Second Conference:“New Directions in Welfare”

Paris, July 6th-8th, 2011

A Structural Model of Female Empowerment and Capabilities

Paola Ballón Fernández

International Institute of Labour Studies, ILOUniversity of Geneva, Switzerland

Introduction

Account for “missing dimensions”, and provide better insights for intra-family allocative processes, and for broadening policy debate on gender equality.

Complementary tool for development assistance programmes.

The relation between the Capability Approach and female empowerment as a desired policy objective that:

is important in its own right (intrinsic importance) “missing dimension”

is important for achieving other policy goals (instrumental importance)

Aim of the study:

Motivation of the study:

is a necessary condition for poverty reduction (MDG, The Beijing Platform for Action, The Cairo Programme for Action)

To model female empowerment in a capability perspective.

To apply it empirically to the study of female empowerment in Cambodia (DHS, 2005).

Introduction

Outline of the presentation:

1. Empowerment in a Capability Perspective

2. The Structural Model

3. The Empirical Application: Cambodia, DHS (2005).

4. Selected Results

5. Conclusions

1. Empowerment in a Capability perspective

The conceptual framework Sen (1999), Kabeer(2001):

Definition of female empowerment:

“Decision-making ability of a woman: strategic and non-strategic life choices”

Strategic choices are life consequential choices: deciding who/when to marry; # children

Non-strategic choices are less consequential ones.

Empowerment is a dynamic process rooted in the idea of human agency and choice

progression from a state of disempowerment.

where women:

are the significant actors of change,

have the possibility to choose among real alternatives

1. Empowerment in a Capability perspective (cont.)

The process of empowerment:

Is characterized by:

a. Resources that precondition the ability to choose theoretically supported by the intra-household gender dynamics literature, known as “extra-household environmental parameters or EEP’s”

(McElroy, 1990) b. Values and traditions: reflect the transformative mechanism of feasible decision-

making into actualized decisions.

Differentiates between: Feasible (latent) decision-making, Actualized decision-making (observed indicators of decision outcomes)

This conceptual framework is practically implemented by means of a:

“structural economic model” Multiple-indicators multiple-causes model (MIMIC).

2. The Structural Economic Model

“Resources”(pre-condition the ability to choose)

Values and traditions(influence the transformative

mechanism)

Transformative mechanism

Model: Potential vis-à-vis actualized choice.

“Resources”: enhancing factors.

Decision outcomes“actualized decision-making”

Observed

Empowerment“feasible decision-making ”

Latent

2. The Structural Model: MIMIC

i i i α Γx ζ

Structural Model* i i i i y ν Λ Dw ε

Measurement Model

*, , 1, if < ij j c ij j cy c y (categorical)

*ij ijy y (continuous)

1,..., m

Empowerment dimensions

* *1 ,..., py y

Decision-outcomes

1 ,..., qx x

Exogenous enhancing factors (resources)

1 ,..., sw w

Values/traditions (exogenous)

observed

Latent

"Self " Strategic life

choices

Second-order "economic"

choices

Decision-making ability

"Familal" Strategic life

choices

Participating in children's education

Deciding obtaining health care

Participating in economic decision-

making

Spouse selection

Deciding on having another child

Participating in children's health

related issues

Participating in domestic decision-

making

Deciding whether to work or not

Deciding about visiting family friends(freedom of movement)

Being aware about AIDS

Living with in- laws

Wife beating acceptance

Gender roles in household

Commitment to educate daughters

Religion

Urban/rural

Age

Media Exposure

Support from birth family

Attitude towards discussions about

money matters

Working StatusAge difference

spouses

Household's wealth/assets

Age at marriage

Education

Educational difference spouses

Father's education

Mother's education

3. The Theoretical Model for Cambodia

3. The Empirical application: Decision outcome indicators

Cambodia: DHS, 2005

Dimension/indicator Husband's With husband Respondent'sor someone else's or someone else

Self strategic choicesSpouse selection 15.9 63.5 20.6Deciding on obtaining health care 3.4 35.8 60.8Deciding about visiting family and friends 6.4 63.8 29.7(freedom of movement)

Familial strategic choicesDeciding on having another child 7.3 79.2 13.5Participating in children's acces to health care 3.1 76.1 20.8Participating in children's education 7.3 81.1 11.5

Second-order economic choicesParticipating in economic decision-making 18.0 65.6 16.4Participating in domestic decision-making 3.8 16.2 80.0Deciding whether to work or not 23.6 56.7 19.6

3a.Results - Measurement equations

Multiple indicators:

VariableStandard.

Coeff.Signif.

Standard. Coeff.

Signif.Standard.

Coeff.Signif.

1 "Self" Strategic life choices 0.051 *** 0.597 *** 0.440

Age -0.082 *** - 0.137 ***Being buddist -0.093 *** 0.129 *** 0.04 ***

Being muslim -0.122 *** 0.069 *** -

Being aware about AIDS - 0.025 *** -Gender roles in household - 0.046 ** 0.079 ***Living within laws - - 0.042 **Wife beating acceptance - - -0.067 ***Support from birth family - - 0.071 ***Working status - - 0.047 ******,**,* denote significance at 1%, 5% and 10% levels respectively.- denotes non significance.

y2y1

and friendsy3

Spouse selection Own health care Visiting family

Values/traditions

Loadings

3. Familial strategic life choices

Multiple indicators:

VariableStandard.

Coeff.Signif.

Standard. Coeff.

Signif.Standard.

Coeff.Signif.

2 "Familial" Strat.choices 0.334 ** 0.716 0.550 ***

Age -0.126 *** 0.032 - 0.446 ***Crossed effect: buddist and rural -0.03 - - -Being buddist - 0.102 *** 0.068 ***Being muslim - 0.071 *** 0.062 ***Being aware about AIDS 0.028 * - -Gender roles in household - - 0.07 ***Living within laws - -0.053 *** -Living in rural areas - -0.072 *** -Working status - - 0.044 **

***,**,* denote significance at 1%, 5% and 10% levels respectively.- denotes non significance.

educationy6

Having another Children's Children's child health

y5y4

Loadings

Values

/traditions

3. Second-order “economic” choices

Multiple indicators:

VariableStandard.

Coeff.Signif.

Standard. Coeff.

Signif.Standard.

Coeff.Signif.

3 Second-order "economic" choices 0.509 *** 0.562 0.317 ***

Age 0.207 *** 0.225 *** 0.108 ***Being buddist 0.126 *** 0.123 *** -Being muslim 0.117 *** 0.074 *** -Crossed effect: buddist and rural - - -0.057 ***Gender roles in household 0.111 *** 0.078 *** 0.087 ***Working status 0.056 *** - 0.27 ***

Attitude towards discussions about money matters 0.071 *** - -***,**,* denote significance at 1%, 5% and 10% levels respectively.

- denotes non significance.

y8y7

decision

y9

Economic decision- Work Domestic

decision-making decision-making

3b.Results Enhancing factors

Multiple causes:

Variable

Standardized Signif. Standardized Signif. Standardized Signif.

Coeff. Coeff. Coeff.Age at marriage - - 0.067 **Woman's education (years) 0.101 *** 0.061 *** 0.081 ***Household's wealth 0.126 *** 0.112 ***Household's assets 0.064 ***Father's education (years) 0.087 *** 0.069 *** 0.094 ***Mother's education (years) 0.090 *** 0.063 *** -

- denotes non significance. ***,**,* denote significance at 1%, 5% and 10% levels respectively.

strategic choices1

strategic choices"Self" "Familial" Second-order

2"economic" choices

3

3c.ResultsWhat can we say about empowerment across dimensions?

Compare the cumulative distributions using stochastic dominance analysis.

“Self” dominates “familial”

Women have greater decision making ability in the “self” domain

Not possible to conclude

Empowerment status in the self-strategic domain by education level

Conclusions

•This paper has applied a conceptual framework proposed to measure female empowerment within the capability approach through an econometric model, taking into account, the different types of decisions, values/traditions, and enhancing factors.

•The empirical context concerns self-strategic, familial-strategic, and non-strategic economic decisions of Cambodian women.

•The empirical results:

Confirm the importance of values/traditions, like living with in-laws, being aware about AIDS, wife beating acceptance, in the transformative mechanism of decision-making ability into actualized decision-outcomes.

Highlight the major role played by enhancing factors such as the respondent’s and her parents’ (mainly the father’s) education level, in promoting empowerment in all the three domains.

A Mimic model for measuring female empowerment provides a holistic approach of the constitutive elements of empowerment, and therefore better insights for intra-family allocative processes and successful development assistance.