Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-wdhn8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-16T22:01:33.443Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of spouses on household decision making under risk: an experiment in rural China

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Fredrik Carlsson ,
Peter Martinsson ,
Ping Qin  and
Matthias Sutter
Fredrik Carlsson
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Gothenburg, Box 640, 40530 Gothenburg, Sweden
Peter Martinsson
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Gothenburg, Box 640, 40530 Gothenburg, Sweden
Ping Qin
Affiliation:
School of Economics, Renmin University of China, 100872 Beijing, China
Matthias Sutter*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Gothenburg, Box 640, 40530 Gothenburg, Sweden Department of Public Finance, University of Innsbruck, Universitaetsstrasse 15, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria
*
e-mail: matthias.sutter@uibk.ac.at
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We study household decision making in a high-stakes experiment with a random sample of households in rural China. Spouses have to choose between risky lotteries, first separately and then jointly. We find that spouses’ individual risk preferences are more similar the richer the household and the higher the wife’s relative income contribution. A couple’s joint decision is typically very similar to the husband’s preferences, but women who contribute relatively more to the household income, women in high-income households, and women with communist party membership have a stronger influence on the joint decision.

Keywords

Household decision makingRiskExperiment in the fieldChina

JEL classification

D10: General C91: Laboratory, Individual Behavior C93: Field Experiments C92: Laboratory, Group Behavior
Type
Original Paper
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , September 2013 , pp. 383 - 401
Copyright
Copyright © 2012 Economic Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

We have received valuable comments from four anonymous referees, the editor (Jordi Brandts), and Francisco Alpizar, Dinky Daruvala, Jintao Xu, and seminar participants at the University of Gothenburg. Financial support from Sida to the Environmental Economics Unit at the University of Gothenburg is gratefully acknowledged.

References

Abdellaoui, M., & L’Haridon, O. Paraschiv, C. (2011). Individual vs. collective behaviour: an experimental investigation of risk and time preferences in couple. Working Paper at Group HEC, France.Google Scholar
Ashraf, N. (2009). Spousal control and intra-household decision making: an experimental study in the Philippines. American Economic Review, 99, 1245–1277. 10.1257/aer.99.4.1245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, R. J., Laury, S. K., & Williams, A. W. (2008). Comparing group and individual behavior in lottery-choice experiments. Southern Economic Journal, 75, 367–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateman, I., & Munro, A. (2005). An experiment on risky choice amongst households. Economic Journal, 115, C176–C189. 10.1111/j.0013-0133.2005.00986.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bone, J. (1998). Risk-sharing CARA individuals are collectively EU. Economics Letters, 58, 311–317. 10.1016/S0165-1765(97)00285-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bone, J., Hey, J., & Suckling, J. (1999). Are groups more (or less) consistent than individuals?. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 8, 63–81. 10.1023/A:1007764411446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bone, J., Hey, J., & Suckling, J. (2004). A simple risk-sharing experiment. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 28, 23–38. 10.1023/B:RISK.0000009434.18807.bdCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlsson, F., He, H., Martinsson, P., & Qin, P. Sutter, M. (2012). Household decision making in rural China. Using experiments on intertemporal choice to estimate the relative influence of spouses. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2012.08.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croson, R., & Gneezy, U. (2009). Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature, 47, 1–27. 10.1257/jel.47.2.448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Palma, A., Picard, N., & Ziegelmeyer, A. (2011). Individual and couple decision behavior under risk: evidence on the dynamics of power balance. Theory and Decisions, 70(1), 45–64. 10.1007/s11238-009-9179-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., Sunde, U., Schupp, J., & Wagner, G. G. (2011). Individual risk attitudes: measurement, determinants and behavioral consequences. Journal of the European Economic Association, 9, 522–550. 10.1111/j.1542-4774.2011.01015.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duflo, E. (2003). Grandmothers and granddaughters: old age pension and intra-household allocation in South Africa. World Bank Economic Review, 17, 1–25. 10.1093/wber/lhg013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eliaz, K., Raj, D., & Razin, R. (2006). Choice shifts in groups: a decision-theoretic basis. American Economic Review, 96, 1321–1332. 10.1257/aer.96.4.1321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guo, Z. L., & Bernstein, T. P. (2004). The impact of election on the village structure of power: the relation between village committees and the party branches. Journal of Contemporary China, 13, 257–275. 10.1080/1067056042000211898Google Scholar
Hannum, E. (2005). Market transition, educational disparities, and family strategies in rural China: new evidence on gender stratification and development. Demography, 42, 275–299. 10.1353/dem.2005.0014CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harrison, G. W., Morten, I. L., & Rutström, E. E. Tarazona-Gómez, M. (2005). Preferences over social risk. Unpublished Manuscript.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
He, H., Martinsson, P., & Sutter, M. (2012). Group decision making under risk: An experiment with student couples. Economics Letters, 117, 691–693. 10.1016/j.econlet.2011.12.081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, C. A., & Laury, S. K. (2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects. American Economic Review, 92, 1644–1655. 10.1257/000282802762024700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kachelmeier, S., & Shehata, M. (1992). Examining risk preferences under high monetary incentives: experimental evidence from the People’s Republic of China. American Economic Review, 82, 1120–1141.Google Scholar
Lundberg, S., Pollak, R. A., & Wales, T. J. (1997). Do husbands and wives pool their resources? Evidence from the U.K. child benefit. Journal of Human Resources, 22, 463–480. 10.2307/146179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lundberg, S., & Pollak, R. A. (1996). Bargaining and distribution in marriage. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10(4), 139–158. 10.1257/jep.10.4.139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masclet, D., Colombier, N., Denant-Boemont, L., & Loheac, Y. (2009). Group and individual risk preferences: a lottery-choice experiment with self-employed and salaried workers. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 70, 470–484. 10.1016/j.jebo.2007.11.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazzocco, M. (2004). Savings, risk sharing and preferences for risk. American Economic Review, 94, 1169–1182. 10.1257/0002828042002516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NBS. (2008). China statistical yearbooks, Beijing: China Statistical Publishing House.Google Scholar
Peters, E. A., Ünür, S., Clark, J., & Schulze, W. D. (2004). Free-riding and the provision of public goods in the family: a laboratory experiment. International Economic Review, 45, 283–299. 10.1111/j.1468-2354.2004.00126.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phipps, S., & Burton, P. (1998). What’s mine is yours? The influence of male and female income on pattern of household expenditure. Economica, 65, 599–613. 10.1111/1468-0335.00148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qian, N. (2008). Missing women and the price of tea in China: the effect of sex-specific earnings on sex imbalance. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123, 1251–1285. 10.1162/qjec.2008.123.3.1251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rockenbach, B., Sadrich, A., & Mathauschek, B. (2007). Teams take the better risks. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 63, 412–442. 10.1016/j.jebo.2005.04.023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shupp, R. S., & Williams, A. W. (2008). Risk preference differentials of small groups and individuals. Economic Journal, 118, 258–283. 10.1111/j.1468-0297.2007.02112.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanaka, T., Camerer, C. F., & Nguyen, Q. (2010). Risk and time preferences: experimental and household survey data from Vietnam. American Economic Review, 100, 557–571. 10.1257/aer.100.1.557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, D. (1994). Like father, like son: like mother, like daughter: parental resources and child height. Journal of Human Resources, 29, 950–988. 10.2307/146131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermeulen, F. (2002). Collective household models: principles and main results. Journal of Economic Surveys, 16(4), 533–564. 10.1111/1467-6419.00177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, J., & Casari, M. (2011). How groups reach agreement in risky choices: an experiment. Economic Inquiry, 50(2), 502–515. 10.1111/j.1465-7295.2010.00362.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar