Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intrahousehold bargaining theory predicts that an income increase will cause an unambiguous increase in women’s bargaining power. Identity theory, in contrast, predicts that women may voluntarily give up power to compensate their husbands whose identity is challenged by the increase in their wives’ incomes. We outline a model of these competing forces. We then present empirical tests that use amendments to women’s inheritance laws in India to identify variations in female income. We exploit differences across long-standing and deep-rooted social institutions (caste groups and the practice of purdah or veiling) for variation in identity prescriptions. Using a large dataset on married women, we estimate significant identity effects that lead to the loss of bargaining power of women after their income increase. The negative identity effects vary predictably with a household’s stringency of patriarchal prescriptions regarding the “role” of women in a household. Consistent with identity theory, our results suggest that alterations in women’s labor market activities are a plausible mechanism through which the loss of women’s power is mediated and rule out alternative mechanisms, such as the potential rise in domestic violence that some scholars associate with increases in women’s income.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".