Tasks and Opportunities within Indian Families Sripad Motiram IGIDR, Mumbai Lars Osberg Department of Economics, Dalhousie University, Halifax Conference on Time Use, Poverty and Public Policy, American University, Mar 9-10, 2009

Economics & the allocation of scarce resources – should we study time or money?  Income & expenditure data Uninformative for those with little or no money e.g. children, many women, poor  Time Use data Every one has 24 hours Time focus especially useful in developing countries  Development implies transition to marketed output  Extreme poverty & gender disadvantage prevalent  Illustrate using Indian data Gender inequality in adult and child tasks School Attendance vs. School Enrollment Time invested in education of children  Formal Schooling + Informal Instruction in home

What influences gender bias in Education in India?  Time invested = school + informal instruction  School time = class + travel + homework  Substantial gender differences in daily tasks imply gender bias in opportunity cost of time House Work – women do nearly all (rural & urban)  specialization starts early, including for schoolgirls BUT rural women also work in fields, urban women constrained to home, time available for instruct/learn  Urbanization – huge plus for female education Increased school attendance (Male & Female) Decreased female dropout More informal instruction – mostly by women  Prob (get informal instruction) – gender not significant

Main Findings on Informal Instruction within Home Household Fixed Effects Model Gender is statistically insignificant and very small magnitude Robust to sample selection

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 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

Indian Time Use Survey,  Gujarat, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Meghalaya, Orissa, Tamil Nadu. 233 million total pop. Regionally representative  Stratified Random Sampling (NSS). 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

Indian Time Use Survey,

Commodities + Home Production enable Household Consumption  Housework in India Clearly a female task – rural & urban  Primary + Secondary + Trade/Services = SIC Commodity Production Waged + Unwaged Labour “Caring” labour – valuable but no commodities Rural – female field work time ≈ 2/3 male  Field work + house work = longer workday Urban – constrained female work time  Average Male SIC work hours ≈ 8.5  Average Female SIC work hours ≈ 1.5

Housework – clearly gendered task in India! urbanrural Housework (4) Housework (4) Boys Girls Difference Boys Girls Difference Boys Girls Difference urbanrural Housework (4) Housework (4) Men Women Difference Men Women Difference Men Women Difference

[Commodity + Home Production Time] – urban/rural opportunity cost ? Average Minutes/Day Urban Rural Men Women Difference Men Women Difference991.2 Men Women Difference Average Minutes/Day URBAN Primary (1) Sec (2) Trade/ Service (3) Men Women Difference RURAL Primary (1) Sec (2) Trade (3) Men Women Difference

Schooling and Informal Instruction  Human Capital formation – time intensive  Do Indian Families prefer to invest in the 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  Historically important – Sweden in 1600s  ITUS match parent & child reports of informal instruction “Teaching, training & Instruction of own children” (521) - Parents " non-formal education” (741) - children simultaneous give/receive – Who gives? Who gets?

School Attendance of Boys & Girls  Urban – roughly similar attendance rates  Rural – systematic female disadvantage  Smaller in % attend (-8.8%) than in % enrol (-11.7%) Attendance Ages 6-10Ages 11-14Ages 15-18Ages 6-18 BoysGirlsBoysGirlsBoysGirlsBoysGirls %%%% Total Urban Total Rural

School Attendance differences Gender – small compared to class Ages 6-10Ages BoysGirlsBoysGirls Urban No lits in HH Some lits in HH Rural No lits in HH Some lits in HH

Parental Informal Instruction in India  Are boys more likely to receive informal instruction than girls in the same family?  Households fixed effects model I hc =f(X h, Z hc, u hc ) Can deal with omitted variable bias Justifiable – compared to two probits Linear probability estimation Within and Random effects estimation – Hausman test – within preferred  Sample selection? – no evidence

Informal Instruction (Continued …)

Conclusions  Gender Bias in Tasks Housework – clearly gendered labour in rural & urban India Total – housework + commodity production – less clear  Younger rural women; housework + field work = longer day Field work = Opportunity cost of any time girls spend in school  Urban women – less work outside home Available time for school + home instruction of children  Gender Bias in Opportunities Parental Illiteracy – major negative for school & informal Rural - Less school & less parental instruction  Girls especially disadvantaged Urban - More school & more parental instruction No evidence of gender bias in informal instruction  Amount & Gender Equity of Human Capital Investment Under-appreciated benefit of urbanization in India ?

Thank You