gender relations: within and beyond the household. Feminist Econ, 3(1), 1–51 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Basu, K.: Gender and say: a model of household behaviour with endogenously determined balance of power. Econ. J. 116(511), 558–580 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Browning, M., Chiappori, P.A.: Efficient intra-household allocations: a general characterization and empirical tests. Econometrica 66(6), 1241–1278 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Chiappori, P.A., Fortin, B., Lacroix, G.: Marriage market, divorce legislation, and household labor supply. J. Polit. Econ. 110(1), 37–72 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chiappori, P.A., et al.: Rational household labor supply. Econometrica 56(1), 63–90 (1988)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Deaton, A., Muellbauer, J., et al.: Economics and Consumer Behavior. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1980)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Doss, C.: If women hold up half the sky, how much of the world’s food do they produce? In: Quisumbing, A., Meinzen-Dick, R., Raney, T., Croppenstedt, A., Behrman, J., Peterman, A. (eds.) Gender in agriculture, pp. 69–88. Springer, Dordrecht (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8616-4_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Doss, C.R.: Designing agricultural technology for African women farmers: lessons from 25 years of experience. World Devel. 29(12), 2075–2092 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. FAO: The State of Food and Agriculture: Women in Agriculture: Closing the gender gap for development. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations (2010–2011)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Godfray, H.C.J., et al.: Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327(5967), 812–818 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Lopez-Claros, A., Zahidi, S.: Women’s empowerment: measuring the global gender gap. Geneva Switzerland World Economic Forum 2005 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Meinzen-Dick, R., Behrman, J., Menon, P., Quisumbing, A.: Gender: A key dimension linking agricultural programs to improved nutrition and health. In: Reshaping Agriculture for Nutrition and Health, pp. 135–44 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Rosenberg, M.L., Butchart, A., Mercy, J., Narasimhan, V., Waters, H., Marshall, M.S.: Interpersonal violence. Dis. Control Priorities Dev. Countries 2, 755–70 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Schaner, S.: Do opposites detract? Intrahousehold preference heterogeneity and inefficient strategic savings. Am. Econ. J.: Appl. Econ. 7(2), 135–74 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Schuler, S.R., Hashemi, S.M., Badal, S.H.: Men’s violence against women in rural Bangladesh: undermined or exacerbated by microcredit programmes? Dev. Pract. 8(2), 148–157 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Smith, L.C., Chavas, J.P.: Supply response of West African agricultural households: Implications of intrahousehold preference heterogeneity. IFPRI Food Consumption and Nutrition Division, discussion paper 69 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Young, H.P.: Innovation diffusion in heterogeneous populations: contagion, social influence, and social learning. Am. Econ. Rev. 99(5), 1899–1924 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Thanks to the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship for funding this research. Thank you also to Lacey Harris-Coble and Luca Mantegazza who discussed gender dynamics and bargaining with us.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Allegra A. Beal Cohen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Beal Cohen, A.A., Cohen, P.R., Kiker, G. (2019). Modeling Gender Inequity in Household Decision-Making. In: Thomson, R., Bisgin, H., Dancy, C., Hyder, A. (eds) Social, Cultural, and Behavioral Modeling. SBP-BRiMS 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11549. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21741-9_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21741-9_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-21740-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-21741-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics