1. Tasks and Opportunities Within Indian Families Sripad Motiram Lars Osberg Department of Economics, Dalhousie University, Halifax Canadian Economics Association June 6, 2008A

2. Gender Bias, Tasks & Opportunities Within Indian Families?  Tasks – Do Indian men ‘work’ more or less than Indian women?  Opportunities – Gender bias in Human Capital investment in India? School attendance Informal parental instruction  Results: Urban/Rural differ in work time No evidence of gender bias in informal instruction

3. Time Use Data – An Important New Tool for Development Analysis  Poor people do not have money but they do have time Data on market income & spending cannot reveal behaviour of children or many women or very poor people  Hence often ignored in empirical analysis But everything we do takes time  Everyone has 24 hours of time, every day  Excluded groups can be examined with time use data

4. Change in the Market / Non-Market Boundary – central to “Development”  Crucial aspects of the development process largely occur outside the market economy – but do use time  All societies pass skill sets to children Informal Parental Instruction – the base case Formalization & Specialization (i.e. Schools) characteristic of development This paper: Human Capital investment decisions & Gender Bias within households  Also: Social Capital formation & Basic Goods (Drinking Water – Motiram and Osberg, 2007) Environmental Degradation & Deforestation

5. The Time Use Diary Methodology  Standard Labour Force Survey Retrospective & summative questions asked:  “How many hours do you normally work?”  Rounding, Anchoring, Inconsistency Problems  Large samples possible, low response burden  Time Diary Interviewer walks respondent through previous random day – in 10-15 minute intervals  Narrative spur to recall Multiple activities + social context observable  Imposes consistency & completeness Better measures of working hours?  Labour Intensive - implies small samples (?)  Episodic activities probabilistically observed E.g. Expectation (dining out | characteristics)

6. Indian Time Use Survey,1998-99  Gujarat, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Meghalaya, Orissa, Tamil Nadu 233 million (geographically representative)  Stratified Random Sampling (NSS). 1066 rural and 488 urban strata in 52 districts  18,592 Households. (77,593 persons). 12,751 rural, 5,841 urban Households  Interview Method. Male + female interviewer visit village for 9 days to assess Time Use Diary of day’s activities for all persons aged 6+  Normal / Abnormal / Weekly variant – normal used

7. Indian Time Use Survey,1998-99

8. Gender and Work in India  Definition of ‘work’ is contested Is ‘caring’ = ‘work’ ?  Housework Clearly female task – rural & urban  Primary + Secondary + Trade = Commodity Production Rural – female field work time ≈ 2/3 male Urban  Average Male work hours ≈ 8.5  Average Female work hours ≈ 1.5

9. Housework in India – Highly Gendered Task at All Ages urbanrural housework Boys 6-106.15.6 Girls 6-1013.428.2 Difference-7.3-22.5 Boys 11-147.914.3 Girls 11-146099.3 Difference-52.1-85 Boys 15-1814.618.6 Girls 15-18152.1225 Difference-137.5-206.3 urbanrural housework Men 19-4418.120 Women 19-44361.2331 Difference-343.1-311 Men 45-6425.121.4 Women 45-64295.2243.6 Difference-270.1-222.1 Men 65+24.220.8 Women 65+121.5136.7 Difference-97.3-115.9

10. Housework + Commodity Production Average Minutes/Day 1+2+3+4 Urban 1+2+3+4 Rural Men 19-44530.4520 Women 19-44456.3568.5 Difference74.1-48.6 Men 45-64509.1495.4 Women 45-64410.1494.2 Difference991.2 Men 65+186.8280.1 Women 65+153.2238.7 Difference33.641.4 RURALPrimarySecondTrade Men 19-44350.462.687.0 Women 19-44205.218.813.6 Difference145.243.873.4 Average Minutes/Day URBANPrimarySecondTrade Men 19-4439.4125.5347.4 Women 19-4424.523.547.2 Difference14.9102.0300.3 Young rural women work most. Urban women often not in labour force

11. Schooling and Informal Instruction - Gender Bias in Human Capital Formation?  Do Indian families prefer to invest in human capital of boys? School enrolment & attendance  Lower & more biased to boys in rural areas  Urban – roughly equal boys/girls  HUGE impact of parental illiteracy Informal instruction by parents  The ‘base case’ for useful productive skills  Historically important for literacy Scandinavia in 1600s  ITUS match parent & child reports of informal instruction simultaneous give/receive – Who gives? Who gets?

12. School Attendance of Boys & Girls  Urban – roughly similar attendance rates  Rural – systematic female disadvantage  Lagged impact of parental illiteracy? Attendance Ages 6-10Ages 11-14Ages 15-18Ages 6-18 BoysGirlsBoysGirlsBoysGirlsBoysGirls %%%% Total Urban69.868.172.570.542.440.360.358.7 Total Rural71.166.266.55430.519.256.747.9

13. Parental Literacy – HUGE Impact on School Attendance Ages 6-10Ages 11-14 Literate Adults (Age>15) in Household Boys % Girls % Boys % Girls % Urban 044.837.557.618.1 >072.171.173.674.1 Rural 057.748.950.525.2 >077.674.871.961.1

14. Gender Favouritism &/or Altruism? Parental Informal Instruction in India  Are boys more likely to get help with their homework and other types of parental instruction (gender favouritism), conditional on some instruction being given (altruism) ?

15. Probability of Informal Instruction by Household Adults  Probit Model Gender mix of kids  Not significant Parental Illiteracy  Strongly negative urban & rural Income  Positive – urban Home owner  Positive Urban & rural Caste  Negative – rural Water-carrying time  Not significant RuralUrban % of Households which spend any 521 time* 5.5%17.1% Median time spent by households (mins)** 60 % of adult individuals 2.4%8.0% Of Whom: Men57.6%41.8% Women42.5%58.2% Non-Literate14.1%6.1% Literate86.0%93.9%

16. Probability of Receiving Informal Instruction (for a child)  Probit Model Prob (given child in boy/girl family received informal instruction)  Gender & age Not significant Rural or urban  Parental Illiteracy Negative always No evidence for sample selection bias Total time Learning Activities Boys rural Boys urban Girls rural Girls urban Boys 6-10 Girl 6-10 Not Attending47.562.532.983.1 Attending448.3470.5445.5487 Boys 11-14 Girl 11-14 Not Attending3856.322.851.7 Attending498504.8492.8510.5 Boys 15-18 Girl 15-18 Not Attending21.137.210.240.3 Attending545.5544.3525.4531.7 Girls – less learning time than boys in rural areas, but more in urban areas - no less likely to receive parental instruction

17. Conclusions: (How Urbanization benefits Women - 1)  Gender Bias in Tasks Housework – clearly gendered labour in India Total (housework + commodity production)  Younger rural women – housework + field work = a longer workday  Urban women – less work outside home Available time for home instruction of children

18. Conclusions: (How Urbanization benefits Women - 2)  Gender Bias in Opportunities Parental Illiteracy – major negative for both school & informal instruction No evidence of gender bias in informal instruction Rural  Less school & less parental instruction Girls disadvantaged in school attendance Urban  More school  More parental instruction More often done by women  Amount & Gender Equity of HK Investment An under-appreciated benefit of urbanization in India?