The ordered probit estimates of the determinants of life satisfaction are presented in Table 6.2. Column 1 represents ordered probit (OP) estimates, column 2 to 4 represents OLS estimates, and column 5 and 6 represent IV estimates.
As stated our interest is centred around the relationship between the empowerment index and life satisfaction, and the coefficient on the female dummy. In order to check whether empowerment has any differential effect for men and women, we will examine the life satisfaction model across genders, income class, religion, and zone of economic integration.
Table 6.2 Ordered probit, OLS, fixed effect, and IV estimates of life satisfaction model
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
O.probit OLS Household FE Community FE IV first IV second Variables LS LS LS LS e.index LS Empowerment index 1.418*** 2.966*** 1.356*** 2.273*** 4.460*** (0.071) (0.144) (0.218) (0.153) (0.646) Female=1, otherwise 0 0.195*** 0.411*** 0.287** 0.278*** -0.070*** 0.569*** (0.039) (0.081) (0.130) (0.079) (0.006) (0.106) Age (years) -0.000 0.002 0.024 0.022** 0.009*** -0.012** (0.006) (0.012) (0.026) (0.011) (0.001) (0.013) Age squared -0.000 -0.000 -0.000 -0.000** -0.000*** 0.000 (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) Years of schooling 0.017*** 0.038*** -0.001 0.040*** 0.005*** 0.030*** (0.004) (0.007) (0.014) (0.008) (0.001) (0.008) Height (cm) 0.002 0.005 0.001 0.002 0.001** 0.003 (0.002) (0.004) (0.006) (0.004) (0.000) (0.004) Ill in past 4 weeks, yes=1, otherwise 0 -0.028 -0.058 0.034 -0.064 0.008* -0.086
(0.026) (0.055) (0.079) (0.055) (0.004) (0.057) Health disability, yes=1, otherwise 0 -0.101*** -0.184** -0.066 -0.113 -0.012** -0.168**
(0.035) (0.074) (0.113) (0.072) (0.006) (0.075) Non-Muslim=1, otherwise 0 -0.043 -0.106 -0.115 0.013** -0.126
(0.038) (0.080) (0.122) (0.006) (0.081) Works for pay=1, otherwise 0 0.016 0.024 -0.034 -0.032 0.019*** -0.003
(0.033) (0.069) (0.087) (0.070) (0.006) (0.069) Log of per capita monthly expenditures 0.195*** 0.406*** 0.406*** 0.007* 0.398***
(0.026) (0.053) (0.055) (0.004) (0.053) Female headed HH=1, otherwise 0 -0.561 -1.231 -1.474* 0.046 -1.325
(0.545) (1.190) (0.778) (0.077) (1.198) Number of child dependent -0.038*** -0.082*** -0.069*** 0.005*** -0.089***
(0.011) (0.024) (0.024) (0.002) (0.024) Number of male dependent 0.088 0.185 0.205 0.007 0.173
(0.062) (0.129) (0.141) (0.010) (0.131) Number of female dependent 0.040 0.083 0.124 0.023*** 0.051
(0.048) (0.100) (0.102) (0.007) (0.101) Mother-in-law co-resides=1, otherwise 0 0.074 0.140 0.006 0.154 -0.030*** 0.186
(0.064) (0.132) (0.147) (0.132) (0.011) (0.136) Economic shock occurred, yes=1, otherwise 0 -0.024 -0.065 -0.221*** 0.003 -0.067
(0.024) (0.050) (0.055) (0.004) (0.050) Positive economic event occurred, yes=1, otherwise 0 0.274*** 0.545*** 0.357*** 0.020** 0.511***
(0.057) (0.109) (0.109) (0.009) (0.111) Dwell is broken, yes=1, otherwise 0 -0.341*** -0.644*** -0.547*** -0.003 -0.653***
(0.054) (0.101) (0.104) (0.008) (0.102) Access to electricity, yes=1, otherwise 0 0.108*** 0.221*** 0.205*** 0.022*** 0.183**
(0.026) (0.053) (0.064) (0.004) (0.056) Barisal 0.269*** 0.543*** 0.032*** 0.485*** (0.053) (0.114) (0.009) (0.117) Chittagong 0.521*** 1.071*** -0.084*** 1.163*** (0.054) (0.112) (0.010) (0.118) Dhaka 0.500*** 1.025*** 0.043*** 0.957*** (0.041) (0.086) (0.007) (0.090) Khulna 0.462*** 0.955*** -0.008 0.937*** (0.048) (0.100) (0.008) (0.101) Rajshahi 0.461*** 0.973*** 0.015* 0.939*** (0.047) (0.099) (0.008) (0.101) Rangpur 0.145*** 0.288*** -0.011 0.291*** (0.046) (0.100) (0.009) (0.101) Average number of community activities participated by villagers 0.052***
(0.003) Constant 1.251 5.207*** 2.481*** 0.125** 1.020 (0.832) (1.216) (0.814) (0.062) (0.844) Observations 7,686 7,686 7,686 7,686 7,686 7,686 R-squared 0.131 0.011 0.071 0.119 Log-likelihood -14455 Chi2 1106 Pseudo R2 0.0357
Weak ID test stat (Kleibergen-Paap rk Wald F) 413.300 Anderson-Rubin Wald chi2 test, p value 0.000 Endogeneity test, p value H0: Exogenous 0.017 Number of HH or community 3,843 318
Note: (1) The values in the parenthesis are robust standard errors (2) * significant at 10 percent, ** significant at 5 percent, *** significant at 1 percent
Let us begin the discussion by focusing on the results of the ordered probit regression presented in column 1 of Table 6.2. We can see that the coefficient on the empowerment
index and female dummy are both positive and statistically highly significant. This suggests that empowerment is a positive and significant determinant of life satisfaction. In other words, our findings suggest that individuals become happier when they have greater agency, control over resources, and capabilities to act upon one’s preference.
In addition our ordered probit results indicate that women seem happier, although in the raw data we found no significant difference in life satisfaction between genders. Thus once we control for a wide range of other correlates e.g. education, empowerment, employment; women are significantly happier than men. Intuitively we suggest that the positive changes that have occurred in respect of women’s status in Bangladesh over the past few decades contribute to women’s quality of life, which is reflected in our analysis. The significant gender difference in life satisfaction in rural Bangladesh is in line with the international literature on contented women (Clark, 1997).
The positive significant effect of empowerment on life satisfaction is robust to household and community fixed effects, implying that the relationship is not governed by any underlying household or community-related norms or unobserved factors. The significance and sign of the coefficient on the empowerment variable do not alter in the fixed effects model (column 3 and 4 in Table 6.2). However, the size of the coefficient on the empowerment index falls when we run the household fixed effects model (column 3). Nevertheless, the unchanged sign and significance of the coefficient on empowerment index effectively rules out any concern about the bias rooted in unobserved household or community level factors.
Next we move onto column 6 which represents the IV estimates of the determinants of the life satisfaction model, which we obtain for correcting the potential endogeneity bias that is likely to result from reverse causality. The first stage result (column 5) indicates that the instrument—average number of community activities the villagers participated in in the past 12 months—is significant and is positively related to the empowerment index. The test of endogeneity rejects (p value is 0.017) the null of exogeneity of empowerment index in life satisfaction model. The Anderson-Rubin 2
Chi test (p values is 0.000) and the Kleibergen- Paap F statistic (413.30) confirm that the empowerment index is not irrelevant and the instrument is not weak, respectively. In the second stage, empowerment index remains statistically significant and positive. The size of the coefficient on empowerment becomes larger in the second stage, which suggests that neglecting endogeneity may underestimate the true effect of empowerment.
With regard to the controls, we can see they operate as expected. Monthly expenditure seems to be a positive and statistically significant determinant of life satisfaction, which is consistent with a previous study on Bangladesh (Asadullah & Chaudhury, 2012). We have also found that education is a positive and significant determinant of individuals’ life satisfaction in rural Bangladesh. Our result therefore confirms that income is a significant determinant of life satisfaction in Bangladesh as in many other developing countries and contrary to many developed countries. The occurrence of a positive economic event seems to increase life satisfaction; while an inverse relationship can be seen in regard to negative shocks. The indicators of quality of living conditions–dwelling and access to electricity—have expected signs. Contrary to these, the result also shows that life satisfaction of individuals is significantly and negatively associated with health disability. Being in a female-headed household seems to be negatively associated with life satisfaction, possibly because in countries like Bangladesh these households are usually highly economically and socially marginalised.
Gender disaggregated analysis
We present gender wise estimates of the life satisfaction model in Table 6.3 and 6.4. The estimates presented in these Tables indicate that, in both the OLS and the ordered probit estimates, the empowerment index has a positive and significant impact on life satisfaction for both men and women. By comparing the ordered probit estimates of the effect of empowerment on life satisfaction, it is evident that the size of the effect is greater for men (1.572) than women (1.368). In the OLS models, we can also see that the coefficient on empowerment is lower for women (2.796 and 1.972) than for men (3.283 and 2.881). Turning to the IV estimates, some interesting results can be noticed. The instrument is significant for both women (0.071) (column 4 in Table 6.3) and men (0.039) (column 5 in Table 6.4), and the F-statistic on the excluded instrument is very large suggesting that our results are robust to the problem of a weak instrument. While women’s empowerment still appears to be a positive and statistically significant determinant of their life satisfaction in the second stage, this is not the case for men. Empowerment does not seem to have a significant effect on men’s life satisfaction, possibly because they are the primary decision-makers in patriarchal societies and hence usually not deprived of voice and say in the first place. Overall the gender disaggregated results suggest that women have higher conditional life satisfaction in Bangladesh than men. Women in rural areas lack both economic and social empowerment as they live in income poverty and they also lack a voice in key life events before as well as after
marriage. In these circumstances empowerment is less common and therefore, where it does exist, is likely to have a larger differential impact.
We will now turn to two extensions of our analysis. First, we analyse this relationship in a set of sub-samples to see if the result is robust across sub-samples. Second, we analyse the various sub-components of the empowerment index to see if a particular aspect of empowerment has a larger or more significant impact than others.
Subsample estimates
We consider the empowerment – life satisfaction relationship in three separate subsamples: economic (richest and poorest quartiles); religious (Muslim vs non-Muslim); and regional (integrated vs non-integrated regions14). Our results in Table 6.5 indicate that women have a higher conditional life satisfaction in all the sub-samples except for the two non-integrated regions. While women are happier than men in both the richest and poorest quartiles, the differential is larger in the poorest quartile. Thus, poorest women are happier than their male counterparts in comparison to richest women and their male counterparts. It might help to understand these results if we think of empowerment as being affected by external constraints (income in this case) and internal constraints (i.e. internal to the household). External empowerment is likely to be higher for prosperous households and internal (i.e. within the household) empowerment is likely to be higher for men. In this context, we might expect rich men to be the most empowered in rural Bangladesh (since they are externally empowered by prosperity and also empowered within their households by patriarchy). We might also expect poor women to be least empowered since they face a double disempowerment – that from poverty and also from being a woman. Men in poor households are disempowered externally through poverty but are not disempowered within their households.
Turning to the religious subsamples, we find that Non-Muslim women are happier than non- Muslim men and this differential is larger than that of the Muslim women and men. Finally, women in integrated regions are happier than men in these regions though there is no significant differential in LS in the non-integrated regions. This might well be because integrated regions benefit from better communication infrastructure and greater access to
14 By integrated regions, we refer to Dhaka, Chittagong and Sylhet divisions that are geographically well- connected with each other and include all major growth centres in the country. On the other hand, non-integrated divisions (i.e. Ranpur, Rajshahi, and Khulna divisions) are separated from rest of the country by major rivers which considerably increase transport cost and movement of goods and services.
market work which help to improve women’s mobility and opportunities for outside engagements in comparison to non-integrated regions.
Referring to the impact of empowerment across these sub-samples, we find that the extent of the effect on life satisfaction slightly varies between the poorest (1.321) and the richest (1.338) subsamples. Evidently empowerment has a differential impact on poorer households, possibly because empowerment makes up for some of the constraints placed by poverty on these households. Empowerment also has a larger impact amongst non-Muslims than Muslims and it has the largest regional impact in the non-integrated Northern region.
In sum, our results confirm that although the magnitude of the impact varies across sub- samples, empowerment has a positive and significant impact on life satisfaction whichever way we divide the sample.
Components of the empowerment indicator
Next we examine the relationship of the components of the empowerment indicator individually with life satisfaction. We do this in order to find out whether certain aspects of empowerment are more important than others in influencing life satisfaction. For this purpose, we add an interaction term between the components and the female dummy to the specification of Equation 6.1 and estimate only by ordered probit regression. The results are presented in Table 6.6.
From Table 6.6, we can see that not all indicators are significant in determining life satisfaction. Seven indicators e.g. 1 to 4, 6, 7 and 10 out of the 10 component indicators are significant and 3 are not significant at all. For individuals in agricultural households, life satisfaction seems to be positively associated with adequacy in: production decisions (i1), ability to act on own value (i2), ownership of assets (i3), input in asset transfer (i4), deciding expenditures (i6), membership in groups (i7), and having enough leisure (i10).
Now focusing on the sign of the coefficient on the interaction term, we can see that while empowerment always increases life satisfaction, there is some evidence that in some cases it has a smaller impact on the life satisfaction of women relative to men. For example, if women make decisions relating to agricultural production, then their life satisfaction increases by a smaller extent (0.218-0.178) compared with that of men who made these decisions (0.218). On the other hand, we can see that if women make decisions concerning the use of borrowed money (i5), they are significantly unhappy; whereas this has no impact on men’s life
satisfaction. Borrowing money literally implies that the household is in financial hardship and in such a situation it may be burdensome for women to decide upon how to spend the money. Based on this set of results, it may be said that women would be happier if someone else took decisions relating to borrowed money use. For most other sub-components of the empowerment index, there is no significant difference in the effect of the component on the life satisfaction of men and women.
6.5 Conclusion
In the previous chapters (4 and 5), we focused on the extrinsic importance of women’s empowerment in the context of well-being of other household members. In this chapter, we examine the intrinsic value of empowerment by estimating the relationship between empowerment and the subjective well-being of rural women in agricultural households of Bangladesh. As there is limited evidence of the nature and direction of the relationship between empowerment and the subjective well-being for developing countries, our study fills an important gap in the literature.
We are primarily interested in estimating the relationship because we want to examine whether or not empowerment brings additional burden, particularly for the women in agricultural households in rural Bangladesh. While estimating the relationship we address a few challenges that are inherent in this kind of research. One such challenge is the measurement of empowerment, which we have tackled by utilising a multidimensional composite index. We also address a methodological challenge relating to endogeneity rooted in reverse causality and in omitted unobserved household and communal norms. We correct for these problems by estimating our model with household and community fixed effects and by instrumental variables technique. We also estimate the relationship across a number of subsamples as a robustness check. Our analysis has consistently revealed the positive and significant impact of empowerment on life satisfaction, especially for women. By exploring the relationship across domains of empowerment we find that women’s empowerment specifically in agricultural production decision; in possession of assets; in buy, sale or transfer of asset; and in use of borrowed money explain the significant gender gap in life satisfaction. However if women have a say in agricultural production decisions and in use of borrowed money, they appear to be less satisfied than men. This is possibly because of the fact that men and women differ in drawing satisfaction from different domains of empowerment. We also find that empowerment is not a statistically significant determinant of men’s life satisfaction
perhaps because they do not face constraints and barriers that are culturally imposed on women.
To conclude, policy interventions that aim at improving empowerment and gender equality in society will have a positive and significant influence on the quality of life, especially of women in agricultural households.