Women's Autonomy and Subjective Well-Being: How Gender Norms Shape the Impact of Self-Help Groups in Odisha, India

Abstract

This paper presents impact estimates of women's self-help group (SHG) membership on subjective well-being in Odisha, India, using 2008 survey data in a quasi-experimental design. It finds that, while there is evidence of a positive impact of SHG membership on women's autonomy, on average, SHG membership does not affect subjective well-being. However, results also reveal that for members living in communities with relatively conservative gender norms among nonmembers, subjective well-being is notably lower. The authors interpret this finding as evidence that these SHG members feel a loss of identity -a problem that looms larger when women's enhanced autonomy implies a stronger violation of gender norms at the community level. In these communities, social-sanctioning mechanisms contribute to a negative impact of women's SHGs on subjective well-being, as evidenced by qualitative accounts of women's empowerment trajectories in the research area.

Delivering development? Evidence on self‐help groups as development intermediaries in South Asia and Africa

“…() note that, in spite of increased reported empowerment for female group members, division of labour within the household remained unchanged and women continued to bear a larger work burden. De Hoop, van Kempen, Linssen, and van Eerdewijk () find that Indian SHG participation was associated with higher reported feelings of autonomy, but participation had a significant negative impact on subjective wellbeing in communities with more conservative gender norms, suggesting an important, but potentially consequential, unintended effect of SHG participation in such settings.…”

“…Few studies provide detail on the specific components of the intervention designed to promote empowerment, making it difficult to draw lessons for other programmes. While one study reports specific harm from SHG participation (de Hoop et al., ) many studies did not evaluate such potential negative effects. Theory and data collection about negative consequences should be a more explicit part of future studies.…”

“…Of 18 studies analysing savings, 17 15 report that savings rates increased for group members. This suggests that group-based saving helps participants either by providing a safe, accessible savings mechanism, perhaps by helping them commit to savings (Gugerty, 2007) or providing a means to resist social network demands (Dagnelie & LeMay-Boucher, 2008;Holvoet, 2005). The evidence does note the potential risk to members if peers default (Molyneux, Hutchison, Chuma, & Gilson, 2007), but the extent to which this affects individuals is not clear.…”

“…Seven studies report increased income for SHG members from 16 Colbourn et al, 2013;Houweling et al, 2013;Rath et al, 2010;Roy et al, 2013;Tripathy et al, 2010. 17 Positive: Anderson and Baland, 2002;Caro, Pangare and Manfre, 2013;Colbourn et al, 2013;Dagnelie and LeMay-Boucher, 2008;de Hoop et al, 2014;Deininger and Liu, 2009;Desai and Joshi, 2012;Greaney et al, 2013;Holvoet, 2005;Odek et al, 2009;Reddy and Manak, 2005;Swain et al, 2009;Swain, 2012;Tesoriero, 2006;Van Rompay et al, 2008. Mixed: Molyneux et al, 2007Sinha et al, 2006.…”

“…The impacts of SHG participation on agricultural outcomes are harder to assess: the outcome measures used (such as yield, technology adoption or income) vary widely and are often self-reported 21 Bhoj, Bardhan and Kumar, 2013;Caro, Pangare and Manfre, 2013;Dagnelie and LeMay-Boucher, 2008;Greaney et al, 2013;Kaganzi et al, 2009;Odek et al, 2009;Saha, Annear and Pathak, 2013. 22 Deininger and Liu, 2009;Desai and Joshi, 2012;Swain and Varghese, 2009.…”