What about the Women? Female Headship, Poverty and ... · Female Headship, Poverty and...

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


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


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


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


Vietnam 73.09 26.91


Thailand 46.53 23.53 10.89

Vietnam 61.38 24.63 8.68

Market Shock Agricultural Supply

Shock


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


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


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


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



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)



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



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)



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



5. Vulnerability to Poverty: Calvo Dercon (2008)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)



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



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)

Thank you!

[email protected]

Göttingen University, Germany

Development Economics Research Group

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


Absent Husband

Widow Single Unit


HH Size 4.075 3.686 3.778 3.282 3.913 3.038 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)


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


Absent Husband

Widow Single Unit


HH Size 4.552 3.139 3.091 3.362 3.129 2.968 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)


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


Absent Husband

Widow Single Unit


HH Size 4.559 3.174 3.105 3.448 3.137 3.000 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)


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)

What about the Women? Female Headship, Poverty and ... · Female Headship, Poverty and...

Documents

Transcript of What about the Women? Female Headship, Poverty and ... · Female Headship, Poverty and...