Son preference prevails among Indian families. We test the hypothesis that women who bear sons experience an elevated status within the household, which translates into their increased role in decision-making. Using data from the Indian Human Development Survey, we find that women who have given birth to at least one son show greater participation in the household’s financial decisions as well as other decisions on a regular basis. After analysing 13 decision variables, we find that women who have given birth to at least one son enjoy higher overall bargaining power in the household. For example, in decisions concerning what to spend money on, having a son is equivalent to 6 years of formal education. We also show that the presence of a senior member in the household, however, often reduces the women’s household bargaining strength.
AgnihotriS. (1996). Juvenile sex ratios in India: A disaggregated analysis. Economic and Political Weekly, 31(52), 3369–3382.
2.
ArnoldF., ChoeM. K., & RoyT. K. (1996). Son preference, the family building process, and child mortality in India (Working Papers, Population Series, no. 85). East-West Center, Honolulu.
3.
AshrafN. (2009). Spousal control and intra-household decision-making: An experimental study in the Philippines. American Economic Review, 99(4), 1245–1277.
4.
BardhanP. (1974). On life and death questions. Economic and Political Weekly, 9(32–34), 1293–1304.
5.
BasuA. M. (1989). Is discrimination in food really necessary for explaining sex differentials in childhood mortality? Population Studies, 43(2), 193–210.
6.
BasuA. M. (1992). Culture, the status of women, and demographic behavior. Clarendon Press.
7.
BehrmanJ. (1997). Intra-household distribution and the family. In RosenzweigM., & StarkO. (Eds.), Handbook of family and population economics. Elsevier Science B.V.
8.
BhalotraS. (2009). Fatal fluctuations?—Cyclicality in infant mortality in India. Journal of Development Economics, 93(1), 7–19.
9.
BhatP. N .M., & XavierA. J. F. (2003). Fertility bias and gender decline in northern India. Demography, 40(4), 637–657.
10.
BrownP. (2009). Dowry and intra-household bargaining: Evidence from China. Journal of Human Resources, 44(1), 25–46.
11.
CaldwellJ. C., ReddyP. H., & CaldwellP. (1983). The causes of marriage change in south India. Population Studies, 37(3), 343–361.
12.
Census. (2001). Indian population census 2001. Retrieved June 27, 2011 from http://www.censusindia.net.
13.
DasN. (1984). Sex preference pattern and its stability in India: 1970–80. Demography India, 13(1 and 2), 108–119.
14.
DasN. (1987). Sex preference and fertility behavior: A study of recent Indian data. Demography, 24(4), 517–530.
15.
Das GuptaM. (1987). Selective discrimination against female children in rural Punjab, India. Population and Development Review, 13(1), 77–100.
16.
Das GuptaM., & Mari BhatP. N. (1997). Fertility decline and increased manifestation of sex bias in India. Population Studies, 51(3), 307–315.
17.
DrezeJ., & MurthiM. (2001). Fertility, education and development: Evidences from India. Population and Development Review, 27(1), 33–63.
18.
DrezeJ., & SenA. (1996). India: Economic development and social opportunity. Oxford University Press.
19.
DysonT., & MooreM. (1983). On kinship structure, female autonomy, and demographic balance. Population and Development Review, 9(1), 35–60.
20.
FolbreN. (1984). Market opportunities, genetic endowments, and intra-family resource distribution: Comment. American Economic Review, 74(3), 518–520.
21.
International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS) and ORC Macro International. (2000). National family health survey–1 (NFHS–1), India, 1998–99. IIPS.
22.
IyerS., & BorooahV. (2004). Religion and fertility in India: The role of son preference and daughter aversion(Working Papers in Economics). Cambridge.
23.
KishoreS. (1993). May god give sons to all: Gender and child mortality in India. American Sociological Review, 58(2), 247–265.
24.
KulkarniP. M. (1999). Gender preference and contraceptive prevalence: Evidences of regional variation. Economic and Political Review, 34(42–43), 3058–3062.
25.
LahiriB. (1984). Demand for sons among Indian couples by rural–urban settlement size. Demography India, 13(1 and 2), 120–132.
26.
LiL., & WuX. (2011). Gender of children, bargaining power, and intrahousehold resource allocation in China. The Journal of Human Resources, 46(2), 295–316.
27.
MalhotraA., VannemanR., & KishorS. (1995). Fertility, dimensions of patriarchy, and development in India. Population and Development Review, 21(2), 281–305.
28.
MazumdarV. (1994). Amniocentesis and sex selection (Occasional Paper No. 21). Center for Women’s Development Studies.
29.
MillerB. D. (1981). The endangered sex: Neglect of female children in rural north India. Cornell University Press.
30.
Operations Research Group (ORG). (1990). Family planning practices in India: third all India survey.
31.
PandeR., & MalhotraA. (2006). Son preference and daughter neglect in India: What happens to living girls?ICRW.
32.
RangamuthiaM., MinjaK. C., FredA., & RoyT. K. (1997). Son preference and its effect on fertility in India(National Family Health Survey (NFHS) Subject Reports (3)). International Institute for Population Sciences; East-West Center.
33.
RaoV. (1993). The rising price of husbands: A hedonic analysis of dowry increases in rural India. Journal of Political Economy, 101(4), 666–677.
34.
SenA. (1990). More than 100 million women are missing. New York Review of Books, 37(20), 61–66.
35.
SenA. (1992). Missing women. The British Medical Journal, 304(6827), 586–587.
36.
SenA., & SenguptaS. (1983). Malnutrition of rural Indian children and the sex bias. Economic and Political Weekly, 18(19–21), 855–864.
37.
SikandY. (1993). Bogey of family planning and Islam. Observer of Business and Politics, 27-2-1993.
38.
ThomasD. (1990). Intra-household resource allocation: An inferential approach. Journal of Human Resources, 25(4), 635–664.
39.
VisariaL., AcharyaA., & RajF. (2006). Two child norm: Victimizing the vulnerable? Economic and Political Weekly, 41(1), 41–48.
40.
YoussefN. H. (1978). The status and fertility patterns of Muslim women. In BeckL., & KeddieN. (Eds), Women in the Muslim world (pp. 69–99). Harvard University Press.
41.
ZhangJ., & ChanW. (1999). Dowry and wife’s welfare: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Journal of Political Economy, 107(4), 786–808.
