what about the women? female headship, poverty and ... · female headship, poverty and...
TRANSCRIPT
What about the Women?
Female Headship, Poverty and Vulnerability
in Thailand and Vietnam
Tobias Lechtenfeld
with Stephan Klasen and Felix Povel
20-21 January 2011
OECD Conference, Paris
Thailand and Vietnam
Study Area
Female-Headed Households
Poverty reduction by 2/3 in only 2 decades
How inclusive has growth been for typically poor and vulnerable groups:
Female Headed Households, incl. Single Mothers, Widows?
Thailand Vietnam
Population 63 Million 85 Million 25% of population in SE Asia
Female Head 29.3% 17.4% in rural areas
GDP Growth 7.4% 8.1% since mid-80s, annually
Poverty 40% 74% headcount 1985
Reduction 12% 22% headcount 2008
Female-Headed Households
1. Theory Why could Female Headed Households be vulnerable?
2. Methods Poverty traps and Vulnerability
3. Data Households in Thailand and Vietnam
4. Results Shocks, Poverty traps and Income sources
Theory
Why could Female Headed Households be most vulnerable?
A. Differences between men and women (Gender-related Economic Gap)
limited access to markets
B. Differences between Male- and Female-Headed Households
work burden
lack of support
Theory
A. Differences between men and women (Gender-related Economic Gap)
access to land
dominated by men, if female ownership, much smaller
inheritance and land titling laws
direct income effect (World Bank, 2007)
formal credit markets (King et al., 2007)
lack of collateral (Storey, 2004; Diagne et al., 2000)
hard to start own business (King et al., 2007; Blackden Bhanu, 1999)
insurance markets
hardly functioning for men and women alike
BUT: impact stronger for women
lack of pension system
lack of health insurance
often access only through spouses (World Bank, 2001)
Theory
A. Differences between men and women (cont)
labour market
different wages
differential access to wage employment (Collier, 1994)
less productive in employment
girls receive less schooling (World Bank, 2001)
less work experience (social stigma against labour) (King et al., 2007)
less productive in farming
adopt new production technology less likely
(Chirwa, 2005; Asfaw and Admassie, 2004)
Theory
B. Differences between Male- and Female-Headed Households
double day burden
handle domestic work and the role of main earner simultaneously
(Moghadam, 1997).
time and mobility constraints
impacts negatively households’ income
(Buvinic and Gupta, 1997).
lack of support from social networks
reduced family network to draw on (Bibars, 2001; Chant, 2008)
Empirical Evidence
Poverty situation of female‐headed households
Quisumbing et al.(2001): 10 country analysis, comparable methods
Only in 2 of 10 countries FHH more poor
Buvinic and Gupta (1997): review of 61 studies on FHH
In 38 studies FHH more poor
In 15 studies some FHH type more poor
In 8 studies no evidence of increased poverty
Situation largely country specific
Lampietti and Stalker (2000), Ye (1998), and Haddad et al. (1996)
Data
Country Female Male
Thailand 451 1721
Vietnam 323 1866
De Jure De Facto
Thailand 359 92
Vietnam 265 58
Widow Single Absent
Husband
Thailand 298 61 92
Vietnam 202 63 58
Sample Size: 4361 Households, 3 Panel Waves
Analysis
Six sets of analysis
1. Poverty
2. Exposure to shocks
3. Shock severity
4. Vulnerability to downside risk
5. Vulnerability to poverty
6. Consumption Smoothing
Analysis
1. Consumption Poverty
Consumption Regression
Outcome: Consumption per capita
Adult equivalent scales: reflect different consumption needs
Reduces bias in the poverty estimates
Economies of Scale at household level
Reduces bias in the poverty estimate
1. Consumption Poverty (2007)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Shock GENDER FACTO/JURE TYPE
Exposure Thailand Vietnam Thailand Vietnam Thailand Vietnam
Female Head 0.0936*** -0.0289
(0.0297) (0.0350)
De Facto FHH 0.289*** 0.183**
(0.0482) (0.0697)
De Jure FHH 0.0380 -0.0854**
(0.0335) (0.0372)
FHH, absent husband 0.293*** 0.178**
(0.0483) (0.0697)
FHH, widow 0.0190 -0.0459
(0.0348) (0.0377)
FHH, single 0.122 -0.210***
(0.0744) (0.0736)
Observations 2,169 2,180 2,169 2,180 2,169 2,180
Adj. R-squared 0.215 0.386 0.221 0.391 0.221 0.393
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Robust standard errors in parentheses, with village dummies
Regressions include controls: dep. ratio, edu level, age, inc sources, land
1. Consumption Poverty (2008)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Shock GENDER FACTO/JURE TYPE
Exposure Thailand Vietnam Thailand Vietnam Thailand Vietnam
Female Head 0.0777** -0.0350
(0.0345) (0.0323)
De Facto FHH 0.188*** 0.203***
(0.0667) (0.0680)
De Jure FHH 0.0495 -0.101***
(0.0384) (0.0353)
FHH, absent husband 0.187*** 0.196***
(0.0667) (0.0678)
FHH, widow 0.0598 -0.0504
(0.0429) (0.0390)
FHH, single -0.00195 -0.253***
(0.0826) (0.0638)
Observations 2,121 2,144 2,121 2,144 2,121 2,144
Adj. R-squared 0.242 0.342 0.243 0.349 0.243 0.352
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Robust standard errors in parentheses, with village dummies
Regressions include controls: dep. ratio, edu level, age, inc sources, land
Analysis
2. Exposure to shocks
Probit Regression - Outcome: Binary Shock Aggregate
Income Shock Health Shock Social Shock
Credit Problem Birth Social Obligation
Price Shock Illness Migrated Hh Member
Job / Business Loss Accident Crime / Law / Jail
Remittance Drop Death House Damage
Livestock Disease
Crop Pest
Storm / Rain / Cold
Drought
Any Shock No
Shock
Thailand 32.32 67.68
Vietnam 59.95 40.05
Income Shock Health Shock Social Shock
Thailand 21.61 9.84 4.14
Vietnam 43.29 23.24 3.97
Market Shock Agricultural Supply
Shock
Thailand 6.07 17.15
Vietnam 2.74 41.69
Cre
dit
Pro
ble
m
Pri
ce S
ho
ck
Job
/ B
usi
nes
s
Loss
Re
mit
tan
ce
Dro
p
Live
sto
ck
Dis
ease
Cro
p P
est
Sto
rm /
Rai
n /
Co
ld
Dro
ugh
t
Bir
th
Illn
ess
Acc
iden
t
Dea
th
Soci
al O
blig
atio
n
Mig
rate
d H
h
Me
mb
er
Cri
me
/ La
w /
Jail
Ho
use
Dam
age
Thailand 2.9 1.75 1.66 0.28 0.32 2.34 5.43 9.93 0.23 6.39 0.32 3.08 1.33 0.41 1.24 1.38
Vietnam 0.37 1.83 0.55 0.05 8.4 9.54 22.97 8.17 1.83 18.31 2.01 1.96 0.73 1.14 1.64 0.5
2. Exposure to shocks: Shock Incidence (2007)
Any Shock No
Shock
Thailand 60.96 39.04
Vietnam 73.09 26.91
Income Shock Health Shock Social Shock
Thailand 46.53 23.53 10.89
Vietnam 61.38 24.63 8.68
Market Shock Agricultural Supply
Shock
Thailand 19.38 38.76
Vietnam 2.43 60.31
Cre
dit
Pro
ble
m
Pri
ce S
ho
ck
Job
/ B
usi
nes
s
Loss
Re
mit
tan
ce
Dro
p
Live
sto
ck
Dis
ease
Cro
p P
est
Sto
rm /
Rai
n /
Co
ld
Dro
ugh
t
Bir
th
Illn
ess
Acc
iden
t
Dea
th
Soci
al O
blig
atio
n
Mig
rate
d H
h
Me
mb
er
Cri
me
/ La
w /
Jail
Ho
use
Dam
age
Thailand 2.26 14.29 3.25 1.08 1.27 11.27 13.67 23.57 1.37 17.44 4.53 2.07 4.48 0.61 4.76 1.79
Vietnam 0.09 1.63 0.75 0.05 12.83 11.38 47.62 5.74 2.15 19.5 2.57 2.19 3.92 1.31 2.29 1.82
2. Exposure to shocks: Shock Incidence (2008)
2. Exposure to shocks (2007)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Any Shock GENDER FACTO/JURE TYPE
Exposure Thailand Vietnam Thailand Vietnam Thailand Vietnam
Female Head 0.00881 0.0790**
(0.0267) (0.0316)
De Facto FHH -0.0532 0.0907
(0.0595) (0.0748)
De Jure FHH 0.0253 0.0757**
(0.0283) (0.0376)
FHH, absent husband -0.0505 0.0907
(0.0597) (0.0746)
FHH, widow 0.0109 0.0756*
(0.0295) (0.0407)
FHH, single 0.0893 0.0760
(0.0658) (0.0746)
Observations 2,172 2,189 2,172 2,189 2,172 2,189
Wald Chi2 159.091 253.140 160.654 253.142 161.985 253.456
Prob > Chi2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Pseudo R2 0.058 0.066 0.059 0.066 0.059 0.066
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Robust standard errors in parentheses, with district dummies
Regressions include controls: dep. ratio, edu level, age, remittances, inc sources, land
2. Exposure to shocks (2008)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Any Shock GENDER FACTO/JURE TYPE
Exposure Thailand Vietnam Thailand Vietnam Thailand Vietnam
Female Head 0.0279 0.00648
(0.0289) (0.0341)
De Facto FHH -0.0199 -0.0628
(0.0556) (0.0509)
De Jure FHH 0.0403 0.0258
(0.0321) (0.0375)
FHH, absent husband -0.0197 -0.0629
(0.0557) (0.0507)
FHH, widow 0.0378 0.0263
(0.0340) (0.0425)
FHH, single 0.0521 0.0243
(0.0780) (0.0649)
Observations 2,121 2,127 2,121 2,127 2,121 2,127
Wald Chi2 139.680 497.003 140.504 500.085 140.538 500.148
Prob > Chi2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Pseudo R2 0.049 0.210 0.050 0.211 0.050 0.211
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Robust standard errors in parentheses, with district dummies
Regressions include controls: dep. ratio, edu level, age, remittances, inc sources, land
Analysis
3. Shock Severity: Asset Loss
Tobit Regression
Outcome: Asset Loss from Shock, in ln(USD PPP)
Intuition
- Shocks can directly destroy assets (floods, fire, theft, etc)
- Shock causes income loss and increased expenditure, making it
necessary to sell assets
Model
3. Shock Severity: Tobit, Asset Loss (2008)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Downward GENDER FACTO/JURE TYPE
Risk Thailand Vietnam Thailand Vietnam Thailand Vietnam
Female Head -0.830 1.206*
(1.234) (0.643)
De Facto FHH 0.841 2.500**
(2.346) (1.132)
De Jure FHH -1.336 0.759
(1.464) (0.809)
FHH, absent husband 0.833 2.513**
(2.349) (1.137)
FHH, widow -0.805 0.653
(1.564) (0.933)
FHH, single -5.054 1.181
(4.390) (1.281)
Observations 1,290 1,564 1,290 1,564 1,290 1,564
Pseudo R2 0.075 0.139 0.075 0.140 0.076 0.140
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Robust standard errors in parentheses, with village dummies
Regressions include controls: dep. ratio, edu level, age, remittances, inc sources, land
Analysis
4. Vulnerability to Downside Risk (Povel 2009)
OLS Regression
Outcome: Vulnerability measure based on future expectation
Intuition
Sum of expected values of all possible deprivations
of future states of the world of household
with probability of occurrence
and a degree of risk aversion
Vulnerability Index: Downside Risk
4. Vulnerability to Downside Risk (2008)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Downward GENDER FACTO/JURE TYPE
Risk Thailand Vietnam Thailand Vietnam Thailand Vietnam
Female Head 0.00276 -0.00125
(0.00285) (0.00149)
De Facto FHH 0.00757 -0.00494*
(0.00580) (0.00294)
De Jure FHH 0.00152 -0.000225
(0.00308) (0.00191)
FHH, absent husband 0.00744 -0.00493*
(0.00581) (0.00296)
FHH, widow 0.00301 -0.000315
(0.00351) (0.00215)
FHH, single -0.00590 4.58e-05
(0.00435) (0.00292)
Observations 2,121 2,144 2,121 2,144 2,121 2,144
Adj. R-squared 0.013 0.082 0.013 0.082 0.014 0.082
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Robust standard errors in parentheses, with village dummies
Regressions include controls: dep. ratio, edu level, age, remittances, inc sources, land
Analysis
5. Vulnerability to Poverty (Calvo & Dercon 2005)
OLS Regression
Outcome: Vulnerability measure based on past experiences
Intuition
Sum of expected values of all possible deprivations
defined as , and censored at the poverty line
with income , of future states of the world
of household with probability of occurrence
and a degree of risk aversion
Vulnerability Index
5. Vulnerability to Poverty: Calvo Dercon (2007)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Downward GENDER FACTO/JURE TYPE
Risk Thailand Vietnam Thailand Vietnam Thailand Vietnam
Female Head -0.00701* -0.000700
(0.00378) (0.00928)
De Facto FHH -0.0139*** -0.0289***
(0.00465) (0.00944)
De Jure FHH -0.00506 0.00680
(0.00429) (0.0108)
FHH, absent husband -0.0140*** -0.0285***
(0.00466) (0.00947)
FHH, widow -0.00444 0.00271
(0.00456) (0.0115)
FHH, single -0.00785 0.0196
(0.00747) (0.0185)
Observations 2,172 2,189 2,172 2,189 2,172 2,189
Adj. R-squared 0.049 0.151 0.049 0.153 0.049 0.153
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Robust standard errors in parentheses, with village dummies
Regressions include controls: dep. ratio, edu level, age, remittances, inc sources, land
5. Vulnerability to Poverty: Calvo Dercon (2008)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Downward GENDER FACTO/JURE TYPE
Risk Thailand Vietnam Thailand Vietnam Thailand Vietnam
Female Head 0.00175 0.00417
(0.00313) (0.00498)
De Facto FHH -0.00461 -0.0207***
(0.00295) (0.00735)
De Jure FHH 0.00338 0.0110*
(0.00379) (0.00576)
FHH, absent husband -0.00473 -0.0206***
(0.00295) (0.00738)
FHH, widow 0.00469 0.0106*
(0.00422) (0.00632)
FHH, single -0.00314 0.0125
(0.00763) (0.0108)
Observations 2,121 2,144 2,121 2,144 2,121 2,144
Adj. R-squared 0.034 0.144 0.034 0.147 0.034 0.147
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Robust standard errors in parentheses, with village dummies
Regressions include controls: dep. ratio, edu level, age, remittances, inc sources, land
Analysis
6. Consumption Smoothing (Townsend 1994)
OLS Regression
Outcome
Changes in consumption over time
Determinants
- Income changes over time
- Gender of headship
Intuition
Coefficients show the degree of uninsured exposure to risk
6. Consumption Smoothing (2007-2008)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
OLS: Consumption Change Female Head De Facto vs. De Jure FHH Subgroups
Thailand Vietnam Thailand Vietnam Thailand Vietnam
Income Change 0.00567*** 0.00117 0.00569*** 0.00117 0.00566*** 0.00118
Female Head -0.0501 0.0402
Female Head * Income Change 0.222*** 0.00312*
De Facto FHH 0.107 0.143
De Jure FHH -0.0721 0.0154
De Facto FHH * Income Change 0.425** 0.000988
De Jure FHH * Income Change 0.204** 0.00320*
FHH, absent husband 0.103 0.144
FHH, widow -0.116 0.0152
FHH, single 0.121 -0.0189
FHH, absent husb * Inc Change 0.423** 0.00111
FHH, widow * Income Change 0.181* 0.00307*
FHH, single * Income Change 0.344* 0.133
Observations 781 982 781 982 781 982
Adj R2 0.047 0.064 0.046 0.063 0.047 0.062
Summary of Results
Widows, Singles (de jure female headed households)
more exposed to shocks
less able to insure consumption against income shocks
Absent Husbands (de facto female headed households)
better off through remittances
asset losses from shocks more severe
but: counterfactual spurious: unclear why do husbands leave?
Perceived vs experienced risk
some difference between past shocks and future risk
apparently gender related differences in risk perception
Conclusions
1. Welfare Generally female heads are not poorer
Gender Analysis only useful when broken down in subgroups
2. Policy Headship is a useful concept for targeting
Widows / Singles in need of social policy
3. Further Research
Panel Analysis using 3 waves
Selection process of migration decision of husband
Are families able to weather through macro crises?
Transmission of poverty to children (education, health)
Covariates: Thailand (2007)
Variable Male
Headed Female Headed
Absent Husband
Widow Single Unit
Consumption 7.083 7.109 7.058 7.309 7.016 7.260 ln(USD PPP per adult)
HH Size 4.068 3.554 3.643 3.207 3.805 2.852 members
Dependency Ratio 1.558 1.724 1.614 2.153 1.638 1.497 ratio
Children age<6 0.353 0.335 0.295 0.489 0.326 0.148 members
Read 92.9% 79.4% 76.0% 92.4% 74.5% 83.6% %
Schooling 95.5% 87.1% 85.0% 95.7% 82.9% 95.1% %
Age 53 59 64 41 66 53 years
Land Size 0.572 0.035 0.102 -0.228 0.206 -0.406 ln(hectar)
Income Sources 3.71 3.17 3.24 2.89 3.29 2.98 number
Net remittances 28.16 18.97 22.43 5.49 19.89 34.81 USD PPP per cap
income shock 22.3% 19.1% 19.8% 16.3% 20.1% 18.0% %
market shock 6.2% 5.5% 5.0% 7.6% 3.7% 11.5% %
supply shock 17.7% 15.1% 15.6% 13.0% 17.1% 8.2% %
health shock 9.3% 11.8% 13.4% 5.4% 13.1% 14.8% %
social shock 3.8% 5.3% 5.0% 6.5% 4.7% 6.6% %
Households 1724 451 359 92 298 61 N
Covariates: Thailand (2008)
Variable Male
Headed Female Headed
Absent Husband
Widow Single Unit
Consumption 7.277 7.259 7.208 7.483 7.190 7.307 ln(USD PPP per adult)
HH Size 4.075 3.686 3.778 3.282 3.913 3.038 members
Dependency Ratio 1.554 1.754 1.693 2.022 1.730 1.493 ratio
Children age<6 0.340 0.360 0.336 0.462 0.367 0.170 members
Read 93.1% 80.7% 77.8% 93.6% 76.8% 83.0% %
Schooling 95.4% 88.1% 86.0% 97.4% 84.8% 92.5% %
Age 54 60 64 43 66 54 years
Land Size 0.668 0.220 0.212 0.255 0.264 -0.070 ln(hectar)
Income Sources 3.79 3.44 3.49 3.22 3.51 3.42 number
Net remittances 0.70 0.06 -0.05 0.54 0.00 -0.31 USD PPP per cap
income shock 47.8% 41.4% 42.4% 37.2% 42.9% 39.6% %
market shock 20.1% 16.4% 16.7% 15.4% 17.3% 13.2% %
supply shock 39.9% 34.3% 34.8% 32.1% 35.6% 30.2% %
health shock 22.9% 26.2% 27.2% 21.8% 27.7% 24.5% %
social shock 10.6% 11.9% 11.4% 14.1% 11.1% 13.2% %
Households 1701 420 342 78 289 53 N
Covariates: Vietnam (2007)
Variable Male
Headed Female Headed
Absent Husband
Widow Single Unit
Consumption 6.740 6.744 6.699 6.948 6.712 6.658 ln(USD PPP per adult)
HH Size 4.552 3.139 3.091 3.362 3.129 2.968 members
Dependency Ratio 1.677 1.638 1.465 2.428 1.435 1.559 ratio
Children age<6 0.430 0.260 0.223 0.431 0.233 0.190 members
Read 89.6% 70.0% 64.5% 94.8% 62.9% 69.8% %
Schooling 90.3% 68.7% 62.6% 96.6% 61.4% 66.7% %
Age 47 54 57 38 60 48 years
Land Size -0.805 -1.543 -1.582 -1.366 -1.486 -1.887 ln(hectar)
Income Sources 3.20 2.76 2.80 2.55 2.90 2.51 number
Net remittances -13.16 25.77 23.20 37.48 31.75 -4.21 USD PPP per cap
income shock 44.0% 39.0% 41.1% 29.3% 43.1% 34.9% %
market shock 2.9% 1.5% 0.8% 5.2% 0.5% 1.6% %
supply shock 42.4% 37.8% 40.8% 24.1% 42.6% 34.9% %
health shock 22.6% 26.9% 27.5% 24.1% 29.2% 22.2% %
social shock 3.9% 4.3% 4.2% 5.2% 3.0% 7.9% %
Households 1867 323 265 58 202 63 N
Covariates: Vietnam (2008)
Variable Male
Headed Female Headed
Absent Husband
Widow Single Unit
Consumption 6.950 6.955 6.915 7.118 6.938 6.840 ln(USD PPP per adult)
HH Size 4.559 3.174 3.105 3.448 3.137 3.000 members
Dependency Ratio 1.628 1.594 1.412 2.322 1.334 1.663 ratio
Children age<6 0.383 0.243 0.213 0.358 0.206 0.238 members
Read 88.0% 70.4% 66.7% 85.1% 63.2% 77.8% %
Schooling 88.3% 70.1% 65.5% 88.1% 61.8% 77.8% %
Age 48 55 59 39 62 48 years
Land Size -0.705 -1.485 -1.519 -1.347 -1.382 -1.962 ln(hectar)
Income Sources 3.87 3.47 3.53 3.24 3.59 3.32 number
Net remittances -5.69 0.87 1.63 -2.13 0.41 5.57 USD PPP per cap
income shock 62.4% 56.0% 55.8% 56.7% 57.4% 50.8% %
market shock 2.8% 0.6% 0.7% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% %
supply shock 61.1% 56.0% 55.8% 56.7% 57.4% 50.8% %
health shock 24.1% 27.2% 29.6% 17.9% 30.4% 27.0% %
social shock 8.6% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.8% 6.3% %
Households 1810 334 267 67 204 63 N
Analysis
Axioms of Vulnerability Measurement
(i) symmetry over states
(ii) continuity and differentiability
(iii) scale invariance
(iv) normalization
(v) probability-dependent effect of outcomes
(vi) probability transfer
(vii) constant relative or absolute risk sensitivity
In-depth discussion available in Calvo and Dercon (2005)