Time Use and Household Division of Labor in India—Within-Gender Dynamics
Corresponding Author
Abhilasha Srivastava
Correspondence
Abhilasha Srivastava
Email: abheez@gmail.com
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Abhilasha Srivastava
Correspondence
Abhilasha Srivastava
Email: abheez@gmail.com
Search for more papers by this authorAbhilasha Srivastava, Bridgewater State University. Email: abheez@gmail.com.
Abstract
Household allocation of labor is an important area of scholarship in developing countries where women's well-being is affected by the heavy load of unpaid work within the household. This study extends nuclear household-centric research on labor allocation by drawing attention to bargaining between female in-laws in multigenerational households in India. This paper empirically tests two competing theories based on the impact of a daughter-in-law's education on household division of labor in multigenerational households. First is Caldwell's thesis that contends that increasing education would increase the bargaining power of daughter-in-law, thereby tilting the distribution of household labor in her favor, and the second is patriarchal bargain theory that makes an opposite claim. Both these theories are tested using time-use data, and the latter is found to have higher explanatory power. Further layers are added to the analysis by tracing the effects of caste, class, and religion. Findings show that these mediate and determine the division of housework and bargaining outcomes between female in-laws. This study emphasizes the need for an intersectional understanding of gender norms that are inextricably tied to factors such as religion, caste, class, and family structure. Findings also underline the need to study within-gender dynamics systematically.
Supporting Information
Filename | Description |
---|---|
padr12309-sup-0001-SuppMat.docx27.1 KB | Supporting Information |
Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.
References
- Agarwal, Bina. 1997. “Bargaining and Gender Relations: Within and beyond the Household,” Feminist Economics 3(1): 1–51.
- Akerlof, George A., and Rachel E. Kranton. 2000. “Economics and Identity,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 115: 715–753.
- Anderson, Siwan, and Mukesh Eswaran. 2009. “What Determines Female Autonomy? Evidence from Bangladesh,” Journal of Development Economics 90(2): 179–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2008.10.004
- Becker, Gary S. 1991. A treatise on the Family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10331329.
10.4159/9780674020665 Google Scholar
- Bengtson, Vern. 2001. “Beyond the Nuclear Family: The Increasing Importance of Mutigenerational Bonds,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 63: 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00001.x
- Bergstrom, Theodore C. 1996. “Economics in a Family Way,” Journal of Economic Literature 34(4): 1903–1934. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2729597.
- Caldwell, John C. 1978. “A Theory of Fertility: From High Plateau to Destabilization,” Population and Development Review 4(4): 553–578. https://doi.org/10.2307/1971727.
- Caldwell, John C. 1979. “Education as a Factor in Mortality Decline: An Examination of Nigerian Data,” Population Studies 33(3): 395–413. https://doi.org/10.2307/2173888
- Caldwell, John C. 1984. Causes of Fertility Decline in South India. New York. Population Council.
- Carter, Michael, and Elizabeth Katz. 1997. “ Separate Spheres and the Conjugal Contract: Understanding the Impact of Gender-Biased Development,” In Intrahousehold Resource Allocation in Developing Countries, edited by L. Haddad, J. Hoddinott, and H. Alderman, 95–111. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
- Chiappori, Pierre-André. 2002. “Collective Labor Supply and Welfare,” Journal of Political Economy 100(3): 437–467. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2138727.
- Chiappori, Pierre-André, Bernard Fortin, and Guy Lacroix. 2000. “Marriage Market, Divorce Legislation, and Household Labor Supply,” Journal of Political Economy 110(1): 37–72. https://doi.org/10.1086/324385.
- Coltrane, Scott. 2000. “Research on Household Labor: Modeling and Measuring the Social Embeddedness of Routine Family Work,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 62(4): 1208–1233. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1566732.
- Dave, Anjali, and Gopika Solanki. 2000. Domestic Violence in India. A Summary Report of Four Research Studies. Washington, DC: International Centre for Research on Women. https://www.icrw.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Domestic-Violence-in-India-2-A-Summary-Report-of-Four-Records-Studies.pdf
- Debnath, Sisir. 2015. “The Impact of Household Structure on Female Autonomy in Developing Countries,” The Journal of Development Studies 51(5): 485–502. http://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2014.983909
- Derné, Steve. 1994. “Hindu Men Talk about Controlling Women: Cultural Ideas as a Tool of the Powerful,” Sociological Perspectives 37(2): 203–227. https://doi.org/10.2307/1389320.
- Desai, Neera, and Maithreyi Krishna Raj. 1987. Women and Society in India. Delhi: Ajanta Publications (India).
- Dyson, Tim, and Mick Moore. 1983. “Kinship Structure, Female Autonomy, and Demographic Behavior in India,” Population and Development Review 9: 35–60. https://doi.org/10.2307/1972894.
- Eswaran, Mukesh, Bharat Ramaswami, and Wilima Wadhwa. 2013. “Status, Caste, and the Time Allocation of Women in Rural India," Economic Development and Cultural Change 61, 2: 311–333. https://doi.org/10.1086/668282.
- Folbre, Nancy. 2001. The Invisible Heart: Economics and Family Values. New York: The New Press.
- Gangoli, Geetanjali. 2007. Indian Feminisms: Law, Patriarchies and Violence in India. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
- Gangoli, Geetanjali, and Rew Martin. 2011. “Mothers-in-Law against Daughters-in-Law: Domestic Violence and Legal Discourses around Mother-in-Law Violence against Daughters-in-Law in India,” Women's Studies International Forum 34: 420–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2011.06.006
- Ghurye, Govind S., and S. Devadas Pillai. 1976. Aspects of Changing India: Studies in Honour of Prof. G.S. Ghurye. Bombay: Popular Prakashan.
- Heyer Judith. 2015. “ Dalit Women Becoming ‘Housewives’: Lessons from the Tiruppur Region,” In Dalits in Neoliberal India: Mobility or Marginalisation, edited by C. Still. 208–235. India: Routledge.
- Hirway, Indira. 2000. “ Tabulation and Analysis of the Indian Time Use Survey Data for Improving Measurement of Paid and Unpaid Work.” Expert Group Meeting on Methods for conducting time use surveys 23–27 October 2000, New York, United Nations Secretariat, Statistics Division ESA/STAT/AC.79/20.
- Ilahi, Nadeem. 2000. The Intra-Household Allocation of Time and Tasks: What Have We Learnt from the Empirical Literature? Washington, D.C.: World Bank, Development Research Group/ Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Network.
- Infochange. 2007. “ NFHS-III: 25% of Indian Women Work Without Pay.” http://infochangeindia.org/200710206736/Women/News/NFHS-III-25-of-Indian-womenwork-without-pay.html.
- Jejeebhoy, Shireen J., and Zeba A. Sathar. 2001. “Women's Autonomy in India and Pakistan: The Influence of Religion and Region,” Population and Development Review 27(4): 687–712.
- Kakar, Sudhir. 1989. Intimate Relations. Exploring Indian Sexuality. Delhi: Viking Press
- Kandiyoti, Deniz. 1988a. “Bargaining with Patriarchy,” Gender and Society 2(3): 274–290.
- Kandiyoti, Deniz. 1998b. “ Gender, power and contestation: rethinking bargaining with patriarchy,” In Feminist Visions of Development, edited by C. Jackson and R. Pearson. London: Routledge.
- Kishwar, Madhu. 1997. “Women, Sex and Marriage: Restraint as a Feminine Strategy,” Manushi 99: 1–18.
- Kishwar, Madhu. 2000. “Laws against Domestic Violence: Underused or Abused?,” Manushi 120: 17–24.
- Lin, Tin-chi, and Alícia Adserà. 2013. “Son Preference and Children's Housework: The Case of India,” Population Research and Policy Review: In Cooperation with the Southern Demographic Association (SDA) 32(4): 553–584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-013-9269-6.
- Lundberg, Shelly, and Robert A. Pollak. 1993. “Separate Spheres Bargaining and the Marriage Market,” Journal of Political Economy 101(6): 988–1010. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2138569.
- Lundberg, Shelly, and Robert A. Pollak. 1994. “Non-Cooperative Bargaining Models of Marriage,” American Economic Review 84(2): 132–137. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2117816.
- Lundberg, Shelly, and Robert A. Pollak. 1996. “Bargaining and Distribution in Marriage,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 10(4): 139–158. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2138558.
- Manser, Marilyn, and Murray Brown. 1980. “Marriage and Household Decision-Making: A Bargaining Analysis,” International Economic Review 21(1): 31–44. https://doi.org/10.2307/2526238.
- McElroy, Marjorie B. 1990. “The Empirical Content of Nash-Bargained Household Behavior,” Journal of Human Resources 25(4): 559–583.
- McElroy, Marjorie B., and Mary Jean Horney. 1981. “Nash-Bargaining and Household Decisions: Towards a Generalization of the Theory of Demand,” International Economic Review 22(2): 333–349. https://doi.org/10.2307/2526280.
- Meurs, Mieke, and Vanya Slavchevska. 2014. “Doing it All: Women's Employment and Reproductive Work in Tajikistan,” Journal of Comparative Economics 42(3): 786–803.
- Ogawa, Naohiro, and John Ermisch. 1997. Family Structure, Home Time Demands, and the Employment Patterns of Japanese Married Women. Tokyo, Japan: Nihon University, Population Research Institute.
- Pandey R. N. 1999. Operational Issues in Conducting the Pilot Time Use Survey in India. New Delhi: Central Statistical Organisation, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation.
- Pollak, Robert A. 2005. “ Bargaining Power in Marriage: Earnings, Wage Rates and Household Production.” NBER Working Paper No. 11239.
- Redmount, Esther. 2014. The Economics of the Family: How the Household Affects Markets and Economic Growth (two volumes). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
- Rew Martin, Gangoli Geetanjal, and Aisha K. Gill. 2013. “Violence between Female in-Laws in India,” Journal of International Women's Studies 14(1): 147–160.
- Sasaki, Masaru. 2002. “The Causal Effect of Family Structure on Labor Force Participation among Japanese Married Women,” Journal of Human Resources 37(2): 429–440. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069654.
- Sengupta, Manisha, and Nan E. Johnson. 2006. “ Does Educational Superiority Autotomize Daughters-in-Law Who Live with Their Mothers-in-Law in India: A Test of Caldwell's Thesis.” Working paper 285. East Lansing, MI: Office of Women in International Development.
- Singh, Jai P. 2010. “India's Changing Family and State Intervention,” Eastern Anthropologist 63(1): 17–40.
- Sonpar, Shobna. 2005. “Marriage in India: Clinical Issues,” Contemporary Household Therapy 27(3): 301–313.
- Srinivas, Mysore Narasimhachar. 1952. Religion and Society among the Coorgs of South India. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
- Srinivas, Mysore Narasimhachar. 1964. Caste in Modern India, and Other Essays. New York: Asia Publication House.
- Sun, Shirley. H. 2008. “Housework and Gender in Nuclear versus Extended Family Households: Experiences of Taiwanese Immigrants in Canada,” Journal of Comparative Family Study 39(1): 1–18. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41604197