SPECIAL ARTICLE
Gender Asset and Wealth Gaps Evidence from Karnataka Hema Swaminathan, Rahul Lahoti, Suchitra J Y
In the discussions concerning progress on gender equality, the status of women’s asset ownership is a critical missing indicator. Assets are a product of accumulated income, reflecting long-term well-being, and thus are important for determining livelihood choices. While there is general agreement that few women own key assets, there is no systematic sex-disaggregated asset data to measure or monitor. Households are the unit of analysis in standard surveys, where the only feasible gender analysis is by sex of the household head. Using data from a state-representative survey conducted in 2010-11, this paper presents estimates of the gender asset and wealth gaps. The results show substantial gender disparities with respect to asset ownership and wealth.
The results presented are based on the Karnataka Household Asset Survey, 2010-11 which was collected by researchers at the Indian Institute of Management Bangalore. This paper is from a larger research study, the Gender Asset Gap Project, funded by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs under their MDG3 Fund for gender equality. The analysis was also partially supported by a grant from the Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, Government of India. The authors would like to thank the participants of a dissemination workshop (August 2011) at IIMB, where preliminary results were presented. Hema Swaminathan (
[email protected]), Rahul Lahoti (
[email protected]), Suchitra J Y (
[email protected]) are with the Centre for Public Policy, Indian Institute of Management Bangalore. Economic & Political Weekly
EPW
september 1, 2012
vol xlvii no 35
1 Introduction
A
s India aspires to become a truly modern and democratic nation, one of the key challenges she faces is to address the acute gender disparities that punctuate her economic and social fabric. Progress towards the goal of gender equality is typically measured by examining a variety of indicators such as health, labour force participation, literacy rates, exposure to violence, and sex ratio. It is evident from select indicators (Table 1, p 60) that there are many hurdles on the road to gender equality. The child sex ratio is a mirror of how society values its girl children. It does not bode well for Indian women that this figure has worsened from 927 to 914 between 2001 and 2011. Certainly, substantive progress has been made with respect to women’s literacy in the last decade, but there is still scope for improvement in attendance rates and completion of higher levels of education. The story is less optimistic on the health front with anaemia rates actually increasing by 6 percentage points during the early 2000s. Essentially, every second Indian woman is likely to be anaemic. While maternal mortality rate (MMR) has declined from 301 to 212 deaths per 1,00,000 live births between 2003 and 2009, it is still unacceptably high. To place the number in perspective, Sri Lanka’s MMR was 39 in 2009.1 Further, women’s labour force participation declined from 29.4% to 23.3% between 2004-05 and 2009-10 which could negatively affect their social and economic status. The latest World Development Report on Gender Equality and Development acknowledges the persistence of gender disparities in certain domains coexisting with greater prosperity in many parts of the world (World Bank 2011). Along with gaps in earnings, the report identifies gaps in asset ownership as an area that needs addressing. What is striking is that not only in India, but at a global level, the status of women’s asset ownership is a “missing indicator”, in that there is no systematic data on this issue. The limited evidence that exists is by way of small one-off studies. Measures of empowerment usually incorporate an asset dimension by considering women’s role in purchase of assets or their ownership status (Garikipati 2009), but there is no data by which to track women’s progress in asset ownership and their ability to accumulate assets. Surveys that collect asset data typically use the household as the unit of analysis. Thus, a fairly standard question in the survey would be “does the household own any agricultural land”? What this line of enquiry misses is that individuals own land, not households. The only gender analysis permissible with standard surveys then is by the sex of the household head, 59
SPECIAL ARTICLE
classified as either male heads or female heads. This is unsatisfactory on several counts. First, it paints a rather misleading picture of gender inequalities in assets as it does not reveal the ownership patterns of men and women within these households. A recent study of 11 Latin American countries found that a gender headship analysis in Nicaragua would overestimate the extent of gender inequality in house ownership (Deere et al 2012). Second, analysis by headship ignores the differential evolution of male-headed and female-headed households and Table 1: Changes in Socio-economic Indicators by Sex, India Indicators
Sex ratio, 0-6 years of age (2001-11)
Women T1 T2
Men T1 T2
927 914
Literacy, seven years and above (2001-11)
54
65
66
82
School attendance, 6-17 years of age (1998-99 to 2005-06)
66
66
78
75
Completed higher secondary and above (1998-99 to 2005-06)
6
8
11
13
Anaemia, ever-married women (1998-99 to 2005-06)
52
56
Maternal mortality rate per 1,00,000 live births (2003-09) 301 212 Labour force participation rate (2004-05 to 2009-10) Ratio of women’s to men’s wages (casual agricultural labour, rural) (2004-05 to 2009-10) Ratio of women’s to men’s wages (casual non-agricultural labour, urban) (2004-05 to 2009-10)
29.4 23.3 55.9 55.7 0.70 0.75 0.62 0.59
Time periods T1 and T2 are specified for each indicator in the table. Sources: Registrar General of India, Census of India (Literacy 7+, Sex Ratio); International Institute of Population Sciences, 2000, 2008 (Completed higher secondary, School attendance, Anaemia); Registrar General of India, Sample Registration System (Maternal Mortality Rate); Government of India, 2006a, 2011a (Labour force participation rate, wages).
how they get categorised in certain economic classes. Indeed intra-household differences are a key driver of the dynamics of how female-headed households are often poorer and more disadvantaged. Using a unique state representative dataset, the Karnataka Household Asset Survey 2010-11 (KHAS), this paper presents for the first time in India, several indicators to measure gender disparities in asset ownership and wealth. Section 2 lays out the rationale for focusing on assets and provides a brief review of what is known about women’s asset ownership in India. Section 3 describes the data and methods. Section 4 discusses the construction of the gender asset and gender wealth gaps and presents estimates for Karnataka. We conclude in Section 5. 2 An Asset-Based Approach
Why should there be a focus on assets when one can use the standard measures of income or consumption? Assets better reflect long-term well-being as they are a product of accumulated income. Further, they show lesser variation on a day-today basis than income levels (Carter and Barrett 2006). In an implicit acknowledgement of the importance of assets, below poverty line (BPL) targeting schemes in India use asset-based exclusion and inclusion criteria (Government of India 2009). Assets possess certain desirable properties that are important for individual and household well-being. These characteristics of assets while applicable to all are of particular consequence for poor households and individuals. Asset ownership patterns are integral to livelihood choices that determine how products are marketed or consumed within a household. They can also generate income through rents, interest on 60
savings, and profits in business activities. Further, assets facilitate participation in financial markets by providing collateral for credit. Assets represent a store of wealth that can be bequeathed with implications for intergenerational mobility and inequality (Deere and Contreras 2011). The store of wealth function is critical as assets can be sold or pawned to cope with the adverse effects of economic shocks. By aiding income diversification, assets also strengthen households’ ability to cope with, and respond to negative shocks (Quisumbing 2008). Asset ownership by women can have a positive impact on their status and bargaining power, and thereby enhance individual and household well-being. Studies from south Asia suggest landownership enhances women’s engagement in household decision-making (Agarwal 1998; Allendorf 2007; Mason 1998). Garikipati (2009) found in a survey of 291 households in Andhra Pradesh that women labourers with access to productive assets had greater autonomy in decision-making within the household and in labour markets.2 Datta (2006) found that the government’s joint-titling policy in Chandigarh enhanced women’s participation in household decisionmaking, access to knowledge, sense of self-esteem and relative status within the household. Asset ownership may also reduce women’s experience of domestic violence (Bhattacharyya et al 2011; Friedemann-Sánchez 2006; ICRW 2006; Panda and Agarwal 2005), contribute to children’s welfare (Doss 2006; Duflo 2003; Katz and Chamorro 2003), and increase the incidence of prenatal care (Beegle et al 2001). Asset data for India is available from the All India Debt and Investment Surveys (AIDIs) collected decennially by the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO). Following conventional survey protocols, asset ownership information is collected only at the household level with no details sought on individuallevel ownership. However, insights from some smaller studies broadly suggest that women are less likely than men to own and control assets, especially productive assets. An International Centre for Research on Women (ICRW) (2006) study found that of 402 surveyed women in Kerala, 36% owned immovable property (land or house) while in West Bengal, this figure was 35% in a sample of 450 women. A survey of 400 households conducted in four districts in Karnataka in 2001 found that women in households that owned land had access to land, but rarely had ownership rights to it (Brown et al 2002). Over the past couple of decades, there have been policy initiatives aimed at increasing women’s property ownership in India. A major initiative was the Hindu Succession Amendment Act (HSAA), 2005 which removed the discrimination against women inheriting ancestral property. Karnataka and Maharashtra were among the few states that implemented equal inheritance rights (in certain types of property) for daughters and sons as far back as 1994. Using 2006 data from these two states, Deininger et al (2010) show that progressive legislation can be instrumental in reducing gender inequality by enhancing women’s bargaining power, educational attainments and likelihood of inheriting land. Using data from the National Family Health Survey-3 for the five states that enacted september 1, 2012
vol xlvii no 35
EPW
Economic & Political Weekly
SPECIAL ARTICLE
the inheritance amendment prior to the national one, Roy (2008) found that these legislations positively affected women’s autonomy in their marital homes.3 Several low-income state housing programmes such as the Indira Awas Yojana, Ashraya Yojana and Ambedkar Housing Scheme, also target women by mandating individual titling in their names or joint-titling in both spouses’ names. However, the absence of data makes it impossible to monitor the effectiveness of these policy interventions.
well-being. Household-level consumption expenditure data was also collected. A total of 7,185 individuals from 4,110 households were interviewed. The KHAS socio-economic estimates (demographics, asset incidence and access to amenities) in rural areas were largely similar to those of other state representative surveys such as the NFHS-3 and the India Human Development Survey, 2004-05.5 3.1 Concepts of Asset Ownership
3 Data and Methods
With a population of 6.1 crore, Karnataka accounts for around 5% of India’s population and is marked by vast diversity in geography, socio-economic indicators and cultural practices. The survey was undertaken across eight districts covering the four agro-climatic zones, namely, the northern and southern plateaus, the Western Ghats, and the coastal. A stratified random sampling method was followed with Census 2001 as the sampling frame. Rural and urban areas were covered in proportion to their respective representation in the total population of the state; accordingly, 64% of the sample was in rural areas, 27% in urban areas and 9% in the metropolis of Bengaluru. The city was treated as a separate entity and not merged with other urban areas of the state since it has demographic and economic characteristics that make it substantially different from the latter. The KHAS has, for the first time in India, collected asset ownership information at the individual level for an entire state. Some critical features of the survey and instrument design are worth noting. Contrary to conventional survey practices of interviewing the household head, a primary respondent identified as the household member best aware of the household’s economic circumstances, specifically household assets, was interviewed. If the primary respondent identified was married, then her or his spouse was interviewed as the secondary respondent. If unmarried, then another adult household member was selected as the secondary respondent based on a set of protocols. As far as possible, the respondents within a household were of the opposite sex to capture both men’s and women’s views on asset ownership. In this paper the analysis is restricted to the information received from the primary respondent. The survey obtained information on all the physical assets including residence, agricultural land, other forms of real estate, livestock, agricultural tools and equipment, non-farm business activities and consumer durables. Information on asset values was collected as well. For immovable property (house, land, other real estate), different types of values including the sale, lease, and replacement (for built-up property) values were obtained. For all other assets, only sale values were recorded. Further, we obtained data on modes of asset acquisition which can be used to uncover institutional and other barriers to individuals’ asset acquisition. Additionally, the survey collected financial asset information for the two respondents,4 their awareness of the marital and inheritance laws, participation in household decision-making, incidence and impact of economic shocks, and subjective Economic & Political Weekly
EPW
september 1, 2012
vol xlvii no 35
If an asset was owned by the household, the primary respondent was asked to further qualify who within the household owned the asset. For immovable property, data pertaining to legal ownership was also obtained. We asked whose names were listed in the property documents where such documents existed. Legal ownership becomes paramount in the event of a dispute or if the asset in question needs to be partitioned amongst its owners. Reported ownership, on the other hand, is extremely useful in understanding intra-household dynamics. If an individual believes she is the owner of an asset (even if legally that is not the case), it could potentially influence her behaviour and alter the relative power structures within the household. A broader understanding of ownership requires an examination of the rights associated with being an owner. There are several categories of rights; alienation rights such as the rights to sell, bequeath and gift; use rights including the rights to rent, collateralise, and use income from the asset; and decision-making rights such as deciding what crops to plant or sell (Meinzen-Dick et al 2011). Although KHAS has collected information on all these rights, this paper focuses mainly on ownership as reported by the primary respondent. 4 Defining the Gender Asset and Wealth Gaps
The gender asset gap is based on a count of the assets held by individuals while the gender wealth gap incorporates the values of the assets owned. Both these measures can be calculated in multiple ways. (1) Forms of Asset Ownership by Sex: The unit of analysis is an asset which is distributed as being owned individually or jointly. These are further disaggregated by sex (individual men or women) and various forms of joint ownership (couple, all household members and so on). It is possible that each unit of an asset can be held in different forms. Thus, within the same household, one plot of land can be owned by an individual woman while another plot can be owned by all household members. (2) Incidence of Asset Ownership by Sex: This calculates the percentage of adult women who are asset owners in the population of all adult women. The incidence of asset ownership by men is similarly calculated as shown below: Adult men owning assets All adult men
Adult women owning assets ;
All adult women
The difference between the two provides one measure of the gender asset gap. 61
SPECIAL ARTICLE
(3) Distribution of Asset Owners by Sex: This measure compares the proportion of male asset owners to the proportion of female asset owners: Male asset owners Female asset owners ; All asset owners All asset owners (4) Share of Total Value of Assets by Sex: Using the sale value of assets reported by the primary respondent, the gross worth of all physical assets is determined and the share of men and women owners in this worth is calculated. When an asset is jointly owned its worth is apportioned equally among all the owners. Value of assets owned by males Total value of assets owned
Value of assets owned by females ;
Total value of assets owned
The gender wealth gap is demonstrated by the women’s share of total wealth. The asset and wealth gap measures are calculated for all physical assets and disaggregated by asset category where possible. This paper presents the forms of ownership, the incidence and share of wealth owned by women. 4.1 Forms of Asset Ownership
Assets can be owned individually by men or women, jointly by some household members, or by all household members. The results indicated that ownership patterns were dependent on the type of asset in question (Table 2).6 For high-value assets including the principal residence, agricultural land and other Table 2: Distribution of Assets by Forms of Ownership (%) Asset Categories
Individual Individual All Household Other Joint Total Number Men Women Members Ownership of Assets
Rural Principal residence 65 Agricultural land 71 Other real estate 68 Livestock 6 Small agricultural tools 5 Large agricultural equipment 10 Non-farm businesses 48 Jewellery 4 Vehicle 46 Cell phone 51 Urban Principal residence 58 Agricultural land 64 Other real estate 63 Livestock 5 Small agricultural tools 6 Non-farm businesses 60 Jewellery 8 Vehicle 53 Cell phone 52 Bengaluru Principal residence 60 Jewellery 2 Vehicle 53 Cell phone 49
22 14 20 5 3 2 25 69 9 8
0 0 0 82 83 71 1 16 39 34
13 15 12 7 9 17 26 11 6 7
2,398 2,468 647 8,275 21,251 577 464 2,285 1,374 1,829
26 15 19 6 4 22 66 12 20
1 0 0 84 82 0 15 25 22
15 21 18 5 8 18 11 10 6
676 302 236 672 2,401 387 929 868 1,211
34 46 12 24
1 42 32 23
15 10 3 4
128 150 239 508
Totals may not add up to 100% due to rounding of figures. Source: Adapted from Swaminathan et al (2011).
62
real estate, individual ownership by men dominated (58% to 71% across areas), while for the majority of the relatively lowvalue assets including livestock, agricultural tools and equipment, ownership by all household members was the dominant form (at least 70% across rural and urban areas). Individual ownership by men was dominant also for non-farm businesses. Jewellery was the only asset where individual ownership by women was predominant. While the majority of consumer durables were owned by all household members,7 individual ownership by men was the most prevalent form of ownership for certain consumer durables like vehicles and cell phones followed by ownership by all household members. Other joint ownership included ownership by the principal couple, i e, couple primary and secondary respondents, other joint ownership within households, and joint ownership between household and non-household members. Principal couple and other joint ownership within households were negligible across assets and areas. Joint ownership between household and non-household members was important particularly with respect to agricultural land in urban areas. These were typically plots of land co-owned by individuals in the households along with their parents or siblings who lived in and tended to the lands in the rural areas. 4.2 Incidence of Asset Ownership The individual asset incidence is analogous to the household incidence of asset ownership except for a different unit of analysis. Assets largely owned individually were characterised by individual incidence substantially lower than household incidence. Given the domination of individual ownership of agricultural land (Table 2), household incidence of this asset in Table 3: Incidence of Asset Ownership by Sex (%) Asset Categories
Rural Men Women Owners Owners
Principal residence (reported) 47 Principal residence (legal) 30 Agricultural land (reported) 39 Agricultural land (legal) 28 Other real estate (reported) 12 Other real estate (legal) 8 Livestock 63 Small agricultural tools 87 Large agricultural equipment 19 Non-farm businesses 9 Jewellery 21 Vehicle 35 Cell phone 48 Total number of individuals 3,965
17 11 9 7 4 3 57 82 16 4 53 21 29 4,309
Urban Men Women Owners Owners
28 18 10 7 8 6 11 30 – 21 24 40 64 1,645
13 9 2 2 2 2 9 29 – 7 53 17 42 1,816
Bengaluru Men Women Owners Owners
16 11 –
10 7 –
– -– – – 12 22 46 79 510
-– – – – 3 38 27 59 492
Several categories of assets could not be disaggregated due to small number of observations. Source: Adapted from Swaminathan et al (2011).
rural areas was 66% while individual incidence dropped to 47% for men and 17% for women (Table 3).8 For assets primarily owned by all household members, there was greater convergence between the household and individual incidence. Livestock was mainly owned by all household members. Thus, household incidence of livestock ownership in rural areas was september 1, 2012
vol xlvii no 35
EPW
Economic & Political Weekly
SPECIAL ARTICLE
57% and incidence by men and women was 63% and 57%, respectively. Inter alia, this suggests that inequalities in asset ownership worsen as the unit of analysis moves from the household to the individual. The gender gap in incidence also follows from the forms of ownership for that asset. Assets held individually by men naturally showed a high gap in favour of men, and assets dominated by ownership by all household members showed a relatively low gap since every individual within the household would be counted as an owner. Similarly, the gender gap in the incidence of jewellery ownership was in favour of women. For principal residence, agricultural land and other real estate, incidence of legal ownership tended to be lower than reported ownership. This was because approximately 5% of such properties did not possess documents. Even when documents existed, in several cases they carried only the names of deceased ancestors from whom the current owners had inherited these assets.9 The difference between the incidence of reported and legal ownership for all these assets was relatively higher for men than for women in rural areas, and for agricultural land and other real estate in urban areas, there was no difference for women. This suggests, perhaps, that women were more likely to be reported as owners of these assets only when they were the legal owners as well. Table 4 presents the incidence of ownership of principal residence and agricultural land by religion for households and individuals.10 At the household level, the incidence of Table 4: Incidence of Residence and Landownership by Sex and Religion (%) Principal Residence Religion
Rural Incidence Household Men Women
Hindu Muslim
91 83
47 41
17 14
Urban Incidence Household Men Women
58 62
29 27
13 10
Agricultural Land Rural Incidence, All Land Household Men Women
Hindu Muslim
69 39
40 22
9 6
Rural Incidence, Land > 1 Acre Household Men Women
60 36
30 19
6 6
Source: Authors’ calculations, KHAS 2010-11.
ownership in rural areas was higher for Hindus than for Muslims for both assets. The difference between the two religious communities was more pronounced for land as compared to residence, particularly when land larger than one acre was considered. While 60% of all Hindu households in rural Karnataka owned more than one acre of agricultural land, the comparable figure for Muslim households was only 36%. These patterns are consistent with the findings of the Sachar Committee Report, 2006; based on data from the 61st round of the NSSO, the report found landownership (including homestead land) among Muslim households to be lower than that among Hindu households across India (Government of India 2006b). These differences are reflected in the incidence by individuals and more prominent among men than among women. Among Hindu men in rural areas, 47% owned their residence and 40% owned agricultural land compared to 41% and 22% of Muslim men respectively. In urban areas, while the incidence Economic & Political Weekly
EPW
september 1, 2012
vol xlvii no 35
of residence ownership by men and women was marginally higher for Hindus than for Muslims, the incidence at the household level showed a reverse position – 62% of Muslim households owned their residences compared to 58% of Hindu households. This is driven by the relatively larger average household size among Muslim (5.52) as compared to Hindu households (4.39), and the higher average number of adults among the former (3.31) when compared to the latter (3.05). In urban areas the gender gap in residence ownership was similar at 16 percentage points for Hindus and 17 percentage points for Muslims. However, in rural areas, among Hindus, there was a 30 percentage point difference between men and women in residence ownership and a 31 percentage point difference in landownership. The comparable numbers among Muslims were 27 percentage points for residence, and only 16 percentage points for land. This suggests that the relative position of Muslim women with respect to ownership of major assets, particularly agricultural land, was better than that of Hindu women in the rural areas. This interesting result can be understood against the socio-legal backgrounds of these religions. The main mode of acquisition for both men and women asset owners was inheritance; primarily through the natal family for men and the marital family for women (Swaminathan et al 2011). Across India, Muslim laws of inheritance and succession are based on the Muslim personal laws, which, for centuries have allowed women the right to inherit property.11 Hindu inheritance and succession laws, on the contrary, have historically been discriminatory towards women. As mentioned earlier, a state-level amendment was passed in Karnataka in 1994 to effect a certain measure of equality between sons and daughters, but it was only with the central government’s HSAA (2005) that most forms of discrimination against women in their inheritance and succession rights were eliminated. The relatively lower gender asset gap among Muslims is partly reflective of this historical process. The incidence of asset ownership is also examined by select caste groups (Table 5).12 The incidence of residence ownership by households, men and women in rural and urban areas was relatively higher among the scheduled caste (SC) and scheduled tribe (ST) groups than among the Backward Classes (BC) and Other Backward Class (OBC) groups,13 a pattern mainly driven by the state-housing programmes. The Ambedkar scheme specifically targets SC households, and the Ashraya and the Indira Awas Yojana target the poorest of the poor, among whom SC and ST households are overrepresented (Hanstad et al 2002). Table 5: Incidence of Residence and Landownership by Sex and Caste (%) Principal Residence Caste Household
BC/OBC SC/ST
91 92
Rural Incidence Men Women
47 48
16 20
Urban Incidence Household Men
54 68
26 32
Women
12 15
Agricultural Land Rural Incidence, All Land Household Men Women
BC/OBC SC/ST
74 57
43 34
10 8
Rural Incidence, Land > 1 Acre Household Men Women
66 48
33 22
6 4
Source: Authors’ calculations, KHAS 2010-11.
63
SPECIAL ARTICLE
With respect to agricultural land in rural areas, a larger proportion of households, men and women were owners among the BC/OBCs as compared to SC/STs. A little over 70% of the BC/ OBC households were constituted by the dominant castes of Vokkaligas and Lingayats, which explains the higher incidence of landownership among them.14 There is also evidence of a continuing trend of marginalisation of the SC/ST groups in landownership. According to the 59th round of the NSSO, 5.7% of SC and 9.1% of ST households in India were purely landless, with a majority of the landed households owning less than 2.4 acres (Government of India 2006c). The gender differences in rural areas for both principal residence and agricultural land were higher among the BC/OBC as compared to the SC/ST indicating that women’s relative position is better among the latter. While the lower gender gap in residence ownership among SC/ST households is partially explained by state-housing schemes, some land redistribution schemes of the Government of Karnataka in the recent years, such as the Namma Bhoomi Namma Thota (Our Land, Our Garden), also encourage joint-titling for these lands in both spouses’ names or in the names of eligible members of selfhelp groups (Nielson et al 2006). Given that this programme targets agriculture-dependent households which have been landless for at least two consecutive generations, it is likely that a large proportion of beneficiaries would be among the SC/ST households, driving down the gender gap in landownership within these households.
However, the differences at the household level reveal a gender gap in favour of men in household 1 and a gap in favour of women in household 2. In order to capture these differentials, an intra-household measure of the gender asset gap is also calculated. Here, only households comprising at least one adult man and one adult woman, and owning a given asset category are considered. The proportion of such households in which the asset in question is owned exclusively by men, exclusively by women and those in which there is mixed-sex ownership are presented (Table 6). In the rural areas, in at least 70% of the households, principal residence, agricultural land and other real estate were owned exclusively by men. Mixed-sex ownership was prevalent in less than 6% of households. This implies that women had some ownership claim on these assets in at most 30% of the households (through exclusive or mixed-sex ownership). Urban areas and Bengaluru showed a similar picture where these assets were owned exclusively by men in at least 60% of households. The intra-household disparities persisted even for low-value assets such as vehicles and cell phones where exclusive ownership by men was almost as high as mixed-sex ownership. Overall, at least 35% of households had mixed-sex ownership of jewellery, primarily considered women’s asset, showing a more egalitarian distribution when compared to men’s assets like residence and land. 4.4 Gender Wealth Gap
4.3 Intra-Household Gender Asset Gap
The gap measures discussed above present the gender differentials by aggregating assets (forms of ownership) or individuals (incidence of ownership) across all households. However, both these measures mask gender differences in asset ownership that could exist within households. Table 6: Asset Ownership Patterns within Households (%) Asset Categories
Principal residence
Only Adult Women
24
Rural Urban Bengaluru Only Mixed Only Only Mixed Only Only Mixed Adult Sex Adult Adult Sex Adult Adult Sex Men Women Men Women Men
70
6
29
64
7
35
61
4
Agricultural land
16
79
5
15
79
6
–
–
–
Other real estate
22
72
6
22
75
3
–
–
–
Non-farm businesses
24
55
11
21
66
13
11
83
6
7
45
48
9
54
37
6
52
42
6
46
48
8
39
53
9
32
59
64
1
35
58
2
40
46
1
53
Vehicles Cell phones Jewellery
Totals may not add up to 100% due to rounding of figures. Source: Adapted from Swaminathan et al (2011).
To illustrate this point, assume that the entire population constituted four individuals; one man and one woman each in two households. In household 1, the residence is owned by the man and in household 2, it is owned by the woman. The forms of ownership analysis would show 50% of the assets as owned individually by men and 50% owned individually by women, and the incidence of asset ownership would show 50% of men and 50% of women to be owners. At the aggregate level, therefore, there would be no gender asset gap. 64
Unlike the gap based on asset incidence, the gap based on asset worth captures differences in quality (size, location, age and other aspects) and quantity of the assets owned. Values, however, are more costly to collect and are inherently noisy (missing information, measurement error). In the KHAS data, values were missing in less than 5% of all observations; for principal residence (4.7%), agricultural land (4.1%), non-farm businesses (3.6%) and other real estate (3.3%). For all other assets, there were missing values in less than 1.5% of the observations in each category. Where possible, values were imputed using the secondary respondents’ valuation and other characteristics of the assets. The gender wealth gap compares the shares of men and women owners in the total asset worth, calculated using the sale value of assets reported by the primary respondents. These shares are normalised to the sex ratios in the households owning that asset category. In a gender equitable world, at an aggregate level, one would expect women’s share in total asset worth to be equal to their representation in the population of asset owning households. All reported numbers for women’s share of wealth are normalised to a sex ratio of 1:1. For example, in landed households, if the value of women’s land is 50% and they comprise 60% of the household population, then the normalised share of women is 42%. A normalised share of less than 50% for women indicates a gender wealth gap in favour of men. KHAS also collected data on loans against assets which was used to obtain the net worth of these assets. Except for september 1, 2012
vol xlvii no 35
EPW
Economic & Political Weekly
SPECIAL ARTICLE
non-farm businesses in rural areas, differences between the gross and net worth shares were negligible. Women’s share in the gross worth of non-farm businesses was lower than their share in the net worth Table 7: Women’s Share of Wealth (%) (13% and 15%, respec- Asset Categories Women's Share Rural Urban Bengaluru tively). This is because women’s businesses Principal residence 23 21 10 15 11 – were mostly small-scale Agricultural land 22 13 – informal activities and Other real estate 13 2 3 less likely to incur debt, Non-farm businesses Livestock 45 46 – while men typically 37 42 – owned larger scale Small agricultural tools Large agricultural equipment 38 31 – businesses which were Jewellery 76 71 55 more likely to have ac- Vehicles 19 24 34 cumulated debt. Since Cell phone 24 33 33 the differences between Total Gross Worth 18 23 17 the gross worth and Several categories of assets could not be due to small number of observations. net worth were not disaggregated Source: Authors’ calculations, KHAS 2010-11. substantial for most assets, women’s share of wealth based only on gross worth is reported (Table 7). Overall, for every rupee of gross household wealth, women owned only 18 paise in rural areas, 23 paise in urban areas and 17 paise in Bengaluru. Women’s share was minimum in nonfarm businesses (13%, 2% and 3% in rural, urban and Bengaluru, respectively) and maximum in jewellery (76%, 71% and 55% in rural, urban and Bengaluru, respectively). Even assets reported as being owned predominantly by all household members (livestock, agricultural tools and equipment), showed women’s share to be less than 50%. Women’s wealth share is examined across different economic classes of households to uncover potential interactions with overall wealth (Table 8). In the poorest two quintiles in urban areas and the Table 8: Women’s Share of Wealth poorest in Bengaluru, by Quintiles (%) Quintiles Women's Share women’s share of wealth Rural Urban Bengaluru was equal to or margin- Q1 (poorest) 44 51 50 ally higher than men’s Q2 32 50 45 share. In all three areas, Q3 26 36 40 women’s share was Q4 23 29 36 highest in the poorest Q5 (richest) 16 16 24 quintile (44% in rural, Source: Authors’ calculations, KHAS 2010-11. 51% in urban and 50% in Bengaluru) and lowest in richest quintile (16% in both rural and urban areas and 24% in Bengaluru) with a secular decline between the second and fourth quintiles. Given this trend of increasing wealth gap across quintiles, the overall wealth gap is likely to be underestimated given a relatively higher non-response among richer households in the survey. This pattern reflects the asset composition of the households across quintiles. Poorer households, particularly in urban areas and Bengaluru possessed little or no immovable property. More than 90% of their wealth was concentrated in jewellery, consumer durables, livestock and small agricultural equipment (Swaminathan et al 2011). Jewellery being owned mostly by women and other assets held jointly by all Economic & Political Weekly
EPW
september 1, 2012
vol xlvii no 35
household members, women’s share in these households tended to be relatively higher. Poor households may have also benefited from government housing schemes contributing to their relatively egalitarian wealth distribution. At least 85% of the wealth of the richest households, on the other hand, was in residence, land and other real estate, assets predominantly owned by men. Therefore, women’s share in these households remained low. There were also differences in household demographic composition across quintiles. A majority of the individual women owners of residence and land were primary respondents and widowed (ibid: 29). Further, 40% of the primary respondents in the poorest quintile were women compared to only 12% in the richest quintile. 5 Conclusions and Policy Implications
The analysis presented here highlights several salient results. First, the data show substantial gender disparities with respect to asset ownership and wealth in Karnataka. Women are least likely to own their residence and agricultural land and most likely to own jewellery, livestock, agricultural tools and certain consumer durables. In general, women do not own assets by themselves; they co-own assets with some or all household members. Jewellery is the only asset that they own individually and which shows a reverse gender gap. Since jewellery is often pawned or sold during economic crises, it leaves women assetless and more vulnerable even as it provides a coping strategy for households. Second, there is strong evidence that the individual and the household are distinct and that resources may not always be equitably distributed among household members. The intrahousehold gender asset gap most effectively demonstrates the inadequacy of data collected only at the household level. Any gender analysis using the sex of the household head would present inaccurate estimates of the extent of women’s asset ownership. Using such data to feed into programmatic and policy interventions cannot address the breadth of gender disparities since individuals other than the head of the household are invisible to the policymaker. Third, it is seen that gender inequality in asset ownership cuts across economic classes. From a household perspective, unlike women’s health or education, there is no reason to believe that the rising tide will lift all boats. While the pattern of increasing gender inequality with increasing wealth requires further analysis, it is indicative of a lag between economic transformation and social transformation. Social norms and
available at
Altermedia-Bookshop Ecoshop M G Road Thrissur 680 001 Kerala Ph: 2422974 65
SPECIAL ARTICLE
attitudes towards women have not kept pace with either material progress or progressive legislations. Sex-disaggregated asset data is critical to evaluate the impact of legislations like the HSAA (2005), and other women-focused initiatives like the state-housing programmes. The real contribution of KHAS lies in demonstrating that individual asset data can be collected using standard survey methods. The survey has demystified the myth that such questions are too sensitive to be asked and even if they are, people cannot identify owners of specific assets. The KHAS respondents could easily attribute ownership of almost all assets to various members of the household. There was some difficulty identifying owners only for smaller assets like small agricultural tools and some consumer durables. The AIDIS administered by the NSSO provides a ready-made forum for the integration of individual-level asset questions. However, there are many challenges that need to be overcome. An important question is should individual data be collected for all assets or only major ones such as land and residence? How will this information be recorded on the questionnaire and processed for analysis?15 A key consideration is the increase in interview time due to the additional questions and the practicality of designing a national-level survey based
on the experience of only one state. But these questions and many more that will arise cannot be addressed without a serious proposal for taking forward the work begun by KHAS. Statistical agencies have a special responsibility to avoid the so-called McNamara fallacy.16 This fallacy leads one to measure what is easily measurable even if it does not provide the right guidance and to ignore what is difficult to measure by presuming that information to be irrelevant or even, non-existent. Policymakers are not unaware of women’s disadvantaged position with respect to asset ownership. According to the working group report of the Eleventh Five-Year Plan, women did not own or exercise rights over land, even as a larger proportion of female workers were employed in agriculture as compared to male workers (75% and 53%, respectively). The report called for the creation of sex-disaggregated databases to guide policy formulation and programme implementation to promote inclusive growth (Government of India 2006d). Unfortunately, this is yet to be implemented with the consequence it has been reiterated again in the Twelfth Plan report of the working group on women’s agency and empowerment (Government of India 2011b). Hopefully, the recommendation will see the light of day during this Plan period.
EPW Research Foundation
(A UNIT OF SAMEEKSHA TRUST)
www.epwrf.in
www.epwrfits.in
India Time Series The EPWRF has further progressed with its online database service christened as ‘India Time Series’, www.epwrfits.in. The project introduced a few months ago envisaged dissemination of data in thirteen modules displaying time series on a wide range of macroeconomic and financial sector variables in a manner convenient for research and analytical work. This is targeted to benefit particularly students, research scholars, professionals and the academic community, both in India and abroad. This online service is a part of the project funded by the University Grants Commission (UGC) and executed by the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS), Mumbai and the Economic and Political Weekly (EPW). Time series data set has been structured under various modules. Modules released so far 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9)
Financial Markets Banking Statistics (Basic Statistical Returns) Domestic Product of States of India (SDP) Agricultural Statistics Price Indices Power Sector Finances of Government of India Combined Government Finances Industrial Production Series
Following modules will be added soon 1) 2) 3) 4)
National Accounts Statistics Annual Survey of Industries External Sector Finances of State Governments
Key Online Database Features Disseminating data in the time series format. Interactive online access to time series data updated periodically. Select data series as per requirement and download at ease. Instantly compare, plot and analyze different data in relation to each other. Export to Excel for time series analysis and econometric work. Save time and energy in data compilation. Get help needed from our team. The demo version can be accessed by free registration. The existing members already registered with us and accessing member services at www.epwrf.in will not require fresh registration. To gain full access, the subscription rates are available on our website. For any further details or clarifications, please contact: The Director, EPW Research Foundation, C-212, Akurli Industrial Estate, Akurli Road, Kandivli (East), Mumbai - 400 101. (Phone: +91-22-2885 4995/4996) or mail to:
[email protected] ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
66
september 1, 2012
vol xlvii no 35
EPW
Economic & Political Weekly
SPECIAL ARTICLE
Notes
References
1 International Human Development Indicators, UNDP, viewed on 12 April 2012, from: http:// hdr.undp.org 2 The study also found that asset ownership did not influence women’s control over household income or lower their share of household chores. 3 Even prior to Karnataka and Maharashtra, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu had amended their state laws in 1976, 1986, and 1989, respectively. 4 Owing to greater privacy and confidentiality concerns regarding financial assets, this information was acquired only for the respondents and not for all members of the household. Field testing also revealed that the respondents were unlikely to know much about the financial assets of other household members. 5 Urban estimates from KHAS cannot be directly compared with those from other surveys since Bengaluru is treated separately from other urban areas. 6 All descriptive statistics are weighted appropriately. 7 These include television, music system, refrigerator, furniture, vessels, etc, not presented here. 8 For household incidence of assets, see Swaminathan et al (2011: 13-15). 9 Some constraints in undertaking the name changes in the documents were reported, including high transaction costs and ongoing conflicts with other family members over property. Many also operated on a notional division of the properties and did not feel the need to change the ownership documents to reflect their names as owners. 10 It was not feasible to undertake this analysis for other religious groups due to small sample size. 11 Although the extent that these women can inherit is typically lesser than that what men can inherit, this will not make a difference to the gender asset gap based on incidence of ownership. 12 The survey elicited the specific caste names from the respondents. Based on these, households were categorised into different caste categories using three lists – the Central List of Other Backward Classes for Karnataka State (http://ww.ncbc.nic.in/backward-classes/ karnataka.html), the Karnataka List of Backward Classes (http://www.backwardclasses. kar.nic.in) and the Karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes list (http://sw.kar.nic.in/ scstlist.pdf). Any caste name that appeared in both the OBC and the BC lists was coded under the former since that supersedes the latter. Hindu households whose caste names did not appear in any of these lists were coded Forward Caste and non-Hindu households whose sect names were not found on these lists were coded Other. 13 It was not possible to undertake this analysis for other caste groups due to small sample size. 14 Dominant castes are those which are more numerous, wield considerable economic and political power through the ownership of land, and whose position in the caste hierarchy is not too low (Srinivas 1959). 15 See (Doss et al 2011) for challenges faced and lessons learned in data collection, processing and analysis. 16 Named after Robert McNamara, the US secretary of defence in the 1960s who was obsessed with quantifying the Vietnam war only through body bag counts (BMJ 2009).
Agarwal, B (1998): “Widows vs Daughters or Widows as Daughters? Property, Land and Economic Security in Rural India” in M Chen (ed.), Widows in India: Social Neglect and Public Action (New Delhi: Sage Publications), pp 124-69. Allendorf, K (2007): “Do Women’s Land Rights Promote Empowerment and Child Health in Nepal?”, World Development, 35(11): 1975-88. Beegle, K, E Frankenberg and D Thomas (2001): “Bargaining Power within Couples and Use of Prenatal and Delivery Care in Indonesia”, Studies in Family Planning, 32(2): 130-46. Bhattacharyya, M, A S Bedi and A Chhachhi (2011): “Marital Violence and Women’s Employment and Property Status: Evidence from North Indian Villages”, World Development, 39(9): 1676-89. Brown, J, K Ananthpur and R Giovarelli (2002): “Women’s Access and Rights to Land in Karnataka”, RDI Reports on Foreign Aid and Development, (114). BMJ (2009): “Utility of the McNamara Fallacy”, BMJ, 339: b3141. Carter, M and C Barrett (2006): “The Economics of Poverty Traps and Persistent Poverty: An Asset-based Approach”, The Journal of Development Studies, 42(2): 178-99. Datta, N (2006): “Joint Titling – a Win-Win Policy? Gender and Property Rights in Urban Informal Settlements in Chandigarh, India”, Feminist Economics, 12(1): 271-98. Deere, C D and J D Contreras (2011): Asset Accumulation: The Challenge for Equity, transl. of Acumulación de Activos: Unaapuestapor la equidad, Quito. Deere, C D, G E Alvarado and J Twyman (2012): “Gender Inequality in Asset Ownership in Latin America: Female Owners vs Household Heads”, Development and Change, 43(2): 50530. Deininger, K, A Goyal and H Nagarajan (2010): “Inheritance Law Reform and Women’s Access to Capital: Evidence from India’s Hindu Succession Act”, World Bank Policy Research Working Papers, 5338(June), World Bank. Doss, C (2006): “The Effects of Intra-Household Property Ownership on Expenditure Patterns in Ghana”, Journal of African Economies, 15(1): 149-80. Doss, C, C D Deere, J Y Suchitra, A D Oduro and M Hillesland (2011): Lessons from the Field: Implementing Individual Asset Surveys in Ecuador, Ghana, India and Uganda (Bangalore: Indian Institute of Management Bangalore). Duflo, E (2003): “Grandmothers and Granddaughters: Old-Age Pensions and Intra-household Allocation in South Africa”, The World Bank Economic Review, 17(1 (June), 1-25. Friedemann-Sánchez, G (2006): “Assets in Intrahousehold Bargaining among Women Workers in Colombia’s Cut-Flower Industry”, Feminist Economics, 12(1&2): 247-69. Garikipati, S (2009): “Landless but Not Assetless: Female Agricultural Labour on the Road to Better Status, Evidence from India”, Journal of Peasant Studies, 36(3): 517-45. Government of India (2006a): Employment and Unemployment Situation in India, 61st Round, 2004-05, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, New Delhi. – (2006b): Social, Economic and Educational Status of the Muslim Community of India, Prime Minister’s High Level Committee, New Delhi. – (2006c): Report on Household Ownership Holdings in India 2003, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, New Delhi. – (2006d): Report of the Working Group on Empowerment of Women for the XI Plan,
Economic & Political Weekly
vol xlvii no 35
EPW
september 1, 2012
Ministry of Women and Child Development, New Delhi. – (2009): Report of the Expert Group to Advise the Ministry of Rural Development on the Methodology for Conducting the Below Poverty Line Census for the 11th Five-Year Plan, Ministry of Rural Development, New Delhi. – (2011a): Employment and Unemployment Situation in India, 66th Round, 2009-10, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, New Delhi. – (2011b): XII Five-Year Plan Report of the Working Group on Women’s Agency and Empowerment, Ministry of Women and Child Development, New Delhi. Hanstad, T, J Brown and R Prosterman (2002): “Larger Homestead Plots as Land Reform? International Experience and Analysis from Karnataka”, Economic & Political Weekly, 20 July. ICRW (2006): Property Ownership and Inheritance Rights of Women for Social Protection – The South Asia Experience, A Synthesis Report of Three Studies. International Institute of Population Sciences (2000): National Family Health Survey 1998-99, (Mumbai: IIPS). – (2008): National Family Health Survey 2005-06 (Mumbai: IIPS). Katz, E and J S Chamorro (2003): “Gender, Land Rights and the Household Economy in Rural Nicaragua and Honduras”, Paper presented at the Conference of the Latin American and Caribbean Economics Association, Puebla, Mexico, 9 October. Mason, K (1998): “Wives’ Economic DecisionMaking Power in the Family: Five Asian Countries” in K Mason (ed.), The Changing Family in Comparative Perspective: Asia and the United States (Honolulu: East-West Center), pp 105-33. Meinzen-Dick, R, N Johnson, A Quisumbing, J Njuki, J Behrman, D Rubin, A Peterman and E Waithanji (2011): Gender, Assets, and Agricultural Development Programmes, CAPRi Working Paper No 99 (Washington DC: CAPRi). Nielson, R, T Hanstad and L Rolfes (2006): Implementing Homestead Plot Programmes: Experience from India, Livelihood Support Programme Working Paper No 23 (Rome: FAO). Panda, P and B Agarwal (2005): “Marital Violence, Human Development, and Women’s Property Status in India”, World Development, 33(5): 823-50. Quisumbing, A (2008): The Dynamics of Poverty in Rural Bangladesh: Determinants of Poverty Reduction, CPRC-IFPRI Brief, 2. Registrar General of India (2012): “Census of India”, viewed on 10 March (http://www.censusindia.gov.in/) – (2011): “Sample Registration System”, Bulletin, June, viewed on 10 March 2012 (http://censusindia.gov.in/Vital_Statistics/SRS_Bulletins / Final-MMR%20Bulletin-2007-09_070711.pdf) Roy, S (2008): “Female Empowerment through Inheritance Rights: Evidence from India”, paper presented at the Second Riccardo Faini Doctoral Conference on Development Economics, University of Milan, Italy. Retrieved from (http://www.dfid.gov.uk/r4d/PDF/Outputs/ IIG/iig-riccardpconference-roy.pdf) Srinivas, M N (1959): “The Dominant Caste in Rampura”, American Anthropologist, 61(1): 1-16. Swaminathan, H, J Y Suchitra and R Lahoti (2011): KHAS: Measuring the Gender Asset Gap (Bangalore: Indian Institute of Management Bangalore). World Bank (2011): 2012 World Development Report: Gender Equality and Development, Washington DC.
67
