WOMEN'S AUTONOMY AND SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING: HOW GENDER NORMS SHAPE THE IMPACT OF SELF-HELP GROUPS IN ODISHA, INDIA

被引:29
作者
de Hoop, Thomas [1 ]
van Kempen, Luuk [2 ]
Linssen, Rik [3 ]
van Eerdewijk, Anouka [4 ]
机构
[1] Amer Inst Res, Washington, DC 20007 USA
[2] Radboud Univ Nijmegen, Ctr Int Dev Issues, NL-6525 ED Nijmegen, Gelderland, Netherlands
[3] Maastricht Univ, Dept Polit Sci, Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
[4] Royal Trop Inst, NL-1105 AZ Amsterdam, North Holland, Netherlands
关键词
Autonomy; subjective well-being; impact evaluation; identity; sanctioning; India; PROPENSITY SCORE; SOCIAL NORMS; EMPOWERMENT; CREDIT; IDENTIFICATION; INSTRUMENTS; ECONOMICS; HAPPINESS; FAIRNESS; FREEDOM;
D O I
10.1080/13545701.2014.893388
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
This paper presents impact estimates of women's self-help group (SHG) membership on subjective well-being in Odisha, India, using 2008 survey data in a quasi-experimental design. It finds that, while there is evidence of a positive impact of SHG membership on women's autonomy, on average, SHG membership does not affect subjective well-being. However, results also reveal that for members living in communities with relatively conservative gender norms among nonmembers, subjective well-being is notably lower. The authors interpret this finding as evidence that these SHG members feel a loss of identity - a problem that looms larger when women's enhanced autonomy implies a stronger violation of gender norms at the community level. In these communities, social-sanctioning mechanisms contribute to a negative impact of women's SHGs on subjective well-being, as evidenced by qualitative accounts of women's empowerment trajectories in the research area.
引用
收藏
页码:103 / 135
页数:33
相关论文
共 47 条
[1]  
Agarwal B., 1997, FEMINIST EC, V3, P1, DOI [10.1080/135457097338799, DOI 10.1080/135457097338799]
[2]  
Ahmed SM, 2001, WORLD DEV, V29, P1957, DOI 10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00069-9
[3]   Economics and identity [J].
Akerlof, GA ;
Kranton, RE .
QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS, 2000, 115 (03) :715-753
[4]  
Bamberger Michael., 2010, Using mixed methods in monitoring and evaluation: experiences from international development
[5]  
Baum C. F., 2007, IVREG2 STATA MODULE
[6]   Sensitivity analysis for average treatment effects [J].
Becker, Sascha O. ;
Caliendo, Marco .
STATA JOURNAL, 2007, 7 (01) :71-83
[7]   Do people mean what they say? Implications for subjective survey data [J].
Bertrand, M ;
Mullainathan, S .
AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW, 2001, 91 (02) :67-72
[8]   Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching [J].
Caliendo, Marco ;
Kopeinig, Sabine .
JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC SURVEYS, 2008, 22 (01) :31-72
[9]   Instruments, Randomization, and Learning about Development [J].
Deaton, Angus .
JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC LITERATURE, 2010, 48 (02) :424-455
[10]   Practical propensity score matching: a reply to Smith and Todd [J].
Dehejia, R .
JOURNAL OF ECONOMETRICS, 2005, 125 (1-2) :355-364