Intra-household resource allocation : issues and methods for development policy and planning PDF
Preview Intra-household resource allocation : issues and methods for development policy and planning
Page iii Intrahousehold Resource Allocation: Issues and Methods for Development Policy and Planning Papers Prepared for the Workshop on Methods of Measuring Intrahousehold Resource Allocation, Gloucester, Massachusetts, USA, October 1983 Edited by Beatrice Lorge Rogers and Nina P. Schlossman United Nations University Press Page iv Food and Nutrition Bulletin Supplement 15 This volume arises from the interest of the United Nations University in research contributing to the understanding and support of the central role of women in maintaining household nutrition and health under conditions of poverty. It constitutes a part of the University's Nutrition and Primary Health Care Project, and is based on a workshop funded by USAID that focused on the practical application of methodologies from the disciplines of anthropology, economics, and psychology to the analysis of household resource distribution issues. The objective was information that will help to avoid negative consequences and promote positive effects of development programmes. The book discusses not only measurement of intrahousehold food and health related behaviours, but also of how the household responds to economic and social changes and interventions. © The United Nations University, 1990 The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the United Nations University. United Nations University Press The United Nations University, Toho Seimei Building, 151 Shibuya 2chome, Shibuyaku, Tokyo 150, Japan, Tel.: (03) 4992811 Telex: J25442 Cable: UNATUNIV TOKYO Typeset by Asco Trade Typesetting Limited, Hong Kong Printed by Permanent Typesetting and Printing Co., Ltd, Hong Kong Cover design by Tsuneo Taniuchi WHTR13/UNUP733 ISBN 9280807331 United Nations Sales No. E.90.III.A.2 03500 P Page v CONTENTS Foreword vii Acknowledgements ix 1. The Internal Dynamics of Households: A Critical Factor in Development 1 Policy Beatrice Lorge Rogers I. Conceptual Frameworks Conceptual Frameworks 23 Beatrice Lorge Rogers and Nina P. Schlossman 2. Programme Interventions, Intrahousehold Allocation, and the Welfare of 26 Individuals: Economic Models of the Household Mark R. Rosenzweig 3. Peeking into the Black Box of Economic Models of the Household 44 Jere R. Behrman 4. Intrahousehold Allocation of Resources: Perspectives from Anthropology 51 Ellen Messer 5. Intrahousehold Allocation of Resources: Perspectives from Psychology 63 Patrice L. Engle II. Methodological Approaches to Measurement Methodo logical Approaches to Measurement 83 Beatrice Lorge Rogers and Nina P. Schlossman 6. Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Methods in the Study of Intra 86 household Resource Allocation Susan C.M. Scrimshaw 7. An Approach to the Study of Women's Productive Roles as a Determinant of 99 Intrahousehold Allocation Patterns Lynn Bennett Page vi 8. Household Organization and Expenditure in a Time Perspective: Social 114 Processes of Change Elizabeth Jelín III. Measurement of Key Variables Measurement of Key Variables 131 Beatrice Lorge Rogers and Nina P. Schlossman 9. Multiple Group Membership and Intrahousehold Resource Allocation 135 Peter Heywood 10. Timeallocation Research: The Costs and Benefits of Alternative Methods 140 Allen Johnson 11. Use of Emic Units for Timeuse Recall 156 Marian Frank Zeitlin 12. Data on Food Consumption by Highrisk Family Members: Its Utility for 164 Identifying Target Households for Food and Nutrition Programmes Per PinstrupAndersen and Marito Garcia 13. Determinants of the Ability of Household Members to Adapt to Social and 176 Economic Changes Constantina SafiliosRothschild Conclusions 185 Beatrice Lorge Rogers and Nina P. Schlossman Appendix 187 Participants 203 Page vii FOREWORD The papers in this volume were prepared for the Workshop on Methods of Measuring Intrahousehold Resource Allocation, which took place in October 1983. The workshop was funded by the United States Agency for International Development, Bureau of Policy and Program Coordination, Office of Policy Development and Program Review, under grant number OTR0096GSS226800 as part of a larger project on ways of incorporating a concern for the internal distribution processes of households into the design of economic development interventions. The focus on project design and programme planning explains the applied nature of many of the papers in this volume. Wherever possible, the authors discuss applications of their topics in the context of the realworld constraints that donor agencies face on both time and funds. The theoretical issues raised in these papers are vital to the development of methods for measuring and monitoring changes within the household. The first paper in the volume makes the case for including an analysis of intrahousehold issues in the design of effective, successful development programmes and as a means of avoiding unanticipated negative consequences. The rest of the papers are grouped in three parts. The first provides a set of conceptual frameworks for the study of the internal dynamics of household resource distribution derived from three major disciplines that have been concerned with these questions: economics, anthropology, and psychology. These papers illustrate the complementary perspectives and methods the three disciplines bring to the study of the household. They effectively show how the insights they provide should be integrated in the programme planning process. The papers in part II present several approaches to collecting the information needed to analyse household dynamics as part of development planning. As a group, they stress the importance of combining qualitative with quantitative methods, and shortterm with longterm perspectives. The papers in part III discuss specific measurement issues related to estimating key variables of particular interest to planners and scholars concerned with intra household issues. These variables include the definition of the household, how members allocate time, individual food consumption (as an example of an outcome Page viii measure used to assess the need for, and success of, some kinds of welfarerelated programmes), and the flexibility of households in adapting to externally induced changes in the economic and social environment. The Appendix presents in table format one approach to incorporating intrahousehold issues into the design and evaluation of development programmes. Page ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank Dr Judy McGuire and Dr Nancy Pielemeier of the Office of Policy and Program Coordination of USAID for their assistance, including substantial intellectual input and funding of the original conference. Dr Stanley Gershoff, Dean of the Tufts University School of Nutrition, was instrumental in funding the activities needed to prepare these papers for publication. Dr Nevin Scrimshaw of the United Nations University arranged for the publication of the volume. Lisa Miller ably coordinated the conference at which these papers were first presented. Finally, we wish to express thanks to the people who participated in the conference (listed on page 203), and whose thoughtful comments and insights provided the basis for much of the thinking reflected in this book. BEATRICE LORGE ROGERS AND NINA P. SCHLOSSMAN, MEDFORD, MASSACHUSETTS Page 1 1— The Internal Dynamics of Households: a Critical Factor in Development Policy Beatrice Lorge Rogers Tufts University School of Nutrition, Medford, Massachusetts, USA Introduction Development projects have diverse objectives: the modernization of agriculture, improvement in health and nutritional status, reduction in fertility, and increased levels of literacy and education, to name but a few. The underlying goal of all such projects, however, is the same: to generate selfsustained economic development in order to improve the wellbeing of the poor in developing countries. The best methods to achieve this goal have been a subject of theoretical argument and empirical exploration for at least 50 years, and, in spite of continuing debate, progress has been made in understanding some of the connections between development projects and development itself. This progress has added new dimensions to an initially rather simple model of the relationship between a country's aggregate economic activity and the economic well being of its members. Without denying the importance of national, macroeconomic factors, it has more recently been recognized that sectoral relations (e.g. between agriculture and industry) must also be considered; that urbanrural and socioeconomic class distinctions must be recognized; and that disadvantaged population groups must be targeted specifically if they are to benefit from the development process. The most recent step in understanding development has been the insight that the process does not stop at the door of the household. If they are to be successful, development projects must take into account the ways in which households (themselves very variable in structure) allocate both goods and responsibilities among their members. Project objectives, after all, focus on individuals. Health, nutritional status, literacy, even productivity are characteristics of individuals. Income, frequently measured at the level of the household, is a composite of individual members' incomes. Increasing evidence indicates that individual incomes are not simply pooled and then spent to meet household needs in some unified fashion. They are spent at least in part according to the earner's own preference. The household is certainly an important unit for planning and analysis, but it cannot Page 2 be the only unit. It serves as a framework for specialization of effort and redistribution of goods, but it can also be a mechanism for limiting access to productive resources and for disproportionately allocating the burdens of work and its returns. While altruism is indeed one motivating force of household members in the allocative process, selfinterest is surely another. The Importance of Household Dynamics for Project Success The recognition that households follow allocative rules which may not always protect the most vulnerable members is of great significance for the selection and design of development projects. First, project benefits may be lost between the household and the target individual. It is a wellrecognized problem of nutritional supplementation programmes, for example, that substitution of the supplement for homesupplied food often redirects the benefits of the supplement to other, less needy household members. Increasing a household's food supply should increase the food consumption of all members, but if only particular individuals within the household are targeted, patterns of distribution may cause those individuals to receive less than the projected amount. If the patterns are understood beforehand, then quantities can be adjusted or the programme can be redesigned to assure that sufficient food actually reaches the individuals in need. Similarly, there are numerous cases in which agricultural extension services have been provided to households with the intention of increasing food production for subsistence, but the services were provided to men (or in such a way that only men would make use of them), while it was the women who had the primary responsibility for producing food (UNECA, n.d.; Loose, 1980). If the intrahousehold allocation of responsibilities had been understood in advance, services could have been planned to reach the appropriate individual, and the projects would have been more effective (Huggard, 1978). Projects designed to increase household income have sometimes failed to improve indicators of individual wellbeing (Kennedy and Cogill, 1987), as in cases where the project increased the earnings of one member at the cost of another's, or where the form or the timing of the income was altered. It is not uncommon, particularly in subSaharan Africa, to find that husbands and wives have explicit responsibility for different aspects of household maintenance (Guyer, 1980). If women in a given setting are primarily responsible for providing food to the household, then an increase in income to men may not be translated directly into nutritional improvement of atrisk members. This is not to say that women's income is always spent on family wellbeing and men's income is not. In some cases, men may devote their incomes to investment in productive resources, while women purchase gold or jewellery as a form of savings. One study showed that Bangladeshi women save through hoarding (Alamgir, 1977). These examples emphasize the point that income is often spent differently by different earners. In order to predict the results of increasing household income, planners must understand that all income is not treated the same. Moreover, designing a programme on the assumption that resources are pooled, and that therefore it makes no difference who receives the benefits in the name of the household, results in inequity to those household members who do not actually receive
The list of books you might like
