Intrahousehold Inequality

Chiappori, Pierre‐André; Meghir, Costas

doi:10.3386/w20191

Cited by 17 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Yet, economists have tried to derive the “sharing rule,” i.e. the resource shares of each individual in a household, from data on household consumption and labor supply (Browning et al , 1994; see Chiappori and Meghir, 2014, for a review of this line of research). Though the results of such studies often depend on the identifying restrictions (i.e.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deprivation of Women and Men Living in a Couple: Sharing or Unequal Division?

Guio

Bosch

2019

Review of Income and Wealth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In standard poverty analyses, all household members are assumed to share equal living conditions. Though a few national studies exist, this paper is the first to present empirical evidence on this issue for the EU, using the 2015 wave of the EU Statistics on Income and Living Conditions. We map the extent of intra‐couple inequality in deprivation, and analyze its determinants. We find that for most items, the gender difference in lack between partners, though generally small, is significant and at the disadvantage of women. When aggregating the individual items into a deprivation scale, couples where the number of enforced lacks is higher for the woman (9.2 percent) are (significantly) more numerous than couples where the man is disadvantaged (6.5 percent), at the EU level. Econometric analysis shows that the work status of the partners and their relative contribution to the joint income are important determinants of the intra‐couple gender deprivation gap.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deprivation of Women and Men Living in a Couple: Sharing or Unequal Division?

Guio

Bosch

2019

Review of Income and Wealth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…for a more general presentation along similar lines, the reader is referred to Chiappori and Meghir (2014). The household production technology is thus described by a production function that gives the possible vector of outputs q = f (x, τ ) that can be produced given a vector of market purchases x and the time τ = (τ a , a = 1, K) spent in household production by each of the members.…”

Section: Domestic Productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intrahousehold Inequality

Chiappori

Meghir

2015

Handbook of Income Distribution

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies of inequality often ignore resource allocation within the household. In doing so they miss an important element of the distribution of welfare that can vary dramatically depending on overall environmental and economic factors. Thus, measures of inequality that ignore intra household allocations are both incomplete and misleading. We discuss determinants of intrahousehold allocation of resources and welfare. We show how the sharing rule, which characterizes the within household allocations, can be identified from data on household consumption and labor supply. We also argue that a measure based on estimates of the sharing rule is is inadequate as an approach that seeks to understand how welfare is distributed in the population because it ignores public goods and the allocation of time to market work, leisure and household production. We discuss a money metric alternative, that fully characterizes the utility level reached by the agent. We then review the current literature on the estimation of the sharing rule based on a number of approaches, including the use of distribution factors as well as preference restrictions.

show abstract

“…(Lise & Seitz, 2011, Chiappori, Fortin & Lacroix, 2002, Dunbar, Lewbel & Pendakur, 2013, Browning, Chiappori & Lewbel 2013. Case & Deaton (2002) and Chiappori & Meghir (2014) provide an excellent review of the various approaches used in the literature. But first and foremost they note the serious challenges when doing so.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Serious is the Neglect of Intra-Household Inequality in Multi-Dimensional Poverty Indices?

Klasen

Lahoti

2016

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in AbstractIncome-based as well as most existing multidimensional poverty indices (MPI) assume equal distribution within the household and thus are likely to lead to yield a biased assessment of individual poverty, and poverty by age or gender. In this paper we first show that the direction of the bias depends on how these measures use individual data to determine the poverty status of households, while the impact of these assumptions on inequality between individual cannot be determined a priori. We then use data from the 2012 Indian Human Development Survey to create a standard household-based MPIs closely related to the MPI proposed by Alkire and Santos (2014) as well as UNDP (2014), and compare that to an individual level MPI that individualizes education and nutrition and some aspects of the living standards dimensions. We find that the poverty rate of females is 14 percentage points higher than that of men in our individual MPI measure but only 2 percentage points higher when using the household-based measure. Similarly, the age differentials in poverty are much larger using the individual-based measure. Using a decomposable inequality measure, we find the contribution of intrahousehold inequality to the total inequality in the individual deprivation score inequality to be 30% and total inequality is also some 30% higher using the individual-based measure, while inequality among the poor is found to be 5% smaller using the individual measure.

show abstract

Intrahousehold Inequality

Cited by 17 publications

References 13 publications

Deprivation of Women and Men Living in a Couple: Sharing or Unequal Division?

Deprivation of Women and Men Living in a Couple: Sharing or Unequal Division?

Intrahousehold Inequality

How Serious is the Neglect of Intra-Household Inequality in Multi-Dimensional Poverty Indices?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About