Abstract
Most decisions regarding the labor market are not taken by individuals alone but jointly by couples or households. This chapter presents insights from behavioral and experimental economics, biology, and anthropology to understand what shapes these decisions. It specifically focuses on results from a recently growing literature that has been conducting experiments involving multiple household members to study their decisions. The first part presents three behavioral dimensions that are important to consider when studying decisions within households: (1) the nature of the returns that are at stake for the couple, which concerns, for example, whether salaries are monetary or of other kind, (2) differences in individual preferences between household members and especially men and women, and (3) the approach to bargaining by the different household members. The second part discusses theoretical models commonly used in household economics and what results from experimental studies can tell us about them.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abdellaoui M, l’Haridon O, Paraschiv C (2013) Individual vs. couple behavior: an experimental investigation of risk preferences. Theory and Decision 75(2):175–191.
Agarwal B (1994) A field of one’s own: gender and land rights in South Asia, vol 58. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Alan S, Baydar N, Boneva T, Crossley T, Ertac S (2017) Transmission of risk preferences from mothers to daughters. J Econ Behav Organ 134:60–77
Albert SM, Duffy J (2012) Differences in risk aversion between young and older adults. Neurosci Neuroecon (1). https://doi.org/10.2147/NAN.S27184
Andreoni J, Vesterlund L (2001) Which is the fair sex? Gender differences in altruism. Q J Econ 116(1):293–312
Ashraf N (2009) Spousal control and intra-household decision making: an experimental study in the Philippines. Am Econ Rev 99(4):1245–1277
Babcock L, Recalde MP, Vesterlund L, Weingart L (2017) Gender differences in accepting and receiving requests for tasks with low promotability. Am Econ Rev 107(3):714–747
Baldassarri D (2015) Cooperative networks: altruism, group solidarity, reciprocity, and sanctioning in Ugandan producer organizations. Am J Sociol 121(2):355–395
Barr A, Dekker M, Janssens W, Kebede B, Kramer B (2019) Cooperation in polygynous households. Am Econ J Appl Econ 11:266–283
Bateman I, Munro A (2005) An experiment on risky choice amongst households. Econ J 115(502):C176–C189
Bauer M, Chytilova J, Pertold-Gebicka B (2014) Parental background and other-regarding preferences in children. Exp Econ 17:24–46
Beblo M, Beninger D, Cochard F, Couprie H, Hopfensitz A (2015) Efficiency-equality trade-off within French and German couples – a comparative experimental study. Ann Econ Stat 117/118(January/June):233–252
Becker GS (1991) A treatise on the family. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
Bellemare C, Kröger S (2007) On representative social capital. Eur Econ Rev 51(1):183–202
Ben-Ner A, List JA, Putterman L, Samek A (2017) Learned generosity? An artefactual field experiment with parents and their children. J Econ Behav Organ 143:28–44
Bertrand M, Kamenica E, Pan J (2015) Gender identity and relative income within households. Q J Econ 130(2):571–614
Bjorvatn K, Getahun TD, Halvorsen SK (2020) Conflict or cooperation? Experimental evidence on intra-household allocations in Ethiopia. J Behav Exp Econ 85:101508
Blau B, Kahn F (2007) Changes in the labor supply behavior of married women: 1980–2000. J Labor Econ 25(3):393–438
Boltz M, Marazyan K, Villar P (2019) Income hiding and informal redistribution: a lab-in-the-field experiment in Senegal. J Dev Econ 137:78–92
Bowles S, Gintis H (2013) A cooperative species: human reciprocity and its evolution. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Braaten RH, Martinsson P (2015) Experimental measures of household decision power. Technical Report 02/2015 CREE
Brenoe AA, Epper T (2019) Parenting values moderate the intergenerational transmission of time preferences. University of Zurich, Department of Economics, working paper n. 333. IZA – Institute of Labor Economics, Bonn
Brouwer T, Galeotti F, Villeval M-C (2020) Teaching norms in the street: an experimental study, Post-Print halshs-02509809, HAL
Bulte EH, Lensink R, Winkel AB (2018) The impact of a gender and business training on income hiding: an experimental study in Vietnam. J Econ Behav Organ 148:241–259
Cappelen AW, List JA, Samek A, Tungodden B (2020) The effect of early education on social preferences. J Polit Econ 128(7):in press
Carlsson F, Martinsson P, Qin P, Sutter M (2013) The influence of spouses on household decision making under risk: an experiment in rural China. Exp Econ 16(3):383–401
Castilla C (2019) What’s yours is mine, and what’s mine is mine: field experiment on income concealing between spouses in India. J Dev Econ 137:125–140
Castilla C, Walker T (2013) Is ignorance bliss? The effect of asymmetric information between spouses on intra-household allocations. Am Econ Rev 103:263–268
Charles KK, Hurst E (2003) The correlation of wealth across generations. J Polit Econ 111(6): 1155–1182
Charness G, Gneezy U (2012) Strong evidence for gender differences in risk taking. J Econ Behav Organ 83(1):50–58
Charness G, Villeval M-C (2009) Cooperation and competition in intergenerational experiments in the field and the laboratory. Am Econ Rev 99(3):956–978
Cipriani M, Giuliano P, Jeanne O (2013) Like mother like son? Experimental evidence on the transmission of values from parents to children. J Econ Behav Organ 90:100–111
Clark G (1994) Onions are my husband: survival and accumulation by West African market women. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Cochard F, Couprie H, Hopfensitz A (2016) Do spouses cooperate? An experimental investigation. Rev Econ Househ 14(1):1–26
Cochard F, Couprie H, Hopfensitz A (2018) What if women earned more than their spouses? An experimental investigation of work division in couples. Exp Econ 21:50–71
Cooper DJ, Kagel JH (2016) Other-regarding preferences. In: The handbook of experimental economics, vol 2. Princeton University Press, Princeton, p 217
Corfman KP, Lehmann DR (1987) Models of cooperative group decision making and relative influence: an experimental investigation of family purchase decisions. J Consum Res 26(14): 1–13
Croson R, Gneezy U (2009) Gender differences in preferences. J Econ Lit 47(2):448–474
Crumpler H, Grossman PJ (2008) An experimental test of warm glow giving. J Public Econ 92:1011–1021
Dagnelie O, LeMay-Boucher P (2012) Rosca participation in Benin: a commitment issue. Oxford Bull Econ 74(2):235–252
Duflo E, Udry C (2004) Intrahousehold resource allocation in cote d’Ivoire: Social norms, Separate Accounts, and Consumption Choices. NBER Working Paper No. 10498, May 2004; BREAD Working Paper No. 016
Eagly AH (2009) The his and hers of prosocial behavior: an examination of the social psychology of gender. Am Psychol 64(8):644–663
Eckel C, Grossman PJ (2008) Men, women and risk aversion: experimental evidence, Chapter 113. In: Handbook of experimental economics results, vol 1. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 1061–1073
Falk A, Fischbacher U (2006) A theory of reciprocity games and economic behaviour. Games Econ Behav 54:293–315
Fehr E, Fischbacher U, von Rosenbladt B, Schupp J, Wagner G (2002) A nationwide laboratory. Examining trust and trustworthiness by integrating behavioral experiments into representative surveys. Schmollers Jahr 122(4):519–542
Fiala N, He X (2017) Unitary or noncooperative intrahousehold model? Evidence from couples in Uganda. World Bank Econ Rev 30:S77–S85
Gneezy U, Leonard KL, List JA (2009) Gender differences in competition: evidence from a matrilineal and a patriarchal society. Econometrica 77(5):1637–1664
Goeree JK, McConnell MA, Mitchell T, Tromp T, Yariv L (2010) The 1/d law of giving. Am Econ J: Microecon 2(1):183–203
Görges L (2015) The power of love: a subtle driving force for Unegalitarian labor division? Rev Econ Househ 13(1):163–192
Gupta S, Ksoll C, Maertens A (2019) Intra-household efficiency in extended family households: evidence from Rural India. J Develop Stud. ISSN 0022-0388
Halpern DF (2012) Sex differences in cognitive abilities. Psychology Press, New York
Hidrobo M, Kieran C, Hoel J, Doss C, Bernard T (2019) Ask me why: patterns of intrahousehold decision-making. World Dev 125:104671
Hoel JB, Hidrobo M, Bernard T, Ashour M (2017) Productive inefficiency in dairy farming and cooperation between spouses: evidence from Senegal, vol 1698. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DC
Holland JH (2000) Emergence: from chaos to order. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Houser D, List JA, Piovesan M, Samek A, Winter J (2016) Dishonesty: from parents to children. Eur Econ Rev 82:242–254
Jackson C (2007) Resolving risk? Marriage and creative conjugality. Dev Chang 38:107–129
Jakiela P, Ozier O (2016) Does Africa need a rotten kin theorem? Experimental evidence from village economies. Rev Econ Stud 83:231–268
Kebede B, Munro A, Tarazona-Gomez M, Verschoor A (2014) Intra-household efficiency: an experimental study from Ethiopia. J Afr Econ 23(1):105–150
Laland K (2017) Darwin’s unfinished symphony: how culture made the human mind. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey
Layard R (1980) Human satisfactions and public policy. Econ J 90(360):737–750
Lecoutere E, Jassogne L (2017) Fairness and efficiency in smallholder farming: the relation with intrahousehold decision-making. J Dev Stud 55(1):1–26
Leibbrandt A, List JA (2015) Do women avoid salary negotiations? Evidence from a large-scale natural field experiment. Manag Sci 61(9):2016
Malapit HJL (2012) Why do spouses hide income? J Socio-Econ 41(5):584–593
Margolis M (2003) The relative status of men and women. In: Ember C, Ember M (eds) Encyclopedia of sex and gender: men and women in the world’s cultures. Springer, US
Masekesa F, Munro A (2020) Intra-household inequality, fairness and productivity evidence from a real effort experiment. World Dev 127:104763
Matsumoto Y, Yamagishi T, Li Y, Kiyonari T (2016) Prosocial behavior increases with age across five economic games. PLoS One 11(7):e0158671
Munro A (2014) Hide and seek: a theory of efficient income hiding within the household. National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies. GRIPS discussion paper 14–17
Munro A (2018) Intra-household experiments: a survey. J Econ Surv 32:134–175
Munro A, McNally T, Popov D (2008) Taking it in turn: an experimental test of theories of the household. MPRA working papers No. 8976
Ogwang J, Jitmaneeroj B (2019) Experimental tests of unitary model and the rotten kid theorem: evidence from rural villages in northern Uganda. Lira University. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.31322.08647
De Palma A, Picard N, Ziegelmeyer A (2011) Individual and couple decision behavior under risk: evidence on the dynamics of power balance. Theory and Decision 70(1):45–64
Peters HE, Ünür AS, Clark J, Schulze WD (2004) Free-riding and the provision of public goods in the family: a laboratory experiment. Int Econ Rev 45(1):283–299
Rand DG, Brescoll VL, Everett JAC, Capraro V, Barcelo H (2016) Social heuristics and social roles: intuition favors altruism for women but not for men. J Exp Psychol Gen 145(4):389–396
Robson E (2004) Children at work in rural northern Nigeria: patterns of age, space and gender. J Rural Stud 20(2):193–210
Rubin PH, Paul CW (1979) An evolutionary model of taste for risk. Econ Inq 17(4):585–596
Said F, Mahmud M, d’Adda G, Chaudhry A (2020) It is not power, but how you use it: experimental evidence on altruism from households in Pakistan. Appl Econ Lett 27:426–431
Sassler S, Miller AJ (2010) Waiting to be asked: gender, power, and relationship progression among cohabiting couples. J Fam Issues 32(4):482–506
Schneebaum A, Mader K (2013) Zur geschlechtsspezifischen Intrahaushaltsverteilung von Entscheidungsmacht in Europa. Wirtschaft Gesellschaft 39(3):361–403
Sibly H, Tisdell J (2018) Cooperation and turn taking in finitely-repeated prisoners’ dilemmas: an experimental analysis. J Econ Psychol 64:49–56
Singer T, Fehr E (2005) The neuroeconomics of mind reading and empathy. Am Econ Rev 95(2):340–345
Stieglitz J, Gurven M, Kaplan H, Hopfensitz A (2017) Why household inefficiency? An experimental approach to assess spousal resource distribution preferences in a subsistence population undergoing socioeconomic change. Evol Hum Behav 38(1):71–81
Trivers R (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection, vol 136. Biological Laboratories, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, p 179
Udry C (1996) Gender, agricultural production, and the theory of the household. J Polit Econ 104:1010–1046
Verschoor A, Kebede B, Munro A, Tarazona M (2019) Spousal control and efficiency of intra-household decision-making: experiments among married couples in India, Ethiopia and Nigeria. Eur J Dev Res 31(4):1171–1196
Woolley FR (1993) The feminist challenge to neoclassical economics. Camb J Econ 17(4):485–500
World Bank (2011) In: The World Bank (ed) World development report 2012: gender equality and development, Washington, DC
Acknowledgments
Alistair Munro gratefully acknowledges the support of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science’s Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (KAKENHI; no. 17H02498). Astrid Hopfensitz gratefully acknowledges support through the ANR under grant ANR-17-EURE-0010 (Investissements d’Avenir program) and ANR-15-CE33-0005-01 (JCJC).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Section Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this entry
Cite this entry
Hopfensitz, A., Munro, A. (2021). Behavioral Household Economics. In: Zimmermann, K.F. (eds) Handbook of Labor, Human Resources and Population Economics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57365-6_226-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57365-6_226-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-57365-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-57365-6
eBook Packages: Springer Reference Economics and FinanceReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences