Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Meghna Dutta
 -- 1418 2024-01-25 10:27:13 |
2 layout
Jessie Wu
 Meta information modification 1418 2024-01-29 01:50:40 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Ghatak, S.; Dutta, M. Economic Theories of Household Bargaining. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/54337 (accessed on 19 May 2024).
Ghatak S, Dutta M. Economic Theories of Household Bargaining. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/54337. Accessed May 19, 2024.
Ghatak, Subhasree, Meghna Dutta. "Economic Theories of Household Bargaining" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/54337 (accessed May 19, 2024).
Ghatak, S., & Dutta, M. (2024, January 25). Economic Theories of Household Bargaining. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/54337
Ghatak, Subhasree and Meghna Dutta. "Economic Theories of Household Bargaining." Encyclopedia. Web. 25 January, 2024.
Economic Theories of Household Bargaining
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/admsci13030082

Maternal and child health is severely impacted by adverse birth outcomes leading to a public health concern. A whole host of socioeconomic factors are instrumental in determining birth outcomes. Importantly, there is an intricate relationship between women’s autonomy, the perpetration of intimate partner violence in households, women’s paid work status and their consequent impact on birth outcomes.

adverse birth outcomes women’s autonomy intimate partner violence

1. Introduction

Women’s autonomy, as defined in academic literature, is derived from measures such as decision-making capacity in the household, freedom of mobility and financial stability. Such autonomy is thought to contribute towards a woman’s enhanced status in the household, and such women are more likely to be aware of and responsible for their reproductive healthcare needs (Bloom et al. 2001; Fikree and Pasha 2004). Thus, it is not surprising that the utilisation of maternal healthcare services and pregnancy care is found to be contingent upon the extent of autonomy that women enjoy (Ghosh and Ghosh 2020; Rizkianti et al. 2020). The potential importance of women’s autonomy in influencing their healthcare-seeking behaviour, particularly reproductive health, which can lead to adverse birth outcomes, is important from both an economic and developmental perspective. The prevalent gendered social and health disparities typically work across multiple socioeconomic levels; however, the constraints imposed by the partner are particularly critical for women’s reproductive autonomy and hence birth outcomes. While supportive partners tend to augment women’s health and well-being, non-supportive, controlling, or violent partners can impede it. When it comes to partner-related constraints on women’s reproductive autonomy, the focus of studies has largely been on the most severe limitations and outcomes, such as intimate partner violence (IPV), where worldwide, one in three women is known to experience IPV during their lives (WHO 2018). However, women’s autonomy–both economic as well as partner-related, are by and large studied in separate contextual frames, with little attention being given to analysing the interactive effect of partner-related constraints on women’s reproductive health and birth outcomes.
Adverse birth outcomes such as spontaneous abortion (generally referred to as a miscarriage), induced abortion, stillbirth, low birth weight (henceforth, LBW) and preterm birth (henceforth, PTB) are major threats to both maternal and child health. Apart from being a major cause of long-term morbidity and mortality for women (Yokoe et al. 2019), these have consequences for long-term growth, health, and developmental outcomes of the children too (Bailey 2010; Rao et al. 2016). Globally, a higher burden of adverse birth outcomes is borne by developing countries on account of their insufficient healthcare systems, flailing infrastructure and sociocultural norms (WHO 2018). Moreover, these pregnancy outcomes eventually snowball into public health problems which entail high healthcare costs for the household. In fact, LBW and PTB together contribute to being the leading causes of neonatal deaths in under-five mortality (Campbell et al. 1999; Beck et al. 2010; Sigalla et al. 2017) and characterise over 60% of births that take place in the middle and low- income countries (Frey and Klebanoff 2016; Dadi et al. 2020).
Adverse birth outcomes are contingent on a wide spectrum of alterable and non-alterable exposures. Sociodemographic factors such as maternal age, maternal nutrition, area of residence, educational status, experiences of health, abusive behaviours, and utilisation of maternal healthcare services play an instrumental role in determining the reproductive health of a woman, thereby leading to disparities in pregnancy outcomes. Some of the above sets of factors have been extensively dealt with in the literature (see Babu and Kar 2009; Dalal and Lindqvist 2012; Dhar et al. 2018; Silverman et al. 2019; Avanigadda and Kulasekaran 2021 for more on the impact of these factors). However, partner-related constraints such as perpetration of violence, reproductive coercion etc., that are likely to impact women’s health and birth outcomes have not been extensively dealt with, especially for countries like India where one in every three women is subjected to IPV (Krishnamoorthy et al. 2020). As a matter of fact, evidence from the National Family Health Survey-5 suggests that 32% of ever-married women aged between 18–49 years have lifetime experiences of IPV in India. Physical violence has the highest prevalence (28%), followed by emotional violence (14%) and sexual violence (6%). Women with lifetime experiences of IPV invariably report poor health outcomes, and cross-country analyses confirm that the prevalence of IPV and its strong impact on poor reproductive outcomes are observed across both high-income (Zorrilla et al. 2010; Costa et al. 2016) as well as low-income countries (Garcia-Moreno et al. 2005; Sarkar 2008; Pallitto et al. 2013) with disproportionately more adverse outcomes among the South Asian countries5.

2. Women’s Autonomy Linked to Their Power 

Existing literature provides evidence that women’s autonomy is intricately linked to their power and agency and plays an instrumental role in their reproductive health decisions (Bloom et al. 2001; Ram et al. 2022). This implies that there are increased chances for them to avert an adverse birth outcome. For women lacking reproductive autonomy, the risk of unsafe and self-managed pregnancies increases (Goemans et al. 2021). Whereas women exercising reproductive autonomy are able to access safe abortion services for mistimed or unwanted pregnancies (Pallitto et al. 2013). The lack of reproductive autonomy also has implications for sex-based coercive miscarriages. The chances of LBW and PTB are significantly reduced with access to maternal healthcare utilisation (Shome et al. 2018).
The documented evidence on the association between IPV and poor reproductive outcomes such as miscarriage and abortion at a global scale is robust (Garcia-Moreno et al. 2005; Sarkar 2008; Devries et al. 2014). Studies by Lee-Rife (2010) and Stephenson et al. (2016) on married Indian women concluded strong associations between IPV and abortion, whereas the study by Dhar et al. (2018) in Bihar, India, showed no significant association between IPV and abortion.
Bramhankar and Reshmi (2021) found that women exposed to physical violence by their spouses had greater chances of miscarriage on account of physical assault. Perinatal stress causes deregulations in the neuroendocrine, neural and immune systems, thereby disrupting biological mechanisms. The exposure to perinatal stress is heightened with incidences of intimate partner violence in an abusive environment. This in turn increases the chances of adverse birth outcomes, notably LBW and PTB. IPV induces restrictive foetal growth (Alemu et al. 2019; Rahman et al. 2021). Sigalla et al. (2017) found that women with previous adverse pregnancy outcomes such as miscarriages or abortions and with current experience of IPV have increased chances of LBW and PTB. This brief discussion of previous studies concludes that IPV invariably causes adverse birth outcomes.
The economic theories of household bargaining (Agarwal 1997) state that a woman’s autonomy in the household increases her bargaining power which has implications for intra-household dynamics. Being engaged in paid employment is one channel through which women exercise an increase in bargaining power within the household (Aizer 2010; Majlesi 2016). The extensive literature on the perpetration of IPV propounds that women who lack paid employment opportunities are at higher risk of domestic violence. (Occean et al. 2021; Rayhan and Akter 2021). Alternatively, paid employment should invariably reduce the chances of perpetration of IPV (Eswaran and Malhotra 2011). Studies in cross-country contexts have examined the association between IPV and women’s autonomy and have highlighted that engagement in paid work outside the household might be regarded as a violation of traditional gender roles and thus induce partner violence (Gracia et al. 2018; Sanawar et al. 2018; Islam et al. 2021; Dhanaraj and Mahambare 2021). This is indicative of the fact that increased economic opportunities for women outside the household might not necessarily prevent them from IPV. In certain instances, women themselves defend the IPV inflicted on them (Islam et al. 2021; Dhanaraj and Mahambare 2021). The impact of women’s involvement in paid work on birth outcomes has also been previously studied. Studies have concluded that financial autonomy, which is brought about by a paid work status, increases access to safe abortion services, while certain kinds of occupational exposures might lead to an increase in the chances of a miscarriage (Kant et al. 2015; Dhar et al. 2018; Kumar et al. 2019).
Based on a brief discussion of the extensive literature that traces the socioeconomic determinants of adverse birth outcomes, this research tries to culminate the possible causes that contribute towards adverse birth outcomes that, in turn, are gradually magnifying as a public health problem. Since none of the factors can be singularly traced for their impact on maternal and child health, it necessitates the need to account for multiple factors and their interactive effects in determining health outcomes. This research takes into account women’s perception towards IPV as a measure of autonomy to further interrogate its impact on birth outcomes. The effect that a woman’s paid work status in interaction with the perpetration of IPV has on birth outcomes will also be studied.

References

  1. Bloom, Shelah S., David Wypij, and Monica Das Gupta. 2001. Dimensions of women’s autonomy and the influence on maternal health care utilization in a north Indian city. Demography 38: 67–78.
  2. Fikree, Fariyal F., and Omrana Pasha. 2004. Role of gender in health disparity: The South Asian context. BMJ (Clinical Research ed.) 328: 823–26.
  3. Ghosh, Arabinda, and Rohini Ghosh. 2020. Maternal health care in India: A reflection of 10 years of National Health Mission on the Indian maternal health scenario. Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare: Official Journal of the Swedish Association of Midwives 25: 100530.
  4. Rizkianti, Anissa, Tin Afifah, Ika Saptarini, and Mukhammad Fajar Rakhmadi. 2020. Women’s decision-making autonomy in the household and the use of maternal health services: An Indonesian case study. Midwifery 90: 102816.
  5. World Health Organization WHO. 2018. Global, Regional and National Estimates for Intimate Partner Violence against Women and Global and Regional Estimates for Non-Partner Sexual Violence against Women. UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP) for the United Nations Inter-Agency Working Group on Violence Against Women Estimation and Data. Geneva: World Health Organization.
  6. Yokoe, Ryo, Rachel Rowe, Saswati Sanyal Choudhury, Anjali Rani, Farzana Zahir, and Manisha Nair. 2019. Unsafe abortion and abortion-related death among 1.8 million women in India. BMJ Global Health 4: e001491.
  7. Bailey, Beth A. 2010. Partner violence during pregnancy: Prevalence, effects, screening, and management. International Journal of Women’s Health 2: 183–97.
  8. Rao, Deepa, Shuba Kumar, Rani Mohanraj, Sarah Frey, Lisa E. Manhart, and L. Debra Kaysen. 2016. The impact of domestic violence and depressive symptoms on preterm birth in South India. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 51: 225–32.
  9. Campbell, Jacquelyn, Sara Torres, Josephine Ryan, Christine King, Doris W. Campbell, Rebecca Y. Stallings, and Sandra C. Fuchs. 1999. Physical and nonphysical partner abuse and other risk factors for low birth weight among full term and preterm babies: A multi-ethnic case-control study. American Journal of Epidemiology 150: 714–26.
  10. Beck, Stacy, Daniel Wojdyla, Lale Say, Ana Pilar Betran, Mario Merialdi, Jennifer Harris Requejo, Craig Rubens, Ramkumar Menon, and Paul F. A. Van Look. 2010. The worldwide incidence of preterm birth: A systematic review of maternal mortality and morbidity. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 88: 31–38.
  11. Sigalla, Geofrey N., Declare Mushi, Dan Wolf Meyrowitsch, Rachel Manongi, Jane Januarius Rogathi, Tine Gammeltoft, and Vibeke Rasch. 2017. Intimate partner violence during pregnancy and its association with preterm birth and low birth weight in Tanzania: A prospective cohort study. PLoS ONE 12: e0172540.
  12. Frey, Heather A., and Mark A. Klebanoff. 2016. The epidemiology, etiology, and costs of preterm birth. Seminars in Fetal and Neonatal Medicine 21: 68–73.
  13. Dadi, Abel Fekadu, Emma R. Miller, Telake Azale Bisetegn, and Lillian Mwanri. 2020. Global burden of antenatal depression and its association with adverse birth outcomes: An umbrella review. BMC Public Health 20: 1–16.
  14. Babu, Bontha V., and Shantanu K. Kar. 2009. Domestic violence against women in eastern India: A population-based study on prevalence and related issues. BMC Public Health 9: 129.
  15. Dalal, Koustuv, and Kent Lindqvist. 2012. A national study of the prevalence and correlates of domestic violence among women in India. Asia-Pacific Journal of Public Health 24: 265–77.
  16. Dhar, Diva, Lotus McDougal, Katherine Hay, Yamini Atmavilas, Jay Silverman, Daniel Triplett, and Anita Raj. 2018. Associations between intimate partner violence and reproductive and maternal health outcomes in Bihar, India: A cross-sectional study. Reproductive Health 15: 109.
  17. Silverman, Jay G., Sabrina C. Boyce, Nabamallika Dehingia, Namratha Rao, Dharmoo Chandurkar, Priya Nanda, Katherine Hay, Yamini Atmavilas, Niranjan Saggurti, and Anita Raj. 2019. Reproductive coercion in Uttar Pradesh, India: Prevalence and associations with partner violence and reproductive health. SSM–Population Health 9: 100484.
  18. Avanigadda, Durga B., and Ravisankar A. Kulasekaran. 2021. Associations between intimate partner violence and pregnancy complications: A cross-sectional study in India. Journal of Family and Community Medicine 28: 17–27.
  19. Krishnamoorthy, Yuvaraj, Karthika Ganesh, and Karthiga Vijayakumar. 2020. Physical, emotional and sexual violence faced by spouses in India: Evidence on determinants and help-seeking behaviour from a nationally representative survey. Journal Epidemiology and Community Health 74: 732–40.
  20. Zorrilla, Belen, Marisa Pires, Luisa Lasheras, Consuelo Morant, Luis Seoane, Luis M. Sanchez, Maria Durbán, Iñaki Galán, Ramón Aguirre, and Rosa Ramírez. 2010. Intimate partner violence: Last year prevalence and association with socio-economic factors among women in Madrid, Spain. European Journal of Public Health 20: 169–75.
  21. Costa, Diogo, E. Hatzidimitriadou, E. Ioannidi-Kapolou, J. Lindert, Joaquim J. Soares, Örjan Sundin, and H. Barros. 2016. Male and female physical intimate partner violence and socio-economic position: A cross-sectional international multicentre study in Europe. Public Health 139: 44–52.
  22. Garcia-Moreno, Claudia, H. A. F. M. Jansen, Mary Ellsberg, Lori Heise, and Charlotte Watts. 2005. WHO Multi-Country Study on Women’s Health and Domestic Violence against Women: Report on the First Results. Geneva: World Health Organization, pp. 55–89.
  23. Sarkar, N. N. 2008. The impact of intimate partner violence on women’s reproductive health and pregnancy outcome. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 28: 266–71.
  24. Pallitto, Christina C., Claudia García-Moreno, Henrica A. Jansen, Lori Heise, Mary Ellsberg, and Charlotte Watts. 2013. Intimate partner violence, abortion, and unintended pregnancy: Results from the WHO Multi-country Study on Women’s Health and Domestic Violence. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 120: 3–9.
  25. Ram, Rajan, Manish Kumar, and Nutan Kumari. 2022. Association between women’s autonomy and unintended pregnancy in India. Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health 15: 101060.
  26. Goemans, Sophie L., Abhishek Singh, Ajit Kumar Yadav, Lotus McDougal, Anita Raj, and Sarah H. Averbach. 2021. The association between intimate partner violence and recent self-managed abortion in India. AJOG Global Reports 1: 100029.
  27. Shome, Suparna, Manoranjan Pal, and Premananda Bharati. 2018. Influence of maternal autonomy and socioeconomic factors on birth weight of infants in India. Malaysian Journal of Nutrition 24: 35–46.
  28. Devries, Karen M., Jennifer C. Child, Loraine J. Bacchus, Joelle Mak, Gail Falder, Kathryn Graham, Charlotte Watts, and Lori Heise. 2014. Intimate partner violence victimization and alcohol consumption in women: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Addiction 109: 379–91.
  29. Lee-Rife, Susan M. 2010. Women’s empowerment and reproductive experiences over the life course. Social Science and Medicine 71: 634–42.
  30. Stephenson, Rob, Apoorva Jadhav, Amy Winter, and Michelle Hindin. 2016. Domestic violence and abortion among rural women in four Indian states. Violence Against Women 22: 1642–58.
  31. Bramhankar, Mahadev, and R. S. Reshmi. 2021. Spousal violence against women and its consequences on pregnancy outcomes and reproductive health of women in India. BMC Women’s Health 21: 1–9.
  32. Alemu, Abebe, Mulatu Abageda, Biruk Assefa, and Getnet Melaku. 2019. Low birth weight: Prevalence and associated factors among newborns at hospitals in Kambata-Tembaro zone, southern Ethiopia 2018. Pan African Medical Journal 34.
  33. Rahman, Mostafizur, Helal Uddin, Lutfun Nahar Lata, and Jalal Uddin. 2021. Associations of forms of intimate partner violence with low birth weight in India: Findings from a population-based Survey. The Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine 35: 7972–7979.
  34. Agarwal, Bina. 1997. “Bargaining’’ and Gender Relations: Within and Beyond the Household. Feminist Economics 3: 1–51.
  35. Aizer, Anna. 2010. The Gender Wage Gap and Domestic Violence. The American Economic Review 100: 1847–59.
  36. Majlesi, Kaveh. 2016. Labor market opportunities and women’s decision making power within households. Journal of Development Economics 119: 34–47.
  37. Occean, James R., Nicholas Thomas, Andrew C. Lim, Sharonda M. Lovett, Abimbola Michael-Asalu, and Abraham A. Salinas-Miranda. 2021. Prevalence and Factors Associated with Intimate Partner Violence Among Women in Haiti: Understanding Household, Individual, Partner, and Relationship Characteristics. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 36: 11356–84.
  38. Rayhan, Istihak, and Khaleda Akter. 2021. Prevalence and associated factors of intimate partner violence (IPV) against women in Bangladesh amid COVID-19 pandemic. Heliyon 7: e06619.
  39. Eswaran, Mukesh, and Nisha Malhotra. 2011. Domestic violence and women’s autonomy in developing countries: Theory and evidence. Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue Canadienne D’économique 44: 1222–63.
  40. Gracia, Enrique, Antonio López-Quílez, Miriam Marco, and Marisol Lila. 2018. Neighborhood characteristics and violence behind closed doors: The spatial overlap of child maltreatment and intimate partner violence. PLoS ONE 13: e0198684.
  41. Sanawar, Saifa Binte, Mohammad Amirul Islam, Shankar Majumder, and Farjana Misu. 2018. Women’s Empowerment and Intimate Partner Violence in Bangladesh: Investigating the complex relationship. Journal of Biosocial Science 51: 188–202.
  42. Islam, Mansura, Md Sabbir Ahmed, and Sabuj Kanti Mistry. 2021. Factors associated with women’s approval on intimate partner violence in Bangladesh: A cross-sectional analysis of latest demographic and health survey 2017–2018. Heliyon 7: e08582.
  43. Dhanaraj, Sowmya, and Vidya Mahambare. 2021. Male Backlash and Female Guilt: Women’s Employment and Intimate Partner Violence in Urban India. Feminist Economics 28: 170–98.
  44. Kant, Shashi, Rahul Srivastava, Sanjay Kumar Rai, Puneet Misra, Lena Charlette, and Chandrakant S. Pandav. 2015. Induced abortion in villages of Ballabgarh HDSS: Rates, trends, causes and determinants. Reproductive Health 12: 1–7.
  45. Kumar, Sunil, Anupama Sharma, and Chaoba Kshetrimayum. 2019. Environmental and occupational exposure and female reproductive dysfunction. The Indian Journal of Medical Research 150: 532–45.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Economics
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Subhasree Ghatak
,
Meghna Dutta
View Times: 157
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 29 Jan 2024
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Feedback