SESSION 4: IMPLICATIONS FOR DATA COLLECTION Carmen Diana Deere University of Florida Gender Asset Gap Project World Bank Workshop on Gender & Assets, Gender and Development Group, June 14, 2012

Issues in Collecting Individual-level Asset Data 1. Minimum questions required 2. How many assets? 3. Who should be interviewed? 4. If interview two people, how resolve differences?

1. Minimum Questions Required For Gender Asset Gap, only two questions required beyond the normal household assets inventory: Who are the owners of the asset, with space for multiple owners to capture joint owners GAG project had three spaces, with codes for “all HH members” or non- HH members who might be joint owners Whose names are on the ownership document where appropriate For Gender Wealth Gap, besides above, need at least one measure of valuation for each asset See Doss et al (2011), Lessons from the Field, available at

2. How Many Assets? Country% Four Major Assets Ecuador89.9 Ghana81.6 Karnataka, India92.5 Table 1: Share of Gross Physical Household Wealth represented by the four major assets: Principal residence, agricultural land, other real estate and non-farm businesses

How Many Assets? Ecuador (US$) Ghana (PPP US$) Karnataka (PPP US$) Physical assets b b b. % Financial assets 2.0 b. 5.8 b b. % Total Gross Wealth 84.2 b b b. %100.0 Table 2. Composition of Gross Household Wealth (preliminary) Note: Karnataka, India estimate excludes Bangalore

Problems in estimating Gross Household Wealth with the GAG data sets 1. By design, only solicited information on financial assets in the individual questionnaire to ensure privacy, thus not a household measure 2. Ecuador & India ended up with truncated samples due to refusals among upper income groups 3. Many missing values on financial assets Usual problem of reluctance to disclose savings/cash (distrust) 4. Problems for comparative analysis: Insurance instruments different, not valued consistently Have not yet analyzed pensions

Potential information for imputation of financial assets Country Couples’ Share of Wealth (%) Ecuador88.1 (n=1981) Ghana95.8 (n=994) India83.0 (n=3066) Table 3. Share of Physical Wealth of Principal Couple in Couple-headed Households

3. Who Should Be Interviewed? Bardasi, Beegle, Dillon & Serneels (2010) – Tanzania (n=1344) Experimental design to test labor force participation questions and respondent selection Self-reporting provides more accurate information than proxy Fisher, Reimer & Carr (2010) – Malawi (n=130) Husbands underestimate wives’ income Disagree on her income in 94% of couple households Cloke (2009) – Nicaragua (n=359) Gendered reporting bias among couples in who is property titleholder and credit holder Husbands and wives both more likely to report themselves as the owner rather than their partner Fletschner and Mesbah (2011) – Paraguay (n=210) Spouses do not fully share information Wives less likely to have information on financial institutions

Differences in Survey Design The three surveys aimed to interview most knowledgeable person(s) regarding assets owned by HH members Ghana & India: Principal respondent – completed HH asset inventory & individual questionnaire Secondary respondent – spouse, if present, or other adult of opposite sex; completed only individual questionnaire and some of asset ownership & valuation questions re-asked during individual interview. Ecuador: HH asset inventory completed by the principal couple together whenever possible (dual-headed households) or if the case, the sole male/female head Each then completed the individual questionnaire separately If spouse not available for HH inventory, then asset ownership & valuation questions always asked again during individual interview

Benefit of Interviewing 2 people separately: More assets? AssetEcuadorGhana Karnataka, India Principal dwelling0.40na Agricultural parcels Other real estate Non-farm businesses Table 4a. Major Assets added by interviewing a second respondent (% added to Inventory) AssetEcuadorGhanaKarnataka, India Principal dwellingna Agricultural parcels Other real estatena Non-farm businesses na Table 4b. Major Assets added by asking the Primary Respondent about ownership twice (% added to Inventory)

Benefit of interviewing 2 people/the couple separately: Allows gender analysis Men and women may have different perceptions of ownership related to: Differences in legal knowledge Different understandings of the bundle of property rights Gender socialization Men and women may have different perceptions of the value of their assets related to: Whether markets exist and degree of integration to markets Gender differences in mobility and social networks

AssetCountryN (assets) % who disagree Dwelling Ecuador Ghana Agricultural land Ecuador Ghana Other real estate Ecuador Ghana Non-farm businesses Ecuador Ghana Table 5: Disagreements among Couples over who owns the asset

AssetCountry Disagree on Market value (%) Disagree on Replacement value (%) Disagree on Rental Value (%) Dwelling Ecuador (n=358)(n=356)(n=358) Karnataka (n=1718) Ag Land Ecuador (n=80) Karnataka (n=1528) Other Real Estate Ecuador (n=123)(n=61)(n=103) Karnataka 79.0 (n=495) Non-farm Business Ecuador (n=212) Karnataka (n=459) Table 6: Disagreement among couples over valuation of the same asset

KARNATAKA (in INR) ECUADOR (in US$) HusbandsWivesHusbandsWives N Mean263,621204,289***30,77128,964 (s.d.)(480032)(459869)(31854)(28695) Median100,000 20,000 Table 7a: Estimates of market value of principal residence by husbands and wives KARNATAKA (in INR) ECUADOR (in US$) HusbandsWivesHusbandsWives N Mean386,577299,950***14,57510,793** (s.d.)(800700)(581056)(18386)(12979) Median170,000120,0006,5005,000 Table 7b: Estimates of market value of agricultural parcels by husbands and wives KARNATAKA (in INR) ECUADOR (in US$) HusbandsWivesHusbandsWives N Mean173,784176,85525,24425,014 (s.d.)(556717)(512959)(33367)(33995) Median50,000 10,000 Table 7c: Estimates of market value of other real estate by husbands and wives KARNATAKA (in INR) ECUADOR (in US$) HusbandsWivesHusbandsWives N Mean136,92755,169*9,4599,737 (s.d.)( )(325317)(22743)(22982) Median8,0005,0001,0001,075 Table 7d: Estimates of market value of non-farm businesses by husbands and wives

4. Main problem of interviewing couple separately: How to reconcile responses? 1. Ownership disagreements (Ecuador’s rules) a) Solved by title (if had document & names agreed with report of one of respondents) b) Solved by “combination” (if document didn’t agree with either report, or no document, included all mentioned as joint owners) Ghana (where few documents) followed latter rule Potential problems: Ownership question worded differently in individual questionnaire and HH Inventory Bias towards respondent who answered HH Inventory since title information only asked in this section Introduces/exacerbates bias towards joint ownership Alternative: Estimate ownership based on characteristics of individual and joint owners in full sample?

Ownership disagreements: Impact of Rules Table 8a. Ecuador - Disagreements on Home Ownership and How Resolved by Sex DisagreementFrequency % Between Spouses Solved by Title Siding with Male Siding with Female Solved by Combination With Title Without Title Over Status of Home Male says Owned6 1.3 Female says Owned7 1.6 No Disagreement Total Homes with Separate Responses Table 8b. Ecuador - Home Ownership in Household Inventory vs. After Resolution of Disagreements by Rules Type of Ownership Frequency according to Household Inventory % Frequency following Final Resolution % Sole Male Sole Female Principle Couple Principle Couple and Other Male and Other Female and Other Other Total

How to reconcile different responses? 2. Disagreements over value of asset (Ecuador’s rules) a) If ownership resolved by title and only 1 owner, took that person’s response; if couple was joint owner, averaged their estimates b) If ownership resolved by “combination rule”, averaged the estimates of the couple Potential problems: Assumes ‘real owner’ knows value of his/her asset best Did not remove outliers since planned to average, thus may overestimate ‘true’ value Would be useful to have administrative data as benchmark

5. Tentative conclusions: Interviewing both spouses, second person in general, minimally increased total assets captured In household context probably harder to hide assets than income Most similar situation to income are financial assets: If spouse doesn’t know precisely what you earn, easier to hide savings than other assets For that & other reasons, financial assets most difficult to capture fully even when guaranteeing privacy & confidentiality of responses Value of interviewing 2 people rests on capturing gender differences in perceptions

Thank you! For the country studies & comparative report see: ernet.in