Understanding Female Autonomy in India through Their Family Headship Status
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Sex of the head of the household can provide insights into gender inequality and power dynamics that exist at the household level. Leadership positions are rarely given to a female in the Indian society. The hierarchy of authority in the household is based on age (privileging the older) and gender (privileging the men). Marriage is still the most important rite of passage in a woman’s life in India and it is also a medium through which autonomy is realized. This paper explores how women realize ways to achieve headship in the family in an otherwise male dominated household. Data was obtained from Indian Human Development Survey (IHDS) II, conducted between 2011 and 2012, and which sampled 39,523 ever married women from age 15 years and above. Autonomy indices were developed to show active decision-making power in the household. In addition, how headship status influences levels of autonomy were explored by employing multinomial logistic regression. Findings showed decision making abilities were distinguishable for women without spouse compared with those who were married. Levels of autonomy also reflected the existing hierarchies in the family, a situation relatively better for women who were not in marital union.
Article Details
References
• Ayad, M., Barrere, B., & Otto, J. (1997). Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of households. DHS Comparative Studies No. 26. Macro International. Maryland. USA.
• Barrett, K. (2007). The determinants of female decision-making power and its demographic implications: An analysis of northern and southern India. Demography India, 36(1), 1-19.
• Barros, R., Fox, L., & Mendonca, R. (1997). Female-headed households, poverty, and the welfare of children in urban Brazil. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 45(2), 231-257.
• Bart, P. (1969). Why women’s status changes in middle age: The turns of the social ferris wheel. Sociological Symposium, 3, 1-18.
• Berreman, G.D. (1993). Sanskritization as female oppression in India. In Miller, B. D. (Eds.), Sex and Gender Hierarchies (pp. 366-92). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Bland, J.M., & Altman, D.G. (1997). Statistics notes: Cronbach’s alpha. BMJ, 314(7080), 572.
• Bloom, S.S., Wypij, D., & Das Gupta, M. (2001). Dimensions of women’s autonomy and the influence on maternal health care utilization in a north Indian city. Demography, 38(1), 67-78.
• Bongaarts, J. (2001). Household size and composition in the developing world in the 1990s. Population Studies, 55(3), 263-279.
• Bose, S., & South, S.J. (2003). Sex composition of children and marital disruption in India. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65(4), 996-1006.
• Brown, J.K., Anderson, J., Counts, D.A., Datan, N., Dougherty, M.C., Fennell, V., & Vatuk, S. (1982). Cross-cultural perspectives on middle-aged women. Current Anthropology, 23(2), 143-156.
• Bruce, J., & Lloyd, C.B. (1997). Finding the ties that bind: Beyond headship and household. In Haddad, L., Hoddinott, J., & Alderman, H. (Eds.) Intrahousehold Resource Allocation in Developing Countries: Methods, models, and policy (pp. 123). The International Food Policy Research Institute. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore and London.
• Budlender, D. (2003). The debate about household headship. Social Dynamics, 29(2), 48-72.
• Buvinic, M. (1990, November). The vulnerability of women-headed households: Policy questions and options for Latin America and the Caribbean. Presentation at the meeting on Vulnerable Women, Vienna, Austria.
• Buvinic, M., & Gupta, G.R. (1994). Targeting poor woman-headed households and woman-maintained families in developing countries: Views on a policy dilemma. International Center for Research on Women [ICRW]. Washington D.C. Working paper.
• Buvinić, M., & Gupta, G.R. (1997). Female-headed households and female-maintained families: Are they worth targeting to reduce poverty in developing countries? Economic Development and Cultural Change, 45(2), 259-280.
• Chant, S. (1997). Women-headed households. Diversity and dynamics in the developing world. Springer.
• Census of India (2001). Retrieved from http://www.censusindia.gov.in/201-common/census_data_2001.html
• Census of India (2011). Retrieved from http://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011census/
population_enumeration.html
• Das Gupta, M. (1987). Selective discrimination against female children in rural Punjab, India. Population and Development Review, 77-100.
• Das Gupta, M. (1996). Life course perspectives on women’s autonomy and health outcomes. Health Transition Review, 213-231.
• Desai, S. (1994). Gender inequality and demographic behaviour, India. New York: The Population Council.
• Desai, S., & Vanneman, R. (2015). India Human Development Survey-II (IHDS-II). Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR36151.v6
• Dharmalingam, A., & Philip Morgan, S. (1996). Women’s work, autonomy, and birth control: Evidence from two south Indian villages. Population Studies, 50(2), 187-201.
• Drovandi, S., & Salvini, S. (2004). Women’s autonomy and demographic behaviour. Population Review, 43(2), 1-31.
• Drost, E.A. (2011). Validity and reliability in social science research. Education Research and Perspectives, 38(1), 105.
• Dungumaro, E.W. (2008). Gender differentials in household structure and socioeconomic characteristics in South Africa. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 429-451.
• Dwyer, D., & J. Bruce. (1988). A home divided: Women and income in the third world. Population and Development Review, 14(4), 744-746.
• Dyson, T., & Moore, M. (1983). On kinship structure, female autonomy, and demographic behavior in India. Population and Development Review, 35-60.
• Epstein, T. (1982). A social anthropological approach to women’s roles and status in developing countries: the domestic cycle. In R. Anker, M. Buvinic & N.H. Youssef (Eds.), Women's roles and population trends in the Third World (pp. 151-170). London, Croom Helm.
• Ezzo, D.A. (1991). Female status and the life cycle: A cross-cultural perspective from native North America. Algonquian Papers-Archive, 22.
• Folbre, N. (1991). Women on their own: Global patterns of female headship. New York: The Population Council.
• Ghuman, S.J., Lee, H.J., & Smith, H.L. (2006). Measurement of women’s autonomy according to women and their husbands: Results from five Asian countries. Social Science Research, 35(1), 1-28.
• Jejeebhoy, S.J. (1995). Women’s education, autonomy, and reproductive behaviour: Experience from developing countries. OUP Catalogue. Oxford University Press.
• Jejeebhoy, S.J. (2002). Convergence and divergence in spouses’ perspectives on women’s autonomy in rural India. Studies in Family Planning, 33(4), 299-308.
• Jejeebhoy, S.J. (2002b). Women’s autonomy in rural India: Its dimensions, determinants, and the influence of context. In H.B. Presser, & G. Sen (Eds.), Women’s empowerment and demographic processes: Moving beyond Cairo (pp. 204–238). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Jejeebhoy, S.J., & Sathar, Z.A. (2001). Women’s autonomy in India and Pakistan: The influence of religion and region. Population and Development Review, 27(4), 687-712.
• Kandiyoti, D. (1988). Bargaining with patriarchy. Gender & Society, 2(3), 274-290.
• Kishor, S., & Neitzel, K. (1996). The status of women: Indicators for twenty-five countries. DHS Comparative Studies No. 21. Macro International. USA.
• Kishor, Sunita. (1995). Autonomy and Egyptian women: findings from the 1988 Egypt Demographic and Health Survey. Calverton, Maryland: Macro International Inc.
• Kriplani, A., & Banerjee, K. (2005). An overview of age of onset of menopause in northern India. Maturitas, 52(3), 199-204.
• Lamouse, A. (1969). Family roles of women: A German example. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 145-152.
• Lichter, D.T., McLaughlin, D.K., & Ribar, D.C. (1997). Welfare and the rise in female‐headed families. American Journal of Sociology, 103(1), 112-143.
• Mandelbaum, D.G. (1986). Sex roles and gender relations in North India. Economic and Political Weekly, 1999-2004.
• Mascarenhas-Keyes, S. (1990). Migration, ‘progressive motherhood’ and female autonomy: Catholic women in Goa. In L. Dube & R. Palriwala (Eds.), Structures and strategies: Women, work and family (pp. 103-127). Sage Publications. New Delhi.
• Mason, K.O. (1996). Wives economic decision-making power in the family in five Asian countries. K.O. Mason, N.O. Tsuya, & M.K. Choc (Eds.), The Changing Family in Comparative Perspective: Asia and the U.S. Honolulu: East-West Center and Nihon University.
• Morgan, S.P., & Niraula, B.B. (1995). Gender inequality and fertility in two Nepali villages. Population and Development Review, 541-561.
• Morgan, S.P., Stash, S., Smith, H.L., & Mason, K.O. (2002). Muslim and non‐Muslim differences in female autonomy and fertility: Evidence from four Asian countries. Population and Development Review, 28(3), 515-537.
• Munro, A., Kebede, B., Tarazona-Gomez, M., & Verschoor, A. (2014). Autonomy and efficiency. An experiment on household decisions in two regions of India. Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, 33, 114-133.
• Niraula, B.B., & Morgan, S.P. (1996). Marriage formation, post-marital contact with natal kin and autonomy of women: evidence from two Nepali settings. Population Studies, 50(1), 35-50.
• Palacios, S., Henderson, V.W., Siseles, N., Tan, D., & Villaseca, P. (2010). Age of menopause and impact of climacteric symptoms by geographical region. Climacteric, 13(5), 419-428.
• Rosenhouse Persson, S. (1989). Identifying the poor: Is headship a useful concept? World Bank.
• Safilios-Rothschild, C. (1970). The study of family power structure: A review 1960-1969. Journal of Marriage and Family, 32(4), 539-552.
• Safilios-Rothschild, C. (1982). Female power autonomy and demographic change in the Third World. In R. Anker, M. Buvinic, N.H. Youssef (Eds.) Women's roles and population trends in the Third World (pp. 117-132). London, Croom Helm.
• Sandberg, J., & Rafail, P. (2013). Measurement models of women’s autonomy using the 1998/1999 India DHS. Journal of Population Research, 30(4), 367-381.
• Starkweather, J., & Moske, A.K. (2011). Multinomial logistic regression. Retrieved from http://www. unt. Edu/rss/class/Jon/Benchmarks/MLR_JDS_Aug2011.Pdf
• Stromquist, N.P. (1998). Roles and statuses of women. Women in the third world: An encyclopedia of contemporary issues, 3-12.
• Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International journal of medical education, 2, 53.
• Uberoi, P. (1993). Family, kinship and marriage in India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
• Varley, A. (1996). Women heading households: Some more equal than others? World Development, 24(3), 505-520.
• Vatuk, S. (1987). Authority, power and autonomy in the life cycle of North Indian women. Dimensions of Social Life: Essays in Honor of David G. Mandelbaum, 23-44.
• Visaria. P., & Visaria. L. (1985). Indian households with female heads: Their incidence, characteristics and level of living. In J. Devaki & N. Banerjee (Eds.), Tyranny of the Household: Investigative Essays on Women Work (pp. 50-86). New Delhi: Shakti.
• Vlassoff, C. (1990). The value of sons in an Indian village: How widows see it. Population Studies, 44(1), 5-20.
• Wieringa, S.E. (1998). Rethinking gender planning: A critical discussion of the use of the concept of gender. Gender, Technology and Development, 2(3), 349-371.
• Zuo, J., & Tang, S. (2000). Breadwinner status and gender ideologies of men and women regarding family roles. Sociological Perspectives, 43(1), 2