Munro, Alistair and Bateman, Ian J. and McNally, Tara (2008): The family under the microscope: an experiment testing economic models of household choice.
Download (387kB) | Preview
We devise and execute three experiments to test key features of models of household decision-making. Using established couples (married and unmarried) we test income pooling, unanimity and Pareto efficiency. Subjects make choices individually and jointly and are asked to make predictions about their partner’s choices. Unanimity is rejected. Income pooling is not rejected in joint choice but has less explanatory power in individual choice. In direct tests both sexes do not pool income completely, but in econometric tests across all tasks, women place an equal weight on payoffs but men discount their partner’s payoffs by between 15 and 20%. We find that transparency has little impact on deviations from income pooling or indeed on behaviour generally. Many joint choices deviate from the Pareto principle in a systematic manner suggesting that choices made as a couple are more risk averse than individual decisions.
|Item Type:||MPRA Paper|
|Original Title:||The family under the microscope: an experiment testing economic models of household choice.|
|Keywords:||experiment; household; unitary; income pooling; Pareto; family|
|Subjects:||C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C7 - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory > C78 - Bargaining Theory ; Matching Theory
C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C9 - Design of Experiments > C92 - Laboratory, Group Behavior
J - Labor and Demographic Economics > J1 - Demographic Economics > J12 - Marriage ; Marital Dissolution ; Family Structure ; Domestic Abuse
C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C9 - Design of Experiments > C93 - Field Experiments
D - Microeconomics > D1 - Household Behavior and Family Economics
|Depositing User:||Alistair Munro|
|Date Deposited:||06. Jun 2008 07:50|
|Last Modified:||27. Apr 2015 19:19|
Alderman Harold, Chiappori P.A., Haddad L, Hoddinott J, Kanbur R, 1995, Unitary Versus Collective Models Of The Household - Is It Time To Shift The Burden Of Proof, World Bank Research Observer 10 (1): 1-19 Feb.#
Ashraf, N. 2005, Spousal Control and Intra-Household Decision Making: An Experimental Study in the Philippines, Harvard University.
Bateman, I. and A. Munro, 2005, An experiment on risky choice amongst households, Economic Journal, 115, C176-C189.
Bolin, K., L. Jacobson and B. Lindgren, 2002, The family as the health producer - when spouses act strategically, Journal of Health Economics, 21: 475-495.
Becker, Gary S., 1974, A theory of social interactions, Journal of Political Economy, vol. 82 (6), 1063-1093.
Browning, Martin, and Pierre-Andre Chiappori, 1998. Efficient intra-household allocations: a general characterisation and empirical tests. Econometrica 66 (6), 1241–1278.
Chen, Zhiqi and Frances Woolley, 2001, A Cournot-Nash Model of Family Decisionmaking, Economic Journal,111, 722-748.
Corfman, Kim. P. and Lehmann, Donald. R., 1987, Models of cooperative group decisionmaking and relative influence: An experimental investigation of family purchase decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 14: 1-13.
Doss, Cheryl, 1996, Testing among models of intrahousehold resource allocation, World Development, 24(10), 1597-1609.
Harless, David W. and Colin F. Camerer, 1994, The Predictive Utility of Generalized Expected Utility Theories, Econometrica, Vol. 62, No. 6. 1251-1289.
List, J. and Steven D. Levitt , 2005, What Do Laboratory Experiments Tell Us About the -32- Real World? University of Chicago September
Lundberg, Shelly J. and Robert A. Pollak, 1993, Separate Spheres Bargaining and the Marriage Market, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 101, No. 6. Dec., 988-1010.
Lundberg, Shelly J., Robert A. Pollak and Terence J. Wales, 1997, Do Husbands and Wives Pool Their Resources? Evidence from the United Kingdom Child Benefit, Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 32, No. 3. (Summer,), pp. 463-480.
Kerr, Norbert L., MacCoun, Robert J.; Kramer, Geoffrey P. 1996 Bias in judgment: Comparing individuals and groups. Psychological Review. Oct Vol 103(4) 687-719
Pahl, Jan, 1990, Household spending, personal spending and the control of money in marriage, Sociology, 24:1, 119-138.
Peters, H. Elizabeth, A. Sinan Ünür, Jeremy Clark, William D. Schulze, 2004, Free- Riding and the Provision of Public Goods in the Family: An Experimental Test of the Rotten Kid Theorem, International Economic Review, 45(1), 283-299
Phipps, Shelley A., and Peter S. Burton., 1998, What's Mine is yours? The influence of male and female incomes on patterns of household expenditure, Economica, 65, 599-613.
Rothschild, Michael and Joseph E. Stiglitz, 1970, Increasing risk I: A definition, Journal of Economic Theory 2: 225-243.
Udry, Christopher, 1996, Gender, Agricultural Productivity and the Theory of the Household, Journal of Political Economy, 104/5.
Udry, Christopher, and Esther Duflo, 2001, Intrahousehold Resource Allocation in Côte d'Ivoire: Social Norms, Separate Accounts and Consumption Choices, Yale University mimeo.
Warr, Peter G., 1983, The private provision of a public good is independent of the distribution of income, Economic Letters, 13, 207-11.