1. How do intrahousehold dynamics change when
assets are transferred to women?
Evidence from BRAC’s “Targeting the Ultra Poor” Program in
Bangladesh
CORE Meeting: October 16, 2013
Narayan Das, Rabeya Yasmin, Jinnat Ara, Md. Kamruzzaman
BRAC
Peter Davis
Social Development Research Institute
Julia Behrman, Agnes Quisumbing, Shalini Roy
International Food Policy Research Institute

2. Motivation
• Many development interventions transfer resources directly to
households to reduce poverty
• Research has shown that women’s control over resources
(assets, in particular) may have important implications
– More bargaining power for women; improvements in children’s
education, health, and nutrition (e.g., Quisumbing 2003)
• These findings have led many development interventions to
target resource transfers to women
– However, “transferring to women” does not guarantee that women’s
overall control over resources will increase
– Important to study how targeted transfers affect dynamics within the
household

3. Motivation
• We study the intrahousehold impacts of a targeted asset transfer in
Bangladesh – BRAC’s CFPR-TUP program
– Program context:
• “Ultra poor” in rural Bangladesh lack assets and skills
• Sociocultural norms of female seclusion favor women staying
within the homestead
–
– TUP provides transfer of asset that can be maintained at home
(primarily livestock) and training to women in “ultra poor”
households
– Explicit aim is not specifically to increase women’s asset
ownership – but to build asset base of poor households in
aggregate

4. Motivation
Beneficiary woman with livestock
Photo credit: BRAC

5. Motivation
•
We focus on “TUP Phase 2” – running from 2007-2011, allocated using a
randomized controlled trial design
•
Existing quantitative research (e.g., Bandiera et al 2013) shows large positive
impacts of the program at the household level
•
However, little evidence on the intrahousehold impacts of TUP – or of any other
targeted asset transfer program
•
We use mixed quantitative and qualitative methods to explore TUP’s impacts on:
– Individual ownership and control over transferred assets (livestock)
– Individual ownership and control over other assets
• Agricultural and non-agricultural productive assets; consumer durables; land
– Women’s mobility and decision-making power
– Women’s perceptions of their own well-being

6. Methodology
• Quantitative analysis:
– Draw on randomized controlled trial design of TUP
– Add new survey round in 2012, focusing on gender-disaggregated asset
ownership, control, mobility, and decision making
– Estimate TUP’s causal impacts by comparing outcomes of 6,066
“treatment” and “control” households, adjusting for attrition
• Qualitative analysis:
– Conduct focus group discussions & key informant interviews in 2011
– Use local concepts of gendered asset ownership & control to inform design
of quantitative survey modules in 2012 follow-up
– Explore “intangible” benefits and perceptions that allow interpreting
quantitative impacts in light of local context
–

7. Key findings
• Analysis confirms previous findings that CFPR-TUP
significantly improved household-level well-being
• But shows new evidence of mixed effects on targeted
women

8. Key findings
1. Transferred assets - Livestock:
– CFPR-TUP significantly increased household ownership of livestock
– Largest increases were in livestock owned by women (including
cattle, typically thought to be “men’s assets”)
– Corresponding increases in women’s control over livestock
– Reflect that high-value livestock transferred to women remained in
their control – one dimension of transformation in gender roles
–

9. Key findings
Women’s ownership of livestock increased more than men’s
Treatment impact on number of [LIVESTOCK]
Owned total in Owned
Owned in
Owned
Owned
HH
solely by
any part by
solely by
jointly by
female
female
male
male and
female
Cows/buffalo
0.958***
0.076***
0.129***
(0.031)
(0.032)
(0.013)
(0.014)
0.220***
0.159***
0.192***
0.026***
0.026**
(0.037)
Chickens/ducks
0.817***
(0.031)
Goats/sheep
1.036***
(0.033)
(0.036)
(0.010)
(0.011)
0.883***
0.779***
0.803***
0.079***
0.027
(0.123)
(0.116)
(0.121)
(0.023)
(0.029)

10. Key findings
Women experienced corresponding increases in control rights over livestock
Whether female has the right to […] [LIVESTOCK] owned in the household
Rent out
Sell
Decide how to spend
Decide about
money generated from inheriting
Cows/buffalo
0.385***
0.374***
(0.017)
(0.018)
(0.018)
0.083***
0.078***
0.070***
0.066***
(0.011)
Chickens/ducks
0.371***
(0.017)
Goats/sheep
0.401***
(0.011)
(0.012)
(0.012)
0.093***
0.074***
0.063***
0.059***
(0.016)
(0.015)
(0.016)
(0.016)

11. Key findings
2. Other assets:
– CFPR-TUP significantly increased household ownership of other assets
as well
• Agricultural & non-agricultural productive assets; consumer durables;
land
– However, these mostly translated to increased sole ownership by men
– Women did experience increases in rights to use some of these assets
– which they perceived as increasing their social capital
• e.g., access to consumer durables (such as suitable clothing) – no
longer ashamed of their appearance
– Suggests that when beneficiary households mobilized resources to
acquire new assets (rather than directly transferred), these were
typically owned solely by men

12. Key findings
Men’s ownership of ag prod assets generally increased more than women’s
Treatment impact on number of [AGRICULTURAL ASSET]
Owned total
Owned
Owned in
Owned
in HH
solely by
any part by solely by
jointly by
female
female
male and
male
Owned
female
Choppers
0.121***
-0.007
0.006
0.114***
0.018
(0.028)
(0.022)
(0.027)
(0.017)
(0.013)
1.440*
2.590**
2.238***
0.018
(1.246)
(0.832)
(1.069)
(0.589)
(0.475)
0.258***
0.075***
0.121***
0.138***
0.036***
(0.023)
(0.015)
(0.019)
(0.012)
(0.009)
0.020***
0.002
0.007**
0.012**
0.001
(0.007)
(0.002)
(0.003)
(0.006)
(0.001)
0.162***
0.039***
0.073***
0.088***
0.025**
(0.022)
(0.011)
(0.016)
(0.017)
(0.010)
Stored crops (kg) 4.905***
Cow sheds
Ploughs
Axes

13. Key findings
Men’s ownership of non-ag prod assets generally increased more than
women’s (with the exception of cash)
Treatment impact on number of [NON-AGRICULTURAL ASSET]
Owned total
Owned in any part Owned
Owned jointly
in HH
by female
by female
solely by
by male and
male
Bicycles
Owned solely
female
0.026***
-0.002
0.008
0.020***
0.002
(0.009)
(0.002)
(0.006)
(0.007)
(0.001)
-0.005
0.018
0.053***
0.000
(0.005)
(0.011)
(0.008)
(0.003)
1,167.991*** 1,048.181***
1,206.406***
25.292*
140.542***
(115.712)
(59.224)
(74.453)
(14.931)
(42.552)
0.018***
-0.001
0.001
0.016***
0.001
(0.006)
(0.001)
(0.003)
(0.005)
(0.001)
0.025*
-0.017**
-0.009
0.033***
0.003
(0.013)
(0.007)
(0.009)
(0.009)
(0.002)
Mobile phones 0.076***
(0.014)
Cash (taka)
Rickshaws
Fishnets

14. Key findings
Men’s ownership of consumer durables generally increased more than
women’s
Treatment impact on number of number of [CONSUMER DURABLES]
Owned
part by female
by male
male and female
0.180***
-0.025
-0.009
0.204***
0.025
(0.023)
(0.036)
(0.029)
(0.026)
0.104***
0.011
0.024
0.076***
0.001
(0.015)
(0.018)
(0.012)
(0.008)
0.278***
0.063
-0.079
0.357***
-0.115*
(0.103)
(0.098)
(0.113)
(0.058)
(0.063)
1.461***
0.021
0.805***
0.636***
-0.028*
(0.196)
(0.022)
(0.146)
(0.091)
(0.017)
0.076
0.554**
0.176***
-0.078***
(0.239)
Men’s clothing items
Owned jointly by
(0.021)
Cooking instruments
Owned solely
(0.033)
Almirahs
Owned in any
total in HH by female
Beds
(0.126)
(0.252)
(0.051)
(0.024)
0.538*
0.054
0.319
0.035***
-0.003
(0.324)
(0.216)
(0.296)
(0.009)
(0.004)
Women’s clothing items 0.734***
Gold jewelry items
Owned solely

15. Key findings
Men’s ownership of land generally increased more than women’s
Treatment impact on area of [LAND]
Owned total in
Owned
Owned in any
Owned
Owned jointly
HH
solely by
part by female
solely by
by male and
male
female
female
Homestead land
0.108
0.420***
0.028*
(0.053)
(0.072)
(0.092)
(0.016)
0.542**
0.134*
0.072
0.519***
-0.001
(0.217)
Pond
0.060
(0.120)
Cultivable land
0.539***
(0.071)
(0.140)
(0.149)
(0.006)
0.084***
0.007*
0.031***
0.053***
0.002
(0.021)
(0.004)
(0.012)
(0.015)
(0.002)

16. Key findings
3. Women’s workload and mobility:
– CFPR-TUP did not increase the proportion of women working
but did shift work from outside the home to inside the home
• Consistent with transferred assets requiring maintenance at home
– Women reported increased workloads – which combined to
reduce mobility outside the home
– However, women also reported preferring reduced mobility to
facing the stigma of working outside the home

17. Key findings
Women’s work is shifted inside the home
Treatment impact on:
Whether the main female works
0.009
(0.015)
Whether the main female works inside the home
0.167***
(0.024)
Whether the main female works outside the home
-0.080***
(0.017)

18. Key findings
4. Women’s decision-making power:
– CFPR-TUP decreased women’s voice in a range of decisions
• Women’s decision-making over their own income, purchases
for themselves, and household budgeting was significantly
reduced
• Men’s voice in household decisions was significantly
increased
• Consistent with women’s reduced mobility, leading to
reduced access to markets

19. Key findings
Women’s control over their own income is decreased
Treatment impact on whether the main female works and
Keeps all of the income earned
-0.077***
(0.015)
Keeps any of the income earned
-0.044**
(0.019)
Keeps none of the income earned
0.053***
(0.014)

20. Key findings
Women’s control over purchases is decreased
Treatment impact on whether the woman herself
controls the money needed to buy…
Food from the market
-0.151***
(0.017)
Clothes for herself
-0.120***
(0.018)
Medicine for herself
-0.153***
(0.017)
Cosmetics for herself
-0.068***
(0.019)

21. Key findings
Women’s voice in household saving/spending decisions is decreased,
while husband’s sole voice is increased
Treatment impact on whether [WHO DECIDES] [DECISION]
She solely
She has any voice Her husband solely She and her
decides
in deciding
decides
husband jointly
decide
How much to save
-0.106***
-0.000
0.002
0.123***
(0.015)
(0.008)
(0.008)
(0.016)
-0.130***
-0.030**
0.030**
0.098***
(0.015)
(0.015)
(0.015)
(0.016)
-0.126***
-0.050***
0.050***
0.078***
(0.014)
(0.015)
(0.015)
(0.016)
-0.124***
-0.051***
0.051***
0.079***
(0.014)
(0.015)
(0.015)
(0.016)
How much to spend on…
Food
Housing
Health care

22. Conclusions and implications
Summary of key findings:
– CFPR-TUP increased asset ownership at household level
– In terms of “tangibles,” mixed effects on targeted women :
• Increased women’s ownership and control over transferred
livestock
• However, greater increase in men’s sole ownership over
other forms of new investment in assets
• Reduced women’s mobility outside the home due to
transferred asset requiring maintenance inside the
homestead
• Reduced women’s voice in a range of decisions

23. Conclusions and implications
Summary of key findings:
– However, taking into account “intangibles” and context,
effects on targeted women appear more favorable (if still
mixed) :
• Women’s social capital increased (access to better clothing,
etc)
• Given sociocultural stigma of working outside home, women
preferred working at home even with reduced mobility
• Women themselves framed project impacts more in terms of
intangibles (self-esteem, satisfaction in contributing to
household and children’s well-being, etc) than individual
rights or material gains

24. Conclusions and implications
Take-aways:
– Asset transfers targeted to women can increase women’s
ownership/control over the transferred asset
– May not necessarily increase women’s overall control over
resources or bargaining position in the household
– If the transferred assets require maintenance at home,
targeting them to women may shift women’s work inside the
home
– Desirability of working inside the home may depend on local
context – but may reduce decision making power over use of
resources

25. Conclusions and implications
Take-aways:
– Nuance required in assessing whether interventions improve
“women’s empowerment”
• Even if a program’s “household-level” impacts are
unambiguously positive, effects for individuals within the
household may be mixed
• Some outcomes valued by individuals may be “intangible,”
and some that seem negative from a “Western” viewpoint
may be favorable in the local context
• However, if increasing women’s asset ownership and
decision-making power are explicit goals, a targeted asset
transfer may not be sufficient – local sociocultural norms
may themselves need to be changed