"BARGAINING" AND GENDER RELATIONS:
WITHIN AND BEYOND THE HOUSEHOLD
Bina Agarwal
FCND DISCUSSION PAPER NO. 27
Food Consumption and Nutrition Division
International Food Policy Research Institute
1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036-3006 U.S.A.
(202) 862-5600
Fax: (202) 467-4439
March 1997
FCND Discussion Papers contain preliminary material and research results, and are circulated prior to a full
peer review in order to stimulate discussion and critical comment. It is expected that most Discussion Papers
will eventually be published in some other form, and that their content may also be revised.
ABSTRACT
Highlighting the problems posed by a "unitary" conceptualization of the household,
a number of economists have in recent years proposed alternative models. These models,
especially those embodying the bargaining approach, provide a useful framework for
analyzing gender relations and throw some light on how gender asymmetries are
constructed and contested. At the same time, the models have paid inadequate or no
attention to some critical aspects of intrahousehold gender dynamics, such as: what
factors (especially qualitative ones) affect bargaining power? What is the role of social
norms and social perceptions in the bargaining process and how might these factors
themselves be bargained over? Are women less motivated than men by self-interest and
might this affect bargaining outcomes? Most discussions on bargaining also say little
about gender relations beyond the household, and about the links between extrahousehold
and intrahousehold bargaining power. This paper spells out the nature of these
complexities and their importance in determining the outcomes of intrahousehold
dynamics. It also extends the bargaining approach beyond the household to the
interlinked arenas of the market, the community, and the State.
CONTENTS
Acknowledgments .................................................... iv
1. Introduction .......................................................1
2. Bargaining and Intrahousehold Gender Relations ...........................3
Determinants of Intrahousehold Bargaining Power ........................9
Bargaining for Subsistence Within the Family ...................... 11
Social Perceptions and Bargaining Power ......................... 15
Do All Factors Carry Equal Weight? ............................ 17
Bargaining over Family Land .................................. 21
Social Norms ................................................... 22
Norms as Limits to What Can Be Bargained About ................. 22
Norms as Determinants of or Constraints to Bargaining Power .........24
Norms and How Bargaining Is Conducted ........................ 26
Bargaining over Social Norms ................................. 28
What Affects Bargaining over Norms? ........................... 32
Self-perceptions, Altruism, and Self-interest ............................ 34
Do Women Suffer from False Perceptions? ........................ 35
Altruism or Self-Interest? ..................................... 39
Altruism and Intrahousehold Coalitions .......................... 42
3. Beyond the Household: The Market, the Community, and the State ............ 43
The Market .................................................... 44
The Community ................................................. 45
The State ...................................................... 50
Interactions: The Household, the Market, the Community, and the State ...... 53
4. In Conclusion .....................................................57
References ..........................................................60
FIGURE
1. Factors likely to affect rural women's bargaining power (in relation to subsistence)
in different arenas ................................................ 55
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This paper builds on and develops some of the issues I had raised in A Field of
One's Own: Gender and Land Rights in South Asia (Agarwal 1994a). Initial discussions
with and subsequent comments on the paper from Lawrence Haddad, Janet Seiz,
Elizabeth Katz, Agnes Quisumbing, and Nancy Folbre were most useful, and I thank
them all for their responses. I also thank Joti Kohli for her help in locating several useful
articles.
Prof. Bina Agarwal
Institute of Economic Growth
University of New Delhi
Studies on gender and microeconomic outcomes are too numerous to list here, but on gender and
1
macroeconomics, see, especially, World Development (1995).
Biology (pregnancy, childbearing, etc.) may have influenced the historical construction of some
2
aspects of gender relations, such as the gender division of labor. But biology cannot explain the entire gamut
of gender inequalities we observe today, nor even the perpetuation of an observed gender division of labor
(e.g., technical developments have minimized the importance of muscular strength; contraceptive technology
reduces the disability of frequent pregnancies; and a variety of possible arrangements make child care a less
binding constraint). In any case, the considerable variation of gender relations across cultures indicates the
enormous importance of nonbiological factors.
1. INTRODUCTION
The nature of gender relations—relations of power between women and men—is
not easy to grasp in its full complexity. But these relations impinge on economic
outcomes in multiple ways. The complexity arises not least from the fact that gender
1
relations (like all social relations) embody both the material and the ideological. They are
revealed not only in the division of labor and resources between women and men, but
also in ideas and representations—the ascribing to women and men of different abilities,
attitudes, desires, personality traits, behavior patterns, and so on. Gender relations are
both constituted by and help constitute these practices and ideologies, in interaction with
other structures of social hierarchy such as class, caste, and race. Neither uniform across
societies nor historically static (as numerous studies of different cultures, regions, and
communities bear out), they may be seen as largely socially constructed (rather than
biologically determined). The process of this social construction, however, is
2
inadequately understood, as is also how particular forms of gender inequalities are
maintained, and by what means they might change over time.
Recent growing interest among economists in intrahousehold dynamics addresses
these questions. For instance, there has been an increasing criticism of "unitary"
household models that assume that household members seek to maximize utility on the