Knowledge (XXG)

Intra-household bargaining

Source 📝

168:
preferences result in a collective decision. The collective approach has been used to provide theoretical results for various household issues, such as labor supply, consumption and savings, household production, and intra-household allocation. The key idea underlying the Collective Model is that household decisions result from a bargaining process among household members, subject to a household budget constraint. This model allows for a more realistic representation of household decision-making, as it acknowledges the potential for conflicting interests and preferences among household members. It also allows for the possibility of changes in the distribution of resources within the household based on negotiations between members, rather than assuming a single decision-maker acting in the best interest of the entire household. The Collective Model has been applied to various household issues and has provided valuable insights into the complex dynamics of intra-household resource allocation and decision-making. However, it's important to note that while the Collective Model provides a more nuanced understanding of household decision-making, it also requires more detailed data on individual preferences and outside options, which may not always be readily available
159:
Nash-bargaining model, finding evidence that bargaining may influence allocation within households. In particular, he observed that in households where mothers contribute a larger share of non-labor income, children seem to be better nourished . This suggests that the Nash-bargaining model can provide valuable insights into the complex dynamics of intra-household resource allocation and decision-making, capturing the potential influence of individual preferences and bargaining power on household outcomes. The Nash-bargaining model is considered more realistic than the altruism models as it acknowledges the potential for conflicting interests and preferences among household members. It also allows for the possibility of changes in the distribution of resources within the household based on negotiations between members, rather than assuming a single decision-maker acting in the best interest of the entire household.
281:. This concept is used to understand the power dynamics within a household, where the individual with a stronger fallback position, or better alternatives, has more bargaining power and influence over decisions. The fallback position refers to the best alternative an individual has if the current cooperative arrangement within the household fails. For instance, a woman with a good income has a stronger fallback position than a woman with no individual earnings. This is because she has better alternatives if the marriage ends, giving her more bargaining power. 142:
potential influence of individual preferences and bargaining power on divorce outcomes. Another example is the separate spheres bargaining model, which differs from divorce threat bargaining models by considering the distribution of resources within marriage and how it affects the bargaining process during divorce. This model acknowledges that spouses may have different spheres of influence and control over resources within the marriage, which can impact the negotiation process and outcomes during divorce.
357:
order to own land individuals must obtain a certain level of education, which women have traditionally not had access to, and owning land and enforcing laws depends upon one's "economic and physical access to legal machinery" as well as access to government officials. Due to the unequal gender rights to land ownership, South Asian women are less capable of providing income to the household which lessens their bargaining power in the household.
96:
behind people's decisions to redistribute income to others. Becker's model has been influential in shaping research in the economics of the family, despite some criticism. His approach to the family leads to a conclusion that the institutions depicted are benign, and that government intervention would be useless at best and probably harmful .
356:
In South Asian societies land is one of the most valuable individual assets that can increase an individual's bargaining power, yet it is more uncommon and difficult for women to own land than men for a number of reasons: inheritance laws that allow women to inherit land are not strongly enforced, in
232:
arise. These conflicts of interest make bargaining a necessary part of family life and produce a setting where altruism is not always the guiding principle. These conflicts of interest have the potential to create a spectrum of intra-household dynamics, ranging from a non-cooperative to a cooperative
158:
model applied to household decision-making. This model is based on the idea that household members negotiate and reach agreements on the allocation of resources, taking into account their individual preferences and outside options Thomas proposed a test to distinguish between altruism models and the
141:
of resources as an outcome of bargaining processes among household members, taking into account their individual preferences and outside options. This model can provide valuable insights into the complex dynamics of intra-household resource allocation and decision-making during divorce, capturing the
55:
These models consider the household as a single decision-making unit with common preferences, which contrasts with bargaining models that acknowledge individual member preferences.Here, the dominant earner or the head of the household is perceived to act selflessly, prioritizing decisions that cater
338:
and "perceptions about needs, contributions, and other determinants of deservedness".The social acceptability (or lack thereof) of leaving the household or living in a non-traditional household, the perceived social needs of individuals within the household, and the low valuation of certain tasks,
248:
is "the relative capacity of each of the parties to a negotiation or dispute to compel or secure agreements on its own terms". In its simplest definition, ‘bargaining’ is a socio-economic phenomenon involving two parties, who can cooperate towards the creation of a commonly desirable surplus, over
95:
Becker's model of the altruistic dictator has been used in various economic experiments, such as the Dictator Game. In this game, one individual (the dictator) decides how to distribute a sum of money between themselves and another person (the recipient). This game is used to study the motivations
37:
and is sometimes used in place of direct monetary exchange. In its simplest definition, ‘bargaining’ is a socio-economic phenomenon involving two parties, who can cooperate towards the creation of a commonly desirable surplus, over whose distribution the parties are in conflict. Bargaining process
167:
The Collective Model of household decision-making, as opposed to the unitary model, assumes that each individual in the household has specific preferences, and the outcome of the decision process is Pareto efficient . This model focuses on the individuality of household members and how individual
372:
Due to the traditional role of women in South Asia as caretakers in the household rather than workers bringing an income to the household, women are not socially perceived as deserving of more opportunities because worth correlates with wealth and not the quality or amount of work one has done.
260:
is the relative fallback positions or "threat points" of the individuals in the bargaining process; that is, which bargainer has more to lose (economically, socially, etc.)? In the context of intra-household bargaining, an individual's bargaining power and fallback position are defined by one's
111:
of all other members. As a result, resources get distributed based on this member's perception of what benefits the household collectively, which may not always align with individual preferences. However, critics argue that the model might neglect potential intra-household power imbalances and
145:
Critics of these models argue that they may not fully capture the complexities of divorce negotiations, as they often rely on simplified assumptions about individual preferences and power dynamics. However, bargaining models of divorce can still provide valuable insights into the factors that
184:
and non-cooperative. In cooperative bargaining models (also called collaborative decision making), the outcomes of negotiations are more equally beneficial to all members of the household, and have therefore been considered a more "natural" means of analyzing the family unit in comparison to
381:
Unequal access to strong fallback positions creates a situation in which different individuals within the household have more or less bargaining power, and therefore have more or less influence over household decision-making. When considering the factors that determine fallback position in
284:
In the context of economic society, the concept of threat point or fallback position can be applied to understand the dynamics of power and negotiation within different societal structures, such as households, labor markets, and even countries. It provides a framework for understanding how
352:
The access one has to individual assets, both economic (such as property, land, wealth, or earning ability) and personal (such as labor), determines fallback position because it is directly linked to one's capability of surviving outside the household.
249:
whose distribution the parties are in conflict. In other words, "if both parties are on equal footing in a debate, then they will have equal bargaining power", and, conversely, if one party has an advantageous position in the debate, the parties have
76:'s work refers to a theoretical model in household economics where one person, often referred to as a benevolent dictator, controls the household's resources and has altruistic preferences, meaning they care about other family members. This person's 189:. In non-cooperative bargaining models (also called unitary decision making), personal interests motivate individuals within the household rather than the desire to work in a collaborative manner and maximize the benefit of all household members. 120:
Bargaining models of divorce focus on the negotiations between spouses during the process of divorce. These models aim to understand how individual preferences, power dynamics, and external factors influence the outcomes of
306:: Communal resources are entities such as village commons or public forests from which individuals and households alike may acquire resources (e.g., firewood or water) that are necessary for daily subsistence. 42:. Bargaining also plays a role in the functioning and decision making of households, where agreements and decisions do not often have direct monetary values and affect various members of the household. 321:, and any other social groupings from which one derives emotional support, benefiting the individual's overall health and increasing their ability to survive well outside of the household. 1150:
Saelens, Dieter (February 2022). "Unitary or collective households? A nonparametric rationality and separability test using detailed data on consumption expenditures and time use".
285:
individuals or groups negotiate and make decisions based on their best alternatives, and how this affects their wellbeing and influence within their respective societal structures.
107:, making decisions that they believe benefit the entire household. This model assumes that the happiness or satisfaction of the altruistic member is intrinsically linked to the 298:
The structural support, whether institutional or societal, an individual has outside of the household determines how capable one would be of surviving outside the household.
343:, all regulate the bargaining power an individual has within the household, because these factors directly impact the individual's ability to survive outside the household. 233:
household (which is directly reflective of game theoretic bargaining models). In the non-cooperative model, each household member acts in order to maximize his or her own
1651:
SS Staff Group 3: Human Resources and Local Development. Union for Radical Political Economy (URPE) and the International Association for Feminist Economics (IAFFE)
435: 225:, in the case of intra-household bargaining, in which members of the household are considered to be one unit, the household is generally synonymous. 425: 1418:
Peters, H. Elizabeth (September 1995). "An Economic Approach to the Study of Child Well-Being: Gary Becker on Altruism and Household Production".
1497: 1314: 1251: 946: 464: 390:
communities shows that their women have less access to strong bargaining power and their interests are not reflected in household decisions.
894:
McElroy, Marjorie B.; Horney, Mary Jean (June 1981). "Nash-Bargained Household Decisions: Toward a Generalization of the Theory of Demand".
699:
Bolton, Gary E.; Katok, Elena (30 November 1998). "An experimental test of the crowding out hypothesis: The nature of beneficent behavior".
1207:
Mishra, Khushbu; Sam, Abdoul G. (February 2016). "Does Women's Land Ownership Promote Their Empowerment? Empirical Evidence from Nepal".
481: 2048: 2017: 1926: 1894: 1734: 1402: 1339: 146:
influence divorce outcomes and help inform policies and interventions aimed at promoting fair and equitable divorce settlements.
237:; in the cooperative model, households act as a unit to "maximize the welfare of their members" (described above as altruism). 332:. The work of states, NGOs, and a social safety net can increase "access to employment, assets, credit, infrastructure, etc.". 64:
of the other members. Critics note that this model may overlook intra-household power disparities and potential inequalities.
257: 250: 205:
manner towards the benefit and functioning of the entire household. The household is "the basic residential unit in which
325: 1234:
Agarwal, Bina (14 February 1991). "Social Security and the Family: Coping with Seasonality and Calamity in Rural India".
686:
European University Viadrina Frankfurt (Oder)Department of Business Administration and Economics Discussion Paper No. 232
27:
in order to arrive at decisions regarding the household unit, like whether to spend or save or whether to study or work.
1970: 1270:
Fortin, Bernard; Lacroix, Guy (1 July 1997). "A Test of the Unitary and Collective Models of Household Labour Supply".
2167: 186: 2172: 328:(NGOs): State and NGO support could increase an individual's intra-household bargaining power by the creation of a 278: 2100:(October 1994). "Gender and command over property: a critical gap in economic analysis and policy in South Asia". 2162: 1619: 138: 361: 1007:"Cooperative Models in Action: Simulation of a Nash-Bargaining Model of Household Labor Supply with Taxation" 415: 405: 210: 1835:
Lundberg, Shelly; Pollak, Robert A (December 1993). "Separate spheres bargaining and the marriage market".
1679:
Friedberg, Leora; Webb, Anthony (2006). "Determinants and Consequences of Bargaining Power in Households".
134: 1807: 206: 181: 155: 122: 1750: 1722: 594:
Manser, Marilyn; Brown, Murray (1980). "Marriage and Household Decision-Making: A Bargaining Analysis".
303: 229: 1812: 1878: 400: 89: 1713:(1999), "Social security and the family: coping with seasonality and calamity in rural India", in 1243: 1987: 1860: 1852: 1770: 1692: 1598: 1563: 1435: 1287: 1167: 1132: 1093: 1044:
Lundberg, Shelly; Pollak, Robert A (1 November 1996). "Bargaining and Distribution in Marriage".
1026: 987: 911: 845: 837: 790: 716: 666: 658: 611: 410: 1968:
Iversen, Vegard (2003). "Intra-household inequality: A challenge for the capability approach?".
1078:"Household Collective Models: Three Decades of Theoretical Contributions and Empirical Evidence" 201:
that "works as a group for its own good", meaning all members of the household contribute in an
2139: 2044: 2013: 1922: 1890: 1730: 1493: 1453:
Doss, C. (2013). "Intrahousehold Bargaining and Resource Allocation in Developing Countries".
1398: 1335: 1310: 1247: 979: 942: 876: 829: 782: 650: 528: 460: 420: 335: 329: 85: 103:
model of intra-household bargaining, the primary earner or household head is presumed to act
2109: 2079: 1979: 1950: 1844: 1817: 1762: 1684: 1658: 1590: 1555: 1528: 1485: 1462: 1427: 1390: 1364: 1279: 1239: 1216: 1159: 1124: 1085: 1053: 1018: 971: 934: 903: 821: 774: 743: 708: 642: 603: 576: 520: 512: 382:
intra-household bargaining and what populations have access to positive fallback positions,
245: 77: 39: 2131: 430: 60:
of the entire household. The primary decision-maker's happiness is inherently tied to the
33:
is traditionally defined in economic terms as the negotiating conditions of a purchase or
1581:
Ebert, Udo; Moyes, Patrick (October 2009). "Household decisions and equivalence scales".
1546:
Ebert, Udo; Moyes, Patrick (October 2009). "Household decisions and equivalence scales".
1186: 1077: 734:
Pollak, Robert (2002). "Gary Becker's Contributions to Family and Household Economics".
1883: 1394: 1283: 1006: 963: 864: 314: 310: 104: 712: 684:
Kritikos, Alexander (2005). "Utility-Based Altruism: Evidence in Favour Gary Becker".
221:, and shelter are organized and carried out". Though it is not always synonymous with 2156: 2138:. Washington, DC: Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics. World Bank. 2113: 1991: 1864: 1774: 1718: 1602: 1567: 1532: 1439: 1368: 1291: 1171: 1136: 1112: 1097: 991: 849: 198: 130: 1696: 1030: 720: 670: 2127: 2097: 2067: 2036: 1941:
Shelton, Beth Anne; John, Daphne (August 1996). "The division of household labor".
1914: 1795: 1710: 1516: 1220: 383: 270: 1954: 2005: 1983: 1910: 1714: 1489: 1480:
Way, Megan McDonald (2018). "Families: Economic Functions and Decision-Making".
938: 865:"Negotiating Divorce: Gender and the Behavioral Economics of Divorce Bargaining" 214: 177: 81: 73: 20: 1431: 1163: 2083: 1798:(1997). ""Bargaining" and gender relations: within and beyond the household". 1594: 1559: 387: 108: 84:. Each household member then maximizes their own preferences subject to their 57: 30: 2143: 2136:
Engendering economics: new perspectives on women, work and demographic change
983: 880: 833: 786: 654: 532: 1821: 1766: 1128: 778: 580: 340: 274: 218: 24: 560: 501:"Intrahousehold Bargaining and Resource Allocation in Developing Countries" 1466: 516: 1089: 1057: 975: 929:
Ott, Notburga (1992). "A Nash bargaining model for household decisions".
202: 100: 34: 1519:(February 1986). "Hearts and spades: paradigms of household economics". 1022: 794: 762: 1856: 1753:(October 1999). "Social support, physiological processes, and health". 915: 841: 809: 763:"Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: Divorce Laws and Family Distress" 662: 630: 615: 524: 234: 126: 61: 1674: 1672: 1662: 1265: 1263: 1071: 1069: 1067: 222: 907: 607: 500: 2043:. Cambridge England New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. 1848: 1688: 1646: 825: 646: 1387:
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences
747: 318: 133:
arrangements. One example of a bargaining model of divorce is the
554: 552: 550: 548: 546: 544: 542: 459:(1. publ ed.). Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. 1729:, New Delhi London: Oxford University Press, pp. 171–246, 1380: 1378: 482:"Kitchen Conversations: How Households Make Economic Choices" 2012:. Oxford New York: Clarendon Press Oxford University Press. 2010:
Poverty and famines: an essay on entitlement and deprivation
1385:
Yanagisako, Sylvia J. (2015). "Households in Anthropology".
1334:(13. ed.). Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. 2070:(1986). "Women, poverty and agricultural growth in India". 1614: 1612: 176:
Within the household unit and in the mathematical study of
2041:
A field of one's own: gender and land rights in South Asia
1885:
Village women of Bangladesh--prospects for change: a study
1113:"Collective Household Models: Principles and Main Results" 180:, scholars have defined two distinct types of bargaining: 154:
The Nash-Bargaining Model, as described by McElroy , is a
92:, resulting in the household behaving as one individual. 863:
Wilkinson-Ryan, Tess; Small, Deborah (3 February 2017).
273:
or fallback position is a key component in the field of
228:
Because a household is composed of various individuals,
1921:, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 123–148, 565:
and Gender Relations: Within and Beyond the Household"
80:
includes the preferences of other family members as a
1647:"Power in Households: Disentangling Bargaining Power" 1194:
Population and Poverty Research Network WORKING PAPER
810:"Separate Spheres Bargaining and the Marriage Market" 197:
The household is traditionally described as a single
1919:
Persistent inequalities: women and world development
1076:
Donni, Olivier; Molina Chueca, Jose Alberto (2018).
317:): Social support systems are friendship, familial, 256:More specifically, what determines the equality or 38:within a family is one of the important aspects of 1882: 261:ability to survive and thrive outside the family. 1482:Family Economics and Public Policy, 1800s–Present 72:The term "Altruistic Dictator" in the context of 1511: 1509: 1305:Donni, Olivier; Chiappori, Pierre-André (2011). 2062: 2060: 1913:(1990), "Gender and cooperative conflicts", in 1889:. Oxford Oxfordshire New York: Pergamon Press. 701:Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 455:Durlauf, Steven N.; Blume, Lawrence E. (2010). 931:Intrafamily Bargaining and Household Decisions 1185:Hotz, V. Joseph; Peet, Evan; Thomas, Duncan. 8: 1790: 1788: 1786: 1784: 1645:Mabsout, Ramzi; van Staveren, Irene (2009). 808:Lundberg, Shelly; Pollak, Robert A. (1993). 2031: 2029: 1755:Current Directions in Psychological Science 761:Stevenson, Betsey; Wolfers, Justin (2006). 1332:Cultural anthropology: the human challenge 1005:Bargain, Olivier; Moreau, Nicolas (2005). 1811: 1244:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198233008.003.0005 933:. Microeconomic Studies. pp. 33–45. 869:Minnesota Journal of Law & Inequality 289:Factors that determine fallback positions 116:Bargaining models of marriage and divorce 436:Work–family balance in the United States 426:Shared earning/shared parenting marriage 360:In some societies, there is a custom of 1727:Social security in developing countries 1236:Social Security in Developing Countries 447: 1111:Vermeulen, Frederic (September 2002). 962:Apps, Patricia F.; Rees, Ray (2007). 7: 736:Review of Economics of the Household 368:Social norms and gender perceptions 1395:10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.12088-4 1284:10.1111/j.1468-0297.1997.tb00001.x 767:The Quarterly Journal of Economics 125:, such as the division of assets, 14: 631:"A Theory of Social Interactions" 265:Threat point or fallback position 1881:; Zeidenstein, Sondra A (1982). 1455:The World Bank Research Observer 1369:10.1111/j.1545-5300.1983.119_8.x 1046:Journal of Economic Perspectives 377:Inequalities in bargaining power 23:that occur between members of a 1583:Journal of Population Economics 1548:Journal of Population Economics 1187:"Decision-making by households" 277:, particularly in the study of 2072:The Journal of Peasant Studies 1221:10.1016/J.WORLDDEV.2015.10.003 964:"Cooperative Household Models" 559:Agarwal, Bina (January 1997). 499:Doss, Cheryl (February 2013). 326:non-governmental organizations 302:Individual's rights/access to 258:inequality of bargaining power 1: 1330:Haviland, William A. (2011). 896:International Economic Review 713:10.1016/S0167-2681(98)00091-2 596:International Economic Review 279:household bargaining dynamics 2114:10.1016/0305-750X(94)90031-0 1955:10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.299 1837:Journal of Political Economy 1749:Uchino, Bert N; Uno, Darcy; 1533:10.1016/0305-750X(86)90056-2 1355:"A Treatise On The Family". 1307:Household economic behaviors 814:Journal of Political Economy 635:Journal of Political Economy 505:World Bank Research Observer 364:as a counter to inequality. 1984:10.1080/1354570032000080868 1490:10.1057/978-1-137-43963-5_2 1117:Journal of Economic Surveys 939:10.1007/978-3-642-45708-1_4 324:Support from the state and 187:Non-cooperative game theory 2189: 1943:Annual Review of Sociology 1620:"Definition of BARGAINING" 1432:10.1177/019251395016005005 1309:. New York, NY: Springer. 1164:10.1007/s00181-021-02033-3 294:Extra-household parameters 139:intra-household allocation 17:Intra-household bargaining 2084:10.1080/03066158608438309 1681:NBER Working Paper Series 1595:10.1007/s00148-008-0186-7 1560:10.1007/S00148-008-0186-7 150:The Nash-Bargaining Model 1420:Journal of Family Issues 629:Becker, Gary S. (1974). 362:housewife hidden savings 251:unequal bargaining power 51:Common preference models 46:Theoretical perspectives 2134:; Berquó, Elza (1995). 1879:Abdullah, Tahrunnessa A 1822:10.1080/135457097338799 1767:10.1111/1467-8721.00034 1624:www.merriam-webster.com 1129:10.1111/1467-6419.00177 1082:SSRN Electronic Journal 1011:SSRN Electronic Journal 968:SSRN Electronic Journal 581:10.1080/135457097338799 486:www.philadelphiafed.org 416:Feminization of poverty 406:Cooperative game theory 137:, which interprets the 1751:Holt-Lunstad, Julianne 1725:; et al. (eds.), 1363:(1): 127. March 1983. 156:cooperative bargaining 779:10.1093/qje/121.1.267 230:conflicts of interest 135:Nash-bargaining model 1272:The Economic Journal 1090:10.2139/ssrn.3286175 1058:10.1257/jep.10.4.139 976:10.2139/ssrn.1032105 163:The Collective Model 1626:. 29 September 2023 1467:10.1093/wbro/lkt001 1152:Empirical Economics 1023:10.2139/ssrn.664506 517:10.1093/wbro/lkt001 480:Hertzberg, Andrew. 401:Capability approach 207:economic production 172:Types of bargaining 123:divorce settlements 90:benevolent dictator 68:Altruistic dictator 2168:Feminist economics 1971:Feminist Economics 1800:Feminist Economics 569:Feminist Economics 411:Feminist economics 386:research in rural 313:systems (see also 304:communal resources 193:Household dynamics 2173:Bargaining theory 2108:(10): 1455–1478. 2102:World Development 1521:World Development 1499:978-1-137-43961-1 1316:978-1-4419-9430-1 1253:978-0-19-823300-8 1209:World Development 948:978-3-642-45710-4 466:978-0-230-23890-9 421:Gender inequality 348:Individual assets 330:social safety net 86:budget constraint 2180: 2163:Family economics 2148: 2147: 2132:Haddad, Lawrence 2124: 2118: 2117: 2094: 2088: 2087: 2064: 2055: 2054: 2033: 2024: 2023: 2002: 1996: 1995: 1965: 1959: 1958: 1938: 1932: 1931: 1907: 1901: 1900: 1888: 1875: 1869: 1868: 1832: 1826: 1825: 1815: 1792: 1779: 1778: 1746: 1740: 1739: 1707: 1701: 1700: 1676: 1667: 1666: 1642: 1636: 1635: 1633: 1631: 1616: 1607: 1606: 1589:(4): 1039–1062. 1578: 1572: 1571: 1554:(4): 1039–1062. 1543: 1537: 1536: 1513: 1504: 1503: 1477: 1471: 1470: 1450: 1444: 1443: 1415: 1409: 1408: 1382: 1373: 1372: 1352: 1346: 1345: 1327: 1321: 1320: 1302: 1296: 1295: 1278:(443): 933–955. 1267: 1258: 1257: 1231: 1225: 1224: 1204: 1198: 1197: 1191: 1182: 1176: 1175: 1147: 1141: 1140: 1108: 1102: 1101: 1073: 1062: 1061: 1041: 1035: 1034: 1002: 996: 995: 959: 953: 952: 926: 920: 919: 891: 885: 884: 860: 854: 853: 805: 799: 798: 758: 752: 751: 731: 725: 724: 696: 690: 689: 681: 675: 674: 641:(6): 1063–1093. 626: 620: 619: 591: 585: 584: 556: 537: 536: 496: 490: 489: 477: 471: 470: 452: 246:Bargaining power 241:Bargaining power 78:utility function 40:family economics 2188: 2187: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2153: 2152: 2151: 2126: 2125: 2121: 2096: 2095: 2091: 2066: 2065: 2058: 2051: 2035: 2034: 2027: 2020: 2004: 2003: 1999: 1978:(2–3): 93–115. 1967: 1966: 1962: 1940: 1939: 1935: 1929: 1909: 1908: 1904: 1897: 1877: 1876: 1872: 1843:(6): 988–1010. 1834: 1833: 1829: 1813:10.1.1.472.6354 1794: 1793: 1782: 1748: 1747: 1743: 1737: 1709: 1708: 1704: 1678: 1677: 1670: 1644: 1643: 1639: 1629: 1627: 1618: 1617: 1610: 1580: 1579: 1575: 1545: 1544: 1540: 1515: 1514: 1507: 1500: 1479: 1478: 1474: 1452: 1451: 1447: 1417: 1416: 1412: 1405: 1384: 1383: 1376: 1354: 1353: 1349: 1342: 1329: 1328: 1324: 1317: 1304: 1303: 1299: 1269: 1268: 1261: 1254: 1233: 1232: 1228: 1206: 1205: 1201: 1189: 1184: 1183: 1179: 1149: 1148: 1144: 1110: 1109: 1105: 1075: 1074: 1065: 1043: 1042: 1038: 1004: 1003: 999: 961: 960: 956: 949: 928: 927: 923: 908:10.2307/2526280 893: 892: 888: 862: 861: 857: 820:(6): 988–1010. 807: 806: 802: 760: 759: 755: 733: 732: 728: 698: 697: 693: 683: 682: 678: 628: 627: 623: 608:10.2307/2526238 593: 592: 588: 558: 557: 540: 498: 497: 493: 479: 478: 474: 467: 454: 453: 449: 445: 440: 431:Sibling rivalry 396: 379: 370: 350: 315:social networks 296: 291: 269:The concept of 267: 243: 195: 174: 165: 152: 118: 70: 53: 48: 12: 11: 5: 2186: 2184: 2176: 2175: 2170: 2165: 2155: 2154: 2150: 2149: 2119: 2089: 2078:(4): 165–220. 2056: 2049: 2025: 2018: 1997: 1960: 1933: 1927: 1902: 1895: 1870: 1849:10.1086/261912 1827: 1780: 1761:(5): 145–148. 1741: 1735: 1702: 1689:10.3386/W12367 1668: 1637: 1608: 1573: 1538: 1527:(2): 245–255. 1505: 1498: 1472: 1445: 1426:(5): 587–608. 1410: 1403: 1374: 1357:Family Process 1347: 1340: 1322: 1315: 1297: 1259: 1252: 1226: 1199: 1177: 1158:(2): 637–677. 1142: 1123:(4): 533–564. 1103: 1063: 1052:(4): 139–158. 1036: 997: 954: 947: 921: 886: 855: 826:10.1086/261912 800: 773:(1): 267–288. 753: 726: 707:(3): 315–331. 691: 676: 647:10.1086/260265 621: 586: 538: 491: 472: 465: 446: 444: 441: 439: 438: 433: 428: 423: 418: 413: 408: 403: 397: 395: 392: 384:Bina Agarwal's 378: 375: 369: 366: 349: 346: 345: 344: 333: 322: 311:social support 307: 295: 292: 290: 287: 266: 263: 242: 239: 194: 191: 173: 170: 164: 161: 151: 148: 117: 114: 112:inequalities. 105:altruistically 69: 66: 52: 49: 47: 44: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2185: 2174: 2171: 2169: 2166: 2164: 2161: 2160: 2158: 2145: 2141: 2137: 2133: 2129: 2128:Folbre, Nancy 2123: 2120: 2115: 2111: 2107: 2103: 2099: 2098:Agarwal, Bina 2093: 2090: 2085: 2081: 2077: 2073: 2069: 2068:Agarwal, Bina 2063: 2061: 2057: 2052: 2050:9780521429269 2046: 2042: 2038: 2037:Agarwal, Bina 2032: 2030: 2026: 2021: 2019:9780198284635 2015: 2011: 2007: 2001: 1998: 1993: 1989: 1985: 1981: 1977: 1973: 1972: 1964: 1961: 1956: 1952: 1948: 1944: 1937: 1934: 1930: 1928:9780195061581 1924: 1920: 1916: 1915:Tinker, Irene 1912: 1906: 1903: 1898: 1896:9780080267951 1892: 1887: 1886: 1880: 1874: 1871: 1866: 1862: 1858: 1854: 1850: 1846: 1842: 1838: 1831: 1828: 1823: 1819: 1814: 1809: 1805: 1801: 1797: 1796:Agarwal, Bina 1791: 1789: 1787: 1785: 1781: 1776: 1772: 1768: 1764: 1760: 1756: 1752: 1745: 1742: 1738: 1736:9780195651522 1732: 1728: 1724: 1720: 1716: 1712: 1711:Agarwal, Bina 1706: 1703: 1698: 1694: 1690: 1686: 1682: 1675: 1673: 1669: 1664: 1660: 1656: 1652: 1648: 1641: 1638: 1625: 1621: 1615: 1613: 1609: 1604: 1600: 1596: 1592: 1588: 1584: 1577: 1574: 1569: 1565: 1561: 1557: 1553: 1549: 1542: 1539: 1534: 1530: 1526: 1522: 1518: 1517:Folbre, Nancy 1512: 1510: 1506: 1501: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1483: 1476: 1473: 1468: 1464: 1460: 1456: 1449: 1446: 1441: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1425: 1421: 1414: 1411: 1406: 1404:9780080970875 1400: 1396: 1392: 1388: 1381: 1379: 1375: 1370: 1366: 1362: 1358: 1351: 1348: 1343: 1341:9780495810827 1337: 1333: 1326: 1323: 1318: 1312: 1308: 1301: 1298: 1293: 1289: 1285: 1281: 1277: 1273: 1266: 1264: 1260: 1255: 1249: 1245: 1241: 1237: 1230: 1227: 1222: 1218: 1214: 1210: 1203: 1200: 1195: 1188: 1181: 1178: 1173: 1169: 1165: 1161: 1157: 1153: 1146: 1143: 1138: 1134: 1130: 1126: 1122: 1118: 1114: 1107: 1104: 1099: 1095: 1091: 1087: 1083: 1079: 1072: 1070: 1068: 1064: 1059: 1055: 1051: 1047: 1040: 1037: 1032: 1028: 1024: 1020: 1016: 1012: 1008: 1001: 998: 993: 989: 985: 981: 977: 973: 969: 965: 958: 955: 950: 944: 940: 936: 932: 925: 922: 917: 913: 909: 905: 901: 897: 890: 887: 882: 878: 874: 870: 866: 859: 856: 851: 847: 843: 839: 835: 831: 827: 823: 819: 815: 811: 804: 801: 796: 792: 788: 784: 780: 776: 772: 768: 764: 757: 754: 749: 748:10.3386/w9232 745: 741: 737: 730: 727: 722: 718: 714: 710: 706: 702: 695: 692: 687: 680: 677: 672: 668: 664: 660: 656: 652: 648: 644: 640: 636: 632: 625: 622: 617: 613: 609: 605: 601: 597: 590: 587: 582: 578: 574: 570: 566: 564: 555: 553: 551: 549: 547: 545: 543: 539: 534: 530: 526: 522: 518: 514: 510: 506: 502: 495: 492: 487: 483: 476: 473: 468: 462: 458: 451: 448: 442: 437: 434: 432: 429: 427: 424: 422: 419: 417: 414: 412: 409: 407: 404: 402: 399: 398: 393: 391: 389: 385: 376: 374: 367: 365: 363: 358: 354: 347: 342: 337: 334: 331: 327: 323: 320: 316: 312: 309:Existence of 308: 305: 301: 300: 299: 293: 288: 286: 282: 280: 276: 272: 264: 262: 259: 254: 252: 247: 240: 238: 236: 231: 226: 224: 220: 219:child rearing 216: 212: 208: 204: 200: 199:economic unit 192: 190: 188: 183: 179: 171: 169: 162: 160: 157: 149: 147: 143: 140: 136: 132: 128: 124: 115: 113: 110: 106: 102: 97: 93: 91: 87: 83: 79: 75: 67: 65: 63: 59: 50: 45: 43: 41: 36: 32: 28: 26: 22: 18: 2135: 2122: 2105: 2101: 2092: 2075: 2071: 2040: 2009: 2006:Sen, Amartya 2000: 1975: 1969: 1963: 1946: 1942: 1936: 1918: 1911:Sen, Amartya 1905: 1884: 1873: 1840: 1836: 1830: 1803: 1799: 1758: 1754: 1744: 1726: 1715:Sen, Amartya 1705: 1680: 1654: 1650: 1640: 1628:. Retrieved 1623: 1586: 1582: 1576: 1551: 1547: 1541: 1524: 1520: 1481: 1475: 1461:(1): 52–78. 1458: 1454: 1448: 1423: 1419: 1413: 1386: 1360: 1356: 1350: 1331: 1325: 1306: 1300: 1275: 1271: 1235: 1229: 1212: 1208: 1202: 1193: 1180: 1155: 1151: 1145: 1120: 1116: 1106: 1081: 1049: 1045: 1039: 1017:(1): 77–86. 1014: 1010: 1000: 967: 957: 930: 924: 899: 895: 889: 872: 868: 858: 817: 813: 803: 770: 766: 756: 739: 735: 729: 704: 700: 694: 685: 679: 638: 634: 624: 602:(1): 31–44. 599: 595: 589: 572: 568: 562: 508: 504: 494: 485: 475: 456: 450: 380: 371: 359: 355: 351: 336:Social norms 297: 283: 271:threat point 268: 255: 244: 227: 196: 175: 166: 153: 144: 129:, and child 119: 98: 94: 71: 54: 29: 21:negotiations 16: 15: 1949:: 299–322. 1806:(1): 1–51. 1723:Hills, John 1719:Drèze, Jean 1389:: 228–232. 1238:: 171–244. 1215:: 360–371. 575:(1): 1–51. 525:10986/19492 457:Game theory 388:South Asian 215:inheritance 211:consumption 182:cooperative 178:game theory 88:set by the 82:normal good 74:Gary Becker 2157:Categories 1663:1765/18284 902:(2): 333. 875:(1): 109. 563:Bargaining 443:References 203:altruistic 109:well-being 58:well-being 31:Bargaining 19:refers to 2144:775084857 1992:154524788 1865:154525602 1808:CiteSeerX 1775:145347173 1630:5 October 1603:155007641 1568:155007641 1484:: 23–44. 1440:146444521 1292:154346678 1172:253711969 1137:152487904 1098:158508511 992:153050905 984:1556-5068 881:0737-089X 850:154525602 834:0022-3808 787:0033-5533 655:0022-3808 533:1564-6971 511:: 52–78. 341:care work 275:economics 25:household 2039:(1994). 2008:(1982). 1697:14899114 1031:15309202 795:25098790 721:55873432 671:17052355 394:See also 339:such as 101:altruist 35:contract 1917:(ed.), 1857:2138569 916:2526280 842:2138569 663:1830662 616:2526238 235:utility 131:custody 127:alimony 99:In the 62:welfare 56:to the 2142:  2047:  2016:  1990:  1925:  1893:  1863:  1855:  1810:  1773:  1733:  1695:  1601:  1566:  1496:  1438:  1401:  1338:  1313:  1290:  1250:  1170:  1135:  1096:  1029:  990:  982:  945:  914:  879:  848:  840:  832:  793:  785:  719:  669:  661:  653:  614:  531:  463:  223:family 1988:S2CID 1861:S2CID 1853:JSTOR 1771:S2CID 1693:S2CID 1657:(5). 1599:S2CID 1564:S2CID 1436:S2CID 1288:S2CID 1190:(PDF) 1168:S2CID 1133:S2CID 1094:S2CID 1027:S2CID 988:S2CID 912:JSTOR 846:S2CID 838:JSTOR 791:JSTOR 717:S2CID 667:S2CID 659:JSTOR 612:JSTOR 319:caste 2140:OCLC 2045:ISBN 2014:ISBN 1923:ISBN 1891:ISBN 1731:ISBN 1632:2023 1494:ISBN 1399:ISBN 1336:ISBN 1311:ISBN 1248:ISBN 980:ISSN 943:ISBN 877:ISSN 830:ISSN 783:ISSN 651:ISSN 529:ISSN 461:ISBN 2110:doi 2080:doi 1980:doi 1951:doi 1845:doi 1841:101 1818:doi 1763:doi 1685:doi 1659:hdl 1591:doi 1556:doi 1529:doi 1486:doi 1463:doi 1428:doi 1391:doi 1365:doi 1280:doi 1276:107 1240:doi 1217:doi 1160:doi 1125:doi 1086:doi 1054:doi 1019:doi 972:doi 935:doi 904:doi 822:doi 818:101 775:doi 771:121 744:doi 709:doi 643:doi 604:doi 577:doi 521:hdl 513:doi 2159:: 2130:; 2106:22 2104:. 2076:13 2074:. 2059:^ 2028:^ 1986:. 1974:. 1947:22 1945:. 1859:. 1851:. 1839:. 1816:. 1802:. 1783:^ 1769:. 1757:. 1721:; 1717:; 1691:. 1683:. 1671:^ 1655:38 1653:. 1649:. 1622:. 1611:^ 1597:. 1587:22 1585:. 1562:. 1552:22 1550:. 1525:14 1523:. 1508:^ 1492:. 1459:28 1457:. 1434:. 1424:16 1422:. 1397:. 1377:^ 1361:22 1359:. 1286:. 1274:. 1262:^ 1246:. 1213:78 1211:. 1192:. 1166:. 1156:62 1154:. 1131:. 1121:16 1119:. 1115:. 1092:. 1084:. 1080:. 1066:^ 1050:10 1048:. 1025:. 1015:34 1013:. 1009:. 986:. 978:. 970:. 966:. 941:. 910:. 900:22 898:. 873:26 871:. 867:. 844:. 836:. 828:. 816:. 812:. 789:. 781:. 769:. 765:. 742:. 738:. 715:. 705:37 703:. 665:. 657:. 649:. 639:82 637:. 633:. 610:. 600:21 598:. 571:. 567:. 541:^ 527:. 519:. 509:28 507:. 503:. 484:. 253:. 217:, 213:, 209:, 2146:. 2116:. 2112:: 2086:. 2082:: 2053:. 2022:. 1994:. 1982:: 1976:9 1957:. 1953:: 1899:. 1867:. 1847:: 1824:. 1820:: 1804:3 1777:. 1765:: 1759:8 1699:. 1687:: 1665:. 1661:: 1634:. 1605:. 1593:: 1570:. 1558:: 1535:. 1531:: 1502:. 1488:: 1469:. 1465:: 1442:. 1430:: 1407:. 1393:: 1371:. 1367:: 1344:. 1319:. 1294:. 1282:: 1256:. 1242:: 1223:. 1219:: 1196:. 1174:. 1162:: 1139:. 1127:: 1100:. 1088:: 1060:. 1056:: 1033:. 1021:: 994:. 974:: 951:. 937:: 918:. 906:: 883:. 852:. 824:: 797:. 777:: 750:. 746:: 740:1 723:. 711:: 688:. 673:. 645:: 618:. 606:: 583:. 579:: 573:3 561:" 535:. 523:: 515:: 488:. 469:.

Index

negotiations
household
Bargaining
contract
family economics
well-being
welfare
Gary Becker
utility function
normal good
budget constraint
benevolent dictator
altruist
altruistically
well-being
divorce settlements
alimony
custody
Nash-bargaining model
intra-household allocation
cooperative bargaining
game theory
cooperative
Non-cooperative game theory
economic unit
altruistic
economic production
consumption
inheritance
child rearing

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.