Tasks and Opportunities within Indian Families

Sripad MotiramIGIDR, Mumbai

Lars OsbergDepartment of Economics, Dalhousie University, Halifax

Conference on Time Use, Poverty and Public Policy, American University, Mar 9-10, 2009

Economics & the allocation of scarce resources – should we study time or money?

Income & expenditure data Uninformative for those with little or no money

e.g. children, many women, poor

Time Use data Every one has 24 hours Time focus especially useful in developing countries

Development implies transition to marketed output Extreme poverty & gender disadvantage prevalent

Illustrate using Indian data Gender inequality in adult and child tasks School Attendance vs. School Enrollment Time invested in education of children

Formal Schooling + Informal Instruction in home

What influences gender bias in Education in India?

Time invested = school + informal instruction School time = class + travel + homework

Substantial gender differences in daily tasks imply gender bias in opportunity cost of time House Work – women do nearly all (rural & urban)

specialization starts early, including for schoolgirls BUT rural women also work in fields, urban women

constrained to home, time available for instruct/learn Urbanization – huge plus for female education

Increased school attendance (Male & Female) Decreased female dropout More informal instruction – mostly by women

Prob (get informal instruction) – gender not significant

Main Findings on Informal Instruction within Home

Household Fixed Effects Model Gender is statistically insignificant and

very small magnitude Robust to sample selection

The Time Use Diary Methodology

Standard Labour Force Survey Retrospective & summative questions asked:

“How many hours do you normally work?” Rounding, Anchoring, Inconsistency Problems Large samples possible, low response burden

Time Diary Interviewer walks respondent through previous

random day – in 10-15 minute intervals Narrative spur to recall

Multiple activities + social context observable Imposes consistency & completeness

Better measures of working hours? Labour Intensive - implies small samples (?) Episodic activities probabilistically observed

E.g. Expectation (dining out | characteristics

Indian Time Use Survey,1998-99

Gujarat, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Meghalaya, Orissa, Tamil Nadu. 233 million total pop. Regionally representative

Stratified Random Sampling (NSS). 52 districts

18,592 Households. (77,593 persons). 12,751 rural, 5,841 urban Households

Interview Method. Male + female interviewer Visit village for 9 days to assess Time Use Diary of day’s activities for all persons

aged 6+ Normal / Abnormal / Weekly variant – normal used

Indian Time Use Survey,1998-99

Commodities + Home Production enable Household Consumption

Housework in India Clearly a female task – rural & urban

Primary + Secondary + Trade/Services = SIC Commodity Production Waged + Unwaged Labour

“Caring” labour – valuable but no commodities Rural – female field work time ≈ 2/3 male

Field work + house work = longer workday Urban – constrained female work time

Average Male SIC work hours ≈ 8.5 Average Female SIC work hours ≈ 1.5

Housework – clearly gendered task in India!

  urban rural

 Housework

(4)Housework

(4)

Boys 6-10 6.1 5.6

Girls 6-10 13.4 28.2

Difference -7.3 -22.5

     

Boys 11-14 7.9 14.3

Girls 11-14 60 99.3

Difference -52.1 -85

     

Boys 15-18 14.6 18.6

Girls 15-18 152.1 225

Difference -137.5 -206.3

  urban rural

 Housework

(4)Housework

(4)

Men 19-44 18.1 20

Women 19-44 361.2 331

Difference -343.1 -311

     

Men 45-64 25.1 21.4

Women 45-64 295.2 243.6

Difference -270.1 -222.1

     

Men 65+ 24.2 20.8

Women 65+ 121.5 136.7

Difference -97.3 -115.9

[Commodity + Home Production Time] – urban/rural opportunity cost ?

Average Minutes/Day

 1+2+3+4Urban

1+2+3+4Rural

Men 19-44 530.4 520

Women 19-44 456.3 568.5

Difference 74.1 -48.6

     

Men 45-64 509.1 495.4

Women 45-64 410.1 494.2

Difference 99 1.2

     

Men 65+ 186.8 280.1

Women 65+ 153.2 238.7

Difference 33.6 41.4

Average Minutes/Day

URBANPrimary

(1)Sec(2)

Trade/Service

(3)

Men 19-44 39.4 125.5 347.4

Women 19-44 24.5 23.5 47.2

Difference 14.9 102.0 300.3

RURALPrimary

(1)Sec(2)

Trade(3)

Men 19-44 350.4 62.6 87.0

Women 19-44 205.2 18.8 13.6

Difference 145.2 43.8 73.4

Schooling and Informal Instruction

Human Capital formation – time intensive Do Indian Families prefer to invest in the Human

Capital of boys? School enrolment & attendance

Lower & more biased to boys in rural areas Urban – roughly equal boys/girls HUGE impact of parental illiteracy

Informal Instruction by parents Historically important – Sweden in 1600s ITUS

match parent & child reports of informal instruction“Teaching, training & Instruction of own children” (521) - Parents" non-formal education” (741) - children

simultaneous give/receive – Who gives? Who gets?

School Attendance of Boys & Girls

Urban – roughly similar attendance rates Rural – systematic female disadvantage

Smaller in % attend (-8.8%) than in % enrol (-11.7%)

  Attendance

Ages 6-10 Ages 11-14 Ages 15-18 Ages 6-18

  Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls

  % % % % % % % %

Total Urban 69.8 68.1 72.5 70.5 42.4 40.3 60.3 58.7

Total Rural 71.1 66.2 66.5 54 30.5 19.2 56.7 47.9

School Attendance differencesGender – small compared to class

  Ages 6-10 Ages 11-14

Boys Girls Boys Girls

Urban        

No lits in HH 44.8 37.5 57.6 18.1

Some lits in HH

72.1 71.1 73.6 74.1

Rural        

No lits in HH 57.7 48.9 50.5 25.2

Some lits in HH

77.6 74.8 71.9 61.1

Parental Informal Instruction in India

Are boys more likely to receive informal instruction than girls in the same family?

Households fixed effects model Ihc=f(Xh, Zhc, uhc) Can deal with omitted variable bias Justifiable – compared to two probits Linear probability estimation Within and Random effects estimation –

Hausman test – within preferred

Sample selection? – no evidence

Informal Instruction (Continued …) Rural Urban

Fixed Effects Random Effects Fixed Effects Random Effects Intercept 0.020

(0.01) 0.025 (0.00)

0.109 (0.00)

0.082 (0.00)

Dummy for age group 6-10

0.008 (0.01)

0.016 (0.00)

0.011 (0.17)

0.046 (0.00)

Dummy for age group 11-15

0.004 (0.10)

0.009 (0.00)

0.015 (0.03)

0.031 (0.00)

Dummy for Child of the head of household

0.010 (0.20)

-0.001 (0.81)

-0.031 (0.23)

-0.010 (0.47)

Dummy for a Boy 0.002 (0.31)

0.002 (0.43)

-0.006 (0.30)

-0.008 (0.12)

Sample Size 11703 11703 5123 5123 R2 within 0.002 0.001 0.003 0.002 R2 between 0.003 0.010 0.006 0.036 R2 overall 0.001 0.006 0.006 0.021 Prob>Chi2 for Hausman test*

0.00 0.00 0.00

Conclusions Gender Bias in Tasks

Housework – clearly gendered labour in rural & urban India Total – housework + commodity production – less clear

Younger rural women; housework + field work = longer day Field work = Opportunity cost of any time girls spend in school

Urban women – less work outside home Available time for school + home instruction of children

Gender Bias in Opportunities Parental Illiteracy – major negative for school & informal Rural - Less school & less parental instruction

Girls especially disadvantaged Urban - More school & more parental instruction No evidence of gender bias in informal instruction

Amount & Gender Equity of Human Capital Investment Under-appreciated benefit of urbanization in India ?

Thank You