Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iza/izadps/dp5706.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Are Girls the Fairer Sex in India? Revisiting Intra-Household Allocation of Education Expenditure

Author

Listed:
  • Azam, Mehtabul

    (Oklahoma State University)

  • Kingdon, Geeta G.

    (University College London)

Abstract
This paper revisits the issue of the intra-household allocation of education expenditure with the recently available India Human Development Survey which refers to 2005 and covers both urban and rural areas. In addition to the traditional Engel method, the paper utilizes a Hurdle model to disentangle the decision to enroll (incur any educational expenditure) and the decision of how much to spend on education, conditional on enrolling. The paper finds that the traditional Engel method often fails to pick up gender bias where it exists not only because of the aggregation of data at the household-level but also because of aggregation of the two decisions in which gender can have opposite signs. There exists little evidence of gender bias in the primary school age group (age 5-9); however, pro-male bias in educational expenditure is observed in many Indian states in the age group 10-14. In contrast, gender discrimination in the secondary school age group 15-19 mainly takes place through the decision to enroll boys and not girls, and not through differential expenditure on girls and boys. Overall, the results reveal large regional disparities in the nature and existence of gender bias in education.

Suggested Citation

  • Azam, Mehtabul & Kingdon, Geeta G., 2011. "Are Girls the Fairer Sex in India? Revisiting Intra-Household Allocation of Education Expenditure," IZA Discussion Papers 5706, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    • Handle: RePEc:iza:izadps:dp5706
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://docs.iza.org/dp5706.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jean Drèze & Geeta Gandhi Kingdon, 2001. "School Participation in Rural India," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 5(1), pages 1-24, February.
    2. Abu-Ghaida, Dina & Klasen, Stephan, 2004. "The Costs of Missing the Millennium Development Goal on Gender Equity," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 32(7), pages 1075-1107, July.
    3. Geeta Gandhi Kingdon, 1998. "Does the labour market explain lower female schooling in India?," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(1), pages 39-65.
    4. Monazza Aslam & Geeta Gandhi Kingdon, 2008. "Gender and household education expenditure in Pakistan," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(20), pages 2573-2591.
    5. Monazza Aslam, 2009. "The relative effectiveness of government and private schools in Pakistan: are girls worse off?," Education Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(3), pages 329-354.
    6. Robert Jensen, 2012. "Do Labor Market Opportunities Affect Young Women's Work and Family Decisions? Experimental Evidence from India," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 127(2), pages 753-792.
    7. repec:bla:devpol:v:28:y:2010:i:6:p:733-747 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Angus Deaton & Christina Paxson, 1998. "Economies of Scale, Household Size, and the Demand for Food," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 106(5), pages 897-930, October.
    9. Rozana Himaz, 2010. "Intrahousehold Allocation of Education Expenditure: The Case of Sri Lanka," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 58(2), pages 231-258, January.
    10. Nancy Birdsall & David Ross & Richard Sabot, 1993. "Underinvestment in Education: How Much Growth has Pakistan Foregone?," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 32(4), pages 453-499.
    11. Deaton, Angus S, 1989. "Looking for Boy-Girl Discrimination in Household Expenditure Data," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 3(1), pages 1-15, January.
    12. Paul Schultz, T., 2002. "Why Governments Should Invest More to Educate Girls," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 207-225, February.
    13. Geoffrey Lancaster & Pushkar Maitra & Ranjan Ray, 2008. "Household Expenditure Patterns and Gender Bias: Evidence from Selected Indian States," Oxford Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(2), pages 133-157.
    14. Geeta Gandhi Kingdon, 2007. "The progress of school education in India," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 23(2), pages 168-195, Summer.
    15. McMahon, Walter W., 2002. "Education and Development: Measuring the Social Benefits," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199250721.
    16. Himaz, Rozana, 2009. "Is there a boy bias in household education expenditure: the case of Andhra Pradesh in India," MPRA Paper 21889, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Kingdon, Geeta Gandhi, 2005. "Where Has All the Bias Gone? Detecting Gender Bias in the Intrahousehold Allocation of Educational Expenditure," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 53(2), pages 409-451, January.
    18. Kaivan Munshi & Mark Rosenzweig, 2006. "Traditional Institutions Meet the Modern World: Caste, Gender, and Schooling Choice in a Globalizing Economy," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(4), pages 1225-1252, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Azam, Mehtabul & Kingdon, Geeta Gandhi, 2013. "Are Girls the Fairer Sex in India? Revisiting Intra-Household Allocation of Education Expenditure," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 143-164.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Engel curve; Gender bias; Hurdle model; educational expenditure; India;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I21 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Analysis of Education
    • J16 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Economics of Gender; Non-labor Discrimination
    • J71 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Labor Discrimination - - - Hiring and Firing

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:iza:izadps:dp5706. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Holger Hinte (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/izaaade.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.