Demographic Responses to a Political Transformation: Evidence of Women s Empowerment from a Natural Experiment in Nepal

Transcription

1 Demographic Responses to a Political Transformation: Evidence of Women s Empowerment from a Natural Experiment in Nepal Jayash Paudel 1 Pedro de Araujo 2 1 University of Massachusetts Amherst 2 Colorado College March 9, 2016 USAFA - DFEG Research Seminar (2016) Women Empowerment Nepal 1/19

2 Motivation Paper Outline Women s Empowerment, Democracy, and Development Women represent 40% of global labor force, but only hold 1% of world s wealth (World Bank (2011)) Total aid to promote gender equality in 2010 equaled US$20.5 billion (OECD (2011)) In Nepal: 2 in 3 women have never told anyone about the violence they have experienced against themselves (NDHS (2012)). It is ranked 123rd out of 135 countries in Global Gender Index (WEF (2006)). Bi-directional relationship between economic development and women s empowerment (Duflo (2011)) Economic development positively connected to democracy (Dick (1974), Przeworski and Limongi (1993), Rodrik (1999), Bhagwati (2002)) USAFA - DFEG Research Seminar (2016) Women Empowerment Nepal 2/19

3 This Paper Introduction Motivation Paper Outline Explores the association between institutional change and women s empowerment. More specifically: How did the abolition of the Nepalese monarchy and the declaration of a secular state changed opinions regarding violence against women and women s household level decision making? Findings: Improvement in opinions regarding both violence and decision making. Positive change in females opinions regarding violence against women stronger than men s. Positive change in men s opinions regarding decision making stronger relative to women s. somewhat robust to hidden bias and exogeneity of treatment. USAFA - DFEG Research Seminar (2016) Women Empowerment Nepal 3/19

4 Natural Experiment: Nepal Motivation Paper Outline Question: Can we really affirm that the monarchy abolition in Nepal and the declaration of a secular state was unexpected, i.e., exogenous? Answer: NO, but... Nepal has never been colonized 238-years old Shah Monarchy - epitome of unity among diverse people of Nepal (Gayley (2002), Malagodi (2011)) - King s legitimacy attached to religious beliefs Many previous rebellions against the monarchy regime (1979, 1990, 2001, 2004) had occurred - none with the declaration of a secular state and abolition of the monarchy More formal sensitivity analysis is conducted - later. USAFA - DFEG Research Seminar (2016) Women Empowerment Nepal 4/19

5 Outline Introduction Motivation Paper Outline 1 Description of data and variables 2 Empirical methodology 3 and discussion 4 Checks 5 Concluding remarks USAFA - DFEG Research Seminar (2016) Women Empowerment Nepal 5/19

6 Overall Description Introduction Set National Demographic Health Survey (NDHS) for Nepal in Population based and representative survey: Uses census enumeration areas from the Nepalese 2001 population census. 10,159 total observations: 5,054 in control; 5,105 in treatment. Control group: opinions about women collected in February, March, and April. Treatment Group: opinions about women collected in June, July, and August. Recall: monarchy abolished in May. USAFA - DFEG Research Seminar (2016) Women Empowerment Nepal 6/19

7 Outcome Variables (all binary) Set Violence Against Women: beating wife is not justified if she: 1 Goes out without telling her husband 2 Neglects her children 3 Argues with husband 4 Refuses sex Female Autonomy: Decision taken mutually on: 1 Large household purchases 2 Household purchases of daily needs 3 Visits to family or relatives 4 Use of husband s earnings USAFA - DFEG Research Seminar (2016) Women Empowerment Nepal 7/19

8 Set Treatment vs. Control (Explanatory Variables - means) Characteristics Post Monarchy Pre Monarchy Age Female Completed Primary Education Female and Completed Prim. Educ Nat. Language: Nepali Maithili Tharu Other High Caste Group USAFA - DFEG Research Seminar (2016) Women Empowerment Nepal 8/19

9 Average Treatment Effects Rosenbaum and Rubin (1983): ATT E{Y 1i Y 0i D i = 1} = E[E{Y 1i Y 0i D i = 1, p(x i )}] = E[E{Y 1i D i = 1, p(x i )} E{Y 0i D i = 0, p(x i )} D i = 1] Where: Y 1 treatment outcome, Y 0 control outcome, D is treatment variable, X are pretreatment characteristics. p(x ) Pr(D = 1 X ) = E(D X ) is propensity score. Assumptions: Unconfoundedness: Y 1, Y 0 D X Y 1, Y 0 D p(x ) Balancing: D X p(x ) Use Nearest Neighbor Matching Estimator (Becker and Ichino (2002)) USAFA - DFEG Research Seminar (2016) Women Empowerment Nepal 9/19

10 Nearest Neighbor Matching Algorithm 1 Fit probit (or logit) model P(D i X i ) = F {h(x i )} where X i contains all covariates and obtain propensity scores for all observations. 2 Split sample into k = 8 equally spaced intervals of the propensity score. 3 Within each interval, test that the average PS of treated and control units does not differ. 4 If test fails in one interval, split the interval in half and test again. 5 Continue until all average PS in every interval is equal between treatment and control groups. 6 Within each interval, test that the means of each characteristic do not differ between treatment and control units. 7 If the means of one more characteristics differ, balanced property not satisfied possibly change h(x i ). 8 Steps 2-7 were restricted to a common support [0.052, 0.629]. USAFA - DFEG Research Seminar (2016) Women Empowerment Nepal 10/19

11 Overall Introduction Average Treatment Effects (Rosenbaum and Rubin (1983)): ATT E{Y 1i Y 0i D i = 1} = E[E{Y 1i Y 0i D i = 1, p(x i )}] = E[E{Y 1i D i = 1, p(x i )} E{Y 0i D i = 0, p(x i )} D i = 1] Y 1 treatment outcome, Y 0 control outcome, D is treatment variable, X are pretreatment characteristics. p(x ) Pr(D = 1 X ) = E(D X ) is propensity score. Nearest Neighbor Matching Algorithm (Becker and Ichino (2002)) Two issues: exogeneity of treatment (apply same methodology to a different survey); bias due to unobservables (bounding approach (Becker and Caliendo (2007)) with Mantel and Haenszel (MH) test statistic (Aakvik (2001))) USAFA - DFEG Research Seminar (2016) Women Empowerment Nepal 11/19

12 Treatment Effects: PSM Estimates Panel A: Opinions violence against women Beating is not justified if wife: Goes out w/o telling Neg. children Argues w/ husb. Refuses sex 0.028*** 0.054*** 0.019*** 0.020*** Panel B: Opinions on women s empowerment Mutual household decision on: Large hh purchases purch. daily needs Visits to family husb. earnings 0.064*** 0.048*** *** USAFA - DFEG Research Seminar (2016) Women Empowerment Nepal 12/19

13 Treatment Heterogeneity - Gender Panel A: Opinions violence against women Beating is not justified if wife: Goes out w/o telling Neg. children Argues w/ husb. Refuses sex Males *** Females 0.035*** 0.089*** 0.023*** 0.019*** Panel B: Opinions on women s empowerment Mutual household decision on: Large hh purchases purch. daily needs Visits to family husb. earnings Males 0.079*** 0.122*** 0.062*** 0.133*** Females 0.072*** USAFA - DFEG Research Seminar (2016) Women Empowerment Nepal 13/19

14 Some Econometric Issues 1 Exogeneity of treatment No statistical test available Use other control survey to investigate this assumption 2 Bias due to unobservables (omitted variable) Again, untestable directly. Use bounding approach (Becker and Caliendo (2007)) to test the degree to which the significance of results is affected by hidden bias. Mantel and Haenszel (MH) test statistic (Aakvik (2001)) USAFA - DFEG Research Seminar (2016) Women Empowerment Nepal 14/19

15 Exogeneity of Treatment? Panel A: Opinions violence against women Beating is not justified if wife: Goes out w/o telling Neg. children Argues w/ husb. Refuses sex 2006 DHS 0.028*** 0.054*** 0.019*** 0.020*** 2001 DHS 0.014** 0.035*** Panel B: Female Autonomy Mutual household decision on: Large hh purchases purch. daily needs Visits to family husb. earnings 2006 DHS 0.061*** 0.048*** *** 2001 DHS n.a. USAFA - DFEG Research Seminar (2016) Women Empowerment Nepal 15/19

16 Hidden Bias Statistical Test Rosenbaum (2002): presence of hidden bias adversely affects robustness of matching estimators. Becker and Caliendo (2007) propose the following bounding approach: Assume probability of receiving treatment is a function of both observables (x i ) and unobservables (u i ): P(D i = 1 x i, u i ) = F (βx i + δu i ) Assume i and j are matched pairs odds ratio is given by: P i (1 P j ) = exp(βx i +δu i ) = exp(δ(u P j (1 P i ) exp(βx j +δu j ) i u j )) Rosenbaum (2002) has shown that for binary unobservables the following 1 bounds applies: P i (1 P j ) exp(δ) P j (1 P i exp(δ) and have known distributions. ) Following Aakvik (2001), we use Mantel and Haenszel (Q MH ) test statistic on upper bound to test the sensitivity of odds ratio to the presence of hidden bias. USAFA - DFEG Research Seminar (2016) Women Empowerment Nepal 16/19

17 Hidden Bias - Over-Estimation of Treatment Mantel-Haenszel Statistic Q + MH Displayed: Dep. Variables Hidden Bias exp(δ) = 1 exp(δ) = 1.5 exp(δ) = 2 exp(δ) = 2.5 Violence Against Women Goes w/o telling 4.70*** *** 8.55*** Neglects children 6.75*** *** 11.32*** Argues w/ husband 3.41*** 2.07*** 6.04*** 9.19*** Refuses sex 5.80*** 2.32** ** Female Autonomy Large HH purchases 6.48*** 3.56*** 10.72*** 16.32*** Purchase daily needs 5.54*** 3.16*** 9.39*** 14.29*** Visit family *** 16.35*** 21.93*** Husband s earnings 6.59*** 3.53*** 10.75*** 16.39*** USAFA - DFEG Research Seminar (2016) Women Empowerment Nepal 17/19

18 Concluding Remarks Introduction suggest that transitioning to democracy changes opinions regarding women s choices in a positive direction. somewhat robust to hidden bias and exogeneity of treatment. This might lead policy makers to begin implementing more democratically focused policies, especially at the grassroots level. Note however that changes in opinions does not imply changes in behavior, but it should be the starting point. Study is cross-sectional, opinions and behaviors change over time; hence, dynamic models are more appropriate. One country study on narrow dimension of women s empowerment. More is needed! USAFA - DFEG Research Seminar (2016) Women Empowerment Nepal 18/19

19 THANK YOU USAFA - DFEG Research Seminar (2016) Women Empowerment Nepal 19/19