IS IT BETTER TO BE A BOY? A DISAGGREGATED OUTLAY EQUIVALENT ANALYSIS OF GENDER BIAS IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA

John Gibson and Scott Rozelle

No 11990, Working Papers from University of California, Davis, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics

Abstract: Discrimination in the allocation of goods between boys and girls within households in Papua New Guinea is examined using Deaton's (1989) outlay-equivalent ratio method. Adding a boy to the household reduces expenditure on adult goods by as much as would a nine-tenths reduction in total outlay per member, but girls have no effect on adult goods expenditure. The hypothesis of Haddad and Reardon (1993) that gender bias is inversely related to the importance of female labour in agricultural production is not supported. There is no evidence of bias against girls in the urban sector.

Keywords: Labor; and; Human; Capital (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Pages: 30
Date: 2000
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (5)

Downloads: (external link)
https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/11990/files/wp00-023.pdf (application/pdf)

Related works:
Journal Article: Is it Better to be a Boy? A Disaggregated Outlay Equivalent Analysis of Gender Bias in Papua New Guinea (2004)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ags:ucdavw:11990

DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.11990

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Working Papers from University of California, Davis, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by AgEcon Search ().