DHS COMPARATIVE

REPORTS 20

Understanding Women’s Empowerment: 

A Comparative Analysis of Demographic

and Health Surveys (DHS) Data

OCTOBER 2008

This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by 

Sunita Kishor of Macro International Inc. and Lekha Subaiya of the Institute for Social and Economic Change.
MEASURE DHS assists countries worldwide in the collection and use of data to monitor and evaluate 

population, health, and nutrition programs. Additional information about the MEASURE DHS project can 

be obtained by contacting Macro International Inc., Demographic and Health Research Division, 11785 

Beltsville Drive, Suite 300, Calverton, MD 20705 (telephone: 301-572-0200; fax: 301-572-0999; e-mail: 

reports@macrointernational.com; internet: www.measuredhs.com).

The main objectives of the MEASURE DHS project are: 

to provide decisionmakers in survey countries with information useful for informed policy 

choices; 

to expand the international population and health database; 

to advance survey methodology; and 

to develop in participating countries the skills and resources necessary to conduct high-quality 

demographic and health surveys.
DHS Comparative Reports No. 20

Understanding Women’s Empowerment:

A Comparative Analysis of Demographic 

and Health Surveys (DHS) Data

Sunita Kishor

Lekha Subaiya

Macro International Inc.

Calverton, Maryland, USA

October 2008
Editor: Debbie Berlyne

Document Production: Betty Olmeda

This study was carried out with support provided by the United States Agency for International 

Development (USAID) through the MEASURE DHS project (#GPO-C-00-03-00002-00). The views 

expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States 

Government.

Recommended citation:

Kishor, Sunita, and Lekha Subaiya. 2008. Understanding Women’s Empowerment: A Comparative 

Analysis of Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) Data. DHS Comparative Reports No. 20. Calverton, 

Maryland, USA: Macro International Inc.
iii

Contents

Tables v

Figures ix

Preface xi

Acknowledgements xiii

Executive Summary xv

1 Introduction 1

1.1 The Challenge of Operationalizing Women‘s Empowerment 2

1.2 Gender and Women‘s Empowerment in the DHS Surveys 3

1.3 Data 5

1.4 Descriptive Information for Countries and Women Included in This Report 7

1.5 Organization of the Report 13

2 Women‘s Participation in Household Decisions 15

2.1 Comparing Women‘s Participation in Household Decisionmaking across Countries 16

2.2 Correlates of Women‘s Decisionmaking Alone and Joint Decisionmaking 19

2.2A Dependent and Independent Variables 20

2.2B Discussion of Results 21

2.3 Any Type of Participation in Decisionmaking 39

2.4 Conclusions 41

3 Gender Roles 89

3.1 Introduction 89

3.1A Dependent Variables 90

3.1B Independent Variables 91

3.2A Agreement That Husbands Have a Right to Beat Their Wives across Countries 93

3.2B Correlates of Agreement with Justifications for Wife Beating, by Reason 97

3.3A Women‘s Agreement That a Wife Has the Right to Refuse Sex with Her Husband 

across Countries 110

3.3B Correlates of Women‘s Agreement with a Wife‘s Right to Refuse Sex with Her 

Husband 114

3.4 Correlates of Summary Indicators of Gender-role Attitudes 126

3.5 Conclusions 132

4 Summary and Conclusions 189

4.1A Net Effects of Sources of and Setting for Empowerment Variables on Women‘s 

Participation in Decisionmaking 189

4.1B Net Effects of Sources of and Setting for Empowerment Variables on Women‘s 

Gender-role Attitudes 194

4.1C Net Effects of Sources of and Setting for Empowerment Variables on Summary 

Evidence of Empowerment Indicators 198

4.2 Conclusions 200

References 203

v

Tables

Table 1.1 Countries, dates of fieldwork, and sample sizes for all DHS surveys 

included in this report and associated development indicators by 

country 6

Table 1.2 Percent distribution of currently married women by selected 

background characteristics and percentage by selected characteristics 8

Table 1.3 Country rankings for selected sources of empowerment and setting for 

empowerment indicators 13

Table 2.1 Percent distribution of currently married women according to their 

decisionmaking pattern, by decision and country 17

Summary Table 2A Number of countries where decisionmaking alone and decisionmaking 

jointly with the woman's husband or others has an association of the 

specified type with the respondent's age and number of children ever 

born: Results of bivariate analysis and analysis with controls 22

Summary Table 2B Number of countries where decisionmaking alone and decisionmaking 

jointly with the woman's husband or others has an association of the 

specified type with the respondent's education level, employment for 

cash, and media exposure: Results of bivariate analysis and analysis 

with controls 24

Summary Table 2C Number of countries where decisionmaking alone and decisionmaking 

jointly with the woman's husband or others has an association of the 

specified type with the respondent's age at first marriage and spousal 

age difference: Results of bivariate analysis and analysis with controls 30

Summary Table 2D Number of countries where decisionmaking alone and decisionmaking 

jointly with the woman's husband or others has an association of the 

specified type with the husband's coresidence and with the respondent's 

residence in an extended family: Results of bivariate analysis and 

analysis with controls 32

Summary Table 2E Number of countries where decisionmaking alone and decisionmaking 

jointly with husband or others has an association of the specified type 

with area of residence, the wealth index, and community controls: 

Results of bivariate analysis (except for community controls) and 

analysis with controls 34

Summary Table 2F Number of countries where each variable has the specified relationship 

(based on logistic regression analysis) with the likelihood that women 

will participate in decisionmaking (alone or jointly), by type of 

decision 40

Appendix Table 2A.1-23 Percentage of currently married women who make decisions by 

themselves and who make decisions jointly, by background 

characteristic: Country 42

Appendix Table 2B.1-23 Odds ratios (estimated using logistic regression) for correlates of the 

likelihood that a currently married woman will participate in making a 

specific decision: Country 65

Table 3.1 Percentage of currently married women who agree that a husband is 

justified in beating his wife for the specified reasons 94

Summary Table 3A Number of countries where agreement with the specified justification 

for wife beating has an association of the specified type with the 

respondent's age and number of children ever born: Results of bivariate 

analysis and analysis with controls 98
vi

Summary Table 3B Number of countries where agreement with the specified justification 

for wife beating has an association of the specified type with the 

respondent's education level, employment for cash, and media 

exposure: Results of bivariate analysis and analysis with controls 100

Summary Table 3C Number of countries where agreement with the specified justification 

for wife beating has an association of the specified type with the 

respondent's age at first marriage and spousal age difference: Results 

of bivariate analysis and analysis with controls 103

Summary Table 3D Number of countries where agreement with the specified justification 

for wife beating has an association of the specified type with the 

respondent' s area of residence, residence in an extended family, wealth 

index, and community controls: Results of bivariate analysis (except 

for community controls) and analysis with controls 106

Table 3.2 Percentage of currently married women who agree that a wife is 

justified in refusing to have sex with her husband for the specified 

reasons, by reason 111

Summary Table 3E Number of countries where agreement with the specified justification 

for a wife's refusal to have sex with her husband has an association of 

the specified type with the respondent's age and number of children 

ever born: Results of bivariate analysis and analysis with controls 115

Summary Table 3F Number of countries where agreement with the specified justification 

for a wife's refusal to have sex with her husband has an association of 

the specified type with the respondent's education level, employment

for cash, and media exposure: Results of bivariate analysis and analysis 

with controls 117

Summary Table 3G Number of countries where agreement with the specified justification 

for a wife's refusal to have sex with her husband has an association of 

the specified type with the respondent's age at first marriage and 

spousal age difference: Results of bivariate analysis and analysis with 

controls 120

Summary Table 3H Number of countries where agreement with the specified justification 

for a wife's refusal to have sex with her husband has an association of 

the specified type with the respondent's area of residence, residence in 

an extended family, wealth index, and community controls: Results of 

bivariate analysis (except for community controls) and analysis with 

controls 122

Summary Table 3I Number of countries where each variable has the specified relationship 

with women's disagreement with all five of the specified reasons 

justifying wife beating and agreement with all four of the specified 

reasons justifying a wife's refusal to have sex with her husband:

Results of analysis with controls 127

Appendix Table 3A.1-23 Percentage of currently married women who agree that a husband is 

justified in beating his wife for the specified reason, by background 

characteristics, and odds ratios (estimated using multivariable logistic 

regression): Country 135

Appendix Table 3B.1-23 Percentage of currently married women who agree that a wife is 

justified in refusing to have sex with her husband for the specified 

reason, by background characteristics, and odds ratios (estimated using 

multivariable logistic regression): Country 159
vii

Appendix Table 3C Percentage of currently married women who disagree with all five 

specified reasons justifying wife beating and odds ratios (estimated 

using multivariable logistic regression), by background characteristics, 

according to country 179

Appendix Table 3D Percentage of currently married women who agree with all of the four 

specified reasons justifying a wife's refusal to have sex with her 

husband and odds ratios (estimated using multivariable logistic 

regression), by background characteristics, according to country 184

Table 4A Sums of scores based on logistic regression results for the relationship 

between type of decisionmaking (alone or joint) and the sources of 

empowerment and setting for empowerment variables, by decision and 

for all decisions, and for all countries and by region 191

Table 4B Sums of scores based on logistic regression results for the relationship 

between the two gender-role attitude indicators (agreement that wife 

beating is justified and agreement that a woman has a right to refuse 

sex with her husband) and the sources of empowerment and setting for 

empowerment variables, by justification and for all justifications, and 

for all countries and by region 196

Table 4C Sums of scores based on logistic regression results for the relationship 

between any participation in decisionmaking (alone or joint) and the 

sources of empowerment and setting for empowerment variables, and 

between the two gender-role attitude indicators (disagreement with 

wife beating for any specificied reason and agreement that a woman 

has a right to refuse sex with her husband for each specified reason) 

and the sources of empowerment and setting for empowerment 

variables 199

ix

Figures

Figure 2.1 Average percentage of currently married women making decisions 

alone, by type of decision according to region 19

Figure 2.2 Number of countries by the direction of change in the relationship 

between decisionmaking (alone and joint) and education level between 

the bivariate and multivariate analyses according to type of decision 25

Figure 2.3 Countries according to the direction and significance of the 

relationship of education with decisionmaking alone and 

decisionmaking jointly based on logistic regression results 27

Figure 2.4 Countries by direction of the significant relationship of regular media 

exposure with decisionmaking alone and joint decisionmaking based 

on logistic regression results 29

Figure 2.5 Countries by direction of the significant relationship between the 

wealth index and decisionmaking, alone and joint, based on logistic 

regression results 35

Figure 2.6 Countries by direction of the significant relationship between 

community-level variables and decisionmaking alone and jointly,

based on logistic regression results 38

Figure 3.1 Percentage of women who agree with none of the five specified 

reasons justifying a husband beating his wife: Ranges and means by 

region and for all countries 94

Figure 3.2 Percentage of women who agree with each reason justifying a husband 

beating his wife, by reason according to region: Ranges and means 96

Figure 3.3 Countries where only women with secondary or higher education are 

less likely to agree that wife beating is justified, based on logistic 

regression results 101

Figure 3.4 Countries where age at first marriage is negatively or nonlinearly 

associated with agreement with justifications for wife beating, based 

on logistic regression results 104

Figure 3.5 Countries where the relationship between living in an extended family 

and agreement with specific reasons justifying wife beating is 

significant, by type of relationship and reason for wife beating, based 

on logistic regression results 107

Figure 3.6 Countries by relationship between wealth and women‘s agreement that 

specific reasons justify wife beating based on the logistic regression 

results 111

Figure 3.7 Percentage of women who agree with all four specified reasons 

justifying a wife‘s refusal to have sex with her husband: Ranges and 

means by region and for all countries 112

Figure 3.8 Percentage of women who agree with specified reasons justifying a 

wife‘s refusal of sex with her husband, by reason, according to region: 

Ranges and means 113

Figure 3.9 Countries where a positive relationship exists between education level 

and agreement that a wife has the right to refuse sex with her husband, 

by reason, based on logistic regression results 118

Figure 3.10 Countries where a significant relationship exists between spousal age 

difference and agreement that a wife has a right to refuse sex with her 

husband, by reason, based on logistic regression results 121
x

Figure 3.11 Countries according to the association between household wealth and 

agreement that a woman has a right to refuse sex with her husband for 

specified reasons, based on logistic regression results 124

Figure 3.12 Countries according to association between community-level variables 

and acceptance of wives‘ right to refuse sex with their husbands, based 

on results from multivariate logistic regression 125
xi

Preface

One of the most significant contributions of the MEASURE DHS program is the creation of an 

internationally comparable body of data on the demographic and health characteristics of populations in 

developing countries. The DHS Comparative Reports series examines these data across countries in a 

comparative framework. The DHS Analytical Studies series focuses on specific topics. The principal 

objectives of both series are to provide information for policy formulation at the international level and to 

examine individual country results in an international context. Whereas Comparative Reports are 

primarily descriptive, Analytical Studies have a more analytical approach.

The Comparative Reports series covers a variable number of countries, depending on the availability of data sets. Where possible, data from previous DHS surveys are used to evaluate trends over 

time. Each report provides detailed tables and graphs organized by region. Survey-related issues such as 

questionnaire comparability, survey procedures, data quality, and methodological approaches are addressed as needed.

The topics covered in Comparative Reports are selected by MEASURE DHS staff in conjunction 

with the U.S. Agency for International Development. Some reports are updates of previously published 

reports.

It is anticipated that the availability of comparable information for a large number of developing 

countries will enhance the understanding of important issues in the fields of international population and 

health by analysts and policymakers.

Ann Way

Project Director

xiii

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Mohammed Ayad for his insightful comments and Yuan Gu for her 

painstaking review of the numbers.

xv

Executive Summary

This report examines the distribution and correlates of two different dimensions of the 

empowerment of currently married women age 15-49 in 23 developing countries. These dimensions are 

women‘s participation in household decisionmaking and their attitudes regarding specific inequalities in 

gender roles. 

In all, this study examines 12 indicators for women‘s participation in decisionmaking 

(decisiomaking alone, jointly with the husband and/or someone else, and any participation (alone or joint) 

in decisions about women‘s health care, large household purchases, household purchases for daily needs, 

and visits to family or friends) and 11 indicators for two different sets of women‘s gender-role attitudes. 

The first set of gender-role attitudes is women‘s agreement that wife beating is justified for the following 

reasons: when a woman goes out without telling her husband, when she neglects her children, when she 

argues with her husband, when she refuses to have sex with her husband, and when she burns the food, as 

well as women‘s disagreement with all five of these reasons for wife beating. The second set of genderrole attitudes is women‘s agreement that a woman is justified in refusing to have sex with her husband for 

the following reasons: if she knows that her husband has a sexually transmitted disease, if she knows that 

her husband has sex with other women, if she has recently given birth, and if she is tired or not in the 

mood, as well as women‘s agreement with all four of these reasons. All 23 indicators are studied using 

data from 23 developing countries—13 in sub-Saharan Africa, 3 in North Africa/West Asia/Europe, 4 in 

Asia, and 3 in Latin America and the Caribbean. 

The main goals of the analysis are to a) compare women‘s levels of empowerment across these 

countries; b) better understand which factors enhance women‘s household decisionmaking and promote 

egalitarian gender-role attitudes; c) determine whether the different measures of empowerment are related 

to each other in similar ways; and d) determine whether these measures of empowerment have a positive 

relationship with variables—such as education, employment, media exposure, age at first marriage, and 

spousal age difference—that can be affected by policies and programs.

Women’s Decisionmaking

Across the 23 countries included in this analysis, whether women participate in decisionmaking 

and their type of participation (alone or joint), vary greatly by type of decision; however, there is a 

surprising amount of consistency across countries in the type of decisions in which women participate. 

There is no country where the majority of women make decisions alone about women‘s health 

care, large household purchases, household purchases for daily needs, or visits to family or friends. 

Among the four decisions, those most often made alone by women are either about making daily 

purchases for household needs (14 countries) or about women‘s own health care (8 countries). Joint

decisionmaking is not as common as might have been expected: in only 13 countries do women most 

commonly make one or more of the decisions jointly; these jointly-made decisions tend to be decisions 

about large household purchases or visits to family or friends.

The analysis of decisionmaking correlates clearly shows that the characteristics of women who 

participate in the four different types of decisions considered do not vary greatly by decision type across 

countries. However, the characteristics of women who make decisions alone versus jointly do vary across 

decision types and countries. Furthermore, the correlates of making decisions alone about purchases for 

daily needs and women‘s own health care are similar and tend to contrast with the correlates of making 

decisions alone about large household purchases and visits to family or friends. 
xvi

Of all the decisionmaking correlates, the two that consistently have a positive relationship with 

participation in decisionmaking are age and employment for cash; these correlates are also most 

consistently associated with women making decisions alone. Higher educational attainment has a net 

positive effect on decisionmaking, but its effect is far from universal. Furthermore, educational attainment 

tends to be more consistently associated with decisiomaking alone for some decisions and with joint

decisionmaking for others. 

Contrary to expectations, a smaller spousal age difference has a largely negative association with 

decisionmaking alone and a positive association with joint decisionmaking. The independent effect of 

living in an extended family versus living in a nuclear family is not significant in the majority of 

countries. When this effect is significant, extended family residence is, as hypothesized, associated with 

lower participation levels in decisionmaking. 

Higher household wealth status does not consistently enhance the likelihood that women will 

make decisions alone or jointly in most countries. Purchases for household needs are the only decisions 

for which the odds of making the decision alone are higher for women in the higher wealth quintiles than 

the lowest quintile in at least one-fourth of the countries. Visits to family or friends are the only decisions 

for which the odds of making the decision jointly are higher for women in the higher wealth quintiles than 

the lowest quintile in at least one-fourth of the countries. 

The analysis also suggests that women in communities in which women benefit directly from 

higher social development levels (as measured here by the mean level of women‘s regular exposure to 

television in the community) are more likely to make decisions alone and perhaps less likely to make 

decisions jointly; whereas, social development indicators that do not represent direct benefits to women 

(as measured here by an indicator of husbands‘ education in the community) have a positive influence on 

both types of decisionmaking but have a more consistent effect on joint decisionmaking.

The analysis of women‘s participation in decisionmaking shows clearly that participation in 

decisionmaking is not a single undifferentiated variable. For any given decision, making the decision 

alone, making it jointly with a husband or someone else, or participating in the decision at all (alone or 

jointly) constitute unique variables with different correlates. This makes it difficult to treat 

decisionmaking as a single indicator of empowerment; to treat participation of any type in one decision as 

being similar to participation of the same type in any other decision; and, for a given decision, to treat 

participation of one type as equivalent to participation of another type. Thus, if women‘s participation in 

decisionmaking is to be used as an indicator of empowerment, theory and context must drive the 

definition of what type of decisionmaking in what type of decisions constitutes empowerment. 

Gender-role Attitudes

In all sub-Saharan African countries (except Malawi) and in Jordan and Morocco, a minority of 

women (from 10 percent in Mali to 49 percent in Ghana) disagree with all the reasons justifying wife 

beating. In Armenia, Malawi, and all Asian and Latin American/Caribbean countries, however, the 

majority of currently married women (from 58 percent in Haiti to 83 percent in Nicaragua) do not agree 

with any reason for wife beating. Nonetheless, these results attest to a high level of socialization regarding 

men‘s right to control women in most of the countries included in this report.

A woman‘s age is significantly related to her agreement that one or more reasons justifies wife 

beating in all countries except Armenia. Furthermore, in almost all of the countries where age has a strong 

relationship with agreement, older women are less likely than younger women to believe that wife beating 

is justified for almost all of the reasons. However, the relationship between age and agreement that 

husbands are justified in being violent when their wife refuses to have sex with them varies greatly 
xvii

between countries but tends not to be positive. In contrast, either age does not directly influence women‘s 

attitudes towards a wife‘s right to refuse to have sex with her husband or, when it does, the women least 

likely to agree that most reasons justify a woman‘s refusal of sex are often the youngest and oldest 

women. 

Although the direction of causality is unclear, the report finds that women who have more 

children tend to agree more often with wife beating than women with fewer children; however, the 

hypothesis that women who have children are more likely to agree with a wife‘s right to refuse sex with 

her husband is largely supported. 

The analysis shows that education is an important factor in women‘s acceptance of unequal 

gender roles. In a substantial number of countries, the more education a woman has, the less likely she is 

to agree that wife beating is justified for any reason and the more likely she is to accept a woman‘s right 

to refuse sex with her husband. However, in certain contexts, having only primary education is not 

enough to empower women; at least secondary education is required. 

Women‘s employment for cash has a much more consistently positive effect on women‘s 

acceptance of a woman‘s right to refuse sex with her husband than on their rejection of wife beating. 

Women who are exposed regularly to mass media tend to have more egalitarian gender-role attitudes than 

those who are not regularly exposed. 

Although a higher age at first marriage is associated with women‘s attitudes towards gender roles, 

its relationship with the two gender-role attitudes varies. Women who marry after age 18 are less likely to 

agree that wife beating is ever justified in the majority of countries; whereas, women who marry between 

ages 18 and 24 are most likely to agree that women have the right refuse sex with their husband if they do 

not want to have sex. 

Women in wealthier households are much more likely than women in poorer households to reject 

wife beating. However, wealth is less consistently related to women‘s attitudes regarding a wife‘s right to 

refuse sex with her husband. Notably, the effect of wealth on a woman‘s attitude towards a woman‘s 

refusal to have sex with her husband is least likely to be positive when the reason is that the woman is 

tired or not in the mood. 

Community socioeconomic status does not have a very consistent effect on women‘s gender-role 

attitudes, although the relationship with each type of gender-role attitude varies greatly by country and 

reason. Nonetheless, as with decisionmaking participation, the data suggest that the positive association 

hypothesized between community socioeconomic development and gender conscientization is upheld 

more consistently for the measure of socioeconomic development more directly associated with women 

themselves (women‘s regular exposure to television in the community) than with the indicator that is not 

directly related to women (husbands‘ education level).

The extensive analysis of gender-role attitudes points to one overarching conclusion: although 

women‘s attitudes towards wife beating and towards a woman‘s right to refuse sex with her husband are 

theorized as two aspects of women‘s level of conscientization, they do not appear to be measuring the 

same thing. In fact, the two sets of attitudes vary greatly by the characteristics of women, households, and 

communities in which they are manifested. On average, many of the explanatory variables that relate 

positively to one type of attitude tend to relate negatively to the other, and the same characteristic has a 

similar relationship to both types of attitudes in only a few countries. In fact, the analysis of the summary 

indicators of the two attitudes shows that with the exception of educational attainment, no characteristic is 

similarly related to both gender-role attitudes in a majority of the 23 countries studied.
xviii

Conclusions

The results presented in this report lead to two sets of conclusions, one related to the development 

of policies and programs for enhancing women‘s empowerment and the other related to the measurement 

of empowerment.

For policy and programs. A focus on variables that increase women‘s access to resources and knowledge 

such as their educational attainment, employment for cash, and media exposure, and those that provide a 

setting for women‘s empowerment such as a higher age at marriage and smaller spousal age differences, 

is supported by the analysis. However, any approach to increasing women‘s empowerment needs to be 

nuanced and tailored to specific country-level findings and settings. This conclusion follows from the fact 

that although variables such as education, employment, media exposure, and age at first marriage have a 

net positive association with the summary empowerment indicators across the 23 countries studied in this 

report, their relationship with each of the 23 indicators of empowerment varies across regions and, within 

regions, across countries. In fact, by region, the effect of these variables is most consistently positive in 

the countries of sub-Saharan Africa and least consistently positive in the countries of Latin America and 

the Caribbean. 

Measurement. The fact that the correlates of the 23 different women‘s decisionmaking and gender-role 

attitudes vary greatly suggests that these empowerment indicators cannot be treated as equivalent or even 

as substitutes. For example, joint decisionmaking on decisions about large household purchases is not 

affected by the same variables as joint decisionmaking about other decisions or decisionmaking alone

about large household purchases. Correlates of any participation in decisionmaking are also different from 

correlates of decisionmaking alone or decisionmaking jointly; they are also different from correlates of 

women‘s gender-role attitudes. In addition, within the set of indicators for gender-role attitudes, there is 

great variation in how the different correlates relate to not just the rejection of wife beating or acceptance 

of a woman‘s right to refuse her husband sex, but also to the rejection/acceptance of different components 

of these variables. Thus, when studying women‘s empowerment, there is a need to be very specific about 

what it is that is to be measured. 
1

1 Introduction

There are several cogent and pressing reasons for evaluating, promoting and monitoring the level 

of women‘s empowerment in a country, not the least of which is that household health and nutrition is 

generally in the hands of women. Hence, women‘s empowerment is necessary for ensuring their own 

welfare, as well as the well-being of their households. Empowerment of women is also critical for the 

development of a country, because it enhances both the quality and quantity of human resources available 

for development. Furthermore, the success of development efforts depends on the fruits of development 

reaching men and women, boys and girls (World Bank, 2001). The extent to which this happens, 

however, depends critically on gender relations within the society that define the worth of one sex relative 

to that of the other. A final, but fundamental reason for promoting the empowerment of women is that 

failing to empower women to reach their full potential is a violation of their basic human rights.

At this point it is necessary to be explicit about what we mean by the term ―empowerment‖. 

Several researchers have tried to capture the meaning of the word (see Malhotra et al., 2002, for a 

review); however, the definition most relevant to the approach taken in this report is ―Empowerment is 

the process by which the powerless gain greater control over the circumstances of their lives. It includes 

both control over resources and over ideology... [and includes, in addition to extrinsic control] a growing 

intrinsic capability—greater self-confidence, and an inner transformation of one‘s consciousness that 

enables one to overcome external barriers...‖ (Sen and Batliwala, 2000). 

Inherent in this definition are two important ideas. The first of these ideas is that empowerment is 

not about power over others (a feature of domination), but power to achieve goals and ends. By 

conceptualizing empowerment in terms of  ̳power to‘, the definition explicitly recognizes that the process 

of empowerment involves not only changes in access to resources, but also an understanding of one‘s 

rights and entitlements and the conscientization that gender roles can be changed and gender equality is 

possible (Longwe, 1991). The second important idea is that the concept of empowerment is more 

generally applicable to those who are powerless, whether they are male or female, individuals or a group, 

or a class or caste. Hence nothing about the concept of empowerment per se applies to women alone. 

Nonetheless, women‘s empowerment, or lack of it, is unique in that it cuts across all types of class 

powerlessness and, unlike class powerlessness, is also played out within families and households 

(Malhotra et al., 2002). 

Women‘s position and degrees of empowerment are defined by gender and gender relations in 

society. Gender represents not just the biological sex of an individual, but also the different roles, rights, 

and obligations that are attached by society to individuals born with male or female sex characteristics. 

Although sex differentiated roles, rights, and obligations vary by class and life-cycle stage, they exist in 

every sphere of human functioning (domestic, communal, labor market, religious, etc.) This makes gender 

a fundamental dimension of societal stratification. Moreover, these sex-specific roles, rights and 

obligations are not just different, they also tend to be unequal. In almost every sphere of human 

functioning, the roles defined for women are subordinated to those defined for men, women have fewer 

rights or their rights are less emancipating than those of men, and women‘s obligations are more limiting 

than those of men. Unequal gender relations imply not only that men have and can exercise greater power 

than women in almost all spheres of functioning, but that men also have culturally and often legally 

sanctioned power over women and have greater control of and access to resources and information. This 

inequality in gender relations is embodied in various societal institutions and is reproduced daily in the 

household. 
2

1.1 The Challenge of Operationalizing Women’s Empowerment

Although empowerment literally means ―to invest with power‖, in the context of women‘s 

empowerment the term has come to denote women‘s increased control over their own lives, bodies, and 

environments. In discussions of women‘s empowerment, emphasis is often placed on women‘s 

decisionmaking roles, their economic self-reliance, and their legal rights to equal treatment, inheritance 

and protection against all forms of discrimination, in addition to the elimination of barriers to access such 

resources as education and information (Germaine and Kyte, 1995; United Nations, 1995).

Kishor (2000) argues that capturing the empowerment process with cross-sectional data requires

indicators that evaluate the end product of the process (i.e., indicators that measure evidence of 

empowerment), as well as indicators of women‘s access to different sources of empowerment and of 

women‘s location within an appropriate setting for empowerment. Together the indicators of evidence, 

sources, and setting provide a snapshot of both the success of the empowerment process and the hurdles 

that exist. 

Following from the definition of empowerment provided earlier, evidence of empowerment must 

be sought in terms of indicators that measure women‘s control, both extrinsic and intrinsic, over various 

aspects of their lives and environments. Such measures include women‘s participation in household 

decisionmaking, as well as measures that suggest a rejection of the gender-based subordination of women. 

Potential sources of empowerment are those that provide the building blocks for empowerment, such as

knowledge and potential advantage in access to and control of resources through employment for cash. 

These indicators cannot be considered evidence of empowerment because there is no guarantee that the 

powerless will use, or be in a position to use, these tools to become empowered. Nonetheless, access to 

resources remains an intrinsic component of empowerment. 

Indicators of the setting or conditions for empowerment refer to the circumstances of the 

respondent‘s current and past environment; these factors are likely to condition the outlook and 

opportunities available to the respondent. These indicators can include indicators of current and past 

living arrangements and characteristics of people who have a direct influence on the opportunities 

available to the respondent.

Although Kishor‘s conceptual framework is distinct from those proposed by Kabeer (2001) and 

England (2000), it has a great deal in common with these approaches. For example, the first two elements 

of Kabeer‘s conceptualization of empowerment in terms of agency, resources, and achievements, are 

similar to Kishor‘s concepts of evidence and sources of empowerment. It needs to be acknowledged, 

however, that with cross-sectional survey data, the extent to which ―evidence‖ of empowerment and 

access to ―sources‖ of empowerment are translated into ―agency‖ (that is, ―the ability to make choices 

and act upon them‖, Kabeer 2001, page 21) remains unmeasured. Similarly, there is a loose fit between 

Kishor‘s framework and that of England, who conceptualizes empowerment in terms of ―objective bases 

of power‖ that include economic resources, laws and institutional rules, and norms held by others, and 

―subjective states‖ that include self-efficacy and a sense of entitlement. 

Since 1999-2000, the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) have been collecting information 

on three sets of women‘s empowerment variables that qualify as evidence of empowerment in Kishor‘s 

framework (2000): one that measures women‘s participation in decisionmaking and two others that 

measure women‘s acceptance of gender-role norms that endorse the control of women by men. By mid 

2005, data on these variables had been collected in 23 developing countries. This report provides a

description of each of these sets of variables, compares their distribution in all 23 countries, and analyzes 

them within a comparative framework. By examining the distribution and correlates of the evidence of 

empowerment variables across all 23 countries, this report aims to provide a better understanding of 
3

women‘s empowerment in terms of their decisionmaking roles and gender-role attitudes across a large 

part of the developing world.

1.2 Gender and Women’s Empowerment in the DHS Surveys 

DHS surveys typically provide information on fertility, mortality, family planning, and important 

aspects of health, nutrition, and health care for women and children, as well as for men in several 

countries. Since 1984, at least one DHS survey has been conducted in approximately 70 developing 

countries around the world. The DHS program uses scientific sampling to collect, from eligible 

individuals in sampled households, a comparative body of nationally representative information on 

population, nutrition and health issues. Cross-cultural comparability of data is ensured by implementing a 

core of near-identical questions across countries; additional country-specific information needs are met by 

including country-specific questions and/or special DHS modules. Three ―core‖ questionnaires are 

commonly used by DHS: a household questionnaire, a woman‘s questionnaire and a man‘s questionnaire. 

If comparable information is needed for a large number of countries on any given topic, it is important to 

include relevant questions in the appropriate core questionnaire, since it is these questionnaires that are 

implemented with little change across countries.

The data traditionally derived from the core DHS questionnaires can be used to develop a large 

number of indicators to measure women‘s status and empowerment. However, most of these indicators 

measured only the sources and setting of empowerment (Kishor and Nietzel, 1996). In, fact, until the late 

1990s, the DHS core questionnaires contained almost no questions that directly explored the gendered 

context of health and demographic outcomes or questions that could be used to provide indicators of 

evidence of empowerment.

To fill this gap, an advisory group was formed in 1998 to guide the integration of gender 

questions into DHS questionnaires. The gender questions to be included in the core questionnaire had to 

conform to several DHS-specific constraints, the most cogent of which was that DHS surveys are 

household surveys and the main focus of the surveys has traditionally been on women of reproductive 

age. Hence, any investigation of gender had to be based on information that essentially pertained to and 

could be meaningfully collected from individuals, particularly women, in households.1 Additional 

constraints included: a) all questions needed to be implementable with little or no change in all DHS 

countries; b) questions needed to be relevant to understanding population, health or nutrition (PHN) 

outcomes and changes in outcomes over time; and c) given the length of the DHS questionnaires and 

several competing priorities for the limited space in the questionnaire, only a few core questions 

specifically addressing gender issues could be added.

The three sets of evidence of empowerment variables described and analyzed in this report were 

introduced into the DHS core questionnaires as a result of the advisory group process. The first set of 

evidence variables is designed to measure women‘s degree of control over their environment by 

measuring their participation in household decisionmaking. The next two sets of variables address

women‘s attitudes towards gender equality. As mentioned above, an essential element of empowerment is 

the belief in the ideal of gender equality in roles and rights. Thus, the second set of indicators explores 

women‘s acceptance of unequal gender roles by documenting their attitudes towards wife-beating and the 

right of wives to refuse their husbands sex. Acceptance of wife beating and the view that women do not 

have the right to refuse their husbands sex are indicative of women‘s acceptance of women‘s lower status,

both absolutely and relative to men. While such attitudes do not necessarily signify, for example, that 

 

1 Once collected, the information can be aggregated to obtain community-level indicators; however, the nature of the 

information would necessarily reflect the experience of individuals or demonstrate how gender plays out at the 

household level. 
4

women approve of men beating their wives, they do suggest women‘s acceptance of norms that give men 

the right, in this case, to discipline women with force.

The new evidence of empowerment questions (described below) are in addition to the questions 

traditionally included in the DHS surveys on other potential dimensions of empowerment such as 

educational attainment, media exposure, employment and earnings control, age at first marriage, and age 

at first childbirth.

Women’s participation in household decisionmaking. Women‘s role in and degree of control over the 

process of decisionmaking in households are important aspects of women‘s empowerment and gender 

relations that have cross-cultural and household-level relevance. The choice of specific decisions to ask 

women about in the DHS questionnaires was guided by the need to ensure that the decision areas included 

were relevant to all women, whether they were currently married or not and had children or not, and that 

they covered different aspects of household and individual functioning. Accordingly, the question asked 

of all women is:

Who in your family usually has the final say on the following decisions:

Your own health care?

Making large household purchases?

Making household purchases for daily needs?

Visits to family and/or relatives/friends?

What food should be cooked each day?

Responses are coded as: ―Respondent‖; ―Husband/partner‖; ―Respondent & husband/partner 

jointly‖, ―Someone else‖; ―Respondent & someone else jointly‖; ―Decision not made/not applicable‖.

Most cultures assign domestic roles, such as cooking and cleaning, to women. Accordingly, 

decisions about food were included in the list of decisions with the expectation that most women would 

be making these decisions. The atypical woman would be the one not making the decision, rather than the 

one making it. The questions on decisions about the two different kinds of purchases (large purchases and 

purchases for daily needs) were designed to tap into economic decisionmaking in the household while 

allowing for variation in participation according to the relative amount of money to be expended and 

whether the decisions are routine or not (purchases for daily needs being more routine than large 

purchases). Participation in decisions about visits to family or friends was expected to be most culture 

specific; this type of decisionmaking is less likely to involve women in cultures in which women‘s 

freedom of movement is restricted and their interaction with birth-family members is closely monitored 

by husbands and in-laws than in other cultures. Finally, decisions about their own health care were 

thought to be most fundamental to women‘s self interest and of direct relevance to bringing about PHNrelated change.

Decisionmaking about what food should be cooked each day is not described or analyzed in this 

report because of the very limited variation in the proportions of women participating in these types of 

decisions.

Gender-role norms that justify men’s control over women. Of particular relevance to demographic and 

health programs is the need to determine the extent to which women, the main targets of such programs, 

are empowered enough to have control over their own behavior, body and sexuality. Accordingly, the 

following two sets of questions that explore women‘s acceptance of norms that subordinate women‘s 

bodily integrity and sexuality to men were included in the DHS: 
5

1. Sometimes a husband is annoyed or angered by things that his wife does. In your opinion, is a 

husband justified in hitting or beating his wife in the following situations:

If she goes out without telling him? 

If she neglects the children?

If she argues with him?

If she refuses to have sex with him?

If she burns the food?

2. Husbands and wives do not always agree on everything. Please tell me if you think a wife is 

justified in refusing to have sex with her husband when:

She knows her husband has a sexually transmitted disease? 

She knows her husband has sex with other women? 

She has recently given birth?

She is tired or not in the mood?

Both of these sets of questions are attitude questions and not questions about women‘s own 

experience. Agreement with specific justifications for a husband beating his wife or for a wife not being 

able to refuse her husband sex attests to the socialization of women in traditional gender-role norms that 

give husbands rights over the behavior and body of their wives. The presumption behind these questions 

is that truly empowered women would not accept such obvious gender-inequalities in power; empowered

women would not agree with any justification for a husband beating his wife and would believe that a 

wife should have the right to decide when to have sex with her husband. 

Even so, the justifications presented to respondents in both questions were carefully chosen to 

provide variation in the perceived seriousness of the behavioral norm violation. For example, even among 

women who accept the norm that it is a woman‘s duty to have sex with her husband when he wants to, a 

wife refusing her husband sex because she has recently given birth is likely to be a less serious gender 

role violation than refusing sex because she is tired or not in the mood. Similarly, not cooking food well 

or burning the food should be perceived as providing less justification for wife beating than neglecting the 

children even among women who believe that wife beating is justified.

1.3 Data

In this report, the distribution and correlates of women‘s empowerment are examined in terms of 

women‘s decisionmaking and gender-role attitudes in 23 developing countries—13 in Sub-Saharan 

Africa, 3 in North Africa/West Asia/Europe, 4 in Asia, and 3 in Latin America/Caribbean. In all of these 

countries, a DHS survey was conducted during the period 1999 and 2004 that included the empowerment

questions. The earliest survey included in this report is the Zimbabwe DHS (completed in 1999) and the 

latest is the Mozambique DHS (completed in the fall of 2004). Table 1.1 provides the list of countries 

included in this analysis, the dates of fieldwork, and survey sample sizes.

In general, the DHS surveys use a multi-stage, stratified sample design and specially calculated 

weights to provide nationally representative estimates of variables of interest. In all countries included in 

this report, with the exception of Indonesia, Jordan, and Nepal, all women age 15-49 in sample 

households, married and unmarried, were eligible to be interviewed with the DHS Woman‘s 

Questionnaire. In Indonesia, Jordan and Nepal, eligibility was restricted to ever-married women age 15-

49. Further, in Cambodia and Haiti, although all women age 15-49 were eligible to be interviewed, the 

questions on empowerment were asked in only a subset of sample households (approximately one in four 

households in Cambodia and one in two in Haiti). 
6

Table 1.1. Countries, dates of fieldwork, and sample sizes for all DHS surveys included in this report and associated 

development indicators by country

Countries Dates of fieldwork Implementing organization

All women 

(N)

Currently married 

women (N)

GDP per 

capita1 

(PPP US$)

Ranking 

on GDP 

among listed 

countries

2003 GDI 

ranking1

GDI ranking 

among listed 

Unweighted Weighted countries

Sub-Saharan Africa

Benin 8/1/2001-10/1/2001 INSAE 6,219 4,587 4,563 980 18 131 18

Burkina Faso 6/1/2003-11/1/2003 Institut National de la Statistique et de la 

Demographie (INSD)

12,477 9,537 9,654 1,120 17 143 23

Cameroon 2/1/2004-7/1/2004 Institut National de la Statistique 10,656 7,177 7,165 1,680 12 114 11

Ghana 7/1/2003-10/1/2003 Ghana Statistical Service 5,691 3,694 3,549 2,250 9 104 8

Kenya 4/1/2003-9/1/2003 Central Bureau of Statistics 8,195 4,876 4,919 980 18 115 12

Malawi 7/1/00-11/1/00 National Statistics Office 13,220 9,361 9,452 570 23 132 19

Mali 1/1/2001-5/1/2001 Cellule de Planification et de Statistique, 

Ministère de la Santé and Direction 

Nationale de la Statistique et de 

l'Informatique

12,849 10,697 10,723 810 21 142 22

Mozambique 7/1/2003-9/1/2004 National Statistical Institute (INE) 12,418 8,377 8,736 1,140 16 140 21

Nigeria 3/1/2003-8/1/2003 The National Population Commission 7,620 5,157 5,336 850 20 124 16

Rwanda 6/1/00-8/1/00 Office National de la Population 10,421 4,891 5,053 1,250 15 129 17

Uganda 6/1/00-2/1/00 Uganda Bureau of Statistics (formerly 

Department of Statistics)

7,246 4,675 4,881 1,490 13 117 13

Zambia 11/1/2001-5/1/2002 Central Statistics Office 7,658 4,731 4,694 780 22 133 20

Zimbabwe 9/1/99-12/1/99 Central Statistics Office 5,907 3,553 3,608 2,280 8 113 10

North Africa/West Asia/Europe

Armenia 10/1/00-12/1/00 National Statistical Office/Ministry of 

Health

6,430 4,198 4,125 2,650 5 78 3

Jordan 7/1/2002-9/1/2002 Department of Statistics 6,006* 5,727 5,706 3,870 1 75 2

Morocco 10/1/2003-1/1/2004 Ministère de la Santé 16,798 8,851 8,782 3,600 3 102 7

Asia

Cambodia 2/1/00-6/1/00 National Institute of Statistics, Ministry of 

Health

3,741** 2,322 2,245 1,860 10 105 9

Indonesia 10/1/2002-9/1/2002 Central Bureau of Statistics, National 

Family Planning Coordinating Board, 

Ministry of Health

29,483* 27,784 27,857 2,940 4 91 4

Nepal 1/1/2001-6/1/2001 Ministry of Health; New ERA 8,726* 8,324 8,342 1,310 14 119 14

Philippines 6/1/2003-9/1/2003 National Statistics Office 13,633 8,764 8,671 3,840 2 66 1

Latin America/Caribbean

Bolivia 7/1/2003-9/1/2004 National Statistical Institute 17,654 10,626 10,569 2,300 7 94 5

Haiti 3/1/00-7/1/00 Institute Haitien de l'Enfance 5,161** 2,968 3,002 1,860 10 122 15

Nicaragua 9/1/2001-12/1/2001 Instituto Nacional de Estadisticas y 

Censos

13,060 7,678 7,424 2,450 6 98 6

*Ever-married women only

**All women who are asked the empowerment questions only

1Source:United Nations Development Programme (2003)

GDP = Gross domestic product

PPP = Purchasing power parity

GDI = Gender Development Index
7

Although all interviewed women are eligible for the empowerment questions, this report is 

restricted to women who are currently married.

2 By focusing on currently married women, we are better 

able to determine the context of decisionmaking and gender norms. In particular, the decisionmaking 

questions are best suited to examine the empowerment of currently married women because, of the five 

possible pre-coded answers, two are possible only if the woman has a husband. Across the 23 countries, 

currently married women constitute about half or more of all women interviewed. The share of currently 

married women among all interviewed women in Indonesia, Jordan, and Nepal is over 90 percent since

the original sample was restricted to ever-married women only. In Rwanda, Morocco, Nicaragua, and 

Haiti, in contrast, the share of currently married women in the entire sample of interviewed women is 

only 48-58 percent. In the remaining countries, currently married women constitute 60-78 percent of all 

interviewed women. Note that a woman is considered to be currently married if she says she is currently 

married or says that she is currently living together with a man as if married.

Table 1.1 also shows that the countries in this report vary greatly in terms of their level of 

development as measured by both their per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and Gender 

Development Index (GDI) (United Nations Development Programme, 2003). The GDI provides an 

indicator of country well-being in terms of life expectancy, educational attainment, and estimated real 

income after taking gender inequalities into explicit consideration. In general, the GDI is a summary 

indicator of country achievements that recognizes that development is incomplete unless it is shared 

equally between the sexes.

According to these development indicators, among the 23 countries included in this report, the 

Philippines, Jordan, Armenia, and Indonesia are the most developed with some of the highest ranks on 

both per capita GDP and GDI. Morocco also ranks among the highest on GDP per capita but is only 

seventh in terms of GDI. Malawi, Zambia, Mali, followed by Nigeria, Benin, and Kenya are the least 

economically developed of the countries included in this report and Burkina Faso, Mali, and Mozambique

rank the lowest on GDI.

1.4 Descriptive Information for Countries and Women Included in This Report

Table 1.2 provides information on some key characteristics of the women included in this report

by country. Several of these characteristics are classified by Kishor (2000) as either potential sources of 

empowerment (educational attainment, media exposure, and employment for cash) or variables that 

capture aspects of the setting for empowerment (age at first marriage, spousal age at marriage, and 

nuclear family residence). The setting indicators focus on the circumstances of women‘s lives and reflect 

the opportunities available to women. Urban residence, with its increased opportunities for exposure to 

new ideas, and wealth, with its potential for increased access to all types of resources can also be 

considered variables that capture aspects of the setting for empowerment. The information in Tables 1.2 

and 1.3 attests to the tremendous variability across countries represented in this report and points to the 

necessity of analyzing the evidence of empowerment variables using multivariate tools of analysis.

 

2

In the DHS, marital status is self-determined. Currently married women include women who are living with a man 

as if married. Hence, throughout this report husbands include cohabiting partners.
8

Table 1.2. Percent distribution of currently married women by selected background characteristics and percentage by 

selected characteristics

Background characteristic

Sub-Saharan Africa

Benin

Burkina 

Faso Cameroon Ghana Kenya Malawi Mali

Mozambique Nigeria Rwanda Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe

Age (years)

15-19 6.3 9.1 11.6 3.9 6.8 9.9 3.9 10.7 10.2 3.4 9.5 9.3 8.7

20-29 42.4 39.5 42.0 35.8 41.1 46.8 28.5 40.7 38.6 41.2 45.6 45.6 44.6

30-39 32.7 30.4 29.0 36.4 31.8 26.5 35.0 30.4 30.2 33.9 29.9 28.7 28.8

40-49 18.6 21.0 17.4 24.0 20.4 16.8 32.5 18.2 21.0 21.5 14.9 16.4 18.0

Children ever born

None 7.4 8.0 12.3 7.3 6.2 7.6 10.1 9.0 10.1 6.4 6.5 6.7 8.7

1 or 2 30.7 27.9 31.9 32.8 31.2 32.8 33.7 31.1 27.3 29.2 26.9 30.8 42.2

3 or 4 24.1 24.4 23.2 28.2 29.0 25.6 28.5 25.2 22.7 25.3 25.8 26.1 24.3

5+ 37.7 39.7 32.7 31.8 33.6 33.9 27.7 34.8 40.0 39.0 40.8 36.4 24.8

Education

None 72.2 87.6 28.7 38.1 15.5 31.5 63.4 48.2 53.9 35.3 25.9 14.1 8.6

Primary 19.4 8.1 40.3 20.0 58.6 61.0 17.3 47.5 22.0 54.6 61.0 61.9 46.1

Secondary or higher 8.4 4.3 31.0 41.8 25.9 7.5 19.4 4.3 24.1 10.1 13.1 24.0 45.3

Age at first marriage

Below 18 years 46.7 62.8 61.9 40.8 38.6 55.6 37.6 62.3 66.4 23.8 59.9 57.6 39.2

18-24 years 46.6 35.1 32.7 50.7 53.9 41.3 47.9 33.5 27.6 67.0 37.1 39.2 54.7

25 years or over 6.7 2.1 5.4 8.4 7.6 3.1 14.5 4.3 6.1 9.2 3.0 3.2 6.1

Spousal age difference

Less than 5 years 29.0 20.3 26.2 36.1 36.0 44.7 37.0 43.6 14.1 52.2 43.5 35.0 37.5

5-9 years 33.8 29.9 33.2 33.0 38.5 37.9 33.6 31.6 33.4 25.9 31.9 43.4 35.7

10 years or more 37.2 49.8 40.6 31.0 25.6 17.4 29.4 24.8 52.5 22.0 24.6 21.6 26.8

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Regularly exposed to media 66.5 52.1 49.9 75.7 77.6 55.2 85.0 48.3 62.3 43.0 51.9 46.9 58.0

Works for cash 85.8 21.0 51.6 81.4 50.0 24.9 12.0 18.1 57.6 19.1 52.6 36.0 49.3

Husband coresident 82.1 91.8 78.3 70.3 78.3 86.1 87.6 90.8 90.7 87.5 86.1 93.5 72.6

Lives in an urban area 34.5 15.2 48.8 40.5 22.2 14.4 57.1 29.0 30.6 14.7 13.0 35.4 36.2

Lives in a nonnuclear household 37.4 40.5 48.1 27.8 34.7 27.5 42.8 39.0 27.5 20.2 30.8 41.8 38.3

Continued...
9

Table 1.2—Continued

Background characteristic

North Africa/West Asia/Europe Asia Latin America/Caribbean

Armenia Jordan Morocco Cambodia Indonesia Nepal Philippines Bolivia Haiti Nicaragua

Age (years)

15-19 2.4 2.7 11.0 4.8 3.3 11.2 2.8 4.0 6.4 9.4

20-29 27.5 32.4 37.9 27.4 32.2 39.2 30.5 33.8 34.0 36.2

30-39 35.8 41.2 31.7 40.5 36.3 29.7 38.0 36.4 35.0 33.1

40-49 34.3 23.8 19.4 27.3 28.2 20.0 28.8 25.7 24.5 21.3

Number of children ever born

None 5.2 8.0 8.3 6.8 7.4 11.1 7.7 4.7 9.9 7.3

1 or 2 50.9 23.8 25.3 27.9 48.8 30.8 37.4 35.0 32.9 37.4

3 or 4 39.5 30.3 21.9 28.8 28.8 31.3 31.4 29.6 23.7 28.5

5+ 4.4 38.0 44.5 36.5 15.0 26.8 23.5 30.6 33.6 26.7

Education

None 0.1 5.7 84.3 30.4 7.5 71.6 1.7 8.6 40.9 18.1

Primary 6.6 11.2 10.4 56.9 53.6 15.0 29.1 55.8 41.1 43.8

Secondary or higher 93.3 83.1 5.2 12.7 38.9 13.5 69.2 35.6 18.0 38.1

Age at first marriage

Below 18 years 20.3 27.2 71.6 33.9 42.2 70.8 21.8 32.3 33.2 58.4

18-24 years 70.4 59.2 25.5 56.6 48.9 27.8 58.8 53.9 53.4 36.2

25 years or over 9.2 13.6 3.0 9.4 8.9 1.5 19.4 13.7 13.4 5.4

Spousal age difference

Less than 5 years 57.9 42.2 12.6 70.1 51.4 58.2 69.3 69.6 47.9 58.9

5-9 years 33.1 37.6 31.5 20.9 34.2 30.1 20.8 20.0 28.9 23.3

10 years or more 8.9 20.3 55.8 9.0 14.4 11.6 9.9 10.4 23.2 17.8

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Regularly exposed to media 91.1 90.2 63.7 66.6 82.4 49.9 90.7 89.8 59.7 91.4

Works for cash 22.9 9.6 47.0 36.1 30.7 11.6 43.4 55.5 62.2 39.9

Husband coresident 90.2 94.5 n/a 95.4 95.9 78.5 93.5 93.3 72.1 92.2

Lives in an urban area 58.0 79.7 24.5 15.1 45.8 9.5 53.5 64.6 37.0 57.6

Lives in a nonnuclear household 56.1 18.5 22.8 33.7 36.0 54.6 34.5 17.0 47.9 40.2

Note: Primary education ends in grade 8 in Armenia. Information on husband's coresidence is not available for Morocco. A nonnuclear household is one that contains the head, 

spouse, cospouse(s), child(ren), grandchild(ren), or adopted or foster child(ren) only.

n/a = Not available
10

Age distribution. In all countries in this report, only women age 15-49 were eligible to be interviewed. 

Additionally, since only currently married women are included in this study, the age distribution across 

countries is sensitive to the age at first marriage. In no country is the share of women who are age 15-19 

greater than 12 percent; in Armenia, Indonesia, Jordan, the Philippines, and Rwanda, this share is as low 

as 2-3 percent. Women age 20-29 account for the highest proportion of women in the sample in all 

countries except Armenia, Bolivia, Cambodia, Ghana, Haiti, Indonesia, Jordan, Mali, and the Philippines,

where women age 30-39 are the modal age group. In addition, Armenia and Mali have a higher 

proportion of women age 40-49 than any of the other countries.

Number of children ever born. As expected from a sample of currently married women, the proportion of 

women with no children is low, ranging from 5 percent in Bolivia and Armenia to 12 percent in 

Cameroon. In a majority of sub-Saharan African countries, as well as in Jordan, Morocco, Cambodia, and 

Haiti, the highest proportion of women are women with five or more children ever born. However, in 

Armenia, Indonesia, Zimbabwe, the Philippines, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Mali, and Ghana, the highest 

proportions are women with one or two children ever born. 

Education. Education and media exposure (discussed below) can help to empower women by equipping 

them with the information and means to function effectively, especially in the modern world. Table 1.2 

shows that women‘s education levels vary widely in the countries included in this report. More than 70 

percent of currently married women in Burkina Faso, Benin, Morocco, and Nepal have no education, and 

uneducated women also constitute the majority of currently married women in Nigeria. In contrast, 93 

percent of women in Armenia, 83 percent in Jordan, and 69 percent in the Philippines have secondary or 

higher education. In most of the remaining countries, women with only primary education account for a 

larger proportion of currently married women than women with no education or education beyond the 

primary level. 

Exposure to media. Media exposure, like education, is important for empowerment. In this report, women 

who watch television, listen to the radio, or read a newspaper or magazine at least once a week, are 

defined as being regularly exposed to one or more forms of media. Countries vary less in terms of media 

exposure than in terms of women‘s level of education. Mozambique (48 percent), Rwanda (43 percent) 

and Zambia (47 percent) are the only countries where less than half of all currently married women are 

regularly exposed to one or more forms of media. In the remaining countries, the proportion of women 

regularly exposed to some form of media ranges from about 50-55 percent in Malawi, Burkina Faso, 

Uganda, Cameroon, and Nepal to 90 percent or more in Nicaragua, Armenia, the Philippines, Jordan, and 

Bolivia.

Employment for cash. Employment, particularly for cash and in non-traditional occupations, potentially 

empowers women by providing financial independence, alternative sources of social identity, and 

exposure to power structures independent of kin networks (Dixon-Mueller, 1993). All women in the DHS 

are asked if they are currently employed. This initial question is followed by a short sequence of questions 

that attempts to elicit information on both formal and informal employment. Women who are working or 

have worked in the 12 months preceding the survey are asked if they are paid in cash, in kind, both in 

cash and in kind, or not paid at all.

Table 1.2 identifies only women who are employed for cash (including those who are paid only 

partly in cash). Countries vary greatly in the proportion of women employed for cash, with the majority of 

countries (16 of 23) having half or less than half of currently married women employed for cash. The 

proportion employed for cash is highest in Benin (86 percent) and Ghana (81 percent) and lowest, at 10-

12 percent, in Jordan, Nepal, and Mali, followed by Mozambique and Rwanda, at 18-19 percent. 
11

Age at first marriage. An early age at first marriage is likely to have a negative effect on empowerment 

by virtually terminating a woman‘s access to some sources of empowerment, such as formal education 

(Mason, 1986; 1987) and, in several countries, the resources of their natal families. Note that in the DHS 

age at first cohabitation with the first husband is typically used as a proxy for age at first marriage. 

Table 1.2 shows that in 10 of the 23 countries, a majority of currently married women in the 

sample were married before 18 years. This proportion is highest at 71-72 percent in Morocco and Nepal. 

The only countries with at least 75 percent of women married at age 18 or later are Armenia, the 

Philippines, and Rwanda. 

Spousal age gap. A large age difference between spouses in favor of the husband is likely to put the wife 

at a disadvantage with regard to her ability to exercise power within the marriage and in her marital home.

Large age differences (10 years of more) are most common in Morocco, Nigeria, Burkina Faso, and 

Cameroon, where 41-56 percent of currently married women have a husband who is at least 10 years 

older than they are. In contrast, in Armenia, Cambodia, the Philippines, Bolivia, Nepal, and Indonesia, 

only 9-14 percent of currently married women are 10 or more years younger than their husband. Spousal 

age differences in this report are based on women‘s reports of their own age and of their husband‘s age.

Nonnuclear residence. Residence in a non-nuclear family is likely to negatively affect women‘s ability to 

access resources directly and to exercise control over household decisions (Dyson and Moore, 1983; 

Dixon-Mueller, 1989). The potentially much larger and multigenerational nature of non-nuclear families 

is likely to confound the ability of any individual woman in the household to exercise her own will in 

household and family-related matters.

A non-nuclear household is defined here as one that includes parents, in-laws, siblings, or other 

relatives of the household head other than the wife, children (own, adopted, or step/fostered), and grand 

children. Hence, a household is nuclear if the household head is living with a wife, own, step, adopted, or 

grand children, and/or unrelated individuals. A more precise definition is not possible since relationships 

in the household are all defined with reference only to the household head. 

In 21 of the 23 countries in this report, less than one in two women lives in non-nuclear 

households. The only exceptions are Nepal and Armenia, where 55-56 percent of currently married 

women live in non-nuclear households. Nuclear residence is most common in Bolivia, Jordan, Rwanda,

and Morocco, where less than one in four currently married women live in non-nuclear households.

Urban residence. The most urbanized of the countries included in this report are Jordan, with 80 percent

of currently married women living in urban areas; Bolivia (65 percent); and the Philippines, Mali, 

Nicaragua, and Armenia (54-58 percent). The least urbanized countries are Nepal, Uganda, Malawi,

Rwanda, Cambodia, and Burkina Faso, where only 9-15 percent of currently married women live in an 

urban area.

Wealth. The DHS does not typically collect information on household income; instead DHS collects 

information on household ownership of a number of consumer items ranging from a television to a 

bicycle or car, as well as on dwelling characteristics such as source of drinking water, toilet facilities 

used, roofing, and flooring. This information has been used to develop a widely accepted wealth index 

that has been tested in a large number of countries in relation to inequities in household income, use of 

health services, and health outcomes (Gwatkin et al., 2000). 

The wealth index is constructed using household asset data (including country-specific assets) 

and principle components analysis. Each asset is assigned a weight (factor score) generated through 

principle components analysis, and the resulting asset scores are standardized in relation to a standard 
12

normal distribution with a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one. Each household is then assigned 

a score for each asset, and the scores are summed by household; individuals are ranked according to the 

total score of the household in which they reside. The sample is then divided into population quintiles; 

each quintile is given a rank from one (poorest) to five (wealthiest). Because, by definition, the index 

divides the population into five groups, the index is not a tool for cross-country comparisons but is 

effective for understanding within-country variation by wealth in variables, including variation in the 

indicators of empowerment. In the chapters that follow, the wealth index will be used to better understand 

the effect of wealth on women‘s empowerment across countries.

Summary of sample characteristics. Table 1.3 provides rankings for the countries included in this report 

on some of the key sources and setting for empowerment variables discussed above. This table helps to 

summarize the large variation in the characteristics of women and the context within which evidence of 

empowerment variables need to be analyzed. All countries were ranked on three sources of empowerment 

indicators whose values were presented in Table 1.2: the percentage of women who have attended school;

the percentage who are regularly exposed to media; and the percentage who are employed for cash. All of 

these variables have the potential to enhance the evidence of empowerment variables. 

In general, countries have more similar rankings on educational attainment and media exposure

than on employment for cash. For example, Benin, which has the highest proportion of women working

for cash, is ranked 21st on educational attainment and 11th on media exposure. In contrast, Armenia, which 

is ranked 1st on educational attainment and 2nd on women‘s regular exposure to media, is ranked 17

th on 

women‘s employment for cash. 

Countries are also ranked on two setting for empowerment variables, namely, the proportion of 

women who were married at age 18 years or older and the proportion of women married to men less than 

10 years older than they are. With a few exceptions, such as Malawi and Nepal, the rankings of countries 

on these two variables are similar. 

Finally, the last three columns of Table 1.3 provide the following summary rankings: 

Overall rank on sources variables: Countries are ranked according to the sum of their ranks 

on each of the three sources variables.

Overall rank on the setting variables: Countries are ranked according to the sum of their 

ranks on each of the two setting variables.

Overall rank on all five variables: Countries are ranked according to the sum of their ranks 

on each of the five sources and setting variables. 

The Philippines, followed by Armenia and Bolivia, have the highest ranks of all countries 

included in this report. These three countries also rank highest on the sources and setting variables 

separately. The lowest ranked countries are Burkina Faso and Mozambique. These countries also have 

similarly low ranks on the sources and setting variables separately. Countries that have a difference of 10 

or more ranks between their overall rankings on the setting and sources variables include Cambodia, 

Ghana, and Rwanda. Cambodia and Rwanda rank very high (3rd and 6th, respectively) on the setting

variables, but relatively low (13th and 20th, respectively) on the sources variables. In contrast, Ghana has a 

high rank on the sources variables (6th), but not on the setting variables (16th). 
13

Table 1.3. Country rankings for selected sources of empowerment and setting for

empowerment indicators

Rankings

Countries

Selected sources of empowerment 

variables

Selected setting for 

empowerment variables Overall rank 

on sources 

of empowerment

variables

Overall rank 

on setting 

for 

empowerment 

variables

Overall rank 

on all 

variables

Have 

education

Have regular 

media 

exposure

Employed for 

cash

Age at first 

marriage 18 

years or 

above

Spousal age 

difference 

less than 10 

years

Philippines 2 3 11 2 3 1 2 1

Armenia 1 2 17 1 1 3 1 2

Bolivia 6 5 5 5 4 1 3 3

Jordan 3 4 23 4 9 9 5 4

Indonesia 4 7 15 12 6 6 7 5

Cambodia 12 10 13 7 2 13 3 5

Nicaragua 9 1 12 16 8 4 10 7

Kenya 8 8 8 9 15 5 10 8

Haiti 16 14 3 6 12 10 7 9

Zimbabwe 5 15 9 10 16 8 14 10

Ghana 15 9 2 11 18 6 16 10

Uganda 10 18 6 17 13 12 17 12

Benin 21 11 1 13 19 10 18 13

Malawi 13 16 16 14 7 18 9 14

Zambia 7 22 14 15 10 16 12 15

Rwanda 14 23 19 3 11 20 6 16

Mali 19 6 21 8 17 19 12 17

Cameroon 11 19 7 18 20 15 20 18

Nigeria 18 13 4 21 22 13 22 19

Nepal 20 20 22 22 5 23 15 20

Morocco 22 12 10 23 23 17 23 21

Mozambique 17 21 20 19 14 22 19 22

Burkina Faso 23 17 16 20 21 20 21 23

1.5 Organization of the Report

The remainder of this report is organized to highlight and analyze, within the context of the 

background characteristics described in this chapter and other relevant variables, the three evidence of 

empowerment indicators on which DHS collects data. In Chapter 2, all of the decisionmaking variables 

are examined and in Chapter 3 the two sets of attitude variables are analyzed. In Chapter 4, the key 

findings of this report are summarized and discussed in ways that can yield policy relevant 

recommendations. 

The primary goal of this report is to provide insight into factors that contribute to enhancing 

empowerment. It is also hoped that the tables will provide a resource for cross-country comparisons of the 

empowerment indicators.

15

2 Women’s Participation in Household Decisions

Women‘s participation in decisions being made in their own households, that is households in 

which they usually live with their spouse and/or children with or without others, is widely accepted as a 

universal indicator of women‘s empowerment. As detailed in Chapter 1, in the DHS, women are asked 

who in their family usually has the final say on decisions about the respondent‘s own health care, large 

household purchases, purchases for daily needs, and visits to family or friends3. Women‘s answers are 

coded into one of the following categories: respondent alone, respondent jointly with her husband, 

respondent‘s husband alone, respondent jointly with others, or others only. 

These DHS questions on decisionmaking have inherent limitations as potential sources of 

empowerment indicators. First, the specific decisions for which information is collected in the DHS 

cannot all be considered strategic to women‘s own interests. Rather the choice of the types of decisions 

asked about is constrained by the requirement that the decisions be relevant to the circumstances of most 

women and that the decisions range in type from those that women are typically entrusted to make (e.g. 

decisions about what food to cook or about purchases for daily needs) to those in which women‘s roles 

are not always predictable (e.g., the use of money for major household items). Secondly, these questions 

address only whether women take part in the decisionmaking, not whether women‘s participation is in 

any way instrumental, i.e., able to influence the outcome. 

In addition to their potential limitations as indicators of empowerment, the questions do not of 

themselves represent indicators of empowerment, nor do they provide any guidance on how they are to be 

used to define one or more indicators. In particular, the questions do not provide any guidance on: 

a) How best to define participation. To count as empowerment, is it important for women to 

make decisions alone or to make them jointly, or does the distinction not matter?

b) Whether participation, however it is defined, in each of the different decisions is equally 

cogent for empowerment. 

An examination of the empowerment literature (see summary in Malhotra et al., 2002) also does 

not provide any clear conceptual guidance on these two issues, other than that empowered women 

participate in making the decisions that affect their lives, and that the decisions that are made reflect 

women‘s strategic life choices. In this context, it can be argued that at least two of the decisions asked 

about in the DHS—the decision about obtaining health care for the respondent and the decision about the 

respondent‘s visits to family or friends—are of strategic interest to women themselves because these 

decisions relate directly to their own specific needs. Although other persons can contribute to such 

decisions, ultimately, the woman herself will be the best judge of what she must do and when she needs to 

act. A similar case cannot as easily be made for the decision about expenditures on major household items 

because household income is usually a pooled resource and consequently its control is likely to be shared. 

This discussion points to the large number of gaps in our understanding of how women‘s 

decisionmaking roles can be used to define indicators of empowerment. The analysis in this chapter 

attempts to fill some of these gaps by trying to answer the following questions: 

1. Do women who make decisions alone differ in significant ways from women who make 

decisions jointly with their husbands or others? 

 

3 The specific wording for this last decision varies somewhat across countries. In about half the countries, the 

wording used is ―visits to family and relatives‖ and in the other half, it is ―visits to family, friends and relatives.‖ In 

Zambia alone, the wording used is ―when to visit family, friends or relatives.‖ Here we use ―visits to family or 

friends‖ to represent all of these variations. 
16

2. Do the correlates of each type of participation vary by type of decision? 

Answers to these questions will provide insight into how decisionmaking variables can best be 

used to develop indicators of women‘s empowerment. Accordingly, the patterns of decisionmaking are 

compared across countries for currently married women in Section 2.1. In Section 2.2, the correlates of 

decisionmaking alone and joint decisionmaking are compared using both bivariate and multivariate 

statistical techniques. In Section 2.3 the correlates of any participation in decisionmaking are discussed. 

Finally some conclusions are given in Section 2.4. 

2.1 Comparing Women’s Participation in Household Decisionmaking across 

Countries

Table 2.1 shows the percent distribution of currently married women by type of participation in 

decisionmaking according to the four types of decisions for all 23 countries. What is immediately clear 

from the table is that the type of participation varies greatly by type of decision in every country, and that 

there is a surprising amount of consistency across countries in women‘s decisionmaking roles with regard 

to the different types of decisions asked about. Note that for Nicaragua and Zambia, data are not available 

for the decisions about purchases for daily needs.

Table 2.1 shows that there is no country where the majority of women make each of the four 

decisions alone. Nonetheless, the majority of currently married women make one of the four decisions 

alone most frequently in seven countries, two of the decisions alone in another seven countries, and three 

of the decisions alone in one country, Haiti. Among the four decisions, the decisions most often made 

alone by women are about making daily purchases (14 countries), their own health care (8 countries), or 

both. In all but four countries (Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Indonesia, and Morocco), the decisions least 

often made alone by women are about making large household purchases.

Joint decisionmaking is not as common as might have been expected. In only 13 countries do 

women most commonly make one or more of the four decisions jointly with their husbands, and these 

jointly made decisions tend to be either decisions about large household purchases or about visiting 

family or friends. In 14 countries husbands most frequently make one or more of the decisions alone. 

Notably, in 11 of these countries (10 in sub-Saharan Africa and 1 in Asia [Nepal]), at least three of the 

four decisions are most often made by husbands alone.

The country-by-country analysis for decisionmaking alone is summarized in Figure 2.1. This 

analysis is done by averaging the percentages of currently married women making different decisions 

alone in each region (sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa/West Asia/Europe, Asia, and Latin 

America/Caribbean). In all regions except North Africa/West Asia/Europe, decisions about purchases for 

daily needs are most often made alone by women, followed by decisions about their own health care. In 

North Africa/West Asia/Europe this order is reversed. With the exception of the Latin America/Caribbean 

region, the decisions least likely to be made by women alone are about large household purchases.
17

Table 2.1. Percent distribution of currently married women according to their decisionmaking 

pattern, by decision and country

Decision

Respondent 

alone

Respondent 

and husband

Respondent 

and other

Husband 

alone

Someone 

else Missing Total

Sub-Saharan Africa

Benin

Woman's own health care 19.5 13.8 1.6 60.9 4.1 0.2 100.0

Large household purchases 14.9 15.9 3.1 61.9 3.9 0.2 100.0

Household purchases for daily needs 40.7 18.3 4.2 32.9 3.8 0.1 100.0

Visits to family or friends 17.0 30.7 2.9 45.1 3.9 0.4 100.0

Burkina Faso

Woman's own health care 8.8 10.6 0.2 74.9 5.5 0.1 100.0

Large household purchases 10.0 13.5 0.4 70.4 5.6 0.1 100.0

Household purchases for daily needs 25.0 13.5 0.6 55.9 4.8 0.1 100.0

Visits to family or friends 16.1 15.9 0.9 61.5 5.6 0.1 100.0

Cameroon

Woman's own health care 18.4 16.5 0.5 57.6 6.8 0.2 100.0

Large household purchases 13.0 22.8 0.7 53.8 9.3 0.4 100.0

Household purchases for daily needs 29.0 22.1 1.4 39.0 7.9 0.5 100.0

Visits to family or friends 21.5 27.1 1.1 43.8 5.6 0.9 100.0

Ghana

Woman's own health care 37.0 20.6 0.9 34.9 6.6 0.0 100.0

Large household purchases 20.9 30.2 1.5 40.9 6.3 0.2 100.0

Household purchases for daily needs 28.8 32.3 1.4 31.8 5.5 0.2 100.0

Visits to family or friends 20.9 37.9 1.5 33.7 5.4 0.5 100.0

Kenya

Woman's own health care 39.9 14.3 0.3 43.0 2.3 0.3 100.0

Large household purchases 11.8 24.2 0.2 61.4 2.3 0.1 100.0

Household purchases for daily needs 40.6 19.2 0.5 37.4 2.2 0.1 100.0

Visits to family or friends 22.9 35.2 0.4 39.4 1.7 0.4 100.0

Malawi

Woman's own health care 20.5 7.1 0.2 70.6 1.6 0.1 100.0

Large household purchases 6.1 10.8 0.2 81.3 1.5 0.0 100.0

Household purchases for daily needs 20.3 12.1 0.3 65.7 1.6 0.0 100.0

Visits to family or friends 17.7 44.5 0.3 36.2 1.2 0.1 100.0

Mali

Woman's own health care 10.9 5.4 0.4 74.1 8.9 0.2 100.0

Large household purchases 10.5 5.8 0.5 73.1 10.0 0.1 100.0

Household purchases for daily needs 19.8 6.8 0.4 63.4 9.3 0.2 100.0

Visits to family or friends 18.4 10.4 0.5 61.7 8.8 0.3 100.0

Mozambique

Woman's own health care 40.8 20.9 1.2 32.1 4.9 0.2 100.0

Large household purchases 4.7 32.2 0.6 57.6 4.0 0.9 100.0

Household purchases for daily needs 35.5 22.0 2.6 35.3 4.4 0.2 100.0

Visits to family or friends 19.2 44.3 0.9 32.1 3.2 0.3 100.0

Nigeria

Woman's own health care 12.8 10.3 0.1 73.4 3.1 0.2 100.0

Large household purchases 7.1 12.4 0.1 77.5 2.6 0.2 100.0

Household purchases for daily needs 19.0 13.9 0.2 64.5 2.4 0.1 100.0

Visits to family or friends 17.7 20.4 0.2 59.7 1.7 0.3 100.0

Rwanda

Woman's own health care 23.2 27.0 0.3 47.5 1.3 0.7 99.3

Large household purchases 16.5 32.5 0.3 49.3 1.2 0.1 100.0

Household purchases for daily needs 23.6 31.8 0.4 43.1 1.0 0.1 99.9

Visits to family or friends 19.7 49.7 0.5 29.2 0.8 0.1 99.9

Uganda

Woman's own health care 43.5 17.7 0.1 37.6 0.9 0.1 100.0

Large household purchases 11.3 26.5 0.2 60.0 1.6 0.5 100.0

Household purchases for daily needs 18.9 26.6 0.3 52.5 1.4 0.3 100.0

Visits to family or friends 24.8 31.2 0.6 41.7 1.1 0.5 100.0

Zambia

Woman's own health care 30.1 11.0 0.5 46.5 11.8 0.2 100.0

Large household purchases 11.3 25.1 0.1 61.7 1.6 0.2 100.0

Household purchases for daily needs n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a -

Visits to family or friends 16.8 25.7 0.0 56.1 1.1 0.2 100.0

Continued...
18

Table 2.1—Continued

Decision

Respondent 

alone

Respondent 

and husband

Respondent 

and other

Husband 

alone

Someone 

else Missing Total

Zimbabwe

Woman's own health care 49.3 12.5 0.2 31.8 6.1 0.1 100.0

Large household purchases 16.2 42.0 0.6 36.3 4.8 0.1 100.0

Household purchases for daily needs 57.5 20.5 0.7 16.2 4.9 0.2 100.0

Visits to family or friends 29.0 45.1 1.2 20.8 3.8 0.1 100.0

North Africa/West Asia/Europe

Armenia

Woman's own health care 33.8 39.9 1.4 20.2 4.6 0.0 100.0

Large household purchases 9.8 50.2 2.2 27.7 10.1 0.0 100.0

Household purchases for daily needs 42.3 24.5 3.0 18.0 12.1 0.0 100.0

Visits to family or friends 10.7 64.1 3.1 16.2 5.9 0.0 100.0

Jordan

Woman's own health care 61.4 25.9 0.5 11.7 0.5 0.0 100.0

Large household purchases 10.5 53.0 0.5 33.6 2.2 0.2 100.0

Household purchases for daily needs 37.4 26.8 0.8 31.2 3.7 0.0 100.0

Visits to family or friends 15.5 66.0 0.7 16.8 0.9 0.1 100.0

Morocco

Woman's own health care 12.1 40.3 4.1 33.1 10.2 0.2 100.0

Large household purchases 8.7 41.6 4.1 33.7 12.0 0.0 100.0

Household purchases for daily needs 15.4 33.6 3.6 34.4 13.0 0.0 100.0

Visits to family or friends 8.6 47.7 5.8 28.8 8.8 0.2 100.0

Asia

Cambodia

Woman's own health care 37.2 52.7 1.2 7.6 1.1 0.2 100.0

Large household purchases 26.8 58.8 1.4 9.7 3.2 0.1 100.0

Household purchases for daily needs 70.3 23.3 1.3 1.8 3.1 0.3 100.0

Visits to family or friends 16.0 78.1 1.3 2.5 1.1 1.1 100.0

Indonesia

Woman's own health care 54.0 32.1 0.2 12.7 0.3 0.6 100.0

Large household purchases 13.9 66.5 0.3 17.8 0.8 0.7 100.0

Household purchases for daily needs 82.7 13.0 0.8 2.4 0.8 0.3 100.0

Visits to family or friends 12.5 74.2 0.2 10.8 0.3 1.9 100.0

Nepal

Woman's own health care 13.4 12.1 1.8 51.0 21.1 0.5 100.0

Large household purchases 13.0 17.3 1.7 41.1 26.6 0.3 100.0

Household purchases for daily needs 26.8 14.6 1.9 30.3 26.3 0.1 100.0

Visits to family or friends 15.0 21.2 2.6 33.7 27.4 0.1 100.0

Philippines

Woman's own health care 75.5 18.2 0.5 4.9 1.0 0.1 100.0

Large household purchases 21.7 55.2 1.1 17.4 4.1 0.6 100.0

Household purchases for daily needs 56.9 28.7 1.3 9.0 3.8 0.3 100.0

Visits to family or friends 27.2 58.6 1.2 10.0 2.1 0.8 100.0

Latin America/Caribbean

Bolivia

Woman's own health care 52.8 34.8 0.4 10.4 1.2 0.3 100.0

Large household purchases 9.5 67.1 0.6 19.6 2.4 0.7 100.0

Household purchases for daily needs 57.1 32.4 0.7 6.7 3.0 0.1 100.0

Visits to family or friends 18.9 66.0 0.5 12.4 1.0 1.2 100.0

Haiti

Woman's own health care 42.5 31.3 1.2 21.5 3.2 0.3 100.0

Large household purchases 33.0 35.4 2.5 19.7 8.6 0.7 100.0

Household purchases for daily needs 46.8 31.6 2.6 10.1 8.3 0.5 100.0

Visits to family or friends 50.9 36.1 1.9 7.1 2.8 1.2 100.0

Nicaragua

Woman's own health care 46.7 41.2 0.2 11.3 0.5 0.1 99.9

Large household purchases 13.0 52.9 0.2 30.0 1.0 2.9 97.1

Household purchases for daily needs n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a -

Visits to family or friends 23.7 56.3 0.1 18.4 0.4 1.1 98.9

Note: Missing data include decisions not made and responses that are not applicable.

n/a = Not applicable or not available 
19

Figure 2.1 Average percentage of currently married women making decisions alone, by type of 

decision according to region

2.2 Correlates of Women’s Decisionmaking Alone and Joint Decisionmaking 

This section provides a detailed examination of the individual, marital, and household 

characteristics of currently married women age 15-49 years who make each of the four decisions alone

and those who make them jointly. The distributions are given in Appendix Table 2A.1-23. This analysis 

makes it possible to determine whether, for any given decision, women who make decisions alone and 

those who make them jointly differ in terms of their characteristics. However, many of the characteristics 

considered are likely to be related to one another, making it difficult to determine the net effect of any 

given characteristic on women‘s decisionmaking roles. Therefore, along with these bivariate results, the 

results of logistic regressions are also presented for each decision by type of participation (alone or joint) 

for all 23 countries. This latter analysis helps to identify the factors that correlate directly with different 

types of decisionmaking and gives insight into whether the correlates of each type of participation vary by 

type of decision. 

Appendix Table 2B.1-23 shows the odds ratios calculated from coefficients of the logistic 

regressions for each of the eight dependent variables for each country. Each odds ratio gives the increase 

or decrease in the odds of the event (making the decision alone or making the decision jointly) occurring 

for a given value of the independent variable compared to the reference category. For example, in the 

regression for decisions about respondents‘ own health care, an odds ratio of 1.50 in Appendix Table 

2B.14 for Armenia for the variable ―employment for cash‖ indicates that the odds that a woman who is 

employed for cash makes decisions alone about her own health care are 50 percent higher than if she were 

not employed for cash (the reference category). This multivariate analysis adds to the bivariate analysis 

by identifying the factors that significantly affect the likelihood of the specified pattern of decisionmaking 

net of all other factors hypothesized as relevant. 

27

12

30

20

36

10

32

12

45

19

59

18

47

19

52

31

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Women's own

health care

Large household

purchases

Purchases for

daily needs

Visits to family

or friends

Percentage

Type of Decision

Sub-Saharan Africa North Africa/West Asia/Europe Asia Latin America/Caribbean
20

To facilitate comparisons across countries, a table is given in each subsection that provides a 

summary of the significance and direction of relationships across the 23 countries from both the bivariate 

and multivariate analyses.

2.2A Dependent and Independent Variables

Type of decisionmaking. In this section the following dependent variables for each type of decision are 

analyzed for each country: 

a) Making the decision alone: For each decision, this variable includes currently married 

women who say they make the decision alone. For the logistic regression analysis a 

respondent is coded 1 if she says she makes the decision alone and is coded 0 otherwise. 

b) Making the decision jointly: For each decision, this variable includes currently married 

women who say they make the decision jointly with their husband or jointly with someone 

else. For the logistic regression analysis, a code of 1 is given if the respondent says that she 

makes the decision jointly with the husband or someone else and 0 otherwise. Note that in 

almost all countries and for almost all decisions joint decisionmaking is predominantly joint

decisionmaking with the husband. 

Independent variables. Explanatory variables include all the different individual, husband, union, and 

household variables described in Chapter 1: age in years, number of children ever born, educational 

attainment, employment for cash, regular media exposure, age at first marriage, spousal age difference, 

coresidence of husband, residence in an extended family, residence in an urban area, and household 

wealth. These characteristics are all known correlates of women‘s empowerment. For example, age, 

education, media exposure, and employment for cash are all potential sources of empowerment. 

Furthermore, marital and household characteristics, such as age at first marriage, spousal age difference, 

nuclear family residence, urban residence, and wealth, are aspects of the setting for empowerment 

because they reflect the opportunities available to women.

In addition, all of the logistic regression equations include two community-level variables defined 

as follows:

1. Percentage of women in the community whose husbands have at least secondary education.

This variable is constructed using individual-level information on the husband‘s education 

level and aggregating the information to the cluster level. First, husband‘s education was 

coded as a dummy variable. Women whose husbands had no education or incomplete or 

complete primary education were coded 0, while women whose husbands had incomplete 

or complete secondary or higher education were coded 1. Next, the mean of these codes 

was calculated for each cluster, and the cluster value given to each woman in the cluster 

after subtracting her own husband‘s contribution to the cluster mean value. The resulting 

variable measures the percentage of women in the cluster (or community) whose husbands 

have at least secondary or higher education. (Note: For those cases where information on 

husband‘s education was coded as ―don‘t know‖ or ―missing,‖ values were imputed from 

the wife‘s education level. For all countries, except Benin, Cameroon, Ghana, Haiti, and 

Mozambique, the values imputed constituted less than 3 percent of the sample.)

2. Percentage of women in the community who watch television at least once a week. For this 

variable, women were first coded as 0 or 1 depending on whether they watched television 

at least once a week. Then, the mean of this variable for each cluster was given to each 

woman in that cluster after removing her own value from the mean of the cluster.
21

Both of these variables are indicators of the overall socioeconomic development of the 

community. Contextual control variables are included in the regression equations since recent 

empowerment literature suggests that contextual or community-level factors play a significant role in the 

process of woman‘s empowerment and its beneficial consequences (Mason and Smith, 2000; Desai and 

Johnson, 2005). 

2.2B Discussion of Results

In this subsection the bivariate and regression results for each explanatory variable are discussed. 

Detailed bivariate results can be found in Appendix Table 2A.1-23 and odds ratios from the logistic 

regression can be found in Appendix Table 2B.1-23. The main findings of these tables are summarized in 

Summary Tables 2A-2E. 

Women’s Characteristics

Age. Appendix Table 2A.1-23 shows that the older women are, the more likely they are to make each of 

the four decisions alone. In fact, the percentage of women making decisions alone is highest in the older 

age groups in 19-22 of the 23 countries, depending on the type of decision (see Summary Table 2A). 

There is much less consistency across countries and decisions in how joint decisionmaking varies 

by age. Joint decisionmaking is most consistently related to age only for decisions about large household 

purchases: in 20 of the 23 countries, older women are much more likely to make these decisions jointly

than younger women. In contrast, joint decisionmaking generally increases with age in 16 countries for 

decisions about visits to family or friends, and in even fewer countries for decisions about purchases for 

daily needs (13 countries) and about women‘s own health care (8 countries). In fact, compared with the 

generally positive association of age with making each of the four decisions alone, joint decisionmaking 

is significantly positively associated with age for all four decisions in only six countries (Cameroon, 

Haiti, Mali, Morocco, Nepal, and Nigeria). In addition, joint decisionmaking is negatively associated with 

age for decisions about women‘s own health care in six countries, and is not significantly related to age in 

the remaining nine countries.

In summary, the bivariate results show that in almost all countries, only decisionmaking alone

increases with age for all decisions. Both types of participation, alone or joint, increase consistently with 

age for only one type of decision, decisions about large household purchases.

Even after controlling for other relevant characteristics, a woman‘s age affects the likelihood of 

her making decisions alone in almost all countries (Summary Table 2A and Appendix Table 2B.1-23). 

The few countries where older women are not the most likely to make decisions alone vary by the type of 

decision. For example, decisionmaking alone does not vary significantly by age with regard to decisions 

about women‘s own health care in Jordan, Nicaragua, and Zambia; decisions about large household 

purchases in Indonesia and Zimbabwe; and decisions about visits to family or friends in Nicaragua. In 

addition, in Indonesia, Nigeria, and the Philippines, decisionmaking alone about visits to family or friends 

has a U-shaped relationship with age, implying that the age groups least likely to make these decisions 

tend to be the middle groups. 

In comparison to the net effect of age on decisionmaking alone, the net effect of age on joint

decisionmaking is far less consistent. Depending on the decision, joint decisionmaking does not vary with 

age in 8-13 countries. In two countries, Cambodia and Rwanda, joint decisionmaking is unrelated to age 

for all decisions. In several countries, the bivariate positive relationship between joint decisionmaking and 

age is explained away when controls are introduced. For example, joint decisionmaking about large 

household purchases does not vary significantly by age in Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Haiti, and 
22

Zambia even though, in the bivariate analysis, the proportion making this decision jointly was 

significantly lower for the lowest age group. 

Summary Table 2A. Number of countries where decisionmaking alone and decisionmaking 

jointly with the woman's husband or others has an association of the specified type with the 

respondent's age and number of children ever born: Results of bivariate analysis and 

analysis with controls

Decisions about 

the woman's 

own health care

Decisions about 

large household 

purchases

Decisions about 

purchases for 

daily needs

Decisions about 

visits to family

or friends

Alone Joint Alone Joint Alone Joint Alone Joint

Age

Bivariate

Generally positive 21 8 22 20 21 13 19 16

Generally negative or nonlinear 1 6 1 1 0 2 3 2

Does not vary significantly by age 1 9 0 2 0 6 1 5

With controls

Generally positive 20 7 21 14 21 9 19 11

Increases with age 11 1 14 3 11 3 12 3

Increases with age to age 20-29 years 5 5 7 9 9 2 5 4

Only significantly lower for women age 15-

19 years 4 1 0 2 1 4 2 4

Generally negative or nonlinear 0 3 0 1 0 2 3 2

Does not vary significantly by age 3 13 2 8 0 10 1 10

Children ever born

Bivariate

Generally positive 15 6 16 10 17 8 13 9

Generally negative or nonlinear 2 6 1 6 4 4 1 5

Does not vary significantly by number of 

children ever born 6 11 6 7 1 9 9 9

With controls

Generally positive 7 5 1 4 11 3 5 3

Increases with number of children 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 0

Significantly higher only for women with 5 

or more children 0 2 1 2 1 1 0 1

Significantly lower only for women with no 

children 6 3 0 2 8 2 3 2

Generally negative or nonlinear 5 4 4 4 4 3 0 4

Does not vary by number of children ever 

born 11 14 18 15 6 15 18 16

The bivariate and multivariate results together point to a much stronger and consistently positive 

relationship between age and decisionmaking alone than between age and joint decisionmaking. 

Furthermore, the significant increase in decisionmaking alone with age is not explained away by any of 

the control variables, suggesting that aging directly and positively influences decisionmaking alone. 

Number of children ever born. In most cultures, bearing children is associated with increased prestige and 

bargaining power for married women. This increased power is hypothesized to translate into having a 

greater say in household decisions. This expectation is only partially supported even by the bivariate 

results, however. An examination of the second horizontal panels of Appendix Table 2A.1-23 and 

Summary Table 2A shows that the proportion of women making each of the four decisions alone tends to 

increase with the number of children in only 13 countries for decisions about visits to family or friends 

and 15-17 countries for the other decisions. In addition, the proportion making decisions jointly tends to 

increase with the number of children in only 6-10 countries, depending on the decision. In several of these 

countries, the proportions making decisions alone or jointly tend to increase from women with 0 children 

to women with 3-4 children, but then either remain unchanged or decrease for women with five or more 

children. 

In a few countries, the proportions making decisions vary not with the number of children a 

woman has, but, rather, with whether she has any children at all. For example, women who have no 
23

children are significantly less likely to make decisions alone about their own health care than women with

any number of children in six countries, about daily purchases in four countries, about large household 

purchases in three countries, and about visits to family or friends in one country. Notably, in 4-6 

countries, joint decisionmaking declines with the number of children ever born compared with 1-4 

countries where decisionmaking alone declines with the number of children ever born. 

In summary, the bivariate analysis shows that women‘s decisionmaking alone seems to increase 

with the number of children ever born more consistently across countries than decisionmaking jointly. In 

fact, joint decisionmaking is not significantly associated with the number of children ever born in about 

half the countries (11) for decisions about women‘s own health care and in 7-9 countries for the other 

decisions. 

An examination of the logistic regression results shows that a large number of the significant 

bivariate relationships between decisionmaking and the number of children born are explained away in 

the multivariate analysis. Joint decisionmaking does not vary significantly with number of children ever 

born in 14-16 countries, depending on the decision. Furthermore, in 18 countries, decisionmaking alone

also does not vary by number of children for decisions about large household purchases and visits to 

family or friends. 

For decisions about women‘s own health care and making purchases for daily needs, however, 

decisionmaking alone does vary significantly with number of children ever born in the majority of 

countries. However, as Summary Table 2A shows, in countries where the relationship is positive, the 

odds of making decisions alone vary more often between women with and without children than by 

women‘s number of children. In addition, in some countries, having children has a negative effect on the 

odds of making these two decisions alone. Specifically, the net relationship between number of children 

ever born and making decisions alone about women‘s own health care in Armenia, Kenya, Mali, Nepal, 

and Nigeria and about daily purchases in Mozambique, Uganda, and Nepal, is negative or nonlinear. 

In summary, although the proportion of women participating in decisionmaking, particularly 

decisionmaking alone, does increase with number of children ever born, this positive effect of number of 

children on women‘s decisionmaking is not upheld in the multivariate analysis for most decisions and in 

most countries. The only major exception is decisionmaking alone about purchases for daily needs. 

Education. A woman‘s level of education is defined here in terms of a three-category variable based on 

the highest level of education attained: 1) no education; 2) primary education only; and 3) secondary or 

higher education. In Armenia alone, where education is virtually universal, education is a two-category 

variable (primary/no education and secondary or higher education). Since education is an important 

potential source of empowerment, the expectation is that women‘s decisionmaking, particularly 

decisionmaking alone, will increase with education. The third horizontal panel of Appendix Table 2A.1-

23 and the first panel of Summary Table 2B show how decisionmaking varies with level of education. 

The data suggest that the association of education with women‘s participation in decisionmaking 

is nuanced. In general, the proportion of women participating in decisionmaking rises with educational 

attainment but varies by type of decision and type of participation. The proportion of women making 

decisions alone is higher the higher the level of education in about half or more of the countries for each 

of the four decisions. However, education has a more consistently positive association with women 

making decisions alone about their own health care and purchases for daily needs in a larger number of 

countries (16-17) than with making decisions about large household purchases and visits to family or 

friends (11-13 countries). The countries where education level is positively associated with making at 

least three of the four decisions alone are Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Kenya, Mozambique, and Zambia in 

sub-Saharan Africa, Nepal in Asia, and Bolivia and Nicaragua in Latin America. In 5-7 countries, 
24

decisionmaking alone about large household purchases and visits to family or friends varies either 

negatively or nonlinearly with education level. 

In contrast to the variation in decisionmaking alone with education, the proportion of women 

making joint decisions tends to increase with level of education in 15 countries each for decisions about 

large household purchases and visits to family or friends. For the decisions about women‘s own health 

care and purchases for daily needs, joint decisionmaking has a positive association with level of education 

in about the same of number of countries (7-8) as the number of countries where it has a negative or 

nonlinear association. Notably, in Benin, Indonesia, Malawi, Morocco, and Nigeria, joint decisionmaking 

is positively associated with level of education for all decisions. 

Summary Table 2B. Number of countries where decisionmaking alone and decisionmaking jointly

with the woman's husband or others has an association of the specified type with the 

respondent's education level, employment for cash, and media exposure: Results of bivariate 

analysis and analysis with controls 

Variable

Decisions about 

the woman's 

own health care

Decisions about 

large household 

purchases

Decisions about 

purchases for 

daily needs 

Decisions about 

visits to family 

or friends 

Alone Joint Alone Joint Alone Joint Alone Joint

Education 

Bivariate (does not include Armenia)

Generally positive 17 7 11 15 16 8 13 15

 Increases monotonically 4 2 3 6 4 2 3 4

 More likely only for women with

 secondary or

 higher education 8 4 4 8 7 4 4 9

 Less likely only for women with no

 education 5 1 4 1 5 2 6 2

Generally negative or nonlinear 1 8 7 3 1 7 5 3

Does not vary by education level 4 7 4 4 3 5 4 4

With controls (includes Armenia)

Generally positive 12 9 5 14 14 9 9 14

 Increases monotonically 1 1 0 2 1 1 1 4

 More likely only for women with 

 secondary or

 higher education 5 4 1 9 4 4 2 8

 Less likely only for women with no

 education 6 3 4 3 9 4 6 2

Generally negative or nonlinear 3 3 2 2 0 1 4 1

Does not vary by education level 8 11 16 7 7 11 10 8

Works for cash

Bivariate

Positive 20 13 22 19 19 13 20 16

Negative 1 7 0 0 0 2 1 3

Does not vary by employment for cash 2 3 1 4 2 6 2 4

With controls

Positive 20 13 21 15 17 12 18 13

Negative 1 3 0 0 0 1 1 3

Does not vary by employment for cash 2 7 2 8 4 8 4 7

Regular media exposure

Bivariate

Positive 15 5 8 13 14 5 9 13

Negative 0 5 5 1 0 7 5 2

Does not vary by media exposure 8 13 10 9 7 9 9 8

With controls

Positive 1 0 2 3 9 2 1 3

Negative 7 3 3 2 2 7 6 1

Does not vary by media exposure 15 20 18 18 10 12 16 19

Thus, although women who are educated, do tend, in most countries, to participate more often in 

decisionmaking, the answer to the question of whether women with more education are more likely to 

make decisions alone or to make them jointly varies by decision. Once controls are introduced into the 
25

analysis, decisionmaking alone is found to be positively correlated with education level in only 14 

countries for decisions about purchases for daily needs, in 12 countries for decisions about women‘s own 

health care, in 9 countries for decisions about visits to family or friends, and in 5 countries for decisions 

about large household purchases. In contrast, education is positively correlated with joint decisionmaking 

in about the same number of countries (9-15) in the multivariate analysis as in the bivariate analysis.

To better understand the relationship of decisionmaking with education two additional questions 

need to be addressed:

1. In how many countries and for which types of decisions is the bivariate relationship of 

education level with decisionmaking spurious? To answer this question, Figure 2.2 below 

gives the number of countries where the relationship found in the bivariate analysis changes 

in the multivariate analysis and the direction of the change, if any, by decision and type of 

decisionmaking. Note that with 21 countries for which data are available for four decisions 

and 2 countries for which data are available for three decisions, the total number of data 

points across all decisions for each type of decisionmaking (alone or joint) is 90.

Figure 2.2. Number of countries by the direction of change in the relationship between 

decisionmaking (alone and joint) and education level between the bivariate and multivariate 

analyses according to type of decision

Direction of change in the 

relationship between the bivariate 

and multivariate analyses/Type of 

decisionmaking

Decisions

Total

Women’s own 

health care

Large 

household 

purchases

Purchases for 

daily needs

Visits to family or 

friends

No change

Alone

Joint

15

13

8

21

15

9

13

16

51

59

From positive to negative

Alone

Joint

2

1

0

0

1

0

1

1

4

2

From positive to not significant

Alone

Joint

4

2

8

1

4

3

5

2

21

8

From negative (or nonlinear) to positive

Alone

Joint

1

4

0

1

0

2

0

1

1

8

From negative to not significant

Alone

Joint

0

2

5

0

0

4

2

2

7

8

From not significant to positive

Alone

Joint

0

1

2

0

1

3

2

1

5

5

From not significant to negative

Alone

Joint

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0
26

The figure shows that there is no change in the education level and decisionmaking 

relationship in the case of 51 of the 90 data points for decisionmaking alone and 59 of the 90 

data points for joint decisionmaking. This suggests that the bivariate relationship of education 

with joint decisionmaking is somewhat less often spurious than the bivariate relationship of 

education with decisionmaking alone. Notably, the most common change in the relationship 

of education level and decisionmaking alone is from a significant positive bivariate 

relationship to a nonsignificant net relationship. Furthermore, the bivariate and net 

relationship of education level and decisionmaking alone is most stable for decisions about 

women‘s own health care and purchases for daily needs. For joint decisionmaking, the 

relationship is most stable for decisions about large household purchases and visits to family 

or friends.

2. To what extent does education level have the same effect on decisionmaking alone and joint 

decisionmaking within countries? To answer this question, Figure 2.3 lists countries 

according to the direction and significance of the relationship of education level with 

decisionmaking alone and decisionmaking jointly by type of decision based on the results of 

the multivariate analysis. For each decision, in each country in the diagonal, education level 

has the same relationship with decisionmaking alone and joint decisionmaking. 

Figure 2.3 shows that there are only 7-12 countries (depending on the decision) where 

education level has the same relationship with decisionmaking alone and joint

decisionmaking. The only country where education level is positively associated with making 

all four decisions alone is Nepal; however, education is positively associated with increased 

odds of joint decisionmaking for all four decisions in Cameroon, Kenya, Malawi, Morocco, 

and Nigeria. Also, in four of these countries (Cameroon, Jordan, Malawi, and Morocco), 

education increases the likelihood of making at least three of the four decisions jointly as well 

as alone. 

The figure also shows that there are several countries where education has no net effect on 

women‘s decisionmaking. For example, in Armenia and Cambodia, education level is not 

significantly related to making decisions alone for three decisions each and to making 

decisions jointly for all four decisions. Further, education level is not significantly related to 

making decisions alone for all four decisions in Benin and Uganda and for three decisions 

each in Burkina Faso and Nigeria. Similarly, education level is not related to joint

decisionmaking for all four decisions in Haiti and Mali and to three decisions each in Ghana 

and Mozambique. 

Together, the bivariate and multivariate analyses show that, although women‘s participation in 

decisionmaking does increase with education, women‘s education level per se does not have a consistent 

net positive influence on their decisionmaking participation in all countries and for all decisions. 

Education level is most likely to be positively associated with women making decisions alone about their 

own health care and about purchases for daily needs and with women making decisions jointly about large 

household purchases and about visits to family or friends. 

Employment for cash. All respondents are asked about their employment status in the 12 months 

preceding the survey. Women who were employed at any time during this period, were asked about the 

nature of their remuneration (cash, cash and kind, kind only, or not paid). In this analysis, women who are 

paid only or partly in cash are considered to be employed for cash. Employment for cash is hypothesized 

to be positively associated with women‘s empowerment and decisionmaking.
27

Figure 2.3. Countries according to the direction and significance of the relationship of education 

with decisionmaking alone and decisionmaking jointly based on logistic regression results

Association of 

decisionmaking alone with 

education level tends to be:

Association of joint decisionmaking with education level tends to be:

Positive Negative or nonlinear Not significant

Decision: Women’s own 

health care

Positive Burkina Faso, Cameroon, 

Indonesia, Kenya, Malawi, Nepal

Mozambique, Philippines Haiti, Nicaragua, Mali, Rwanda

Negative or nonlinear Bolivia Ghana, Zambia

Not significant Morocco, Nigeria Benin Armenia, Cambodia, Jordan, 

Uganda, Zimbabwe

Decision: Large household

purchases

Positive Jordan, Morocco, Nepal Mali, Rwanda

Negative or nonlinear Philippines Haiti

Not significant Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, 

Ghana, Indonesia, Kenya, Malawi, 

Nicaragua, Nigeria, Zambia, 

Zimbabwe

Uganda Armenia, Bolivia, Cambodia,

Mozambique

Decision: Purchases for

daily needs

Positive Cameroon, Jordan, Kenya, 

Malawi, Morocco, Nigeria, Rwanda

Philippines Cambodia, Indonesia, Mali, 

Mozambique, Nepal Zimbabwe

Negative or nonlinear

Not significant Benin, Uganda Armenia, Bolivia, Burkina Faso,

Ghana, Haiti

Decision: Visits to family 

or friends

Positive Cameroon, Jordan, Malawi, 

Morocco

Zambia Armenia, Ghana Mozambique, 

Nepal

Negative or nonlinear Bolivia, Indonesia, Philippines

Zimbabwe

Not significant Benin, Burkina Faso, Kenya, 

Nicaragua, Nigeria, Rwanda

Cambodia, Haiti, Mali, Uganda

Appendix Table 2A.1-23 shows that in most countries, the expectation is upheld that women who 

are employed are more likely to participate in decisionmaking. In fact, as shown in Summary Table 2B, a 

higher proportion of women employed for cash make each of the four decisions alone in 19-22 of the 23 

countries than women who are not employed for cash. Furthermore, in 13-19 countries, women employed 

for cash are also more likely to make decisions jointly. Among the different decisions, decisions about 

large household purchases are unique in that in all but four countries, women employed for cash are more 

likely to make these decisions alone as well as jointly. Decisions about women‘s own health care are 

unique in that in eight countries, decisionmaking alone is higher but joint decisionmaking is lower if a 

woman is employed for cash. Interestingly, the Philippines is the only country where women who are 

employed for cash are significantly less likely to make decisions alone and significantly more likely to 

make decisions jointly than women not employed for cash.

The bivariate findings are largely upheld in the multivariate analysis, as can be seen from 

Appendix Table 2B.1-23 and Summary Table 2B. Women employed for cash are more likely, even net of 

all other relevant variables such as age and education, to make decisions alone in the majority of 

countries, and to make them jointly in about half or more (12-15) of the countries. Thus, the addition of 

controls does not affect the largely positive influence of employment for cash on decisionmaking. The 

only countries where women employed for cash are less likely to make any kind of decision alone, 
28

compared with women not employed for cash are the Philippines (for decisions about women‘s own 

health care) and Uganda (for decisions about visits to family or friends). 

In summary, this analysis shows a strong independent positive relationship between women‘s 

employment for cash and their increased participation in decisionmaking, particularly in making decisions 

alone.

Media exposure. Media exposure, like education, is hypothesized to be positively associated with 

women‘s empowerment because it provides access to the world outside the home and potential exposure 

to new ideas and nontraditional roles for women. A woman is defined as having regular media exposure 

here if she watches television, reads the newspaper, or listens to the radio at least once a week. 

From the fifth horizontal panel of Appendix Table 2A.1-23, it is evident that women who watch 

television, read the newspaper, or listen to the radio at least once a week are more likely than women who 

have less regular exposure to any of these media to make all four types of decisions alone or jointly.

As with employment for cash, the association of media exposure and decisionmaking varies 

across countries by type of decision and participation. Women regularly exposed to the media are more 

likely to make decisions alone about their own health care in 15 countries and about purchases for daily 

needs in 14 countries (Summary Table 2B). Women are also more likely to make decisions jointly about 

large household purchases and about visits to family or friends in 13 countries each. Notably, in five 

countries each, regular exposure to media is associated with a lower proportion of women making 

decisions alone about large household purchases and visits to family or friends; and in five and seven 

countries, respectively, regular media exposure is associated with a lower proportion of women making 

decisions jointly about their own health care and purchases for daily needs. Benin is the only country 

where participation in decisionmaking, alone or joint, is unaffected by media exposure for any type of 

decision. In addition, in Mali, Rwanda, Uganda, Armenia, and Indonesia, women‘s participation, alone or 

joint, in decisionmaking about their own health care is unaffected by media exposure. Similarly, any 

participation in decisions about large household purchases in Rwanda and Jordan, about purchases for 

daily needs in Mali, Uganda, Armenia, and Haiti, and about visits to family or friends in Kenya, 

Cambodia, and the Philippines, are not significantly affected by regular media exposure. 

In summary, the bivariate analysis shows that decisionmaking is higher for women with regular 

media exposure, but the association appears to be more consistent with decisionmaking alone for 

decisions about women‘s own health care and purchases for daily needs and with joint decisionmaking 

for decisions about large household purchases and visits to family or friends. 

Once controls are added to the analysis (Appendix Table 2B.1-23 and Summary Table 2B), 

regular media exposure does not have a significant net effect on women‘s decisionmaking, alone and 

joint, in most countries. For example, although women with regular media exposure are more likely to be 

making decisions alone about their own health care in 15 countries, the regression shows a significant 

positive association in only 1 country. The only type of decision that has a positive relationship between 

regular media exposure and the decision being made alone in more than a third of the countries (nine) is 

the decision about purchases for daily needs. Notably, regular media exposure is negatively associated 

with making decisions alone about women‘s own health care and about visits to family or friends in seven 

and six countries, respectively. 

Figure 2.4 below lists countries by whether decisionmaking alone and joint decisionmaking is 

positively or negatively related to regular media exposure for each type of decision. The relevant 

relationship is not significant in any country that is not listed. 
29

Figure 2.4. Countries by direction of the significant relationship of regular media exposure with 

decisionmaking alone and joint decisionmaking based on logistic regression results

Type of decision/participation

Direction of significant association with regular media exposure

Positive Negative

Decisionmaking alone 

Women’s own health care Nepal Indonesia, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Nigeria, 

Rwanda, Uganda

Large household purchases Nepal, Philippines Malawi, Mali, Uganda

Purchases for daily needs Cambodia, Cameroon, Indonesia, 

Jordan, Mozambique, Nepal, 

Philippines, Rwanda, Zimbabwe

Mali, Uganda

Visits to family or friends Nepal Armenia, Jordan, Mali, Nigeria, Rwanda, 

Uganda

Decisionmaking jointly

Women’s own health care - Haiti, Mali, Nigeria

Large household purchases Benin, Bolivia, Mozambique Haiti, Philippines

Purchases for daily needs Benin, Burkina Faso Cambodia, Cameroon, Indonesia, Malawi, Mali, 

Philippines, Zimbabwe

Visits to family or friends Armenia, Rwanda, Uganda Burkina Faso

Nepal, Mali, and Uganda are the only countries where regular media exposure is associated with 

making all four types of decisions alone. However, regular media exposure increases the odds in Nepal 

and decreases the odds in Mali and Uganda of making each of the four decisions alone. Notably, within 

some countries, media exposure can both increase the odds of making one decision alone and reduce the 

odds of making another decision alone. For example, in both Jordan and Rwanda, regular media exposure 

increases the odds of making decisions alone about purchases for daily needs but decreases the odds of 

making decisions alone about visits to family or friends. 

Overall, this discussion reveals that women who are regularly exposed to media do make 

decisions alone and/or jointly (depending on the decision) more often. However, this relationship is 

largely explained away by other variables for all decisions except those about purchases for daily needs. 

Furthermore, in many countries decisionmaking is negatively related to media exposure.

Union Characteristics

Age at first marriage. An early age at marriage can cut short women‘s access to education and the time 

needed to develop and mature unhampered by the responsibilities of marriage and children. In addition, a 

very young bride tends to be among the youngest members of her husband‘s family and, by virtue of her 

age and relationship, is unlikely to be accorded much power or independence. It is thus usually assumed 

that low ages at marriage are negatively associated with women‘s empowerment (Mason, 1986). 

The sixth panel of Appendix Table 2A.1-23 shows how women‘s participation in decisionmaking 

varies by their age at first marriage. Age at first marriage is defined in terms of a three-category variable: 

age less than 18 years at marriage; between 18 and 24 years; and 25 years or older. 

The association between age at first marriage and decisionmaking is not significant in several 

countries. Specifically, as shown in Summary Table 2C, the proportions of women making each of the 

decisions alone do not differ significantly by age at first marriage in 8-12 countries depending on the 

decision; and the proportions of women making each of the decisions jointly do not differ significantly by 

age at first marriage in 5-14 countries depending on the decision. In countries where the proportions of 

women making decisions vary significantly by age at first marriage, the relationship tends to be positive 

more often than negative. However, whether the association is more likely to be positive with 

decisionmaking alone or joint depends on the decision.
30

A higher proportion of women married at older ages, particularly at age 25 or later, make 

decisions about their own health care alone in 13 countries and jointly in 6 countries. However, the 

association of a higher age at first marriage with making decisions about purchases for daily needs alone

and jointly is positive in about the same number of countries (seven and eight, respectively). With regard 

to the remaining two decisions, the association is positive in more countries with joint decisionmaking 

(12-13 countries) than with decisionmaking alone (4-6 countries). A higher age at first marriage is 

significantly associated with higher proportions of women making most of the four decisions alone as 

well as jointly in only three countries (Cameroon, Nigeria, and Nicaragua), making the four decisions 

alone in only two countries (Burkina Faso and Cameroon), and making the four decisions jointly in only 

three countries (Nigeria, Indonesia, and Morocco). 

The regression results reveal that a higher age at first marriage either does not have a net 

significant effect on decisionmaking alone or, with the exception of a few countries, has a negative or 

nonlinear net effect. The odds of making the decision alone decrease or do not increase consistently with 

age at first marriage in 5-10 countries, depending on the decision. In several of these countries, the odds 

do not differ between women married before age 18 and those married at ages 25 or older, but are higher 

for women married at age 18-24. The odds of making the decision alone are higher for women married at 

older ages only in Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Nepal, Nigeria, and Zambia for decisions about their own health 

care and in only Nigeria for decisions about large household purchases and purchases for daily needs. 

With the exception of decisions about visits to family or friends, age at first marriage appears to 

have no significant net effect on joint decisionmaking in the majority of countries (16-20). For decisions 

about visits to family or friends, the effect of age at first marriage tends to be positive in eight countries 

(Armenia, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Indonesia, Mali, Nicaragua, Nigeria, and Uganda) and negative or 

nonlinear in four (Benin, Cameroon, Kenya, and Malawi). 

Summary Table 2C. Number of countries where decisionmaking alone and decisionmaking 

jointly with the woman's husband or others has an association of the specified type with the 

respondent's age at first marriage and spousal age difference: Results of bivariate analysis and 

analysis with controls

Variable

Decisions about 

the woman's 

own health care

Decisions about 

large household 

purchases

Decisions about 

purchases for 

daily needs

Decisions about 

visits to family

or friends 

Alone Joint Alone Joint Alone Joint Alone Joint

Age at first marriage 

Bivariate

Generally positive 13 6 6 13 8 7 4 12

Generally negative or nonlinear 2 3 5 5 3 4 7 4

Does not vary by age at first marriage 8 14 10 5 10 10 12 7

With controls

Generally positive 5 1 1 3 2 3 0 8

Generally negative or nonlinear 5 2 10 3 5 2 8 4

Does not vary by age at first marriage 13 20 12 17 14 16 15 11

Spousal age difference

Bivariate

Generally negative 5 4 2 11 5 3 1 8

Monotonically negative 1 0 1 2 2 3 0 4

Less likely only for women who are 10 

or more years younger than their 

husbands 4 4 1 9 3 0 1 4

Generally positive or nonlinear 6 0 7 2 5 1 5 1

Does not vary by spousal age difference 12 19 14 10 11 17 17 14

With controls

Generally negative 1 4 0 7 5 3 0 6

Monotonically negative 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1

Less likely only for women who are at 

least 10 years younger than their 

husbands 1 3 0 7 4 4 0 5

Generally positive or nonlinear 4 1 9 1 4 2 6 0

Does not vary by spousal age difference 18 18 14 15 12 16 17 17
31

Overall, the net effect of age at first marriage is largely contrary to expectations, with higher ages 

at first marriage not affecting or having a negative effect on women‘s decisionmaking.

Spousal age difference. Empowerment within the family context is likely to depend, in part, on being able 

to negotiate power within the spousal relationship. A person‘s relative age is a resource which can affect 

the perception of strength when power and entitlements are negotiated within the ―cooperative conflict‖ 

context of the family (Sen, 1990). This suggests that women who are much younger than their spouses are 

likely to be at a disadvantage with regard to their entitlement to power. Hence, the hypothesized direction 

of association of spousal age difference with participation in decisionmaking is negative, not positive, as 

with other variables. 

The seventh panel of Appendix Table 2A.1-23 shows results for the bivariate variation in 

women‘s decisionmaking by spousal age difference. Spousal age difference is defined by a three category 

variable: the wife is less than five years younger than her husband (this includes wives who are older than 

their husbands); the wife is 5-9 years younger than her husband; and the wife is 10 or more years younger 

than her husband. 

The results show that women‘s participation in decisionmaking is significantly affected by 

spousal age difference in less than half the countries for most decisions. Decisionmaking alone does not 

vary significantly in 11-17 countries and joint decisionmaking does not vary significantly in 10-19 

countries, depending on the decision. 

Among the countries where the relationship is significant, the number of countries where 

decisionmaking alone tends to increase (monotonically or nonlinearly) with spousal age difference is 

about the same as or more than the number of countries where it tends to decrease. In Indonesia, Nepal, 

and Rwanda, the women who are 10 or more years younger than their husbands are more likely to make 

almost all four decisions alone than women who are closer in age to their husbands. Nigeria is the only 

country where spousal age difference is, as hypothesized, negatively associated with decisionmaking 

alone for all decisions.

In contrast to decisionmaking alone, the proportions making decisions jointly tend to decline 

with spousal age difference, particularly for decisions about large household purchases and visits to

family or friends. The proportion of women making decisions jointly about large household purchases 

decreases with spousal age difference in 11 countries and increases in only 2 countries. The proportion 

making decisions jointly about visits to family or friends decreases in eight countries and increases in only 

one country. 

Overall, the bivariate results suggest that women‘s participation in household decisionmaking 

does not vary with spousal age difference in about half the countries. Where the bivariate relationship 

does vary significantly, the hypothesis that a larger spousal age difference is associated with less 

participation in decisionmaking is upheld more often for joint decisionmaking than for decisionmaking 

alone. 

The multivariate analysis underscores the bivariate findings. Appendix Table 2B.1-23 and 

Summary Table 2C show that spousal age difference does not have a significant net effect on 

decisionmaking alone in the majority of countries (14-18) for decisions about women‘s own health care, 

large household purchases, and visits to family or friends, and in about half the countries (12) for the 

remaining decision. 

Similarly, spousal age difference does not significantly affect joint decisionmaking in 15-18 

countries. Furthermore, its effect on decisionmaking alone, where significant, is almost entirely positive 

for all decisions except those about purchases for daily needs. In other words, in the few countries where 
32

the relationship is significant, the odds of making most decisions alone increase (rather than decrease, as 

hypothesized) as spousal age difference increases. Decisions about purchases for daily needs are the only 

ones that are more likely to be made alone by women whose husbands‘ age is closer to their own age in 

about one-fourth of the countries (Benin, Bolivia, Cambodia, Jordan, and Zimbabwe). In contrast to 

decisionmaking alone, the odds of making decisions jointly do decrease significantly in 6-7 countries for 

decisions about large household purchases and about visits to family or friends and in 4 countries each for 

the other two decisions. 

From this analysis it can be concluded that neither union characteristic—age at first marriage and 

spousal age difference—significantly affects decisionmaking in most countries. Furthermore, where an 

effect is observed, it is rarely in the hypothesized direction, especially for decisionmaking alone.

Household Structure and Characteristics

Husband’s coresidence. Because husbands are most likely to be the ―other persons‖ making decisions in 

the households of currently married women, husbands‘ coresidence is likely to affect whether and how 

women participate in household decisionmaking. 

As the eighth panel of Appendix Table 2A.1-23 and the first panel of Summary Table 2D show, a 

significantly smaller proportion of women make all four decisions alone and a significantly higher 

proportion make all decisions jointly if their husband lives with them. Nigeria is the only country where 

joint decisionmaking is unrelated to husbands‘ coresidence. Information for this variable is not available 

for Morocco. As Appendix Table 2B.1-23 shows, even when the analysis controls for other correlates of 

decisionmaking, the husband‘s co-residence has the hypothesized effect on all decisions and in virtually 

all countries. 

Summary Table 2D. Number of countries where decisionmaking alone and decisionmaking jointly

with the woman's husband or others has an association of the specified type with the husband's 

coresidence and with the respondent's residence in an extended family: Results of bivariate 

analysis and analysis with controls

Variable

Decisions about 

the woman's own 

health care

Decisions about 

large household 

purchases

Decisions about 

purchases for 

daily needs 

Decisions about 

visits to family

or friends 

Alone Joint Alone Joint Alone Joint Alone Joint

Husband coresident

Bivariate

Positive 0 21 0 21 0 21 0 20

Negative 22 0 22 0 22 0 22 1

Does not vary by husband's 

coresidence 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1

With controls

Positive 0 21 0 21 0 20 0 22

Negative 22 0 22 0 20 0 22 0

Does not vary by husband's 

coresidence 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0

Residence in extended family

Bivariate

Positive 10 1 6 2 5 2 9 2

Negative 3 8 4 11 8 6 4 11

Does not vary by extended family 

residence 10 14 13 10 8 13 10 10

With controls

Positive 1 1 3 0 0 1 4 0

Negative 5 9 3 10 9 5 1 10

Does not vary by extended family 

residence 17 13 17 13 12 15 18 13
33

Residence in a nonnuclear household. Residence in an extended household is likely to affect women‘s 

empowerment, particularly their participation in decisionmaking, for at least two reasons. First, extended 

households are typically composed of multiple generations, usually within a patriarchal setting. This 

implies that a woman‘s relative power will depend on her age, particularly her age relative to that of other 

household members; her relationship to other members of the extended family, including the household 

head; and the hierarchical structure of the household. Within the context of patriarchy, a woman typically 

marries in to her husband‘s household and is younger than her husband. For these and other reasons 

(Dyson and Moore, 1983), a married woman‘s relative status within the hierarchy of her husband‘s 

extended family is usually fairly low. Secondly, the larger the household, the greater the number of other 

persons who can potentially make decisions or share in the decisionmaking. Thus, it is expected that 

women in extended families will be less likely to participate in decisionmaking jointly or alone. 

The ninth panel of Appendix Table 2A.1-23 shows how women‘s participation in household 

decisionmaking varies by whether they reside in a nonnuclear household or not. A nuclear household is 

one in which a couple (husband and wife) lives with their children (own, adopted, stepchildren or 

fostered), grandchildren, and/or unrelated individuals. All other types of households are treated as 

nonnuclear/extended.

The table shows that decisionmaking alone in 8-13 countries and decisionmaking jointly in 10-14 

countries does not vary significantly by family structure. In Nigeria, neither decisionmaking alone nor 

joint is related to family structure for any of the four decisions. In the countries where decisionmaking 

does vary by family structure, the direction of the relationship is not always as predicted. 

The bivariate results by type of decision, summarized in the second panel of Summary Table 2D, 

show that women in nonnuclear households are more likely than women in nuclear households to make 

decisions about their own health care alone in 10 countries and less likely to do so in only 3 countries; 

about large household purchases alone in 6 countries and less likely to do so in 4 countries; about 

purchases for daily needs alone in 5 countries and less likely to do so in 8 countries; and about visits to 

family or friends alone in 9 countries and less likely to do so in 4 countries.

Women in only four countries (Armenia, Jordan, Morocco and Nepal) are more likely to make all 

four decisions alone in nuclear households. In contrast, women in extended households in Nicaragua are 

more likely to make each of the three decisions asked about in the DHS in that country alone than women 

living in nuclear households. The results for joint decisionmaking conform more closely to the 

hypothesis, however. In 8-11 countries, a higher proportion of women in nuclear families make each of 

the decisions jointly than women in nonnuclear families, and the reverse is true in only 1-2 countries. 

The multivariate analysis shows, however, that the effects of residence in an extended household 

on decisionmaking found in the bivariate analysis are largely explained away by other variables, 

particularly for decisionmaking alone. Appendix Table 2B.1-23 and Summary Table 2D show that 

decisionmaking alone does not vary with family structure in 17-18 countries for all decisions except those 

about purchases for daily needs; for this last decision, decisionmaking alone does not vary with family 

structure in 12 countries. Joint decisionmaking also does not vary significantly by family structure in 

more than half the countries (13-15) for each of the four decisions. However, in most of the countries 

where joint decisionmaking or decisionmaking alone do vary significantly by family structure, the odds 

tend to be lower for both types of decisionmaking if women live in an extended household than if they 

live in a nuclear household. 

In summary, women living in extended households appear to be either no different in terms of 

their participation in decisionmaking from women in nuclear households, or they make decisions alone

more often and decisions jointly less often than women in nuclear households. However, the multivariate 

analysis shows that the reason for this result is that other correlates of decisionmaking are masking the 
34

true effects of extended household residence. In fact, the net effect of living in an extended household is 

not significant in the majority of countries; where it is significant, extended family residence is associated 

with less participation in decisionmaking, as hypothesized.

Household wealth. Like education and media exposure, wealth enables exposure to new ideas and 

potentially provides resources to achieve personal and other goals. Wealth is thus a potential source of 

empowerment. In many settings, wealth is also associated with traditional norms and expectations and 

with more successful implementation of patriarchal controls over women (Srinivasan, 1989). Despite the 

large variation in cultures across the countries compared here and the resulting difficulty in hypothesizing 

the direction of the association of women‘s decisionmaking with household wealth, it is hypothesized that 

wealth will have the net effect of empowering women. 

The tenth horizontal panel of Appendix Table 2A.1-23 and Summary Table 2E give the results of 

the bivariate association of wealth with women‘s decisionmaking. The wealth measure used here is 

described in Chapter 1 and is derived using principle components analysis of household assets and 

household amenities. The resulting wealth index is a relative measure of wealth that divides the household 

population into quintiles based on their scores. Women in the first quintile are the least wealthy and those 

in the fifth are the wealthiest. Note that the wealth index is defined for each country based on the 

distribution of input variables in that country alone. This means that the absolute level of wealth 

represented by any given quintile is not the same across countries. 

Summary Table 2E. Number of countries where decisionmaking alone and decisionmaking jointly

with husband or others has an association of the specified type with area of residence, the wealth 

index, and community controls: Results of bivariate analysis (except for community controls) and 

analysis with controls

Variable

Decisions about 

the woman's 

own health care

Decisions about 

large household 

purchases

Decisions about 

purchases for 

daily needs 

Decisions about 

visits to family 

or friends 

Alone Joint Alone Joint Alone Joint Alone Joint

Urban residence

Bivariate

Positive 19 7 15 11 16 5 15 9

Negative 0 9 3 2 0 7 0 4

Does not vary by place of residence 4 7 5 10 5 9 8 10

With controls

Positive 9 1 5 3 8 2 7 2

Negative 2 3 0 3 1 7 1 5

Does not vary by place of residence 12 19 18 17 12 12 15 16

Wealth index

Bivariate

Generally positive 17 8 11 10 15 7 12 11

Generally negative or nonlinear 3 10 5 7 3 8 5 8

Does not vary by wealth quintile 3 5 7 6 3 6 6 4

With controls

Generally positive 3 2 1 5 6 4 1 8

Significantly higher in top three or four quintiles 1 1 1 4 4 1 0 4

Significantly higher only in the wealthiest one 

or two quintiles 2 1 0 1 2 3 1 4

Generally negative 1 2 7 1 2 1 2 1

Significantly lower in top three or four quintiles 0 0 3 1 1 1 0 0

Significantly lower only in wealthiest one or two 

quintiles 1 2 3 0 1 0 2 1

Nonlinear 5 10 3 8 5 6 7 7

Does not vary by wealth quintile 14 9 12 9 8 10 13 7

Continued...
35

Summary Table 2E—Continued

Variable

Decisions about 

the woman's 

own health care

Decisions about 

large household 

purchases

Decisions about 

purchases for 

daily needs 

Decisions about 

visits to family 

or friends 

Alone Joint Alone Joint Alone Joint Alone Joint

Community controls

(Regression only)

Percentage of women whose husbands have 

at least a high school education

Positive 5 6 6 7 5 8 4 6

Negative 1 2 1 2 3 2 0 1

Not significant 16 14 15 13 12 11 18 15

Percentage of women who watch television at 

least weekly

Positive 8 3 10 3 10 1 6 4

Negative 2 9 2 7 0 9 2 6

Not significant 13 11 11 13 11 11 15 13

The tables show that in most countries, women‘s participation in decisionmaking does vary with 

wealth. Decisionmaking alone is not significantly associated with wealth in only 3-7 countries and joint

decisionmaking is not significantly associated with wealth in only 4-6 countries. The proportion of 

women making decisions alone tends to increase with wealth in 17 countries for decisions about women‘s 

own health care, in 15 countries for decisions about purchases for daily needs, and in about half the 

countries for each of the other two decisions. However, the proportion of women making decisions jointly

increases with wealth in less than half the countries (8-11); in only slightly fewer countries (7-10), the 

proportion of women who make joint decisions actually decreases with wealth. 

In six countries (Bolivia, Cameroon, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, and Zambia), the richest 

women are more likely to make all four decisions alone than poorer women. In two countries (Malawi 

and Nigeria), richer women are more likely to make all four decisions jointly than poorer women. Only in 

Morocco are richer women more likely than poorer women to make both decisions alone as well as 

jointly. Overall, based on the bivariate analysis, women in wealthier households are more likely to make 

decisions, particularly decisions alone, than women in poorer households in the majority of countries. 

Surprisingly, however, the multivariate analysis shows that this positive association of wealth 

with decisionmaking alone is largely spurious and can be explained away by other control variables. In 

fact, in 12-14 countries, wealth has no net effect on decisionmaking alone for decisions about women‘s 

own health care, large household purchases, and visits to family or friends; wealth has no net effect on 

decisionmaking alone in 8 countries for the remaining decision (Summary Table 2E). Wealth also does 

not have a significant net effect on joint decisionmaking in 7-10 countries. 

Figure 2.5 lists the countries by direction of the significant relationship between wealth and 

decisionmaking, alone and joint, for each type of decision. Countries where there is no significant 

relationship between the type of decision and wealth are not listed. 

Figure 2.5 shows little consistency in the relationship between wealth and making each of the 

four decisions alone once controls are introduced. Indonesia, Bolivia, and Kenya are the only three 

countries where decisionmaking alone is positively associated with wealth for at least two decisions. In 

addition, in Malawi, decisionmaking alone is positively related to wealth for decisions about purchases 

for daily needs but negatively related for decisions about women‘s own health care. 
36

Figure 2.5. Countries by direction of the significant relationship between the wealth index and 

decisionmaking, alone and joint, based on logistic regression results

Type of participation 

and decision

Direction of significant association with wealth index

Positive Negative Nonlinear

Decisionmaking alone 

Women’s own health care Bolivia, Indonesia, Kenya Malawi Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Ghana, 

Nepal, Zambia

Large household 

purchases

Bolivia Cambodia, Cameroon, Jordan, 

Morocco, Nepal, Nigeria, 

Philippines

Armenia, Indonesia, Zimbabwe

Purchases for daily needs Bolivia, Indonesia, Kenya, 

Malawi, Mozambique, Uganda

Burkina Faso, Mali Ghana, Jordan, Nepal, Philippines, 

Rwanda

Visits to family or friends Nicaragua Armenia, Jordan Ghana, Haiti, Malawi, Nepal, Nigeria, 

Uganda, Zambia

Decisionmaking jointly

Women’s own health care Malawi, Zimbabwe Bolivia, Indonesia Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Haiti, 

Jordan, Kenya, Morocco, 

Mozambique, Nicaragua, Rwanda, 

Zambia

Large household 

purchases

Jordan, Malawi, Mali, 

Philippines, Zimbabwe

Burkina Faso Cambodia, Ghana, Haiti, Indonesia, 

Morocco, Nicaragua, Rwanda, Zambia

Purchases for daily needs Armenia, Jordan, Malawi, Mali Bolivia Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Ghana, 

Indonesia, Mozambique, Rwanda

Visits to family or friends Armenia, Bolivia, Ghana,

Jordan, Kenya, Malawi, 

Morocco, Philippines

Mozambique Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Indonesia, 

Mali, Rwanda, Zambia, Zimbabwe

The relationship of wealth with joint decisionmaking is marginally more consistent. Joint 

decisionmaking increases with wealth in Malawi for all four decisions and in Armenia, Jordan, Kenya, 

Mali, Morocco, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Zambia, and Zimbabwe for at least two decisions. However, 

in Bolivia, wealth is positively related to joint decisionmaking for one decision but negatively related to 

two others. Notably, in Bolivia, Kenya, and Malawi, wealth is positively related to both decisionmaking 

alone and decisionmaking jointly for one or more decisions. 

Finally, the figure also shows that the odds of richer women making decisions alone about large 

household purchases are lower than the odds for the poorest women in one-third of the countries. The 

odds of a woman making decisions alone about visits to family or friends are higher for richer women 

only in Nicaragua. Odds of making decisions alone about visits to family or friends are lower for richer 

women in Armenia and Jordan and for the richest women in Malawi and Zambia. 

This analysis shows that wealth, net of other factors, does little to consistently enhance women‘s 

likelihood of making decisions alone or jointly in most countries. Purchases for household needs are the 

only decisions for which the odds of making the decision alone are higher for women in the higher wealth 

quintiles than the lowest quintile in at least one in four countries. Visits to family or friends are the only 

decisions that are more likely to be made jointly by women in the higher wealth quintiles than women in 

the lowest wealth quintile. 
37

Rural or urban residence. Urban residence can increase exposure to new ideas and ways of doing things. 

Hence, urban residence is hypothesized to be positively associated with women‘s empowerment and 

participation in decisionmaking. The last panel of Appendix Table 2A.1-23 shows results that support this 

expectation, particularly for decisionmaking alone. A higher proportion of women in urban areas than in 

rural areas make decisions about their own health care alone in 19 countries; about purchases for daily 

needs alone in 16 countries; and about the other two decisions alone in 15 countries each. 

Notably, with the exception of decisions about large household purchases, decisionmaking alone

is not significantly higher in rural areas than in urban areas in any country for any decision. Furthermore, 

even decisions about large household purchases are made alone by a higher proportion of rural than urban 

women only in Malawi, Cambodia, and the Philippines. 

The relationship of urban residence with joint decisionmaking is less consistent across countries 

than its relationship with decisionmaking alone. Joint decisionmaking does not vary by residence in 7-10 

countries, depending on the decision. In nine countries, urban residence is negatively associated with joint

decisionmaking about women‘s own health care, compared with seven countries where the relationship is 

positive. The association of joint decisionmaking about purchases for daily needs with urban residence 

also shows a similar pattern. However, joint decisionmaking for decisions about large household 

purchases and about visits to family or friends are positively associated with urban living in 11 and 9 

countries, respectively, and negatively associated in only 2 and 4 countries, respectively. 

Overall, urban women tend to make decisions alone more than do rural women. The results with 

regard to joint decisionmaking are less consistent and vary both by country and decision. Cambodia is the 

only country where decisionmaking, alone and joint, do not vary significantly by residence for most 

decisions.

The multivariate analysis (Appendix Table 2B.1-23) suggests that the area of residence has little 

net effect on decisionmaking. However, in the countries where the association is significant, it tends to be 

positive. 

As shown in Summary Table 2E, the relationship is positive for decisions about women‘s own 

health care and purchases for daily needs in 8-9 countries and for the other two decisions in 5 and 7 

countries, respectively. With the exception of decisions about purchases for daily needs and visits to 

family or friends, joint decisonmaking is also rarely affected by area of residence. Both types of 

decisionmaking—alone and joint—are unaffected by residence in Cambodia, Haiti, Nicaragua, and the 

Philippines for all decisions. Also for all decisions, decisionmaking alone is unaffected by residence in 

Ghana and Zimbabwe and joint decisionmaking is unaffected by residence in Burkina Faso, Mali, 

Mozambique, Nigeria, Rwanda, and Zambia. Morocco is the only country where the odds of making 

decisions alone and jointly are higher for all four decisions for women in urban areas, compared with 

women in rural areas. Armenia, Indonesia, and Uganda are the only countries where the odds of making 

decisions alone are higher for three of the four decisions. Ghana, Indonesia, and Nepal are the only 

countries where the odds of making joint decisions are lower for women living in urban areas than for 

women living in rural areas for all four decisions.

In summary, the net effect of living in an urban area on women‘s decisionmaking, compared with 

living in a rural area is not significant in at least half of the countries. However, when the relationship is 

significant, the effect tends to be positive. 

Community controls. From the last panel of Appendix Table 2B.1-23 and Summary Table 2E, it is evident 

that women‘s decisionmaking at the individual level is not affected by the two measures of community 

social development in a large number of countries. Specifically, decisionmaking alone does not vary 

significantly with the first community measure (the percentage of women in the community whose 
38

husbands have at least secondary education) in 12-18 countries and joint decisionmaking does not vary in 

9-15 countries, depending on the decision. Decisionmaking alone does not vary significantly with the 

second community measure (the percentage of women in the community who watch television at least 

once a week) in 11-14 countries and joint decisionmaking does not vary with it in 10-13 countries. 

Figure 2.6 below lists countries by direction of the relationship of decisionmaking alone and 

jointly with each community-level social development variable for each decision. In countries not shown, 

the association is not significant.

Figure 2.6. Countries by direction of the significant relationship between community-level 

variables and decisionmaking alone and jointly, based on logistic regression results

Type of decision and participation

Direction of significant association with husbands’ education level in

the community

Positive Negative

Decisionmaking alone 

Women’s own health care Cameroon, Malawi, Mali, Nicaragua, Nigeria Indonesia

Large household purchases Cameroon, Ghana, Indonesia, 

Mozambique, Nepal, Zambia

Benin

Purchases for daily needs Cambodia, Cameroon, Malawi, Nepal, 

Nigeria

Armenia, Indonesia, Philippines

Visits to family or friends Cameroon, Malawi, Nicaragua, Uganda -

Decisionmaking jointly

Women’s own health care Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ghana, 

Indonesia, Morocco, Zambia

Kenya, Nicaragua

Large household purchases Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ghana, 

Indonesia, Morocco, Zambia

Haiti, Kenya

Purchases for daily needs Armenia, Benin, Ghana, Indonesia, Malawi, 

Morocco, Mozambique, Philippines

Cambodia, Haiti

Visits to family or friends Benin, Ghana, Indonesia, Mali, Morocco, 

Zambia

Uganda

Type of decision and participation

Direction of significant association with regular television viewing by women in 

the community

Positive Negative

Decisionmaking alone 

Women’s own health care Bolivia, Cameroon, Indonesia, Kenya, 

Morocco, Mozambique, Uganda, Zimbabwe

Ghana, Nigeria

Large household purchases Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Mali, 

Morocco, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, 

Philippines, Uganda

Indonesia, Jordan

Purchases for daily needs Burkina Faso, Bolivia, Cameroon, 

Indonesia, Mali, Mozambique, Nepal, 

Philippines, Uganda, Zimbabwe

-

Visits to family or friends Benin, Bolivia, Cameroon, Mali, 

Mozambique, Philippines

Indonesia, Malawi

Decisionmaking jointly

Women’s own health care Ghana, Mali, Nigeria Burkina Faso, Bolivia, Cameroon, 

Indonesia, Mozambique, Philippines, 

Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe

Large household purchases Indonesia, Kenya, Nepal Benin, Burkina Faso, Morocco, Philippines, 

Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe

Purchases for daily needs Kenya Benin, Bolivia, Cameroon, Indonesia, 

Jordan, Mozambique, Philippines, Uganda, 

Zimbabwe

Visits to family or friends Indonesia, Kenya, Malawi, Uganda Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Morocco, 

Philippines, Zambia
39

In general, the first community-level social development indicator (education level of husbands in 

the community) is positively associated across countries with decisionmaking alone approximately as 

often as it is associated with joint decisionmaking. However, in any given country where this indicator 

has a significant relationship, the indicator tends to be more consistently associated across decisions with 

joint decisionmaking than with decisionmaking alone. For example, the odds of joint decisionmaking 

increase with the proportion of husbands in the community with secondary education for each of the four 

decisions in Indonesia, Ghana, and Morocco and for three decisions in Benin and Zambia. In contrast, 

Cameroon and Malawi are the only countries where decisionmaking alone is significantly higher for at 

least three of the four decisions in more socially developed communities as measured by husbands‘ 

education level in the community. 

In most countries where the effect on women‘s participation in decisionmaking of high television 

exposure among women in the community is significant, decisionmaking alone increases but joint

decisionmaking decreases. The positive effect on decisionmaking alone of living in a community where a 

larger proportion of women watch television regularly is consistent for at least three of the four decisions

in Bolivia, Cameroon, Mali, Mozambique, the Philippines, and Uganda. Furthermore, the effect on joint

decisionmaking is consistently negative for at least three of the four decisions in Benin, Burkina Faso, 

Bolivia, the Philippines, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. Kenya is the only country where joint

decisionmaking for most decisions is positively related to this community-level variable. 

The contrasting effects of the two community-level controls on women‘s decisionmaking are 

probably due to the nature of the variables. Although having a higher proportion of educated men in a 

community suggests a higher overall level of community development, higher levels of television 

viewing among women, potentially represents a benefit of community development which is accruing 

directly to women. If this is true, the regression results suggest that when women benefit directly from 

social development, they are more likely to make decisions alone and less likely to make decisions 

jointly. In addition, social development that does not benefit women directly has a positive influence on 

both types of decisionmaking by women, but the effect on joint decisionmaking is more consistent. 

2.3 Any Type of Participation in Decisionmaking

This report has shown thus far that the correlates of decisionmaking alone and joint 

decisionmaking differ substantively by decision. Thus, a characteristic that is positively associated with 

decisionmaking alone might not enhance the likelihood of joint decisionmaking. This gives rise to two 

questions: What are the correlates of any participation, alone or joint, in decisionmaking? Do these 

correlates differ by decision across countries? To answer these questions, the same explanatory variables 

discussed above were regressed using logistic regression on ―any type of participation in 

decisionmaking.‖ For this variable, women who participated at all, alone or jointly, were coded 1 and all 

others were coded 0 for each type of decision. The results for each country are given in Appendix Table 

2B.1-23 with the results by type of decisionmaking. Summary Table 2F provides a summary of the 

findings. 

The results suggest that the only characteristics of women that correlate positively and 

consistently with a higher likelihood of participating at all in decisionmaking in almost all countries are 

age and employment for cash. Education level also has a net positive effect in more than half the 

countries, but it has no effect in 6-7 countries, depending on the decision. Media exposure, age at first 

marriage, and urban residence are not important correlates of any participation in decisionmaking in most 

countries. A large spousal age difference is positively associated with women‘s participation in 

decisionmaking about large household purchases and purchases for daily needs. In general, if their 

husband is coresident, women have lower odds of participating, alone or jointly, in decisionmaking. 

Residence in an extended family is either not a factor in woman‘s decisionmaking participation or it 

reduces the likelihood that women will participate in decisions. In almost half the countries, women living 
40

Summary Table 2F. Number of countries where each variable has the specified relationship 

(based on logistic regression analysis) with the likelihood that women will participate in 

decisionmaking (alone or jointly), by type of decision

Variable

Decision

Women's own 

health care

Large household 

purchases

Purchases for 

daily needs

Visits to family or 

friends

Age

Generally positive 20 23 21 23

Generally negative or nonlinear 0 0 0 0

Does not vary significantly by age 3 0 0 0

Children ever born

Generally positive 7 4 6 5

Generally negative or nonlinear 7 3 6 6

Does not vary by number of children ever born 9 16 9 12

Education

Generally positive 14 15 15 14

Generally negative or nonlinear 2 1 0 2

Does not vary by education level 7 7 6 7

Works for cash

Positive 19 22 18 21

Negative 0 0 0 0

Does not vary by employment for cash 4 1 3 2

Regular media exposure

Positive 1 4 4 1

Negative 6 3 4 4

Does not vary by media exposure 16 16 13 18

Age at first marriage

Generally positive 4 3 3 4

Generally negative or nonlinear 3 1 4 3

Does not vary by age at first marriage 16 19 14 16

Spousal age difference

Generally negative 3 8 6 3

Generally positive or nonlinear 5 5 3 1

Does not vary by spousal age difference 15 10 12 19

Husband present in the household

Positive 0 1 5 2

Negative 18 13 13 15

Does not vary by husband's presence in the 

household 4 8 2 5

Urban residence

Positive 5 4 5 6

Negative 2 3 1 5

Does not vary by area of residence 16 16 15 12

Residence in extended family

Positive 1 1 0 0

Negative 7 12 13 9

Does not vary by extended family residence 15 10 8 14

Wealth index

Generally positive 3 6 3 7

Generally negative 1 2 1 1

Nonlinear 7 5 6 6

Does not vary by wealth quintile 12 10 11 9

Community controls

Percentage of women whose husbands have at least 

a high school education

Positive 8 8 7 7

Negative 1 0 1 1

Not significant 14 14 12 14

Percentage of women who watch television at least 

weekly

Positive 4 6 6 6

Negative 2 1 2 4

Not significant 17 16 13 13
41

in extended households have lower odds of participating in decisionmaking. Decisionmaking is unrelated 

to wealth in about half the countries; in most of the remaining countries, decisionmaking varies 

nonlinearly with the wealth index. Finally, of the two community-level controls, the percentage of 

husbands who have at least a secondary education is related positively to women‘s participation in 

decisionmaking in 7-9 countries and the percentage of women who watch television regularly is related 

positively to any decisionmaking in only 4-6 countries.

2.4 Conclusions

The analysis in this chapter very clearly shows that the characteristics of women who participate 

in the four different decisions considered do not vary greatly by decision across countries. However, the 

characteristics of women who participate by making decisions alone versus those who participate by 

making them jointly do vary across decisions and countries. Furthermore, the correlates of making 

decisions alone about purchases for daily needs and women‘s own healthcare are similar and tend to 

contrast with the correlates of making decisions alone about large household purchases and visits to 

family or friends. 

Of all the correlates, the two that have a consistently positive relationship with any 

decisionmaking are age and employment for cash. These variables are also highly correlated with making 

decisions alone. Education level too has a net positive effect on decisionmaking but this effect is far from 

universal. Furthermore, education level tends to be associated with decisionmaking alone for some 

decisions and joint decisionmaking for others. Contrary to expectations, a smaller spousal age difference 

has a largely negative association with decisionmaking alone and a largely positive association with joint 

decisionmaking. 

The discussion in this chapter makes clear that participation in decisionmaking is not one 

undifferentiated variable. For any decision, making the decision alone, making it jointly with a husband or 

someone else, or participating at all in the decision (alone or jointly), constitute unique variables with 

different correlates. This makes it difficult to treat decisionmaking as a single indicator of empowerment. 

It also makes it difficult to treat participation of any type in one decision as being similar to participation 

of the same type in any other decision or, for a given decision, to treat participation of one type as 

equivalent to participation of another type. Thus, if decisionmaking is to be used as an indicator of 

empowerment, theory and context must drive the definition of what type of decisionmaking in what type 

of decisions constitutes empowerment. 
42

Appendix Table 2A.1. Percentage of currently married women who make decisions by 

themselves and who make decisions jointly, by background characteristic: Benin

Characteristic

Own health care

Large household 

purchases

Purchases for 

daily needs

Visits to family or 

friends

Alone Jointly Alone Jointly Alone Jointly Alone Jointly

Age

15 to 19 8.6 5.9 3.9 6.0 14.7 11.2 8.1 15.8

20 to 29 13.7 12.1 10.5 15.3 35.3 21.8 13.4 34.2

30 to 39 23.6 19.5 18.0 23.8 45.6 26.0 19.8 35.5

40 to 49 30.3 18.8 23.5 23.6 53.5 22.1 23.8 35.5

Children ever born

None 12.2 9.5 11.7 10.8 24.3 15.0 12.7 29.1

1 or 2 15.1 12.9 12.3 14.9 33.4 21.5 15.0 32.5

3 or 4 19.0 16.2 14.3 22.7 42.6 26.6 16.6 37.1

5+ 24.9 18.0 18.2 21.8 48.7 22.2 20.1 33.4

Education

None 18.6 15.5 13.8 18.3 40.6 21.9 15.8 32.5

Primary 20.9 12.4 17.9 19.0 41.5 21.7 20.1 33.6

Secondary or higher 24.1 21.5 18.5 25.3 40.4 29.5 21.5 44.2

Work 

Does not work 7.8 5.0 6.8 7.0 21.1 10.4 8.1 24.0

Works for cash 21.4 17.1 16.3 21.1 44.0 24.6 18.6 35.3

Media exposure

No regular exposure 18.5 15.1 14.8 16.4 41.7 18.2 17.2 31.5

Regular (weekly) exposure 20.0 15.5 15.0 20.4 40.3 24.7 17.1 34.9

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 20.0 13.7 14.8 17.2 41.2 20.4 17.4 30.1

18-24 years 17.7 16.3 14.0 20.4 40.5 24.5 15.4 37.0

25 years or more 28.7 20.2 23.2 22.5 39.1 23.5 27.1 36.0

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 19.5 17.3 15.6 21.1 42.4 24.0 15.9 39.5

Wife is 5-9 years younger 18.0 15.7 13.5 18.9 39.1 23.1 17.0 31.9

Wife is 10+ years younger 20.5 13.7 15.4 17.7 40.8 20.9 18.2 31.1

Husband coresident

No 37.7 11.1 32.3 15.3 54.8 14.7 36.3 25.9

Yes 15.5 16.4 11.2 19.9 37.9 24.2 12.9 35.5

Residence

Rural 19.5 14.9 13.9 19.4 40.0 22.3 15.5 34.3

Urban 19.5 16.3 17.0 18.4 42.1 23.0 20.1 32.5

Family structure

Nuclear 18.6 15.9 13.5 19.8 41.0 22.7 15.8 34.2

Extended 21.2 14.5 17.6 17.6 40.3 22.2 19.7 32.7

Wealth index

Poorest 16.8 14.5 11.3 17.7 39.9 19.3 14.1 27.7

Poorer 19.1 15.3 14.2 19.0 39.8 20.8 16.2 32.5

Middle 20.2 14.5 13.3 19.5 39.9 24.1 13.5 33.4

Richer 20.8 14.8 18.0 19.4 41.7 23.4 20.3 35.9

Richest 20.8 18.2 18.3 19.9 42.7 25.4 22.1 40.1

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) 

from the value for the reference category.
43

Appendix Table 2A.2. Percentage of currently married women who make decisions by 

themselves and who make decisions jointly, by background characteristics: Burkina Faso

Own health care

Large household 

purchases

Purchases for 

daily needs

Visits to family or 

friends

Characteristics Jointly Alone Jointly Alone Jointly Alone Jointly Alone

Age 

15 to 19 3.9 9.4 4.3 12.4 16.9 11.2 10.4 15.7

20 to 29 7.5 10.8 8.7 13.4 23.8 13.3 14.8 16.4

30 to 39 10.7 11.1 11.6 14.5 27.6 15.6 17.6 17.6

40 to 49 10.5 10.8 12.9 14.3 27.2 15.0 18.9 16.7

Children ever born

None 8.0 9.9 6.6 13.7 17.4 11.5 13.5 16.4

1 or 2 8.3 10.1 8.2 13.0 24.2 12.5 14.9 15.4

3 or 4 9.4 11.4 10.3 13.9 27.7 14.6 16.5 17.9

5+ 8.9 11.0 11.5 14.4 25.5 15.7 17.3 17.1

Education

None 7.4 11.0 9.5 13.7 24.6 13.8 15.4 16.5

Primary 12.8 7.1 11.8 11.1 24.5 14.1 18.5 15.0

Secondary or higher 30.0 13.2 17.1 21.2 35.6 21.1 26.7 25.2

Work 

Does not work 6.2 10.7 8.6 12.9 23.5 12.8 14.4 16.8

Works for cash 18.4 11.3 15.7 17.5 30.6 19.4 22.6 16.5

Media exposure

No regular exposure 6.8 12.4 8.9 14.1 24.9 13.3 15.2 19.9

Regular (weekly) exposure 10.6 9.3 11.1 13.7 25.1 15.0 17.0 13.9

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 7.1 11.0 8.9 13.9 24.0 14.3 15.9 16.5

18-24 years 10.7 10.4 11.6 13.8 26.0 14.0 16.1 17.0

25 years or more 25.7 10.7 18.8 14.0 40.8 13.1 23.8 20.3

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 10.6 11.2 10.3 15.2 25.0 15.3 15.9 17.9

Wife is 5-9 years younger 8.8 12.1 9.8 15.2 25.0 14.2 15.0 17.6

Wife is 10+ years younger 7.7 10.2 8.5 12.9 23.7 14.3 15.5 16.8

Husband coresident

No 26.3 5.8 24.9 8.6 42.3 7.7 27.7 14.8

Yes 7.2 11.3 8.7 14.4 23.5 14.8 15.1 16.9

Residence

Rural 6.0 10.9 9.0 13.8 24.2 14.0 14.6 17.0

Urban 24.2 9.9 16.2 14.3 29.9 15.0 24.6 15.5

Family structure

Nuclear 7.5 12.9 8.8 15.9 25.0 14.7 15.5 18.6

Extended 10.7 7.5 12.0 10.7 25.1 13.3 17.1 13.9

Wealth index

Poorest 6.4 14.7 8.8 17.0 23.8 15.9 15.5 21.0

Poorer 4.8 11.3 8.7 14.5 23.2 14.1 15.5 17.5

Middle 6.3 10.9 9.3 13.9 25.3 14.1 14.6 17.1

Richer 7.4 7.4 8.8 9.8 24.5 11.3 12.8 11.7

Richest 2.8 9.3 15.3 13.6 28.5 15.4 23.0 16.1

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) 

from the value for the reference category.
44

Appendix Table 2A.3. Percentage of currently married women who make decisions by 

themselves and who make decisions jointly, by background characteristics: Cameroon

Characteristics

Own health care

Large household 

purchases

Purchases for 

daily needs

Visits to family or 

friends

Alone Jointly Alone Jointly Alone Jointly Alone Jointly

Age 

15 to 19 6.5 8.3 4.8 10.7 12.2 12.2 13.8 17.5

20 to 29 14.7 16.1 9.9 21.6 24.0 23.5 18.3 27.7

30 to 39 23.2 19.4 17.1 28.2 36.7 26.5 25.5 32.1

40 to 49 27.3 21.3 19.5 29.5 40.3 26.7 28.8 32.0

Children ever born

None 16.9 11.0 11.4 17.3 23.3 16.6 21.1 21.0

1 or 2 18.0 15.5 12.4 22.1 27.0 22.0 22.3 27.4

3 or 4 18.6 18.0 12.6 24.5 31.2 24.4 20.2 29.5

5+ 19.3 20.1 14.6 26.9 32.0 27.2 22.4 31.7

Education

None 8.5 16.4 7.2 17.1 14.4 18.8 9.4 25.4

Primary 17.6 18.9 13.0 24.8 30.1 27.1 23.5 29.8

Secondary or higher 28.7 15.3 18.4 28.1 41.6 23.6 30.8 29.7

Work 

Does not work 11.6 10.8 7.5 16.6 19.1 15.7 15.9 23.4

Works for cash 24.8 22.9 18.3 30.2 38.6 31.0 27.1 33.4

Media exposure

No regular exposure 13.3 18.4 10.4 21.5 20.9 25.0 17.6 28.3

Regular (weekly) exposure 23.6 15.7 15.7 25.7 37.5 22.2 25.8 28.7

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 14.2 16.0 11.1 20.2 23.6 21.4 18.1 26.4

18-24 years 24.2 18.7 14.9 28.3 36.2 26.8 26.4 32.2

25 years or more 31.9 19.5 24.3 34.6 50.3 29.2 34.9 29.9

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 21.2 18.2 14.5 26.4 31.3 26.6 24.8 29.2

Wife is 5-9 years younger 17.9 16.3 12.7 23.7 29.4 23.2 22.2 28.7

Wife is 10+ years younger 16.7 17.0 12.1 21.7 27.4 22.0 18.7 28.0

Husband coresident

No 36.6 8.3 25.7 13.2 40.2 13.1 45.6 15.2

Yes 13.4 19.5 9.6 26.4 26.1 26.5 15.0 32.1

Residence

Rural 11.3 18.4 10.0 21.9 20.4 25.6 16.0 28.6

Urban 25.9 15.7 16.3 25.4 38.4 21.5 27.6 28.5

Family structure

Nuclear 16.6 17.2 12.1 22.9 27.4 23.4 19.3 28.3

Extended 20.9 16.9 14.3 24.5 31.4 23.8 24.8 28.8

Wealth index

Poorest 9.1 20.2 8.2 21.9 15.0 25.6 10.8 30.6

Poorer 13.0 17.1 10.8 20.1 22.2 23.9 17.5 25.7

Middle 16.0 15.8 12.2 21.9 26.7 23.8 23.4 26.1

Richer 22.9 16.1 15.6 23.6 37.6 22.2 26.5 28.3

Richest 32.2 15.6 19.1 30.4 45.9 22.4 31.6 31.3

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) 

from the value for the reference category.
45

Appendix Table 2A.4. Percentage of currently married women who make decisions by 

themselves and who make decisions jointly, by background characteristics: Ghana

Characteristics

Own health care

Large household 

purchases

Purchases for 

daily needs

Visits to family or 

friends

Alone Jointly Alone Jointly Alone Jointly Alone Jointly

Age 

15 to 19 24.8 16.1 11.0 18.5 14.7 19.1 12.8 23.1

20 to 29 33.2 19.9 16.5 28.1 23.1 32.1 16.4 37.6

30 to 39 37.4 23.7 21.3 35.7 30.6 36.6 20.8 43.9

40 to 49 43.9 21.3 28.4 33.4 37.1 34.4 29.7 38.9

Children ever born

None 33.5 20.9 17.5 27.7 24.9 28.8 16.1 38.0

1 or 2 35.3 19.4 20.0 28.6 26.3 31.5 20.3 36.7

3 or 4 38.8 22.6 19.7 34.7 29.3 34.6 20.8 40.1

5+ 37.9 22.9 23.6 33.3 32.2 36.5 23.1 42.6

Education

None 35.1 17.5 16.1 24.6 26.0 28.8 14.8 37.1

Primary 38.9 21.9 21.6 35.4 28.0 37.0 24.7 40.1

Secondary or higher 37.8 24.9 25.0 36.6 32.0 36.8 25.0 41.8

Work 

Does not work 27.6 15.0 11.1 18.1 19.4 18.0 13.7 26.1

Works for cash 39.2 23.0 23.2 35.0 31.0 37.4 22.7 42.8

Media exposure

No regular exposure 35.2 16.7 17.4 25.8 28.0 28.6 18.1 34.7

Regular (weekly) exposure 37.6 23.0 22.0 33.7 29.1 35.5 22.0 41.2

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 35.9 21.9 19.7 32.4 26.7 33.9 18.5 40.4

18-24 years 37.7 20.8 21.4 31.1 29.7 33.8 23.1 38.4

25 years or more 38.5 23.4 23.7 33.3 33.8 33.1 21.1 43.6

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 39.3 22.5 22.4 35.6 29.4 37.9 21.7 42.2

Wife is 5-9 years younger 35.4 23.1 20.1 31.4 26.7 33.0 19.1 39.6

Wife is 10+ years younger 35.8 19.0 19.9 28.0 30.4 30.1 22.1 37.0

Husband coresident

No 57.2 12.7 42.7 24.1 49.7 21.6 44.3 26.2

Yes 28.6 25.2 11.8 35.1 20.0 39.0 11.2 45.4

Residence

Rural 34.7 21.2 17.7 30.9 26.1 34.3 18.5 40.7

Urban 40.4 21.9 25.6 33.1 33.0 33.0 24.8 38.0

Family structure

Nuclear 37.2 22.5 20.6 33.7 28.4 35.9 20.4 41.9

Extended 36.4 18.8 21.8 26.7 30.0 28.2 22.7 33.4

Wealth index

Poorest 32.0 16.5 13.7 21.3 23.9 25.6 13.4 30.9

Poorer 34.9 23.1 17.3 34.8 25.7 37.6 17.7 45.8

Middle 41.8 20.1 23.5 32.5 29.1 34.8 23.5 40.1

Richer 38.2 21.6 25.8 32.7 34.1 33.9 27.5 38.6

Richest 38.4 26.5 24.6 38.2 31.8 37.7 23.6 43.5

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) 

from the value for the reference category.
46

Appendix Table 2A.5. Percentage of currently married women who make decisions by 

themselves and who make decisions jointly, by background characteristics: Kenya

Characteristic

Own health care

Large household 

purchases

Purchases for 

daily needs

Visits to family or 

friends

Alone Jointly Alone Jointly Alone Jointly Alone Jointly

Age 

15 to 19 20.0 14.5 3.9 15.1 23.3 11.5 13.0 25.6

20 to 29 35.9 14.3 7.3 21.1 34.5 18.3 19.3 33.1

30 to 39 44.3 14.7 13.7 26.8 44.7 21.8 24.9 37.9

40 to 49 48.0 15.5 20.8 30.7 52.4 22.1 31.2 41.0

Children ever born

None 5.6 14.6 5.3 20.5 27.6 17.4 18.8 29.7

1 or 2 42.2 13.7 8.9 23.4 38.3 18.2 21.4 36.5

3 or 4 41.2 14.6 10.8 25.5 40.3 20.8 22.2 37.4

5+ 39.5 15.7 16.7 25.3 45.4 20.7 26.1 34.7

Education

None 29.4 11.8 14.3 17.5 33.9 14.7 23.4 22.4

Primary 37.5 14.7 11.4 22.2 38.4 19.8 22.0 35.0

Secondary or higher 51.7 16.4 11.2 33.6 49.5 22.5 25.3 45.2

Work 

Does not work 35.2 13.5 8.6 18.4 30.9 16.1 19.9 30.6

Works for cash 44.7 15.9 15.1 30.5 50.4 23.4 26.2 40.8

Media exposure

No regular exposure 35.9 15.1 13.5 20.2 34.0 18.8 23.0 31.1

Regular (weekly) exposure 41.1 14.5 11.3 25.7 42.5 20.0 23.1 37.0

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 33.9 14.0 12.3 20.3 37.8 1.5 21.8 29.8

18-24 years 42.5 15.1 11.0 26.0 41.4 20.3 23.3 38.6

25 years or more 52.6 14.8 15.1 34.5 49.3 21.6 27.3 45.3

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 41.4 16.4 11.9 26.1 41.9 20.1 23.2 39.9

Wife is 5-9 years younger 41.1 13.9 10.4 24.9 39.4 19.9 21.7 35.7

Wife is 10+ years younger 36.2 13.1 13.5 21.5 40.5 18.7 24.7 29.6

Husband coresident

No 56.4 10.4 23.6 19.9 62.8 11.3 39.3 25.7

Yes 35.4 15.9 8.6 25.7 34.4 22.1 18.5 38.5

Residence

Rural 38.0 14.1 12.2 22.2 40.1 18.8 21.5 34.7

Urban 46.9 16.7 10.7 32.4 42.5 22.8 28.3 39.2

Family structure

Nuclear 39.5 14.4 11.3 24.0 39.0 19.8 22.1 36.4

Extended 40.9 15.2 12.9 25.4 43.5 19.6 24.7 34.3

Wealth index

Poorest 28.3 16.3 12.5 18.3 32.6 20.3 20.2 27.1

Poorer 31.1 14.5 11.7 20.6 39.3 18.3 19.8 32.0

Middle 41.5 12.0 14.5 22.0 41.4 19.1 25.5 30.6

Richer 46.7 13.1 11.0 25.5 44.7 16.3 22.3 43.4

Richest 50.2 16.9 16.9 33.9 44.2 23.9 26.7 43.4

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) 

from the value for the reference category.
47

Appendix Table 2A.6. Percentage of currently married women who make decisions by 

themselves and who make decisions jointly, by background characteristics: Malawi

Characteristic

Own health care

Large household 

purchases

Purchases for 

daily needs

Visits to family or 

friends

Alone Jointly Alone Jointly Alone Jointly Alone Jointly

Age 

15 to 19 18.6 6.7 3.2 7.4 15.8 9.4 17.7 37.9

20 to 29 20.2 6.6 5.1 10.6 18.9 11.9 16.0 46.2

30 to 39 20.6 7.5 6.6 12.5 21.3 14.1 19.1 45.5

40 to 49 22.5 9.0 10.2 12.4 25.5 12.9 20.4 43.8

Children ever born

None 18.9 7.7 4.5 9.7 17.9 12.0 14.8 43.7

1 or 2 21.0 7.2 4.7 12.2 19.4 12.2 16.8 45.7

3 or 4 20.2 7.1 6.5 10.8 20.7 12.4 18.3 44.5

5+ 20.7 7.3 7.6 10.5 21.5 12.7 18.9 44.4

Education

None 18.5 7.2 6.8 8.2 16.8 9.7 15.6 40.1

Primary 20.4 6.5 5.6 10.3 20.6 12.3 18.7 45.0

Secondary or higher 30.1 13.5 7.4 29.6 33.8 24.1 18.8 62.7

Work 

Does not work 18.8 6.0 5.3 8.4 18.4 10.0 17.1 42.6

Works for cash 26.0 10.8 8.5 19.0 26.3 19.6 19.6 51.3

Media exposure

No regular exposure 21.6 6.4 7.4 8.3 19.0 11.2 18.2 40.6

Regular (weekly) exposure 19.7 7.9 5.1 13.3 21.4 13.4 17.3 48.2

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 20.6 7.0 6.4 9.7 20.2 11.7 18.4 42.8

18-24 years 20.3 7.4 5.6 13.0 20.4 13.5 16.4 48.1

25 years or more 22.9 9.9 8.9 11.0 22.0 10.7 24.0 36.6

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 19.3 7.4 5.5 10.7 18.8 12.5 17.0 45.0

Wife is 5-9 years younger 21.8 7.0 6.3 11.6 21.0 11.9 17.5 45.7

Wife is 10+ years younger 20.4 7.2 6.7 10.6 22.0 12.7 19.3 42.8

Husband coresident

No 38.1 5.0 19.2 9.2 41.5 6.6 40.0 29.6

Yes 17.7 7.6 4.0 11.4 16.9 13.3 14.1 47.2

Residence

Rural 19.3 6.5 6.4 8.9 18.7 11.0 17.9 42.0

Urban 28.0 11.5 4.5 23.7 30.2 20.5 16.6 61.1

Family structure

Nuclear 19.6 7.0 5.9 9.9 19.1 11.7 17.2 43.8

Extended 23.4 7.9 6.9 14.5 24.1 14.4 19.4 47.8

Wealth index

Poorest 20.6 5.6 8.0 7.1 18.5 11.3 20.5 39.3

Poorer 18.9 6.7 5.2 8.6 18.0 10.6 16.7 41.3

Middle 20.4 6.3 6.8 7.7 18.1 9.5 18.0 42.1

Richer 19.0 5.8 5.1 9.8 19.0 10.7 17.3 44.1

Richest 24.3 12.0 5.6 22.8 28.5 20.3 16.1 57.9

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) 

from the value for the reference category.
48

Appendix Table 2A.7. Percentage of currently married women who make decisions by 

themselves and who make decisions jointly, by background characteristics: Mali

Characteristic

Own health care

Large household 

purchases

Purchases for 

daily needs

Visits to family or 

friends

Alone Jointly Alone Jointly Alone Jointly Alone Jointly

Age 

15 to 19 5.8 4.1 7.1 5.2 12.5 5.5 13.5 7.4 

20 to 29 8.8 4.5 9.4 5.1 17.8 5.9 17.4 9.9 

30 to 39 12.2 7.0 10.6 6.9 20.9 8.7 18.7 12.3 

40 to 49 16.1 7.1 14.5 8.1 26.3 8.6 23.0 12.3 

Children ever born

None 7.0 5.4 7.2 5.7 12.5 5.1 14.0 9.9 

1 or 2 8.3 5.1 9.3 5.5 15.6 6.5 16.5 10.5 

3 or 4 11.9 4.9 10.1 6.1 20.9 7.0 18.4 10.0 

5+ 12.7 6.7 12.1 6.8 23.1 8.2 20.4 11.6 

Education

None 10.5 5.6 10.3 5.8 19.3 7.0 17.9 10.2 

Primary 10.4 6.5 10.4 7.5 21.3 8.9 20.0 12.0 

Secondary or higher 20.5 7.7 13.8 10.2 26.2 8.6 24.2 18.1 

Work 

Does not work 7.1 3.7 7.5 4.2 14.2 4.6 12.8 7.3 

Works for cash 15.3 8.2 13.9 8.5 26.2 10.3 24.8 14.9 

Media exposure

No regular exposure 10.9 6.2 12.7 5.8 20.8 6.8 19.3 9.1 

Regular (weekly) exposure 11.0 5.6 9.3 6.5 19.3 7.5 18.0 11.9 

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 11.1 5.4 10.9 5.7 20.5 6.8 19.0 9.6 

18-24 years 9.9 6.7 8.7 7.7 17.3 8.4 16.8 13.4 

25 years or more 16.9 6.9 16.0 6.6 25.8 8.2 19.5 18.2 

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 11.1 6.2 10.0 7.4 19.9 8.2 17.2 13.2 

Wife is 5-9 years younger 10.8 5.6 10.1 5.7 19.4 6.9 16.6 11.2 

Wife is 10+ years younger 11.1 5.8 11.0 6.2 20.3 7.2 19.8 10.1 

Husband coresident

No 21.0 4.3 17.9 5.0 26.5 5.2 25.1 8.0 

Yes 9.6 6.0 9.5 6.4 19.0 7.5 17.5 11.3 

Residence

Rural 10.4 5.3 10.4 5.6 20.3 6.8 17.6 9.8 

Urban 12.6 7.4 10.8 8.3 18.6 8.7 21.3 14.0 

Family structure

Nuclear 10.3 5.9 10.2 6.4 19.5 7.3 17.9 10.7 

Extended 13.4 5.4 11.9 5.8 21.0 7.0 20.6 11.3 

Wealth index

Poorest 9.7 6.1 10.0 5.0 21.6 6.1 15.9 13.4 

Poorer 9.1 4.5 8.7 4.6 19.0 5.8 14.7 9.5 

Middle 12.1 5.2 12.1 6.4 20.3 7.8 18.4 7.5 

Richer 11.4 4.9 11.1 5.8 19.2 6.8 21.6 8.8 

Richest 12.7 8.5 10.6 10.0 19.0 10.1 22.3 15.5 

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) 

from the value for the reference category.
49

Appendix Table 2A.8. Percentage of currently married women who make decisions by 

themselves and who make decisions jointly, by background characteristics: Mozambique

Characteristic

Own health care

Large household 

purchases

Purchases for 

daily needs

Visits to family or 

friends

Alone Jointly Alone Jointly Alone Jointly Alone Jointly

Age 

15 to 19 33.7 20.0 1.9 26.2 22.2 23.1 12.6 38.8

20 to 29 38.6 22.2 4.0 31.8 33.3 24.2 19.0 42.0

30 to 39 44.1 21.8 5.6 35.0 40.9 23.5 20.0 48.8

40 to 49 44.5 23.6 6.4 37.3 39.3 28.8 22.7 50.9

Children ever born

None 36.8 18.6 2.8 29.2 26.8 23.2 15.3 39.5

1 or 2 39.5 20.3 4.7 31.9 36.2 23.3 20.4 40.8

3 or 4 39.8 24.6 4.5 35.5 36.2 25.5 19.2 44.2

5+ 43.8 22.8 5.3 33.6 36.7 25.7 19.3 51.7

Education

None 38.1 24.8 3.8 32.4 28.1 27.3 16.3 48.1

Primary 43.1 19.5 5.1 32.6 40.8 22.6 21.5 42.7

Secondary or higher 46.4 20.4 10.4 48.4 60.4 18.1 27.9 43.5

Work 

Does not work 39.5 22.7 3.6 31.2 31.5 24.9 18.0 45.3

Works for cash 46.9 19.5 9.9 42.0 53.8 23.6 24.9 45.5

Media exposure

No regular exposure 37.8 24.0 4.3 31.6 29.6 26.6 17.8 45.6

Regular (weekly) exposure 44.1 20.1 5.1 34.8 41.9 22.7 20.8 45.1

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 41.3 21.9 4.1 32.2 33.4 24.2 19.1 45.6

18-24 years 39.7 22.5 5.7 34.4 38.5 25.7 19.4 44.6

25 years or more 43.4 22.5 5.9 37.3 42.4 23.8 21.3 46.9

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 40.5 22.1 4.0 33.1 33.6 25.0 18.6 44.8

Wife is 5-9 years younger 40.9 22.6 5.0 34.3 37.3 24.4 19.6 45.9

Wife is 10+ years younger 40.8 21.9 5.1 32.2 35.8 24.8 18.9 46.1

Husband coresident

No 59.8 7.0 19.4 20.4 58.6 11.4 48.4 18.0

Yes 38.9 23.6 3.2 34.5 33.2 26.0 16.3 48.1

Residence

Rural 39.3 23.0 3.8 31.3 29.2 26.4 18.3 46.1

Urban 44.6 19.8 6.9 37.6 50.9 20.5 21.6 43.5

Family structure

Nuclear 41.2 24.9 4.1 35.3 32.7 27.1 18.1 49.5

Extended 40.2 17.3 5.7 29.5 40.3 20.5 21.3 37.9

Wealth index

Poorest 37.9 28.0 3.4 33.8 28.3 30.2 15.3 49.4

Poorer 39.6 20.2 3.6 28.7 28.3 23.2 17.7 44.4

Middle 40.6 22.8 3.0 31.8 28.3 27.2 19.3 47.5

Richer 43.1 16.5 6.6 29.5 41.3 19.2 21.3 42.3

Richest 44.9 19.9 8.1 42.5 57.9 20.3 25.0 40.3

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) 

from the value for the reference category.
50

Appendix Table 2A.9. Percentage of currently married women who make decisions by 

themselves and who make decisions jointly, by background characteristics: Nigeria

Characteristic

Own health care

Large household 

purchases

Purchases for 

daily needs

Visits to family or 

friends

Alone Jointly Alone Jointly Alone Jointly Alone Jointly

Age 

15 to 19 2.9 3.9 1.3 3.3 3.5 4.6 12.6 11.1

20 to 29 9.8 8.7 4.3 10.1 16.4 12.9 14.7 18.7

30 to 39 15.2 12.6 9.4 14.9 22.1 15.7 20.6 22.6

40 to 49 19.8 14.0 11.7 18.2 26.8 18.4 21.6 26.1

Children ever born

None 5.8 7.6 2.4 6.7 9.7 10.4 10.0 19.0

1 or 2 10.8 9.9 5.7 10.8 15.8 12.7 16.0 18.0

3 or 4 15.0 11.5 7.6 12.7 21.1 13.7 19.0 21.1

5+ 14.7 11.0 8.9 15.1 22.3 16.0 20.1 22.6

Education

None 8.2 6.6 4.5 7.6 9.6 9.1 17.3 13.9

Primary 17.3 12.6 11.6 16.8 29.0 17.7 20.3 24.0

Secondary or higher 19.2 17.3 8.8 20.0 31.0 21.7 16.2 32.8

Work 

Does not work 7.5 6.4 3.8 7.3 11.3 9.0 13.2 15.1

Works for cash 16.8 13.4 9.5 16.6 24.6 17.8 20.8 24.7

Media exposure

No regular exposure 12.4 8.7 6.8 10.1 16.8 12.0 19.9 17.0

Regular (weekly) exposure 13.1 11.5 7.3 14.1 20.3 15.3 16.4 22.8

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 9.4 8.2 5.4 10.2 13.8 11.9 17.6 16.5

18-24 years 18.1 13.9 10.0 16.2 27.7 17.6 17.9 27.5

25 years or more 26.0 19.2 12.7 21.7 36.2 21.4 18.4 34.7

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 15.7 11.7 9.9 15.8 26.8 15.5 18.6 25.5

Wife is 5-9 years younger 13.1 11.2 6.1 13.8 19.0 16.0 17.7 21.3

Wife is 10+ years younger 11.7 9.6 6.5 10.9 16.0 12.5 17.3 8.7

Husband coresident

No 32.5 11.2 28.2 12.5 50.6 13.1 35.0 21.3

Yes 10.7 10.4 5.0 12.6 15.8 14.2 16.0 20.7

Residence

Rural 11.1 8.8 6.7 10.6 16.3 12.4 17.7 17.7

Urban 16.8 14.3 8.1 16.9 25.1 17.7 17.7 27.3

Family structure

Nuclear 12.9 10.4 7.0 12.9 18.5 14.0 17.3 20.6

Extended 12.8 10.5 7.5 11.7 20.4 14.3 18.9 20.7

Wealth index

Poorest 11.6 7.2 6.1 9.7 12.9 11.6 19.5 16.7

Poorer 9.0 7.1 5.8 9.1 14.6 11.0 17.7 15.2

Middle 11.2 7.4 7.7 7.9 16.1 8.9 19.3 15.4

Richer 14.7 11.2 7.9 15.1 21.5 15.4 15.0 22.2

Richest 18.7 20.6 8.5 22.4 31.6 24.6 16.6 35.7

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) 

from the value for the reference category.
51

Appendix Table 2A.10. Percentage of currently married women who make decisions by 

themselves and who make decisions jointly, by background characteristics: Rwanda

Characteristic

Own health care

Large household 

purchases

Purchases for 

daily needs

Visits to family or 

friends

Alone Jointly Alone Jointly Alone Jointly Alone Jointly

Age

15 to 19 9.4 29.8 8.2 24.0 16.4 23.4 8.1 52.6

20 to 29 19.3 26.8 10.9 32.5 19.0 32.0 16.0 51.1

30 to 39 25.5 28.5 19.5 34.0 26.1 33.2 21.9 50.0

40 to 49 29.7 27.3 24.0 33.4 29.9 33.3 25.0 48.7

Children ever born

None 11.5 25.9 9.9 28.3 17.9 29.3 11.8 50.5

1 or 2 21.9 28.0 13.1 33.2 21.7 31.5 18.4 50.3

3 or 4 22.9 24.9 15.9 30.6 22.9 30.1 19.2 49.0

5+ 26.5 29.2 20.7 34.9 26.5 34.5 22.2 50.9

Education

None 23.1 26.9 16.3 30.9 22.2 30.5 20.6 48.8

Primary 21.4 27.9 15.4 33.0 21.5 33.1 18.6 50.7

Secondary or higher 34.3 27.6 23.0 39.3 40.0 33.0 22.7 52.7

Work 

Does not work 21.5 26.0 15.2 30.8 21.6 31.2 18.3 50.7

Works for cash 32.9 30.7 23.6 39.4 32.7 35.4 24.9 51.4

Media exposure

Not regular 23.8 27.7 17.0 32.6 21.5 32.6 20.7 49.2

Regular (weekly) exposure 22.7 27.3 16.0 33.3 26.5 31.6 18.4 51.6

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 24.7 26.6 19.0 30.6 25.3 31.7 22.2 48.3

18-24 years 22.6 28.0 15.3 33.6 22.5 32.5 18.7 51.3

25 years or more 25.2 27.1 19.6 33.4 27.5 31.0 20.9 47.4

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 20.7 28.0 14.8 33.3 21.6 32.9 18.0 51.5

Wife is 5-9 years younger 23.4 28.6 15.0 35.1 24.1 32.9 19.3 51.7

Wife is 10+ years younger 28.0 25.5 21.0 29.9 26.6 30.0 22.9 46.2

Husband coresident

No 70.3 9.2 63.8 14.1 69.3 13.0 66.2 20.1

Yes 16.4 30.2 9.6 35.6 17.0 35.0 12.8 54.6

Residence

Rural 21.6 27.6 15.3 32.4 21.3 32.5 18.7 50.8

Urban 33.1 27.1 23.9 35.6 37.4 30.2 25.3 46.8

Family structure

Nuclear 21.5 28.4 15.6 32.9 21.7 32.6 19.4 50.6

Extended 31.2 24.0 20.7 32.8 32.2 30.5 21.2 48.8

Wealth index

Poorest 22.9 31.0 17.1 34.7 23.5 35.4 19.1 54.0

Poorer 23.1 24.9 16.7 30.1 21.5 29.8 20.7 47.7

Middle 18.4 29.8 13.1 33.9 17.9 35.1 15.2 54.5

Richer 21.7 26.2 14.3 31.4 21.2 31.8 19.0 49.6

Richest 31.1 28.1 22.5 36.0 35.6 30.5 24.6 47.2

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) 

from the value for the reference category.
52

Appendix Table 2A.11. Percentage of currently married women who make decisions by 

themselves and who make decisions jointly, by background characteristics: Uganda

Characteristic

Own health care

Large household 

purchases

Purchases for 

daily needs

Visits to family or 

friends

Alone Jointly Alone Jointly Alone Jointly Alone Jointly

Age 

15 to 19 25.6 19.1 4.3 15.6 8.2 17.7 15.3 30.4

20 to 29 41.9 18.0 8.2 24.8 16.5 25.6 22.5 31.0

30 to 39 48.8 17.5 16.2 30.4 24.0 29.1 29.0 32.1

40 to 49 49.9 17.2 16.2 32.6 23.4 32.9 30.8 35.6

Children ever born

None 31.7 19.0 6.1 21.2 12.4 24.0 19.7 32.4

1 or 2 40.5 17.2 7.6 23.4 15.4 23.9 22.7 31.3

3 or 4 45.7 17.4 12.7 24.7 21.6 24.4 25.3 31.3

5+ 46.2 18.4 13.9 31.1 20.7 31.1 27.1 32.7

Education

None 42.0 18.4 13.0 30.0 17.4 29.4 27.7 30.0

Primary 41.6 18.1 10.4 24.3 17.9 25.4 23.7 31.3

Secondary or higher 56.0 15.8 12.7 31.7 27.2 29.2 25.8 39.1

Work 

Does not work 39.5 15.6 9.7 20.8 16.2 19.8 28.6 26.7

Works for cash 47.3 19.8 12.9 32.1 21.5 33.4 21.7 36.6

Media exposure

No regular exposure 42.9 18.4 13.3 26.4 18.7 27.8 30.1 26.7

Regular (weekly) exposure 44.2 17.4 9.6 27.1 19.2 26.2 20.2 36.8

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 41.6 18.4 12.3 24.5 18.8 24.8 26.1 29.2

18-24 years 46.0 17.0 9.6 30.0 19.1 30.0 22.7 35.7

25 years or more 52.7 17.8 16.0 31.9 21.2 33.6 30.1 40.4

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 43.7 17.6 11.5 26.7 19.7 27.0 25.5 32.0

Wife is 5-9 years younger 41.4 19.0 10.0 28.1 17.1 28.5 23.2 33.4

Wife is 10+ years younger 44.8 17.3 12.0 24.7 19.3 24.7 25.0 30.5

Husband coresident

No 63.0 9.6 31.5 18.8 48.0 17.5 50.4 18.5

Yes 40.4 19.2 8.1 28.1 14.3 28.5 20.9 34.1

Residence

Rural 41.2 18.4 10.7 26.8 17.3 27.5 24.7 30.7

Urban 59.3 14.2 15.7 26.3 30.1 23.6 26.9 40.4

Family structure

Nuclear 43.7 16.7 11.4 27.0 18.3 26.7 24.6 31.8

Extended 43.2 21.0 11.3 26.3 20.9 27.8 26.0 32.4

Wealth index

Poorest 41.4 19.8 11.3 27.5 16.5 29.3 26.2 30.2

Poorer 40.8 20.3 12.3 27.3 17.8 27.6 30.0 28.5

Middle 38.7 18.8 10.8 26.5 15.7 27.3 23.4 30.9

Richer 40.8 16.5 9.8 25.1 16.2 26.6 19.3 30.4

Richest 56.9 13.3 12.7 27.4 29.1 23.8 25.3 40.4

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) 

from the value for the reference category.
53

Appendix Table 2A.12. Percentage of currently married women who make decisions by 

themselves and who make decisions jointly, by background characteristics: Zambia

Characteristic

Own health care

Large household 

purchases

Purchases for 

daily needs

Visits to family or 

friends

Alone Jointly Alone Jointly Alone Jointly Alone Jointly

Age 

15 to 19 23.5 10.1 7.8 17.9 n/a n/a 12.6 19.7

20 to 29 27.9 11.2 10.1 24.1 n/a n/a 16.6 24.7

30 to 39 34.9 11.5 12.2 29.1 n/a n/a 17.4 26.9

40 to 49 31.7 12.7 14.9 26.1 n/a n/a 18.8 30.2

Children ever born

None 25.3 10.4 14.3 22.3 n/a n/a 14.6 24.1

1 or 2 29.7 11.2 10.6 23.9 n/a n/a 16.6 24.7

3 or 4 30.1 11.1 9.5 26.5 n/a n/a 16.2 24.6

5+ 31.4 12.1 12.6 26.2 n/a n/a 18.0 27.8

Education

None 30.5 13.6 10.6 22.6 n/a n/a 17.9 24.7

Primary 27.6 11.2 10.6 21.9 n/a n/a 15.3 24.0

Secondary or higher 36.4 10.7 13.4 35.7 n/a n/a 20.2 30.9

Work 

Does not work 27.0 10.0 9.3 20.6 n/a n/a 14.9 23.1

Works for cash 35.7 14.0 14.8 33.6 n/a n/a 20.2 30.5

Media exposure

No regular exposure 27.2 12.8 10.7 21.7 n/a n/a 16.9 23.6

Regular (weekly) exposure 33.4 10.0 11.9 29.4 n/a n/a 16.8 28.2

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 27.7 11.9 10.2 23.6 n/a n/a 16.5 24.5

18-24 years 32.3 10.6 12.3 26.3 n/a n/a 17.0 26.5

25 years or more 47.7 13.4 18.8 43.0 n/a n/a 21.5 39.6

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 28.6 10.7 10.9 24.6 n/a n/a 17.2 24.3

Wife is 5-9 years younger 29.9 11.3 9.9 25.3 n/a n/a 17.1 26.2

Wife is 10+ years younger 33.3 13.1 14.4 26.4 n/a n/a 15.6 27.4

Husband coresident

No 38.2 6.2 22.0 20.3 n/a n/a 32.7 17.3

Yes 29.5 11.8 10.5 25.7 n/a n/a 15.7 26.4

Residence

Rural 25.8 13.4 9.5 23.2 n/a n/a 15.3 23.4

Urban 38.1 7.9 14.5 29.2 n/a n/a 19.6 30.1

Family structure

Nuclear 29.0 12.0 10.6 23.7 n/a n/a 16.5 25.2

Extended 32.0 10.6 12.4 27.9 n/a n/a 17.4 26.8

Wealth index

Poorest 27.9 11.4 9.5 19.3 n/a n/a 18.3 19.9

Poorer 25.4 15.7 9.3 23.4 n/a n/a 15.4 24.1

Middle 23.8 11.6 10.2 22.3 n/a n/a 14.3 24.5

Richer 34.4 10.1 13.6 26.8 n/a n/a 18.0 24.0

Richest 40.6 7.7 13.9 34.3 n/a n/a 19.1 35.8

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) 

from the value for the reference category.

n/a = Not available
54

Appendix Table 2A.13. Percentage of currently married women who make decisions by 

themselves and who make decisions jointly, by background characteristics: Zimbabwe

Characteristic

Own health care

Large household 

purchases

Purchases for 

daily needs

Visits to family or 

friends

Alone Jointly Alone Jointly Alone Jointly Alone Jointly

Age

15 to 19 35.8 17.9 13.1 34.5 39.9 23.3 19.2 43.1

20 to 29 46.9 12.6 14.3 40.8 56.1 20.6 26.8 46.3

30 to 39 53.6 12.2 17.1 47.1 63.8 20.2 31.2 47.9

40 to 49 55.1 11.7 20.7 44.2 60.0 23.9 36.0 45.4

Children ever born

None 38.7 18.5 15.4 38.5 45.2 21.5 25.6 40.1

1 or 2 49.1 12.4 13.6 43.4 57.1 21.5 25.0 50.1

3 or 4 48.8 13.0 18.6 43.6 62.1 19.3 31.9 44.8

5+ 53.8 11.2 18.5 42.0 58.4 22.8 34.3 43.5

Education

None 52.6 11.0 21.3 37.4 52.3 21.9 35.5 36.8

Primary 47.5 12.8 17.3 38.4 54.6 21.0 30.4 42.7

Secondary or higher 50.5 13.1 14.1 47.9 61.7 21.5 26.4 51.9

Work 

Does not work 49.2 12.2 15.0 39.7 54.9 21.8 27.5 43.6

Works for cash 49.4 13.4 17.5 45.7 60.4 20.9 30.6 49.2

Media exposure

No regular exposure 47.4 13.1 16.9 38.4 51.7 22.8 29.4 41.6

Regular (weekly) exposure 50.7 12.6 15.6 45.8 61.8 20.2 28.8 49.7

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 46.8 13.2 17.1 38.9 55.3 22.0 29.2 44.5

18-24 years 50.6 12.0 15.5 44.5 58.7 20.8 29.0 46.9

25 years or more 53.6 16.3 16.7 49.8 62.4 22.1 28.1 53.4

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 50.6 12.6 15.8 45.0 61.9 20.6 30.3 48.1

Wife is 5-9 years younger 51.4 12.5 15.7 45.0 57.2 21.9 27.8 48.3

Wife is 10+ years younger 45.5 13.3 16.5 37.8 52.8 21.5 27.8 42.8

Husband coresident

No 58.9 7.4 20.9 35.1 64.6 13.7 43.1 30.9

Yes 45.7 14.8 14.4 45.3 55.0 24.0 23.8 52.0

Residence

Rural 47.4 13.2 16.7 38.4 54.6 20.4 29.6 41.2

Urban 52.6 12.1 15.4 50.2 62.8 22.9 28.0 55.3

Family structure

Nuclear 49.8 12.8 16.2 42.5 57.8 22.6 29.2 47.4

Extended 48.4 12.7 16.2 42.9 57.3 19.0 28.7 44.3

Wealth index

Poorest 46.8 10.5 18.0 34.6 51.5 20.9 29.2 39.5

Poorer 45.7 13.3 16.8 37.7 55.6 18.4 30.6 39.1

Middle 51.2 13.9 15.3 41.0 57.8 19.7 31.7 41.4

Richer 46.4 14.6 16.9 43.4 56.4 24.6 25.9 52.4

Richest 55.9 11.6 14.2 54.1 65.6 21.7 28.9 55.4

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) 

from the value for the reference category.
55

Appendix Table 2A.14. Percentage of currently married women who make decisions by 

themselves and who make decisions jointly, by background characteristics: Armenia

Characteristic

Own health care

Large household 

purchases

Purchases for 

daily needs

Visits to family or 

friends

Alone Jointly Alone Jointly Alone Jointly Alone Jointly

Age 

15 to 19 16.2 38.8 1.0 31.3 5.1 22.4 3.1 41.4

20 to 29 25.0 40.6 4.0 41.6 22.9 26.5 5.8 61.7

30 to 39 34.6 43.8 10.8 54.8 49.1 27.8 10.5 70.1

40 to 49 41.4 39.6 14.0 60.0 53.5 28.5 15.4 70.4

Children ever born

None 25.6 41.2 6.5 46.3 25.1 24.5 8.4 62.3

1 or 2 35.7 39.5 9.3 52.0 40.0 27.3 10.6 67.1

3 or 4 33.0 43.5 10.0 53.8 47.3 27.9 11.1 68.3

5+ 29.3 44.2 12.2 52.5 44.8 30.9 11.7 64.6

Education

None or Primary * * * * * * * *

Secondary or higher 33.8 41.3 9.7 52.4 42.4 27.5 10.7 67.3

Work 

Does not work 30.3 42.5 8.8 50.3 40.3 26.9 9.7 65.4

Works for cash 45.8 37.7 12.9 59.6 49.2 29.9 14.0 73.4

Media exposure

No regular exposure 33.4 38.3 12.0 44.0 38.9 25.5 14.7 55.7

Regular (weekly) exposure 33.9 41.7 9.6 53.2 42.7 27.7 10.3 68.4

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 26.0 41.5 8.1 47.1 35.5 27.4 9.1 60.7

18-24 years 35.0 41.6 10.0 52.8 43.6 27.6 11.1 68.0

25 years or more 42.3 39.1 12.1 61.4 48.0 27.3 11.8 75.9

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 35.1 40.9 9.9 54.8 43.7 28.1 11.3 68.2

Wife is 5-9 years younger 32.3 41.8 9.8 50.1 41.3 27.1 9.7 66.3

Wife is 10+ years younger 31.4 42.3 8.9 45.5 37.7 25.5 10.8 64.2

Husband coresident

No 54.8 27.4 31.1 38.3 63.2 15.8 35.6 44.9

Yes 31.5 42.9 7.4 53.9 40.1 28.8 8.0 69.6

Residence

Rural 25.6 44.7 8.3 46.9 36.4 28.8 10.8 60.7

Urban 39.8 38.9 10.9 56.4 46.6 26.6 10.7 71.9

Family structure

Nuclear 37.3 42.4 12.4 57.1 51.8 28.3 12.7 70.9

Extended 31.0 40.5 7.6 48.6 34.7 26.9 9.2 64.2

Wealth index

Poorest 25.0 42.9 9.1 46.7 36.6 27.7 11.7 56.4

Poorer 26.6 46.0 7.0 48.0 37.0 28.0 9.8 63.7

Middle 36.3 43.7 11.9 54.9 46.7 26.8 12.5 67.1

Richer 38.9 36.9 10.2 52.0 46.2 25.5 10.6 71.2

Richest 41.4 37.8 10.6 59.5 44.7 29.7 9.2 76.3

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) 

from the value for the reference category.

* Number of unweighted cases is less than 25
56

Appendix Table 2A.15. Percentage of currently married women who make decisions by 

themselves and who make decisions jointly, by background characteristics: Jordan

Characteristic

Own health care

Large household 

purchases

Purchases for 

daily needs

Visits to family or 

friends

Alone Jointly Alone Jointly Alone Jointly Alone Jointly

Age 

15 to 19 46.4 31.8 2.0 40.5 18.3 29.2 1.3 58.9

20 to 29 56.4 29.6 6.1 53.4 30.2 28.2 12.8 64.3

30 to 39 64.2 25.0 11.0 55.2 41.3 27.7 15.6 69.8

40 to 49 65.0 24.2 16.4 52.7 42.6 26.4 20.6 65.9

Children ever born

None 44.9 37.6 8.8 52.4 24.3 32.9 8.0 71.0

1 or 2 58.6 28.7 6.9 55.0 30.1 30.7 12.8 64.9

3 or 4 61.9 26.1 9.1 57.4 38.9 28.3 14.9 70.1

5+ 66.2 23.0 14.2 50.0 43.5 24.0 19.3 64.4

Education

None 59.9 23.1 10.8 40.4 33.7 21.3 18.5 52.9

Primary 61.8 23.2 11.8 46.2 40.0 24.1 16.3 58.6

Secondary or higher 61.4 27.1 10.3 55.5 37.3 28.5 15.2 68.8

Work 

Does not work 61.2 26.2 9.8 53.0 37.5 27.2 15.5 66.1

Works for cash 63.0 29.1 17.0 59.2 36.8 31.5 16.1 72.9

Media exposure

No regular exposure 61.6 23.0 9.3 52.2 32.4 33.3 20.3 63.0

Regular (weekly) exposure 61.4 26.8 10.6 53.8 37.9 27.0 15.0 67.2

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 61.6 24.7 10.6 49.0 39.3 25.6 17.9 61.8

18-24 years 61.3 27.2 10.4 54.7 37.5 27.4 14.3 68.4

25 years or more 61.1 26.9 10.8 58.2 32.9 32.7 15.9 69.5

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 62.1 27.1 9.1 55.7 38.8 27.9 15.3 67.7

Wife is 5-9 years younger 61.6 25.8 11.2 52.4 38.3 26.3 15.3 67.1

Wife is 10+ years younger 59.5 26.2 12.3 51.4 32.8 29.4 16.5 64.5

Husband coresident

No 71.5 20.6 21.6 43.9 56.2 14.9 37.0 45.7

Yes 60.8 26.8 9.9 54.2 36.3 28.4 14.3 68.0

Residence

Rural 59.7 26.6 8.7 54.1 30.2 28.1 11.5 65.4

Urban 61.8 26.4 11.0 53.5 39.2 27.5 16.5 67.1

Family structure

Nuclear 61.9 26.2 11.0 54.5 39.0 27.6 16.1 67.4

Extended 58.4 27.8 7.6 48.3 27.9 27.3 12.3 63.0

Wealth index

Poorest 61.8 24.3 11.0 47.4 36.9 24.5 15.5 56.9

Poorer 58.4 28.0 9.6 52.6 36.6 28.4 16.6 65.6

Middle 60.9 28.5 9.3 55.6 37.5 28.8 14.8 67.9

Richer 63.4 24.3 10.7 53.1 37.9 25.5 13.6 73.1

Richest 63.2 26.9 12.4 60.3 38.3 31.0 17.2 71.6

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) 

from the value for the reference category.
57

Appendix Table 2A.16. Percentage of currently married women who make decisions by 

themselves and who make decisions jointly, by background characteristics: Morocco

Characteristic

Own health care

Large household 

purchases

Purchases for 

daily needs

Visits to family or 

friends

Alone Jointly Alone Jointly Alone Jointly Alone Jointly

Age

15 to 19 2.9 28.5 2.3 27.3 4.4 21.8 2.3 36.7

20 to 29 6.2 39.2 3.7 40.6 8.5 33.2 4.6 48.1

30 to 39 13.1 48.1 8.9 49.1 16.5 40.1 9.0 57.4

40 to 49 17.3 47.2 13.5 48.6 21.5 39.3 12.5 56.5

Children ever born

None 7.6 36.4 4.6 39.6 7.0 33.1 5.2 46.7

1 or 2 10.4 46.0 7.6 47.0 14.6 37.2 7.6 54.7

3 or 4 14.4 47.1 9.9 49.0 18.1 39.5 10.1 56.3

5+ 13.6 42.9 10.2 42.8 16.7 36.1 9.8 52.2

Education

None 10.7 40.7 7.6 39.9 13.2 33.8 7.6 49.4

Primary 13.2 45.3 9.9 47.9 18.7 36.3 9.8 54.4

Secondary or higher 15.8 56.1 11.1 62.4 19.5 48.7 11.1 66.7

Work 

Does not work 10.4 43.0 7.2 43.6 13.8 35.4 7.5 51.9

Works for cash 24.9 55.2 19.3 61.1 27.3 49.6 17.2 66.1

Media exposure

No regular exposure 8.7 37.8 6.7 34.5 9.3 31.3 6.5 47.7

Regular (weekly) exposure 12.7 45.7 9.0 47.6 16.5 38.2 9.0 54.7

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 11.4 41.7 8.0 42.4 14.9 34.7 8.1 49.8

18-24 years 11.8 44.5 8.8 45.0 15.1 37.0 8.8 54.0

25 years or more 15.2 51.9 10.0 56.5 17.6 44.0 9.7 62.6

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 12.3 44.6 8.7 45.4 14.9 37.3 8.2 54.1

Wife is 5-9 years younger 10.9 46.5 7.6 47.2 15.8 37.5 8.2 54.1

Wife is 10+ years younger 13.2 42.3 9.8 44.3 15.5 36.6 9.6 52.8

Husband coresident

No n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Yes n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Residence

Rural 6.4 35.1 4.6 33.3 6.3 29.4 4.8 44.1

Urban 16.4 51.6 11.7 54.9 22.2 43.0 11.5 60.8

Family structure

Nuclear 14.4 50.0 10.7 51.5 18.9 41.5 9.9 59.5

Extended 8.7 36.2 5.6 36.9 10.1 30.6 6.8 44.8

Wealth index

Poorest 6.2 34.5 4.5 32.4 6.0 29.3 5.0 45.1

Poorer 7.9 38.2 6.0 36.1 8.3 31.4 5.8 45.4

Middle 13.0 45.5 9.4 45.5 18.3 36.3 9.1 51.9

Richer 16.7 47.5 12.1 51.6 22.6 40.3 12.1 58.0

Richest 16.6 56.0 11.2 61.8 21.2 47.9 11.1 67.0

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) 

from the value for the reference category.

n/a = Not available 
58

Appendix Table 2A.17. Percentage of currently married women who make decisions by 

themselves and who make decisions jointly, by background characteristics: Cambodia

Characteristic

Own health care

Large household 

purchases

Purchases for 

daily needs

Visits to family or 

friends

Alone Jointly Alone Jointly Alone Jointly Alone Jointly

Age

15 to 19 23.4 58.9 18.7 52.3 50.0 28.3 9.6 75.2

20 to 29 33.8 55.5 22.3 60.8 64.5 27.0 14.7 79.6

30 to 39 38.1 52.7 28.7 61.0 72.9 24.1 15.5 82.6

40 to 49 41.9 53.6 29.7 60.0 76.3 22.5 19.7 78.2

Children ever born

None 27.6 58.2 13.7 60.1 47.4 33.6 15.4 75.0

1 or 2 37.5 52.0 24.8 60.0 69.4 22.9 17.5 77.1

3 or 4 36.8 54.9 28.7 61.6 70.5 27.0 16.5 82.2

5+ 39.1 54.2 29.3 59.4 75.5 22.6 14.9 82.1

Education

None 33.4 58.0 29.8 58.8 65.9 28.8 17.2 79.0

Primary 37.5 53.3 27.2 59.8 72.1 23.4 15.5 81.1

Secondary or higher 45.1 47.5 18.0 65.7 74.4 19.9 16.8 79.4

Work 

Does not work 33.4 56.9 26.7 60.4 67.8 27.0 14.1 82.2

Works for cash 43.9 49.1 27.1 60.0 75.1 20.6 19.5 77.0

Media exposure

No regular exposure 32.0 58.5 30.6 58.4 66.1 28.8 16.4 80.4

Regular (weekly) exposure 39.9 51.8 24.9 61.1 72.7 22.6 16.0 80.1

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 36.2 54.4 29.4 58.0 70.9 24.1 14.8 81.6

18-24 years 37.9 53.5 26.4 60.4 70.5 24.4 16.1 80.4

25 years or more 36.5 55.7 20.3 67.5 68.7 28.0 20.8 74.0

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 36.5 54.8 26.5 61.1 71.1 24.3 15.1 81.7

Wife is 5-9 years younger 36.5 53.3 26.2 59.1 69.5 25.4 15.8 79.0

Wife is 10+ years younger 42.0 52.5 29.8 57.6 67.8 27.0 21.0 76.5

Husband coresident

No 60.2 30.1 48.0 31.1 79.6 8.7 38.8 48.5

Yes 36.1 55.2 25.8 61.7 70.0 25.4 15.0 81.8

Residence

Rural 36.8 54.0 27.6 60.6 69.9 25.5 15.6 80.6

Urban 39.9 53.8 22.5 58.3 74.0 19.8 19.4 78.1

Family structure

Nuclear 37.3 54.3 28.0 61.7 73.1 24.7 15.7 81.5

Extended 27.2 53.5 24.3 57.3 65.1 24.7 17.0 77.7

Wealth index

Poorest 29.0 60.9 32.7 54.5 67.1 29.0 16.8 79.5

Poorer 36.4 54.4 28.5 61.5 65.9 29.2 13.1 82.8

Middle 34.2 59.5 25.9 63.7 72.1 25.3 14.5 82.9

Richer 40.2 47.9 25.4 61.9 68.6 24.0 17.9 76.0

Richest 46.5 47.0 21.3 59.4 78.7 15.3 18.5 79.4

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) 

from the value for the reference category.
59

Appendix Table 2A.18. Percentage of currently married women who make decisions by 

themselves and who make decisions jointly, by background characteristics: Indonesia

Characteristic

Own health care

Large household 

purchases

Purchases for 

daily needs

Visits to family or 

friends

Alone Jointly Alone Jointly Alone Jointly Alone Jointly

Age

15 to 19 41.3 39.6 11.3 62.3 73.4 17.6 10.5 70.7

20 to 29 52.3 33.9 13.0 66.6 81.8 14.3 12.3 75.8

30 to 39 56.6 30.9 14.7 68.2 84.3 13.4 12.6 76.8

40 to 49 55.4 32.1 14.5 67.2 83.4 13.5 13.7 75.5

Children ever born

None 45.9 38.6 12.1 66.6 74.3 19.0 10.6 76.1

1 or 2 54.9 32.8 13.2 69.3 83.5 14.0 12.4 76.8

3 or 4 55.3 31.8 14.2 67.8 83.8 12.9 12.6 76.1

5+ 55.2 29.7 17.1 59.7 83.5 12.9 15.2 72.4

Education

None 52.9 29.7 15.2 61.0 82.0 13.2 16.1 71.4

Primary 54.4 31.7 13.7 65.8 83.8 12.9 13.2 74.4

Secondary or higher 54.6 34.2 14.3 70.4 81.9 15.3 11.5 78.8

Work 

Does not work 57.4 33.1 13.1 66.5 82.4 13.7 12.1 75.0

Works for cash 58.9 31.3 16.1 68.9 83.9 14.2 14.3 78.1

Media exposure

No regular exposure 53.4 33.1 13.0 66.0 80.2 15.6 13.5 74.3

Regular (weekly) exposure 54.6 32.4 14.2 67.5 83.5 13.5 12.6 76.3

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 54.7 31.3 14.2 64.4 83.5 13.0 13.3 73.8

18-24 years 54.2 33.1 13.7 68.9 82.8 14.1 12.8 76.7

25 years or more 54.0 34.9 14.8 71.5 80.3 16.7 9.6 81.2

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 53.3 33.4 13.0 69.0 82.0 14.8 12.2 77.3

Wife is 5-9 years younger 54.2 32.8 14.2 66.7 83.5 13.6 12.4 75.7

Wife is 10+ years younger 58.1 28.6 16.3 62.6 84.4 11.5 15.2 72.1

Husband coresident

No 81.3 12.7 37.0 49.9 88.8 7.2 45.2 48.2

Yes 53.2 33.3 13.0 67.9 82.6 14.2 11.4 77.1

Residence

Rural 51.1 35.3 11.3 69.2 81.8 14.4 12.7 76.0

Urban 58.2 29.2 17.2 64.9 84.2 13.2 12.8 75.8

Family structure

Nuclear 54.4 32.4 13.8 67.0 84.2 13.1 12.8 75.5

Extended 54.2 32.7 14.3 67.6 80.5 15.4 12.8 76.7

Wealth index

Poorest 48.0 36.7 12.0 68.6 79.0 16.6 13.2 76.0

Poorer 53.1 32.4 12.8 67.4 83.9 12.4 13.0 73.6

Middle 53.7 32.7 13.3 66.7 84.2 12.8 12.6 74.5

Richer 57.5 30.7 16.7 64.8 85.2 12.2 13.3 76.2

Richest 59.6 29.9 15.2 68.6 82.3 15.3 11.8 79.2

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) 

from the value for the reference category.
60

Appendix Table 2A.19. Percentage of currently married women who make decisions by 

themselves and who make decisions jointly, by background characteristics: Nepal

Characteristic

Own health care

Large household 

purchases

Purchases for 

daily needs

Visits to family or 

friends

Alone Jointly Alone Jointly Alone Jointly Alone Jointly

Age 

15 to 19 3.3 4.3 2.7 5.2 5.8 4.7 2.9 7.3

20 to 29 12.4 12.8 10.9 15.4 22.8 14.1 12.4 20.7

30 to 39 17.5 15.3 17.6 23.7 35.9 19.5 20.1 28.2

40 to 49 15.3 19.7 16.4 27.0 33.0 23.4 19.3 32.8

Children ever born

None 4.5 6.2 4.0 8.2 8.8 6.7 4.3 10.2

1 or 2 13.2 12.1 11.9 15.1 23.7 12.5 12.7 19.9

3 or 4 17.6 15.1 17.8 21.5 34.9 18.8 19.8 26.7

5+ 12.7 18.1 12.7 25.2 28.5 22.6 16.4 30.6

Education

None 12.2 14.5 11.9 19.3 24.9 17.7 14.3 24.6

Primary 16.9 10.9 15.9 15.9 29.8 13.1 17.0 20.9

Secondary or higher 16.4 14.7 16.1 21.2 33.7 14.3 16.5 23.0

Work 

Does not work 12.3 13.2 11.5 18.1 24.1 16.3 13.9 23.0

Works for cash 22.2 20.5 25.4 26.4 47.7 18.4 23.2 30.3

Media exposure

No regular exposure 11.2 14.2 10.2 18.4 22.1 17.0 13.2 23.6

Regular (weekly) exposure 15.9 13.8 16.0 19.8 31.7 16.1 16.9 24.0

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 12.6 14.0 12.4 18.9 26.1 16.7 14.1 23.9

18-24 years 15.8 13.9 15.0 19.2 28.5 16.0 17.2 23.5

25 years or more 13.1 16.5 10.7 26.2 29.5 18.2 15.6 28.7

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 12.8 13.9 11.3 18.1 24.4 15.8 13.6 22.7

Wife is 5-9 years younger 13.7 13.6 14.7 19.4 29.2 16.8 15.9 24.8

Wife is 10+ years younger 16.4 15.1 17.8 22.9 32.8 19.2 19.4 27.0

Husband coresident

No 34.5 8.9 29.0 10.2 42.7 6.4 35.6 10.2

Yes 7.8 15.4 8.7 21.5 22.5 19.3 9.3 27.6

Residence

Rural 12.7 13.7 12.0 18.8 25.0 16.7 13.9 23.7

Urban 21.1 16.5 23.0 21.4 44.2 15.4 25.3 24.9

Family structure

Nuclear 18.2 17.0 18.0 25.1 36.4 19.9 21.1 30.1

Extended 9.0 11.1 8.4 13.3 17.7 13.3 9.2 17.8

Wealth index

Poorest 13.3 13.3 12.4 17.2 23.8 17.0 15.8 22.1

Poorer 12.1 13.0 10.3 19.0 23.6 16.3 12.1 24.6

Middle 10.6 13.8 10.3 18.0 22.8 16.7 12.5 22.9

Richer 13.1 13.5 12.1 18.1 24.5 15.7 13.8 23.5

Richest 18.3 16.5 20.3 23.4 39.8 17.0 20.6 26.2

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) 

from the value for the reference category.
61

Appendix Table 2A.20. Percentage of currently married women who make decisions by 

themselves and who make decisions jointly, by background characteristics: Philippines

Characteristic

Own health care

Large household 

purchases

Purchases for 

daily needs

Visits to family or 

friends

Alone Jointly Alone Jointly Alone Jointly Alone Jointly

Age

15 to 19 67.5 18.6 15.7 42.6 37.7 29.7 26.3 47.0 

20 to 29 73.9 18.9 20.8 51.9 49.8 32.3 26.9 58.3 

30 to 39 76.2 18.9 21.1 59.8 59.5 30.3 25.5 62.8 

40 to 49 77.1 18.1 24.5 58.7 63.4 27.7 30.8 60.3 

Children ever born

None 71.1 19.6 18.5 51.8 46.7 32.4 25.9 58.7 

1 or 2 76.2 18.0 20.0 56.3 54.8 30.3 26.8 59.9 

3 or 4 75.8 19.2 23.3 56.9 60.9 29.1 28.6 60.1 

5+ 75.7 18.6 24.0 58.3 58.8 30.5 27.5 61.7 

Education

None 62.8 30.4 9.5 72.1 39.2 50.7 22.4 70.7 

Primary 75.0 18.0 25.7 55.1 56.4 31.1 29.9 58.8 

Secondary or higher 76.1 18.6 20.6 56.8 57.8 29.2 26.8 60.7 

Work 

Does not work 76.1 17.3 20.8 55.5 55.8 30.1 27.4 59.0 

Works for cash 74.8 20.4 23.3 58.0 58.6 30.1 27.5 61.9 

Media exposure

No regular exposure 72.2 21.0 20.1 61.5 48.3 38.5 26.7 63.5 

Regular (weekly) exposure 75.9 18.4 22.0 56.1 57.9 29.3 27.5 60.0 

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 73.3 19.2 23.6 55.3 54.6 32.2 27.2 59.5 

18-24 years 75.9 18.4 21.7 55.4 57.6 29.0 27.7 59.8 

25 years or more 76.8 18.6 20.3 61.6 58.3 31.1 27.0 62.7 

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 75.6 18.4 21.1 57.0 57.2 30.0 27.2 60.7 

Wife is 5-9 years younger 75.4 19.6 24.2 56.6 56.7 31.1 27.0 60.5 

Wife is 10+ years younger 75.0 18.4 21.0 54.8 56.2 29.2 28.0 57.5 

Husband coresident

No 85.5 8.6 37.7 34.8 67.8 13.7 51.6 32.0 

Yes 74.8 19.4 20.7 58.1 56.3 31.3 25.8 62.3 

Residence

Rural 73.5 20.0 23.0 57.2 54.9 32.8 26.7 62.0 

Urban 77.3 17.5 20.9 56.1 58.9 27.8 28.1 58.8 

Family structure

Nuclear 74.8 19.7 21.7 58.8 58.9 30.8 26.5 62.2 

Extended 77.1 16.3 22.3 51.8 53.1 28.8 29.6 56.2 

Wealth index

Poorest 71.3 21.2 23.4 57.0 49.5 36.5 25.1 63.0 

Poorer 75.7 18.1 25.2 53.9 58.9 29.2 28.1 59.2 

Middle 75.3 18.7 21.3 56.4 60.1 27.6 29.0 58.3 

Richer 76.0 19.0 20.2 57.0 58.6 29.1 26.4 61.7 

Richest 79.2 16.2 19.2 58.8 57.8 28.5 28.5 59.3 

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) 

from the value for the reference category.
62

Appendix Table 2A.21. Percentage of currently married women who make decisions by 

themselves and who make decisions jointly, by background characteristics: Bolivia

Characteristic

Own health care

Large household 

purchases

Purchases for 

daily needs

Visits to family or 

friends

Alone Jointly Alone Jointly Alone Jointly Alone Jointly

Age 

15 to 19 41.1 43.3 3.5 63.3 40.8 35.2 16.6 63.7

20 to 29 51.4 37.0 7.2 68.4 53.8 34.3 16.7 69.5

30 to 39 53.4 34.8 9.6 69.3 58.8 33.3 18.4 68.2

40 to 49 56.4 32.7 13.6 67.2 61.9 30.9 23.8 63.9

Children ever born

None 44.8 41.6 7.9 64.8 41.3 36.7 19.4 65.2

1 or 2 54.2 35.4 9.5 69.5 58.9 31.4 18.9 69.8

3 or 4 53.8 35.9 9.3 69.0 60.7 31.6 18.2 69.1

5+ 52.2 33.7 10.0 66.6 54.2 36.0 20.3 63.1

Education

None 51.3 31.2 8.6 66.1 45.2 39.2 21.5 59.4

Primary 48.6 38.3 8.0 68.4 54.2 36.1 16.8 67.8

Secondary or higher 60.3 31.7 12.3 68.5 64.8 26.9 22.3 68.5

Work 

Does not work 47.4 39.4 6.1 68.8 49.2 38.3 15.9 68.7

Works for cash 57.5 32.1 12.3 67.8 63.5 29.0 21.7 66.2

Media exposure

No regular exposure 47.2 36.9 6.7 64.0 39.0 44.3 16.4 63.4

Regular (weekly) exposure 53.7 35.2 9.9 68.7 59.2 31.8 19.4 67.8

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 50.6 36.5 9.0 66.9 54.5 34.4 19.9 64.7

18-24 years 53.3 35.2 9.7 68.3 57.6 32.8 18.3 68.2

25 years or more 57.5 33.0 10.5 71.2 61.8 31.3 20.3 69.9

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 52.7 35.4 9.5 69.1 57.4 33.2 18.7 67.8

Wife is 5-9 years younger 53.4 35.8 8.6 68.0 58.4 31.5 17.8 67.1

Wife is 10+ years younger 53.8 34.8 11.2 63.7 53.3 35.9 23.3 65.2

Husband coresident

No 78.6 14.4 38.1 41.3 74.4 13.0 59.5 31.4

Yes 51.2 36.8 7.5 70.2 55.9 34.6 16.2 9.9

Residence

Rural 45.6 39.8 6.2 69.9 42.0 44.5 15.2 68.3

Urban 57.0 32.9 11.3 67.3 65.5 26.9 21.3 66.8

Family structure

Nuclear 53.1 35.3 9.6 69.3 58.2 33.6 18.5 68.1

Extended 52.5 35.6 9.5 62.4 51.5 30.3 22.4 63.1

Wealth index

Poorest 43.6 40.6 4.4 67.5 31.4 50.8 13.6 66.8

Poorer 46.7 40.2 8.2 71.2 50.8 39.5 18.7 66.6

Middle 51.4 35.9 8.7 67.7 64.0 28.4 18.0 68.1

Richer 55.3 33.9 11.9 67.3 69.0 24.6 21.4 67.0

Richest 67.0 26.7 13.7 67.6 66.1 25.4 23.2 68.1

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) 

from the value for the reference category.
63

Appendix Table 2A.22. Percentage of currently married women who make decisions by 

themselves and who make decisions jointly, by background characteristics: Haiti

Characteristic

Own health care

Large household 

purchases

Purchases for 

daily needs

Visits to family or 

friends

Alone Jointly Alone Jointly Alone Jointly Alone Jointly

Age 

15 to 19 29.6 12.2 23.1 18.7 39.0 17.6 45.3 25.3 

20 to 29 48.0 28.3 28.2 37.6 42.4 33.8 55.4 35.1 

30 to 39 36.7 37.7 36.0 37.9 51.2 33.6 51.1 39.6 

40 to 49 47.3 36.5 39.0 44.2 49.5 40.7 48.5 44.8 

Children ever born

None 41.0 17.4 25.3 20.6 39.3 16.5 50.9 25.2 

1 or 2 44.7 31.4 28.3 42.1 41.6 38.7 52.7 37.7 

3 or 4 43.2 36.2 37.3 37.2 51.3 33.7 50.9 40.5 

5+ 40.8 35.7 37.6 40.2 51.5 35.9 51.1 41.6 

Education

None 40.7 33.0 36.3 39.8 48.4 36.5 46.6 40.9 

Primary 46.7 30.5 31.8 37.8 46.4 33.8 53.9 38.4 

Secondary or higher 38.0 36.5 29.9 35.3 45.5 31.3 57.6 33.0 

Work 

Does not work 38.9 35.0 23.8 38.4 36.3 35.1 48.0 39.1 

Works for cash 45.0 31.2 38.9 38.1 53.5 34.1 53.8 38.2 

Media exposure

No regular exposure 40.4 32.6 35.8 39.3 48.4 35.7 46.5 42.3 

Regular (weekly) exposure 44.2 32.6 31.6 37.4 46.2 33.6 54.9 36.0 

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 42.1 29.0 33.3 36.8 44.9 33.6 51.5 36.8 

18-24 years 45.1 33.6 34.3 37.0 48.8 33.4 52.5 38.2 

25 years or more 34.4 37.3 29.0 46.4 45.3 40.5 48.1 43.4 

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 40.4 34.3 31.8 37.1 47.4 33.4 50.4 38.2 

Wife is 5-9 years younger 42.3 32.4 31.3 42.3 43.7 35.6 49.6 39.6 

Wife is 10+ years younger 47.4 29.5 38.6 35.8 50.1 35.5 55.9 38.0 

Husband coresident

No 59.6 16.0 46.1 18.5 53.9 15.9 75.6 13.7 

Yes 36.1 39.0 28.4 45.7 44.4 41.5 42.4 48.0 

Residence

Rural 42.5 30.2 34.0 38.2 47.0 34.1 46.7 41.4 

Urban 43.0 36.8 32.1 38.3 47.0 34.9 59.7 33.6 

Family structure

Nuclear 43.0 33.6 33.8 40.3 48.5 35.5 50.9 40.2 

Extended 42.3 31.3 32.7 35.7 45.3 33.2 52.3 36.4 

Wealth index

Poorest 38.9 32.8 30.4 39.6 41.8 34.5 50.3 35.6 

Poorer 42.8 34.5 30.7 45.7 45.7 39.1 41.7 47.8 

Middle 43.9 26.3 38.1 31.5 50.4 30.4 43.2 43.6 

Richer 45.8 29.8 31.6 36.4 48.3 33.7 62.4 28.9 

Richest 41.3 40.6 34.9 38.9 48.3 35.1 59.4 37.2 

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) 

from the value for the reference category.
64

Appendix Table 2A.23. Percentage of currently married women who make decisions by 

themselves and who make decisions jointly, by background characteristics: Nicaragua

Characteristic

Own health care

Large household 

purchases

Purchases for 

daily needs

Visits to family or 

friends

Alone Jointly Alone Jointly Alone Jointly Alone Jointly

Age 

15 to 19 41.8 39.8 9.6 48.7 n/a n/a 21.1 51.4

20 to 29 45.1 43.3 10.9 54.4 n/a n/a 22.1 58.3

30 to 39 48.8 41.3 15.0 57.5 n/a n/a 24.7 58.1

40 to 49 48.8 38.9 16.8 53.3 n/a n/a 27.4 55.4

Children ever born

None 37.7 44.9 12.7 50.5 n/a n/a 20.3 58.7

1 or 2 49.9 40.6 13.1 57.1 n/a n/a 25.0 57.8

3 or 4 48.2 40.8 14.9 55.0 n/a n/a 24.4 59.7

5+ 43.4 42.0 12.4 52.0 n/a n/a 23.1 52.6

Education

None 38.0 42.2 8.8 47.9 n/a n/a 17.7 53.2

Primary 43.5 42.6 12.1 50.5 n/a n/a 22.4 55.0

Secondary or higher 54.7 39.5 16.9 62.4 n/a n/a 28.8 61.2

Work 

Does not work 39.2 45.9 8.4 53.8 n/a n/a 18.6 58.5

Works for cash 58.1 34.7 20.7 56.0 n/a n/a 32.1 54.8

Media exposure

No regular exposure 39.3 41.6 8.7 48.8 n/a n/a 17.5 53.2

Regular (weekly) exposure 47.5 41.4 13.8 55.2 n/a n/a 24.6 57.4

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 45.8 40.6 13.3 52.0 n/a n/a 23.8 54.2

18-24 years 48.1 42.3 12.7 58.5 n/a n/a 24.2 60.5

25 years or more 48.4 43.2 19.5 57.4 n/a n/a 24.9 63.6

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 47.7 41.1 14.0 56.5 n/a n/a 23.9 58.6

Wife is 5-9 years younger 46.4 42.3 12.2 54.5 n/a n/a 24.8 55.4

Wife is 10+ years younger 44.2 41.0 12.5 49.2 n/a n/a 22.9 54.9

Husband coresident

No 68.5 24.8 41.0 36.4 n/a n/a 55.6 31.8

Yes 45.0 42.8 11.1 56.3 n/a n/a 21.4 59.1

Residence

Rural 37.4 45.1 8.3 51.0 n/a n/a 16.2 56.9

Urban 53.7 38.6 17.0 57.2 n/a n/a 29.8 57.1

Family structure

Nuclear 45.1 43.3 11.7 54.8 n/a n/a 22.7 57.6

Extended 49.4 38.3 16.0 54.4 n/a n/a 26.1 56.1

Wealth index

Poorest 34.8 44.1 6.9 47.4 n/a n/a 14.0 54.8

Poorer 41.5 44.2 9.2 52.5 n/a n/a 18.8 56.7

Middle 45.5 43.1 13.2 52.5 n/a n/a 21.7 57.0

Richer 51.4 40.5 15.8 59.0 n/a n/a 29.8 58.9

Richest 58.6 35.9 20.2 60.1 n/a n/a 33.9 57.3

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) 

from the value for the reference category.

n/a = Not available 
65

Appendix Table 2B.1. Odds ratios (estimated using logistic regression) for correlates of the likelihood that a currently married woman 

will participate in making a specific decision: Benin

Variables

Decisions about woman's 

own health care

Decisions about large

household purchases

Decisions about purchases for 

daily needs 

Decisions about visits to

family or friends 

Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly

Age group (ref: 40 to 49)

15 to 19 0.13 *** 0.38 ** 0.16 *** 0.11 *** 0.30 *** 0.14 *** 0.20 *** 0.62 0.16 *** 0.35 *** 0.46 *** 0.30 ***

20 to 29 0.40 *** 0.64 ** 0.40 *** 0.34 *** 0.60 *** 0.38 *** 0.55 *** 0.93 0.45 *** 0.58 *** 0.91 0.65 ***

30 to 39 0.68 *** 1.06 0.78 ** 0.68 *** 0.96 0.76 ** 0.73 *** 1.22 0.79 * 0.81 0.94 0.81 *

Children ever born (ref: 1 or 2)

None 0.91 0.91 0.88 1.18 0.83 0.98 0.82 0.77 0.72 * 0.91 1.02 0.96 

3 or 4 1.04 1.00 1.02 0.91 1.24 1.12 1.24 * 1.06 1.35 ** 1.05 1.05 1.07 

5+ 1.09 0.99 1.05 0.88 1.00 0.92 1.24 * 0.81 1.06 1.15 0.94 1.01 

Education (ref: Primary)

None 0.94 1.33 * 1.14 0.85 0.94 0.87 1.00 1.12 1.10 0.97 1.06 1.06 

Secondary or higher 1.06 1.64 ** 1.42 * 0.83 1.39 * 1.15 0.88 1.36 * 1.17 0.87 1.35 * 1.24 

Works for cash 2.33 *** 3.46 *** 3.31 *** 1.99 *** 2.95 *** 2.86 *** 2.54 *** 2.51 *** 4.00 *** 2.20 *** 1.69 *** 2.26 ***

Has regular media exposure 1.05 0.93 0.99 0.92 1.26 ** 1.12 0.91 1.39 *** 1.17 * 0.88 1.00 0.92 

Age at first marriage

(ref: Less than 18 years)

18-24 years 0.76 ** 1.10 0.88 0.80 * 1.09 0.93 0.87 1.13 0.96 0.76 ** 1.19 * 1.00 

25 years or more 1.12 1.13 1.19 1.04 1.06 1.08 0.66 ** 0.91 0.57 *** 1.24 0.91 1.09 

Spousal age difference 

(ref: Less than 5 years)

Wife is 5-9 years younger 0.89 0.93 0.87 0.83 0.90 0.83 * 0.83 * 1.00 0.81 * 1.08 0.74 *** 0.78 **

Wife is 10+ years younger 1.01 0.76 ** 0.85 * 0.94 0.80 * 0.82 * 0.85 * 0.88 0.75 *** 1.19 0.73 *** 0.82 **

Husband coresident 0.29 *** 1.59 *** 0.48 *** 0.27 *** 1.40 ** 0.50 *** 0.45 *** 2.05 *** 0.68 *** 0.26 *** 1.75 *** 0.60 ***

Urban residence 0.79 * 0.95 0.82 * 0.88 0.86 0.84 * 1.01 0.92 0.94 0.93 0.62 *** 0.62 ***

Extended family residence 1.03 0.89 0.94 1.17 0.88 1.01 0.92 1.00 0.91 1.07 0.90 0.95 

Wealth index (ref: Poorest)

Poorer 1.11 1.00 1.08 1.23 1.01 1.12 0.97 1.02 0.97 1.07 1.19 1.21 *

Middle 1.09 0.94 1.02 1.09 0.98 1.03 0.92 1.19 1.04 0.83 1.17 1.04 

Richer 0.96 0.91 0.92 1.32 0.90 1.09 0.91 1.07 0.95 1.14 1.20 1.27 *

Richest 1.06 0.95 1.01 1.32 0.84 1.05 1.04 1.08 1.13 1.15 1.23 1.30 

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose 

husbands have completed 

high school 1.00 1.00 1.01 * 0.99 *** 1.01 *** 1.00 1.00 1.01 *** 1.01 *** 0.99 1.02 *** 1.02 ***

Percentage of women who 

watch television at least 

weekly 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01 *** 0.99 ** 1.00 1.00 0.99 * 0.99 ** 1.01 *** 0.99 *** 1.00 

Constant 0.31 *** 0.06 *** 0.44 *** 0.31 *** 0.09 *** 0.49 *** 0.65 *** 0.08 *** 0.92 0.35 *** 0.16 *** 0.74 *

*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001
66

Appendix Table 2B.2. Odds ratios (estimated using logistic regression) for correlates of the likelihood that a currently married woman 

will participate in making a specific decision: Burkina Faso

Variables

Decisions about woman's

own health care

Decisions about large 

household purchases

Decisions about purchases for 

daily needs 

 Decisions about visits to 

family or friends 

Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly

Age group (ref: 40 to 49)

15 to 19 0.41*** 1.03 0.67* 0.42*** 0.89 0.64** 0.65** 0.96 0.71** 0.41*** 1.06 0.64**

20 to 29 0.51*** 1.10 0.76** 0.62** 1.04 0.82* 0.73** 1.06 0.81* 0.66*** 1.10 0.83*

30 to 39 0.82 1.04 0.92 0.80* 0.99 0.89 0.93 1.04 0.96 0.83* 1.08 0.94

Children ever born (ref: 1 or 2)

None 1.00 0.89 0.93 0.82 1.08 0.98 0.71** 0.99 0.78* 1.09 0.96 1.03

3 or 4 1.14 1.17 1.20* 1.15 1.08 1.13 1.15 1.13 1.19* 1.05 1.15 1.13

5+ 1.07 1.24 1.19 1.13 1.25 1.23* 0.95 1.37** 1.13 0.96 1.14 1.06

Education (ref: Primary)

None 0.98 1.15 1.08 1.13 0.99 1.06 1.12 0.90 1.03 0.96 0.78* 0.84*

Secondary or higher 1.53* 1.55* 1.72*** 1.25 1.60** 1.53** 1.23 1.33 1.38* 1.26 1.84*** 1.75***

Works for cash 1.93*** 1.29** 1.64

*** 

1.39

***

1.73*** 1.70*** 1.25** 1.72*** 1.61*** 1.37*** 1.02 1.24***

Has regular media exposure 1.05 0.88 0.93

 

1.14 1.09 1.12* 0.96 1.17* 1.05 1.02 0.66*** 0.77***

Age at first marriage

(ref: Less than 18 years) 

18-24 years 1.20* 1.00 1.07 1.24 0.96 1.07 1.04 0.95 1.00 0.86* 1.04 0.94

25 years or more 1.59* 1.24 1.55* 1.47 1.03 1.25 1.56* 1.04 1.49* 1.05 1.53* 1.41*

Spousal age difference 

(ref: Less than 5 years)

Wife is 5-9 years younger 0.95 0.99 0.96 0.97 0.92 0.93 0.97 0.92 0.93 1.00 1.01 1.00

Wife is 10+ years younger 0.97 0.87 0.90 0.91 0.79** 0.82** 0.98 0.94 0.96 0.96 0.98 0.96

Husband coresident 0.23*** 1.52** 0.46*** 0.32*** 1.81*** 0.66*** 0.44*** 2.08*** 0.66*** 0.49*** 1.27* 0.70***

Urban residence 1.89*** 1.00 1.43

** 

1.06 0.95 0.99 0.96 0.87 0.89 1.32* 1.10 1.27*

Extended family residence 1.08 0.64*** 0.79

*** 

1.05 0.75*** 0.84** 0.88* 0.95 0.88** 0.97 0.77*** 0.83***

Wealth index (ref: Poorest)

Poorer 0.68* 0.81 0.75** 0.90 0.81* 0.82* 0.97 0.84 0.89 0.87 0.95 0.89

Middle 0.95 0.70* 0.76** 1.01 0.72** 0.79** 1.04 0.82* 0.93 0.97 0.88 0.90

Richer 0.80 0.56*** 0.61*** 0.85 0.66*** 0.69*** 0.92 0.77* 0.82* 0.87 0.71*** 0.73***

Richest 0.83 0.81 0.77 0.81 0.78 0.75* 0.73* 1.01 0.80* 1.10 1.08 1.11

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose 

husbands have completed high 

school 1.00 1.01* 1.01** 1.00 1.01* 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Percentage of women who watch 

television at least weekly 1.00 0.99* 1.00

 

1.01** 0.99*** 1.00 1.01*** 1.00 1.00* 1.00 0.99*** 0.99***

Constant 0.43*** 0.09*** 0.65*** 0.25*** 0.12*** 0.51*** 0.61*** 0.10*** 0.99 0.41*** 0.28*** 1.10

*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001
67

Appendix Table 2B.3. Odds ratios (estimated using logistic regression) for correlates of the likelihood that a currently married woman 

will participate in making a specific decision: Cameroon

Variables

Decisions about woman's 

own health care

Decisions about large 

household purchases

Decisions about purchases for 

daily needs 

 Decisions about visits to 

family or friends 

Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly

Age group (ref: 40 to 49)

15 to 19 0.13 *** 0.53 *** 0.22 *** 0.16 *** 0.44 *** 0.23 *** 0.22 *** 0.63 ** 0.23 *** 0.23 *** 0.60 *** 0.28 *** 

20 to 29 0.32 *** 0.81 * 0.43 *** 0.40 *** 0.72 *** 0.47 *** 0.41 *** 1.05 0.45 *** 0.42 *** 0.83 * 0.48 *** 

30 to 39 0.67 *** 0.92 0.72 *** 0.79 * 0.90 0.79 ** 0.73 *** 1.04 0.76 ** 0.74 *** 0.96 0.78 ** 

Children ever born (ref: 1 or 2)

None 0.90 0.82 0.83 1.03 0.95 0.96 0.91 0.97 0.90 0.87 0.85 0.79 ** 

3 or 4 0.94 0.97 0.96 0.83 1.00 0.92 1.06 1.01 1.10 0.87 0.98 0.92 

5+ 0.89 0.94 0.88 0.91 1.01 0.95 1.03 1.12 1.14 0.97 0.98 0.96 

Education (ref: Primary)

None 0.84 0.81 * 0.84 * 0.89 0.69 *** 0.74 *** 0.65 *** 0.57 *** 0.52 *** 0.58 *** 0.74 *** 0.63 *** 

Secondary or higher 1.24 * 0.95 1.11 1.19 1.15 1.23 ** 1.13 1.09 1.25 ** 0.99 1.17 * 1.13 

Works for cash 1.95 *** 2.13 *** 2.48 *** 2.13 *** 1.83 *** 2.35 *** 2.22 *** 2.00 *** 3.43 *** 1.53 *** 1.38 *** 1.73 *** 

Has regular media exposure 1.01 0.92 0.94 1.12 1.01 1.06 1.31 *** 0.85 * 1.09 0.92 0.94 0.89 

Age at first marriage 

(ref: Less than 18 years)

18-24 years 1.09 1.16 1.17 * 0.86 1.21 ** 1.09 1.02 1.21 ** 1.22 ** 1.02 1.19 ** 1.18 ** 

25 years or more 0.92 1.24 1.12 0.98 1.39 ** 1.40 ** 1.12 1.38 * 1.73 *** 1.00 1.04 1.09 

Spousal age difference 

(ref: Less than 5 years)

Wife is 5-9 years younger 0.92 0.96 0.92 0.98 0.99 0.99 1.05 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.03 1.03 

Wife is 10+ years younger 1.07 0.96 1.00 1.08 0.91 0.96 1.17 * 0.85 * 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.96 

Husband coresident 0.24 *** 2.44 *** 0.58 *** 0.31 *** 2.65 *** 1.01 0.55 *** 2.54 *** 1.19 * 0.21 *** 2.64 *** 0.59 *** 

Urban residence 1.29 * 0.86 1.05 0.92 0.87 0.85 1.09 0.81 * 0.89 1.03 1.00 1.01 

Extended family residence 1.02 1.04 1.03 1.05 1.01 1.03 0.90 1.05 0.95 1.09 1.03 1.07 

Wealth index (ref: Poorest)

Poorer 1.00 0.92 0.91 1.00 0.87 0.88 1.16 0.92 1.00 1.20 0.84 * 0.92 

Middle 0.84 0.86 0.78 ** 0.80 0.86 0.78 ** 1.02 0.94 0.89 1.21 0.80 * 0.89 

Richer 0.76 1.00 0.81 0.67 * 0.90 0.74 ** 0.99 0.99 0.92 1.04 0.99 0.96 

Richest 0.82 1.01 0.90 0.59 ** 1.07 0.80 0.97 1.01 0.95 1.03 1.12 1.11 

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose 

husbands have completed high 

school 1.01 *** 1.00 * 1.01 *** 1.01 *** 1.01 *** 1.01 *** 1.01 *** 1.00 1.01 *** 1.01 *** 1.00 1.00 * 

Percentage of women who watch 

television at least weekly 1.01 *** 0.99 ** 1.01 *** 1.01 *** 1.00 1.00 * 1.01 *** 0.99 ** 1.00 ** 1.01 ** 1.00 1.00 

Constant 0.21 *** 0.09 *** 0.46 *** 0.12 *** 0.10 *** 0.29 *** 0.25 *** 0.14 *** 0.57 *** 0.41 *** 0.19 *** 1.19 

*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001
68

Appendix Table 2B.4. Odds ratios (estimated using logistic regression) for correlates of the likelihood that a currently married woman 

will participate in making a specific decision: Ghana

Variables

Decisions about woman's 

own health care

Decisions about large 

household purchases

Decisions about purchases for 

daily needs 

 Decisions about visits to

family or friends 

Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly

Age group (ref: 40 to 49)

15 to 19 0.37 *** 1.25 0.48 ** 0.28 *** 0.89 0.40 *** 0.25 *** 0.93 0.34 *** 0.23 *** 0.86 0.37 *** 

20 to 29 0.61 *** 1.09 0.66 ** 0.50 *** 0.90 0.57 *** 0.55 *** 0.98 0.58 *** 0.37 *** 1.04 0.55 *** 

30 to 39 0.74 ** 1.20 0.85 0.74 * 1.12 0.89 0.82 1.08 0.87 0.62 *** 1.21 * 0.86 

Children ever born (ref: 1 or 2)

None 1.04 1.01 1.05 0.96 1.09 1.04 1.02 0.98 0.99 0.76 1.21 1.01 

3 or 4 1.21 1.13 1.30 * 0.99 1.19 1.19 1.08 1.04 1.11 0.94 0.98 0.98 

5+ 1.01 1.20 1.13 1.16 1.13 1.21 1.23 1.07 1.25 0.98 1.09 1.07 

Education (ref: Primary)

None 0.97 0.97 0.94 0.97 0.81 * 0.81 * 1.09 0.87 0.92 0.74 * 1.04 0.87 

Secondary or higher 0.76 ** 1.09 0.82 * 0.91 0.90 0.84 1.12 0.88 0.95 0.88 0.94 0.85 

Works for cash 1.71 *** 1.46 ** 1.96 *** 1.97 *** 2.09 *** 2.58 *** 1.46 *** 2.53 *** 2.66 *** 1.25 2.02 *** 2.12 *** 

Has regular media exposure 1.08 1.10 1.13 1.06 1.10 1.10 0.86 1.16 1.00 0.91 1.13 1.04 

Age at first marriage 

(ref: Less than 18 years) 

18-24 years 0.93 1.02 0.95 0.86 0.92 0.84 * 0.97 1.01 0.98 1.11 0.92 0.98 

25 years or more 0.88 1.00 0.89 0.80 0.84 0.74 0.99 0.82 0.81 0.80 1.00 0.86 

Spousal age difference 

(ref: Less than 5 years)

Wife is 5-9 years younger 0.90 1.06 0.95 0.92 0.94 0.90 0.88 0.86 0.78 ** 0.90 0.93 0.88 

Wife is 10+ years younger 0.83 * 0.90 0.79 ** 0.95 0.84 0.83 * 1.05 0.80 * 0.84 1.09 0.84 0.89 

Husband coresident 0.28 *** 2.35 *** 0.49 *** 0.18 *** 1.92 *** 0.47 *** 0.25 *** 2.56 *** 0.60 *** 0.16 *** 2.45 *** 0.56 *** 

Urban residence 1.25 0.66 ** 0.91 1.07 0.72 ** 0.77 * 1.10 0.74 * 0.80 0.96 0.62 *** 0.58 *** 

Extended family residence 0.91 0.79 * 0.79 ** 0.96 0.74 *** 0.75 *** 1.04 0.71 *** 0.77 ** 1.13 0.69 *** 0.75 *** 

Wealth index (ref: Poorest)

Poorer 0.98 1.02 0.99 0.92 1.33 * 1.17 0.91 1.29 * 1.14 0.95 1.56 *** 1.44 *** 

Middle 1.33 * 0.76 1.09 1.27 1.12 1.25 1.07 1.14 1.18 1.26 1.33 * 1.48 ** 

Richer 1.11 0.96 1.08 1.16 1.23 1.28 1.41 * 1.19 1.60 ** 1.53 * 1.49 * 1.97 *** 

Richest 1.40 0.98 1.37 1.18 1.41 1.47 * 1.38 1.37 1.80 ** 1.34 1.82 ** 2.19 *** 

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose 

husbands have completed high 

school 1.00 1.01 *** 1.01 *** 1.01 ** 1.01 *** 1.01 *** 1.00 1.01 *** 1.01 *** 1.00 1.01 *** 1.01 *** 

Percentage of women who watch 

television at least weekly 0.99 ** 1.01 * 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Constant 1.10 0.05 *** 1.04 0.29 *** 0.08 *** 0.40 *** 0.90 0.08 *** 0.92 0.44 *** 0.13 *** 0.78 

*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001
69

Appendix Table 2B.5. Odds ratios (estimated using logistic regression) for correlates of the likelihood that a currently married woman 

will participate in making a specific decision: Kenya

Variables

Decisions about woman's 

own health care

Decisions about large 

household purchases

Decisions about purchases for 

daily needs 

 Decisions about visits to 

family or friends 

Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly

Age group (ref: 40 to 49)

15 to 19 0.28 *** 1.14 0.35 *** 0.19 *** 0.70 0.38 *** 0.48 *** 0.48 ** 0.31 *** 0.40 *** 0.58 ** 0.30 *** 

20 to 29 0.48 *** 0.96 0.47 *** 0.33 *** 0.72 ** 0.45 *** 0.57 *** 0.75 * 0.43 *** 0.54 *** 0.64 *** 0.37 *** 

30 to 39 0.73 *** 1.00 0.72 *** 0.62 *** 0.83 * 0.64 *** 0.72 *** 0.95 0.64 *** 0.79 * 0.79 * 0.62 *** 

Children ever born (ref: 1 or 2)

None 0.57 *** 1.13 0.65 ** 0.63 0.94 0.82 0.73 * 1.28 0.87 0.99 0.84 0.83 

3 or 4 0.85 1.17 0.95 0.77 1.24 * 1.08 0.98 1.06 1.05 0.86 1.02 0.93 

5+ 0.73 ** 1.40 * 0.87 0.85 1.35 * 1.20 1.11 1.10 1.16 0.91 1.01 0.90 

Education (ref: Primary)

None 0.65 *** 0.69 ** 0.58 *** 1.11 0.94 0.99 0.93 0.68 ** 0.74 ** 1.16 0.59 *** 0.72 ** 

Secondary or higher 1.13 1.25 * 1.32 *** 0.79 1.36 *** 1.18 1.19 * 1.07 1.31 ** 0.88 1.22 * 1.15 

Works for cash 1.24 ** 1.17 1.33 *** 1.82 *** 1.62 *** 1.93 *** 1.92 *** 1.53 *** 2.61 *** 1.33 *** 1.27 *** 1.58 *** 

Has regular media exposure 0.81 * 0.93 0.79 ** 0.90 0.93 0.89 1.13 0.91 1.05 0.92 0.88 0.83 * 

Age at first marriage

(ref: Less than 18 years) 

18-24 years 1.10 1.06 1.13 0.89 1.11 1.03 1.04 0.97 1.02 1.06 1.17 * 1.19 * 

25 years or more 1.20 0.97 1.18 0.95 1.31 1.23 1.19 0.80 1.04 1.13 1.12 1.26 

Spousal age difference 

(ref: Less than 5 years)

Wife is 5-9 years younger 1.15 0.79 * 1.00 0.92 1.06 1.01 1.02 1.02 1.04 1.06 0.89 0.92 

Wife is 10+ years younger 1.00 0.80 * 0.88 1.04 0.96 0.99 1.11 1.00 1.11 1.17 0.79 ** 0.89 

Husband coresident 0.38 *** 1.72 *** 0.49 *** 0.32 *** 1.45 *** 0.69 *** 0.32 *** 2.18 *** 0.45 *** 0.33 *** 1.90 *** 0.65 *** 

Urban residence 0.70 *** 1.26 0.79 * 1.23 1.12 1.21 1.01 1.05 1.03 1.51 *** 0.64 *** 0.88 

Extended family residence 0.86 * 1.06 0.90 0.98 0.96 0.95 0.89 1.05 0.93 0.96 0.86 * 0.84 ** 

Wealth index (ref: Poorest)

Poorer 0.94 0.89 0.88 1.02 0.99 1.00 1.18 0.97 1.12 0.90 1.17 1.03 

Middle 1.34 * 0.74 * 1.09 1.23 1.01 1.11 1.16 0.95 1.07 1.19 1.01 1.09 

Richer 1.54 *** 0.73 * 1.24 0.89 1.08 1.00 1.31 * 0.80 1.08 1.00 1.61 *** 1.53 *** 

Richest 1.43 * 0.92 1.32 0.73 1.22 1.04 1.36 * 0.97 1.33 1.11 1.43 * 1.45 * 

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose 

husbands have completed 

high school 1.00 0.99 ** 1.00 ** 1.00 1.00 * 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ** 

Percentage of women who 

watch television at least 

weekly 1.01 *** 1.00 1.02 *** 1.00 1.01 *** 1.01 *** 1.00 1.00 * 1.01 ** 1.00 1.01 *** 1.01 *** 

Constant 0.71 ** 0.13 *** 1.36 ** 0.22 *** 0.22 *** 0.68 *** 1.36 ** 0.10 *** 2.33 *** 0.77 * 0.21 *** 1.64 *** 

*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001
70

Appendix Table 2B.6. Odds ratios (estimated using logistic regression) for correlates of the likelihood that a currently married woman 

will participate in making a specific decision: Malawi

Variables

Decisions about woman's 

own health care

Decisions about large 

household purchases

Decisions about purchases for 

daily needs

Decisions about visits to

family or friends

Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly

Age group (ref: 40 to 49)

15 to 19 0.58 *** 0.66 0.55 *** 0.26 *** 0.47 *** 0.34 *** 0.45 *** 0.57 ** 0.41 *** 0.70 * 0.79 * 0.63 *** 

20 to 29 0.80 * 0.71 * 0.73 *** 0.46 *** 0.63 *** 0.52 *** 0.64 *** 0.81 0.63 *** 0.70 *** 1.01 0.80 ** 

30 to 39 0.84 * 0.78 * 0.79 ** 0.61 *** 0.88 0.74 *** 0.81 ** 0.98 0.84 * 0.93 0.97 0.93 

Children ever born (ref: 1 or 2)

None 1.05 0.95 1.02 1.15 0.84 0.93 0.99 1.09 1.03 0.87 0.94 0.87 

3 or 4 0.97 1.04 0.99 1.18 0.91 1.01 1.04 1.08 1.08 1.01 1.01 1.02 

5+ 0.90 1.04 0.93 1.12 0.84 0.93 0.99 1.04 1.01 1.00 0.99 0.99 

Education (ref: Primary)

None 0.88 * 1.06 0.92 1.03 0.87 0.93 0.80 *** 0.80 ** 0.76 *** 0.75 *** 0.91 0.77 *** 

Secondary or higher 1.26 * 1.46 ** 1.43 *** 1.35 1.70 *** 1.74 *** 1.54 *** 1.36 ** 1.79 *** 1.00 1.32 ** 1.45 *** 

Works for cash 1.41 *** 1.75 *** 1.63 *** 1.74 *** 1.94 *** 1.98 *** 1.38 *** 1.96 *** 1.85 *** 1.23 ** 1.23 *** 1.44 *** 

Has regular media exposure 0.79 *** 0.90 0.80 *** 0.73 ** 1.01 0.89 0.95 0.84 * 0.88 * 0.98 1.08 1.07 

Age at first marriage 

(ref: Less than 18 years) 

18-24 years 0.91 1.04 0.93 0.79 * 1.10 0.98 0.89 1.06 0.95 0.89 1.13 * 1.05 

25 years or more 0.92 1.04 0.95 1.04 0.80 0.88 0.86 0.82 0.81 1.12 0.74 * 0.80 

Spousal age difference 

(ref: Less than 5 years)

Wife is 5-9 years younger 1.13 * 0.90 1.06 1.00 1.15 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.08 1.05 1.00 1.03 

Wife is 10+ years younger 1.08 0.91 1.03 1.14 0.92 1.00 1.15 1.03 1.13 1.21 * 0.86 * 0.96 

Husband coresident 0.39 *** 1.52 ** 0.48 *** 0.19 *** 1.32 * 0.48 *** 0.30 *** 2.20 *** 0.47 *** 0.29 *** 1.97 *** 0.73 *** 

Urban residence 1.28 ** 0.94 1.19 * 0.85 1.26 * 1.16 1.21 * 0.93 1.11 0.86 1.31 *** 1.23 *

Extended family residence 1.05 1.08 1.07 1.06 1.14 1.14 1.04 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.03 1.09 

Wealth index (ref: Poorest)

Poorer 0.92 1.13 0.96 0.76 1.23 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.74 *** 1.10 0.91 

Middle 1.03 1.10 1.05 1.06 1.15 1.09 1.10 0.86 1.00 0.87 1.11 1.01 

Richer 0.86 1.03 0.89 0.82 1.17 0.98 0.98 0.93 0.94 0.77 ** 1.15 0.97 

Richest 0.78 * 1.73 *** 0.99 0.89 2.05 *** 1.58 *** 1.25 * 1.31 * 1.35 ** 0.66 *** 1.36 *** 1.08 

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose 

husbands have completed high 

school 1.01 *** 1.00 1.01 *** 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01 ** 1.01 *** 1.01 *** 1.01 *** 1.00 1.01 *** 

Percentage of women who watch 

television at least weekly 1.00 1.01 

 

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 *** 1.01 * 1.00 

Constant 0.63 *** 0.06 *** .84 0.24 *** 0.10 *** 0.45 *** 0.78 * 0.06 *** 1.01 0.55 *** 0.45 *** 2.25 *** 

*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001
71

Appendix Table 2B.7. Odds ratios (estimated using logistic regression) for correlates of the likelihood that a currently married woman 

will participate in making a specific decision: Mali

Variables

Decisions about woman's 

own health care

Decisions about large 

household purchases

Decisions about purchases for 

daily needs

Decisions about visits to

family or friends

Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly

Age group (ref: 40 to 49)

15 to 19 0.31 *** 0.49 ** 0.33 *** 0.46 *** 0.61 * 0.48 *** 0.51 *** 0.68 * 0.51 *** 0.53 *** 0.62 ** 0.50 *** 

20 to 29 0.47 *** 0.66 ** 0.49 *** 0.60 *** 0.62 *** 0.57 *** 0.68 *** 0.71 ** 0.65 *** 0.64 *** 0.85 0.66 *** 

30 to 39 0.67 *** 0.88 0.71 *** 0.71 *** 0.84 0.73 *** 0.79 *** 0.98 0.82 ** 0.75 *** 0.92 0.77 *** 

Children ever born (ref: 1 or 2)

None 0.80 1.08 0.89 0.83 1.02 0.89 0.90 0.82 0.86 0.76 * 1.00 0.83 * 

3 or 4 1.41 *** 0.84 1.18 * 1.18 0.98 1.11 1.29 ** 0.94 1.20 * 1.10 0.88 1.00 

5+ 1.21 0.89 1.08 1.20 0.94 1.10 1.32 *** 0.95 1.23 ** 1.04 0.89 0.97 

Education (ref: Primary)

None 1.10 0.89 1.02 1.14 0.83 1.00 0.95 0.85 0.90 1.12 0.97 1.07 

Secondary or higher 2.06 *** 0.80 1.55 ** 1.42 * 0.86 1.16 1.42 * 0.74 1.18 1.21 0.96 1.14 

Works for cash 2.21 *** 2.26 *** 2.40 *** 1.71 *** 2.10 *** 1.97 *** 2.05 *** 2.38 *** 2.41 *** 1.93 *** 2.17 *** 2.32 *** 

Has regular media exposure 0.80 ** 0.73 *** 0.75 *** 0.71 *** 0.87 0.75 *** 0.84 ** 0.84 * 0.81 *** 0.70 *** 1.10 0.81 *** 

Age at first marriage 

(ref: Less than 18 years)

18-24 years 0.74 *** 1.14 0.86 * 0.73 *** 1.23 * 0.90 0.72 *** 1.26 ** 0.85 ** 0.81 ** 1.24 ** 0.96 

25 years or more 0.84 1.20 0.96 1.06 1.15 1.12 0.84 1.31 0.98 0.75 1.62 ** 1.10 

Spousal age difference 

(ref: Less than 5 years)

Wife is 5-9 years younger 0.99 0.94 0.97 1.05 0.85 0.96 0.91 0.98 0.92 0.99 0.94 0.96 

Wife is 10+ years younger 1.06 1.01 1.05 1.20 0.92 1.08 1.03 1.02 1.03 1.23 * 0.88 1.08 

Husband coresident 0.31 *** 1.48 * 0.45 *** 0.38 *** 1.63 ** 0.57 *** 0.51 *** 1.79 *** 0.67 *** 0.48 *** 1.56 *** 0.67 *** 

Urban residence 1.05 0.87 0.98 1.02 0.86 0.95 0.91 0.88 0.89 0.68 *** 1.03 0.76 ** 

Extended family residence 1.12 0.72 ** 0.96 1.04 0.70 *** 0.88 1.03 0.76 ** 0.93 0.97 0.85 0.90 

Wealth index (ref: Poorest)

Poorer 1.06 0.89 0.99 1.06 1.12 1.09 0.95 1.14 1.00 0.92 0.84 0.87 

Middle 1.14 1.05 1.11 1.10 1.58 *** 1.29 ** 0.85 * 1.59 *** 1.03 1.12 0.70 *** 0.92 

Richer 1.07 0.88 1.00 1.07 1.47 ** 1.23 * 0.78 ** 1.35 * 0.90 1.08 0.68 *** 0.88 

Richest 0.90 1.04 0.94 0.99 1.91 *** 1.32 * 0.67 ** 1.51 * 0.84 1.03 0.88 0.96 

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose 

husbands have completed high 

school 1.01 * 1.00 1.01 * 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01** 1.00 

Percentage of women who watch 

television at least weekly 1.00 1.01 *** 1.00 * 1.01 ** 1.00 1.01** 1.01*** 1.00 1.01*** 1.02*** 1.00 1.01 *** 

Constant 0.28 *** 0.03 *** 0.34 *** 0.22 *** 0.04 *** 0.30*** 0.35*** 0.04*** 0.44*** 0.20*** 0.08*** 0.37 *** 

*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001
72

Appendix Table 2B.8. Odds ratios (estimated using logistic regression) for correlates of the likelihood that a currently married woman 

will participate in making a specific decision: Mozambique

Variables

Decisions about woman's 

own health care

Decisions about large 

household purchases

Decisions about purchases for 

daily needs 

 Decisions about visits to 

family or friends 

Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly

Age group (ref: 40 to 49)

15 to 19 0.55 *** 0.96 0.54 *** 0.29 *** 0.53 *** 0.44 *** 0.33 *** 0.78 * 0.32 *** 0.34 *** 0.72 ** 0.37 *** 

20 to 29 0.78 ** 0.88 0.70 *** 0.56 *** 0.68 *** 0.60 *** 0.62 *** 0.78 ** 0.51 *** 0.64 *** 0.74 *** 0.53 *** 

30 to 39 0.94 0.88 0.85 * 0.79 0.81 ** 0.77 *** 0.99 0.75 *** 0.78 *** 0.79 ** 0.91 0.75 *** 

Children ever born (ref: 1 or 2)

None 0.85 0.86 0.79 ** 0.77 0.99 0.95 0.76 ** 1.04 0.82 * 0.81 0.94 0.84 *

3 or 4 0.99 1.09 1.05 0.91 0.94 0.93 0.97 0.98 0.97 0.90 0.98 0.92 

5+ 1.00 1.01 1.00 0.90 0.89 0.87 0.82 ** 0.97 0.80 ** 0.86 1.10 1.00 

Education (ref: Primary)

None 0.83 *** 1.18 ** 0.94 1.27 0.96 1.01 0.78 *** 0.99 0.80 *** 0.81 ** 1.03 0.91 

Secondary or higher 1.14 1.06 1.19 1.46 1.19 1.36 ** 1.05 0.80 0.92 1.16 1.14 1.29 *

Works for cash 1.25 *** 0.99 1.27 *** 2.39 *** 1.40 *** 1.73 *** 1.61 *** 1.18 * 2.01 *** 1.19 * 1.23 ** 1.42 *** 

Has regular media exposure 1.07 1.04 1.10 0.86 1.12 * 1.08 1.18 ** 0.97 1.13 * 1.07 1.01 1.05 

Age at first marriage 

(ref: Less than 18 years) 

18-24 years 0.87 ** 1.11 0.94 1.01 0.97 0.96 1.03 1.04 1.05 0.89 0.99 0.92 

25 years or more 0.88 1.06 0.92 1.07 1.00 1.02 1.17 0.87 1.04 0.84 1.02 0.90 

Spousal age difference 

(ref: Less than 5 years)

Wife is 5-9 years younger 0.98 1.04 1.00 1.30 * 1.08 1.13 * 1.21 *** 0.95 1.14 * 1.01 1.10 1.10 

Wife is 10+ years younger 0.96 0.94 0.92 1.44 ** 0.99 1.06 1.20 ** 0.92 1.10 1.02 0.96 0.97 

Husband coresident 0.39 *** 3.74 *** 0.70 *** 0.14 *** 2.01 *** 0.86 0.35 *** 2.59 *** 0.64 *** 0.22 *** 3.54 *** 0.77 *** 

Urban residence 1.06 1.08 1.11 1.30 1.14 1.17 * 1.34 *** 1.00 1.28 ** 0.97 1.06 1.03 

Extended family residence 0.87 ** 0.76 *** 0.73 *** 1.05 0.71 *** 0.73 *** 0.93 0.86 * 0.82 *** 1.01 0.75 *** 0.76 *** 

Wealth index (ref: Poorest)

Poorer 1.01 0.80 ** 0.86 * 1.05 0.89 0.90 0.98 0.85 * 0.85 * 1.09 0.89 0.93 

Middle 1.05 0.82 * 0.91 0.90 1.04 1.01 0.93 1.00 0.92 1.15 1.00 1.08 

Richer 0.97 0.70 *** 0.76 *** 1.12 0.93 0.93 1.31 ** 0.75 ** 1.00 1.05 0.84 * 0.87 

Richest 0.88 0.91 0.82 0.91 1.07 1.01 1.34 * 0.85 1.17 1.06 0.72 ** 0.74 ** 

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose 

husbands have completed high 

school 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01 ** 1.00 1.01 *** 1.00 1.01 * 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Percentage of women who 

watch television at least weekly 1.01 *** 0.99 ** 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01 *** 0.99 ** 1.01 ** 1.01 ** 1.00 1.00 

Constant 1.47 *** 0.08 *** 2.13 *** 0.26 *** 0.26 *** 0.75 ** 1.47 *** 0.12 *** 2.52 *** 0.87 0.23 *** 2.12 *** 

*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001
73

Appendix Table 2B.9. Odds ratios (estimated using logistic regression) for correlates of the likelihood that a currently married woman 

will participate in making a specific decision: Nigeria

Variables

Decisions about woman's 

own health care

Decisions about large 

household purchases

Decisions about purchases for 

daily needs 

 Decisions about visits to 

family or friends 

Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly

Age group (ref: 40 to 49)

15 to 19 0.24 *** 0.23 *** 0.20 *** 0.34 ** 0.24 *** 0.24 *** 0.26 *** 0.31 *** 0.22 *** 0.71 0.47 *** 0.49 *** 

20 to 29 0.36 *** 0.51 *** 0.34 *** 0.40 *** 0.45 *** 0.37 *** 0.50 *** 0.61 *** 0.43 *** 0.69 ** 0.53 *** 0.49 *** 

30 to 39 0.56 *** 0.78 * 0.58 *** 0.70 * 0.72 ** 0.67 *** 0.61 *** 0.79 * 0.58 *** 0.92 0.71 *** 0.72 *** 

Children ever born (ref: 1 or 2)

None 0.82 0.81 0.77 0.75 0.87 0.81 0.93 0.90 0.89 0.56 *** 1.15 0.81 

3 or 4 1.30 * 0.99 1.21 1.21 1.10 1.17 1.20 1.08 1.23 * 1.11 1.22 1.25 *

5+ 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.09 1.15 1.16 1.34 * 1.17 1.40 ** 0.95 1.25 1.15 

Education (ref: Primary)

None 0.84 0.52 *** 0.62 *** 0.74 0.46 *** 0.49 *** 0.42 *** 0.46 *** 0.34 *** 1.09 0.46 *** 0.61 *** 

Secondary or higher 1.13 1.05 1.12 1.01 1.04 1.03 0.95 1.04 0.99 0.95 1.12 1.07 

Works for cash 1.83 *** 1.66 *** 1.96 *** 1.96 *** 1.95 *** 2.14 *** 1.60 *** 1.89 *** 2.08 *** 1.41 *** 1.47 *** 1.64 *** 

Has regular media exposure 0.80 * 0.75 ** 0.73 *** 1.04 0.91 0.95 0.99 0.84 0.88 0.83 * 0.91 0.83 ** 

Age at first marriage

(ref: Less than 18 years)

18-24 years 1.47 *** 1.36 ** 1.55 *** 1.61 *** 1.33 ** 1.52 *** 1.42 *** 1.21 * 1.48 *** 0.98 1.45 *** 1.32 *** 

25 years or more 1.72 ** 1.27 1.69 *** 1.64 * 1.14 1.36 * 1.65 *** 1.10 1.60 *** 0.95 1.53 ** 1.39 *

Spousal age difference

(ref: Less than 5 years)

Wife is 5-9 years younger 1.03 0.94 0.97 0.74 0.88 0.80 * 0.84 0.94 0.83 0.96 0.90 0.88 

Wife is 10+ years younger 1.02 0.85 0.91 0.93 0.76 * 0.77 * 0.87 0.76 * 0.73 ** 0.94 0.82 * 0.82 *

Husband coresident 0.36 *** 1.28 0.52 *** 0.18 *** 1.31 0.45 *** 0.32 *** 1.55 ** 0.46 *** 0.36 *** 1.42 ** 0.60 *** 

Urban residence 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.79 1.01 0.91 0.73 ** 1.03 0.80 * 0.92 1.03 0.97 

Extended family residence 0.75 ** 0.96 0.81 ** 0.64 ** 0.94 0.80 * 0.93 1.02 0.96 0.95 1.03 0.99 

Wealth index (ref: Poorest)

Poorer 0.85 0.91 0.86 0.76 0.96 0.88 1.02 0.92 0.97 0.89 0.91 0.87 

Middle 0.87 0.98 0.90 0.81 0.81 0.79 0.95 0.82 0.85 0.93 0.98 0.95 

Richer 1.21 0.92 1.08 0.72 0.88 0.80 0.98 0.91 0.92 0.64 ** 1.09 0.82 

Richest 1.07 1.05 1.10 0.55 * 0.86 0.70 1.00 0.91 0.96 0.75 1.18 0.98 

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose 

husbands have completed 

high school 1.02 *** 1.00 1.01 *** 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01 *** 1.00 1.00 * 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Percentage of women who 

watch television at least 

weekly 1.00* 1.01 ** 1.00 1.01 * 1.00 1.00 * 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Constant 0.20 *** 0.09 *** 0.41 *** 0.17 *** 0.11 *** 0.41 *** 0.40 *** 0.12 *** 0.88 0.41 *** 0.28 *** 1.25 

*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001
74

Appendix Table 2B.10. Odds ratios (estimated using logistic regression) for correlates of the likelihood that a currently married woman 

will participate in making a specific decision: Rwanda

Variables

Decisions about woman's 

own health care

Decisions about large 

household purchases

Decisions about purchases for 

daily needs 

 Decisions about visits to 

family or friends 

Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly

Age group (ref: 40 to 49)

15 to 19 0.24 *** 1.22 0.61 * 0.26 ** 0.74 0.42 *** 0.43 * 0.70 0.44 *** 0.15 *** 1.38 0.61 * 

20 to 29 0.54 *** 1.01 0.67 ** 0.28 *** 0.98 0.53 *** 0.46 *** 1.05 0.62 *** 0.44 *** 1.23 0.75 * 

30 to 39 0.76 * 1.11 0.90 0.64 *** 0.98 0.76 ** 0.73 ** 1.01 0.79 * 0.78 * 1.08 0.91 

Children ever born (ref: 1 or 2)

None 0.58 * 0.86 0.68 * 0.79 0.89 0.84 0.79 0.99 0.88 0.73 0.99 0.86 

3 or 4 0.94 0.87 0.87 0.92 0.95 0.93 0.88 1.01 0.94 0.77 1.13 0.99 

5+ 1.06 1.03 1.06 0.96 1.14 1.09 0.97 1.22 1.16 0.76 1.30 * 1.13 

Education (ref: Primary)

None 0.96 0.95 0.94 0.78 * 0.92 0.83 * 0.93 0.84 * 0.81 ** 0.96 0.92 0.88 

Secondary or higher 1.58 ** 0.96 1.43 * 1.08 1.31 1.40 * 1.51 ** 1.20 1.88 *** 0.73 1.51 ** 1.31 

Works for cash 1.64 *** 1.23 * 1.68 *** 1.73 *** 1.32 ** 1.74 *** 1.31 * 1.20 * 1.48 *** 1.59 *** 1.04 1.43 *** 

Has regular media exposure 0.74 ** 1.01 0.84 * 0.95 0.91 0.89 1.31 ** 0.91 1.08 0.79 * 1.19 * 1.06 

Age at first marriage 

(ref: Less than 18 years) 

18-24 years 0.98 1.09 1.06 0.82 1.08 0.98 0.96 0.99 0.97 0.80 * 1.12 0.99 

25 years or more 0.87 1.09 0.97 0.86 1.08 0.99 0.94 0.94 0.91 0.73 1.04 0.85 

Spousal age difference 

(ref: Less than 5 years)

Wife is 5-9 years younger 1.24 * 1.11 1.23 * 1.12 1.09 1.12 1.16 1.00 1.09 1.13 1.04 1.11 

Wife is 10+ years younger 1.63 *** 0.91 1.26 ** 1.70 *** 0.88 1.13 1.34 ** 0.90 1.08 1.22 0.85 * 0.93 

Husband coresident 0.08 *** 4.81 *** 0.23 *** 0.06 *** 3.69 *** 0.22 *** 0.08 *** 3.85 *** 0.22 *** 0.07 *** 4.97 *** 0.32 *** 

Urban residence 1.34 1.04 1.24 1.56 * 1.09 1.35 1.89 *** 0.91 1.56 ** 1.16 0.83 0.88 

Extended family residence 1.22 0.71 ** 0.87 0.95 0.83 0.82 1.19 0.88 1.02 0.86 0.94 0.85 

Wealth index (ref: Poorest)

Poorer 1.11 0.70 ** 0.80 * 1.04 0.74 ** 0.77 * 0.88 0.73 ** 0.69 ** 1.32 0.71 ** 0.80 

Middle 0.91 0.86 0.83 0.82 0.89 0.83 0.69 * 0.97 0.78 * 1.00 0.95 0.95 

Richer 1.13 0.75 * 0.84 0.79 0.81 0.74 * 0.71 * 0.82 0.67 *** 1.30 0.71 ** 0.80 

Richest 1.20 0.87 0.97 1.03 0.92 0.94 0.93 0.77 0.77 1.46 0.65 ** 0.77 

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose 

husbands have completed high 

school 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.00 1.00 

Percentage of women who 

watch television at least weekly 1.01 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Constant 2.49 *** 0.08 *** 4.39 *** 2.33 *** 0.15 *** 4.53 *** 3.73 *** 0.13 *** 7.04 *** 1.42 0.24 *** 5.91 *** 

*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001
82

82 

75

Appendix Table 2B.11. Odds ratios (estimated using logistic regression) for correlates of the likelihood that a currently married woman 

will participate in making a specific decision: Uganda

Variables

Decisions about woman's 

own health care

Decisions about large 

household purchases

Decisions about purchases for 

daily needs 

 Decisions about visits to 

family or friends 

Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly

Age group (ref: 40 to 49)

15 to 19 0.39 *** 1.14 0.43 *** 0.28 *** 0.46 *** 0.32 *** 0.35 *** 0.51 *** 0.32 *** 0.31 *** 0.94 0.40 ***

20 to 29 0.64 *** 1.21 0.70 ** 0.41 *** 0.74 * 0.52 *** 0.51 *** 0.79 0.51 *** 0.60 *** 0.82 0.54 *** 

30 to 39 0.85 1.12 0.90 0.87 0.89 0.84 0.91 0.83 0.79 * 0.89 0.83 0.75 ** 

Children ever born (ref: 1 or 2)

None 0.84 1.09 0.89 1.12 0.97 1.00 0.94 1.08 1.00 1.16 0.94 1.05 

3 or 4 1.15 0.91 1.10 1.34 * 0.99 1.11 1.31 * 0.95 1.16 1.06 0.99 1.04 

5+ 1.03 1.10 1.10 1.13 1.12 1.14 0.98 1.18 1.12 0.87 1.10 0.97 

Education (ref: Primary)

None 0.97 1.03 0.98 1.26 1.22 * 1.30 ** 1.01 1.11 1.09 1.08 1.04 1.09 

Secondary or higher 1.18 1.14 1.32 ** 1.20 1.56 *** 1.58 *** 1.20 1.43 *** 1.53 *** 1.12 1.12 1.23 *

Works for cash 1.43 *** 1.37 *** 1.79 *** 1.43 *** 1.98 *** 2.09 *** 1.29 ** 2.33 *** 2.36 *** 0.71 *** 1.74 *** 1.29 *** 

Has regular media exposure 0.86 * 1.04 0.88 0.69 ** 0.97 0.84 * 0.82 * 0.92 0.83 * 0.66 *** 1.34 *** 0.95 

Age at first marriage

(ref: Less than 18 years) 

18-24 years 1.04 0.98 1.03 0.67 *** 1.29 *** 1.07 0.88 1.26 ** 1.13 0.78 ** 1.28 *** 1.04 

25 years or more 1.13 0.97 1.14 0.78 1.29 1.14 0.74 1.46 * 1.14 0.82 1.48 * 1.31 

Spousal age difference 

(ref: Less than 5 years)

Wife is 5-9 years younger 0.95 1.09 1.01 0.89 1.11 1.04 0.87 1.08 0.97 0.93 1.08 1.01 

Wife is 10+ years younger 1.01 0.98 0.99 0.86 0.90 0.85 * 0.89 0.91 0.85 * 1.01 0.91 0.92 

Husband coresident 0.43 *** 2.46 *** 0.63 *** 0.19 *** 1.94 *** 0.61 *** 0.18 *** 2.29 *** 0.41 *** 0.24 *** 2.64 *** 0.55 *** 

Urban residence 1.30 * 1.20 1.50 *** 1.87 *** 1.10 1.41 ** 1.28 1.32 * 1.47 *** 1.48 ** 0.96 1.29 *

Extended family residence 0.97 1.34 *** 1.20 * 1.08 0.96 0.99 1.14 1.02 1.11 1.14 1.00 1.11 

Wealth index (ref: Poorest)

Poorer 0.97 0.98 0.96 1.07 1.01 1.05 1.02 0.95 0.96 1.25 0.85 1.05 

Middle 0.91 0.85 0.81 1.09 0.90 0.95 1.08 0.88 0.93 1.07 0.81 0.88 

Richer 0.95 0.80 0.80 0.85 0.82 0.79 * 0.96 0.85 0.83 0.75 * 0.84 0.70 ** 

Richest 1.25 0.73 1.03 0.82 0.97 0.90 1.69 ** 0.74 1.10 0.77 1.07 0.89 

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose 

husbands have completed high 

school 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01 * 1.00 * 1.00 

Percentage of women who watch 

television at least weekly 1.01 *** 0.99 *** 1.00 1.01 *** 0.99 * 1.00 1.01 ** 0.99 *** 1.00 1.00 1.01 ** 1.01 *

Constant 1.68 *** 0.12 *** 3.11 *** 0.49 *** 0.24 *** 1.19 0.87 0.24 *** 2.49 *** 1.12 0.24 *** 2.96 *** 

*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001
76

Appendix Table 2B.12. Odds ratios (estimated using logistic regression) for correlates of the likelihood that a currently married 

woman will participate in making a specific decision: Zambia

Variables

Decisions about woman's 

own health care

Decisions about large 

household purchases

Decisions about purchases for 

daily needs

 Decisions about visits to 

family or friends 

Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly

Age group (ref: 40 to 49)

15 to 19 0.82 0.86 0.79 0.43 ** 0.76 0.56 *** n/a n/a n/a 0.64 * 0.78 0.65 ** 

20 to 29 0.90 0.91 0.87 0.64 ** 0.98 0.80 n/a n/a n/a 0.84 0.91 0.83 

30 to 39 1.17 0.93 1.12 0.77 1.18 1.02 n/a n/a n/a 0.89 0.95 0.89 

Children ever born (ref: 1 or 2)

None 0.88 0.99 0.89 1.63 * 0.96 1.21 n/a n/a n/a 1.01 0.92 0.95 

3 or 4 1.02 0.92 0.98 0.91 1.10 1.05 n/a n/a n/a 1.00 0.99 0.99 

5+ 1.03 0.90 0.98 1.04 1.09 1.09 n/a n/a n/a 1.11 1.13 1.17 

Education (ref: Primary)

None 1.30 ** 1.13 1.33 ** 1.04 1.17 1.16 n/a n/a n/a 1.15 1.22 * 1.27 ** 

Secondary or higher 1.05 1.17 1.12 1.04 1.59 *** 1.53 *** n/a n/a n/a 1.28 * 1.09 1.24 *

Works for cash 1.30 *** 1.62 *** 1.55 *** 1.49 *** 1.76 *** 1.93 *** n/a n/a n/a 1.39 *** 1.40 *** 1.60 *** 

Has regular media exposure 0.97 0.93 0.94 0.84 1.08 1.00 n/a n/a n/a 0.89 0.92 0.88 

Age at first marriage 

(ref: Less than 18 years) 

18-24 years 1.14 0.92 1.08 1.12 0.95 1.01 n/a n/a n/a 0.98 1.01 1.00 

25 years or more 1.98 *** 1.02 1.96 *** 1.52 1.50 * 1.87 *** n/a n/a n/a 1.19 1.35 1.48 *

Spousal age difference

(ref: Less than 5 years)

Wife is 5-9 years younger 1.02 1.08 1.05 0.95 1.03 1.00 n/a n/a n/a 0.99 1.08 1.06 

Wife is 10+ years younger 1.12 1.21 1.20 * 1.42 ** 1.08 1.24 * n/a n/a n/a 0.87 1.09 0.99 

Husband coresident 0.64 *** 2.15 ** 0.86 0.37 *** 1.35 * 0.74 * n/a n/a n/a 0.38 *** 1.67 *** 0.73 *

Urban residence 1.36 ** 0.77 1.16 1.13 0.84 0.90 n/a n/a n/a 1.30 0.99 1.15 

Extended family residence 0.93 0.94 0.92 1.14 1.03 1.09 n/a n/a n/a 0.98 0.96 0.96 

Wealth index (ref: Poorest)

Poorer 0.89 1.43 * 1.06 0.81 1.37 ** 1.18 n/a n/a n/a 0.73 * 1.39 ** 1.08 

Middle 0.74 ** 1.16 0.82 0.81 1.14 1.01 n/a n/a n/a 0.66 ** 1.27 * 0.95 

Richer 0.97 1.30 1.10 0.90 1.39 * 1.25 n/a n/a n/a 0.74 1.19 0.96 

Richest 1.07 1.84 * 1.39 0.63 1.86 ** 1.38 n/a n/a n/a 0.54 * 2.43 *** 1.49 *

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose 

husbands have completed high 

school 1.00 1.01 * 1.00 * 1.01 * 1.01 *** 1.01 *** n/a n/a n/a 1.00 1.01 *** 1.01 *** 

Percentage of women who watch 

television at least weekly 1.00 0.98 *** 1.00 * 1.01 0.99 ** 1.00 n/a n/a n/a 1.00 0.99 *** 0.99 ** 

Constant 0.86 0.07 *** 1.12 0.25 *** 0.27 *** 0.81 n/a n/a n/a 0.46 *** 0.22 *** 1.06 

*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

n/a = Not available
77

Appendix Table 2B.13. Odds ratios (estimated using logistic regression) for correlates of the likelihood that a currently married woman 

will participate in making a specific decision: Zimbabwe

Variables

Decisions about woman's 

own health care

Decisions about large 

household purchases

Decisions about purchases for 

daily needs 

 Decisions about visits to 

family or friends 

Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly

Age group (ref: 40 to 49)

15 to 19 0.54 ** 1.15 0.58 ** 0.61 0.51 *** 0.38 *** 0.41 *** 0.91 0.26 *** 0.52 ** 0.78 0.37 *** 

20 to 29 0.78 0.83 0.71 * 0.74 0.64 *** 0.52 *** 0.66 ** 0.81 0.40 *** 0.74 * 0.82 0.51 *** 

30 to 39 1.01 0.91 0.96 0.80 0.95 0.81 0.96 0.80 0.72 * 0.82 1.03 0.78 

Children ever born (ref: 1 or 2)

None 0.66 ** 1.49 * 0.82 1.31 0.83 0.96 0.72 * 0.93 0.62 ** 1.12 0.70 * 0.73 *

3 or 4 0.89 1.09 0.92 1.18 0.99 1.08 1.02 0.95 0.99 1.21 0.80 * 0.93 

5+ 1.00 0.88 0.94 1.12 0.88 0.92 0.93 1.06 0.93 1.16 0.84 0.91 

Education (ref: Primary)

None 1.17 0.91 1.13 1.31 0.87 1.03 0.91 0.87 0.74 * 1.35 * 0.74 * 0.94 

Secondary or higher 1.05 1.12 1.11 0.91 1.29 ** 1.23 * 1.23 * 1.15 1.56 *** 0.85 1.26 ** 1.12 

Works for cash 0.94 1.25 * 1.05 1.25 * 1.10 1.26 ** 1.10 1.00 1.17 1.12 1.18 * 1.45 *** 

Has regular media exposure 1.04 0.79 0.93 1.03 0.99 1.01 1.32 ** 0.71 *** 1.07 1.08 0.97 1.05 

Age at first marriage

(ref: Less than 18 years) 

18-24 years 1.04 0.97 1.03 0.87 1.10 1.01 0.92 1.02 0.90 0.96 1.00 0.95 

25 years or more 1.05 1.27 1.23 0.85 1.09 0.99 0.87 1.03 0.85 0.78 1.16 0.92 

Spousal age difference

(ref: Less than 5 years)

Wife is 5-9 years younger 1.07 0.99 1.07 1.04 1.05 1.08 0.92 0.99 0.87 0.92 1.00 0.89 

Wife is 10+ years younger 0.89 1.09 0.92 1.11 0.85 0.90 0.81 * 1.00 0.72 ** 0.88 0.89 0.73 ** 

Husband coresident 0.48 *** 2.64 *** 0.68 *** 0.60 *** 1.40 *** 1.03 0.56 *** 2.13 *** 0.87 0.36 *** 2.45 *** 0.92 

Urban residence 0.96 0.96 0.94 0.92 1.42 * 1.41 0.94 1.30 1.22 1.36 1.17 1.91 ** 

Extended family residence 0.98 1.01 0.98 1.04 1.04 1.07 0.88 0.96 0.80 * 0.99 0.96 0.95 

Wealth index (ref: Poorest)

Poorer 0.88 1.49 * 1.04 0.76 1.23 1.03 0.99 0.96 0.96 0.88 1.09 0.98 

Middle 1.04 1.58 ** 1.27 * 0.75 * 1.36 ** 1.14 1.05 1.16 1.22 0.96 1.21 1.21 

Richer 0.84 1.83 ** 1.09 0.87 1.43 * 1.32 0.85 1.38 1.08 0.81 1.39 * 1.21 

Richest 0.89 2.27 ** 1.30 0.64 2.04 *** 1.67 * 0.86 1.45 1.25 0.86 1.42 1.43 

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose 

husbands have completed high 

school 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Percentage of women who watch 

television at least weekly 1.01 ** 0.99 * 1.00 1.00 0.99 * 1.00 1.01 ** 0.99 * 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Constant 1.48 * 0.08 *** 2.19 *** 0.26 *** 0.74 1.88 *** 1.59 ** 0.18 *** 3.75 *** 1.09 0.38 *** 4.26 *** 

*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001
78

Appendix Table 2B.14. Odds ratios (estimated using logistic regression) for correlates of the likelihood that a currently married woman 

will participate in making a specific decision: Armenia

Variables

Decisions about woman's 

own health care

Decisions about large 

household purchases

Decisions about purchases for 

daily needs 

 Decisions about visits to 

family or friends 

Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly

Age group (ref: 40 to 49)

15 to 19 0.37*** 1.02 0.45 *** 0.06** 0.41 *** 0.24 *** 0.07 *** 0.82 0.15 *** 0.20 ** 0.48 ** 0.25 ***

20 to 29 0.52*** 1.03 0.53 *** 0.23*** 0.51 *** 0.33 *** 0.30 *** 0.92 0.28 *** 0.29 *** 0.79 * 0.42 ***

30 to 39 0.78** 1.20 * 0.94 0.70** 0.86 0.71 *** 0.83 * 1.02 0.77 ** 0.57 *** 1.09 0.76 **

Children ever born (ref: 1 or 2)

None 0.80 1.07 0.87 1.23 1.04 1.09 0.82 1.02 0.87 1.13 1.05 1.09 

3 or 4 0.84* 1.10 0.93 0.92 0.94 0.90 0.99 1.02 1.01 0.82 1.06 0.96 

5+ 0.69* 1.00 0.67 * 0.97 0.79 0.75 0.82 1.05 0.79 0.75 0.87 0.69 *

Education (No or primary)

Secondary or higher 0.47 1.17 0.48 0.50 1.48 1.03 2.27 1.06 2.08 1.34 * 1.17 1.56 ***

Works for cash 1.50*** 0.89 1.46 *** 1.21 1.16 1.32 ** 1.12 1.12 1.35 ** 1.34 * 1.17 1.56 ***

Has regular media exposure 0.79 1.08 0.87 0.78 1.19 1.10 1.12 1.02 1.16 0.68 * 1.29 * 1.10 

Age at first marriage 

(ref: Less than 18 years)

18-24 years 1.15 1.06 1.20 * 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.03 0.95 0.98 1.03 1.05 1.07 

25 years or more 1.23 1.03 1.28 0.85 1.06 1.02 0.92 0.91 0.80 0.77 1.39 * 1.36 

Spousal age difference 

(ref: Less than 5 years)

Wife is 5-9 years younger 1.06 1.05 1.13 1.15 0.93 0.97 1.12 0.94 1.05 1.00 1.03 1.03 

Wife is 10+ years younger 1.06 1.05 1.13 1.19 0.76 * 0.79 1.08 0.89 0.97 1.22 0.99 1.08 

Husband coresident 0.37*** 1.88 *** 0.61 *** 0.17*** 2.08 *** 0.73 ** 0.37 *** 2.22 *** 0.61 *** 0.15 *** 3.14 *** 0.89 

Urban residence 1.52*** 0.95 1.47 *** 1.39* 1.14 1.29 ** 1.57 *** 0.71 *** 1.16 1.20 1.06 1.18 

Extended family residence 1.02 0.91 0.90 0.83 0.87 * 0.80 ** 0.73 *** 0.95 0.65 *** 0.96 0.84 * 0.78 **

Wealth index (ref: Poorest)

Poorer 0.93 1.16 1.10 0.68* 0.98 0.87 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.81 1.25 * 1.18 

Middle 1.07 1.20 1.35 * 0.91 1.15 1.15 1.16 1.11 1.31 * 0.85 1.43 ** 1.45 **

Richer 1.14 0.93 1.01 0.66 0.99 0.84 0.98 1.19 1.16 0.56 ** 1.80 *** 1.54 **

Richest 1.09 0.96 1.01 0.69 1.19 1.07 0.88 1.36 * 1.18 0.48 ** 2.05 *** 1.70 **

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose 

husbands have completed high 

school 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 ** 1.01 *** 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 

Percentage of women who watch 

television at least weekly 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.00 1.01 * 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01 *

Constant 1.26 0.27 ** 4.01 * 0.13* 0.18 *** 0.56 1.93 0.04 *** 1.75 0.53 0.25 ** 1.34 

*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001
79

Appendix Table 2B.15. Odds ratios (estimated using logistic regression) for correlates of the likelihood that a currently married woman 

will participate in making a specific decision: Jordan

Variables

Decisions about woman's 

own health care

Decisions about large 

household purchases

Decisions about purchases for 

daily needs 

 Decisions about visits to 

family or friends 

Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly

Age group (ref: 40 to 49)

15 to 19 0.74 1.15 0.74 0.19 ** 0.57 ** 0.35 *** 0.39*** 0.97 0.44 *** 0.13 *** 0.70 0.23 *** 

20 to 29 0.84 1.14 0.87 0.37 *** 0.88 0.59 *** 0.64 *** 0.96 0.63 *** 0.51 *** 0.93 0.48 *** 

30 to 39 1.03 0.97 1.03 0.62 *** 0.97 0.77 ** 0.88 0.98 0.87 0.67 *** 1.06 0.72 ** 

Children ever born (ref: 1 or 2)

None 0.59 *** 1.55 *** 0.76 1.08 1.05 1.06 0.72 * 1.13 0.87 0.67 * 1.25 1.09 

3 or 4 1.04 0.96 1.04 1.07 0.96 0.99 1.16 0.86 1.01 1.17 0.98 1.11 

5+ 1.22 * 0.86 1.20 1.33 0.79 * 0.86 1.19 0.78 * 0.95 1.24 0.86 0.96 

Education (ref: Primary)

None 0.88 1.05 0.87 0.60 * 0.86 0.72 ** 0.75 * 0.88 0.71 ** 0.98 0.85 0.79 

Secondary or higher 1.10 1.18 1.55 *** 1.06 1.37 *** 1.43 *** 1.10 1.26* 1.33 ** 1.33 * 1.37 *** 1.95 *** 

Works for cash 1.08 1.02 1.28 2.07 *** 1.09 1.60 *** 1.01 1.17 1.16 1.17 1.20 1.66 *** 

Has regular media exposure 1.08 1.16 1.42 ** 1.10 1.10 1.14 1.37 ** 0.84 1.15 0.77 * 1.15 0.97 

Age at first marriage 

(ref: Less than 18 years) 

18-24 years 0.99 1.03 1.04 1.01 1.06 1.07 0.82 ** 0.98 0.81 ** 0.75 ** 1.10 0.91 

25 years or more 1.11 0.90 1.04 0.80 1.08 0.99 0.63 *** 1.13 0.72 ** 0.67 ** 1.05 0.77 

Spousal age difference 

(ref: Less than 5 years)

Wife is 5-9 years younger 1.02 0.89 0.84 1.12 0.95 0.99 0.92 0.96 0.89 1.01 0.98 0.98 

Wife is 10+ years younger 1.03 0.85 0.81 1.41 ** 0.89 1.01 0.77 ** 1.05 0.82 ** 1.13 0.87 0.91 

Husband coresident 0.61 *** 1.41 * 0.62 * 0.29 *** 1.59 *** 0.85 0.41 *** 1.93 *** 0.66 ** 0.23 *** 2.86 *** 0.98 

Urban residence 1.04 0.96 1.01 1.19 0.89 0.94 1.45 *** 0.86 * 1.25 *** 1.42 *** 0.94 1.19 * 

Extended family residence 0.99 0.97 0.94 0.87 0.68 *** 0.65 *** 0.69 *** 0.90 0.67 *** 0.87 0.82 * 0.71 *** 

Wealth index (ref: Poorest)

Poorer 0.92 1.12 1.00 0.76 * 1.29 ** 1.18 * 0.89 1.17 1.02 0.91 1.39 *** 1.43 *** 

Middle 0.92 1.23 * 1.18 0.66 ** 1.37 *** 1.19 * 0.84 * 1.12 0.94 0.85 1.47 *** 1.47 *** 

Richer 0.96 1.07 1.01 0.69 * 1.29 ** 1.13 0.83 * 1.01 0.84 0.68 ** 1.93 *** 1.87 *** 

Richest 0.97 1.22 1.35 0.64 ** 1.64 *** 1.45 *** 0.82 1.26 * 1.01 0.71 * 1.96 *** 2.07 *** 

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose husbands 

have completed high school n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Percentage of women who watch 

television at least weekly 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 ** 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 * 0.99 ** 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Constant 1.51 0.29 *** 5.51 *** 0.47 * 0.45 *** 1.61 * 0.62 * 0.34 *** 2.31 *** 0.40 ** 0.45 *** 2.19 ** 

*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

n/a = Not available
80

Appendix Table 2B.16. Odds ratios (estimated using logistic regression) for correlates of the likelihood that a currently married woman 

will participate in making a specific decision: Morocco

Variables

Decisions about woman's 

own health care

Decisions about large 

household purchases

Decisions about purchases for 

daily needs 

 Decisions about visits to 

family or friends 

Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly

Age group (ref: 40 to 49)

15 to 19 0.21 *** 0.61 ** 0.41 *** 0.23 *** 0.57 *** 0.41 *** 0.29 *** 0.63 ** 0.42 *** 0.25 *** 0.65 ** 0.47 *** 

20 to 29 0.43 *** 0.81 ** 0.57 *** 0.28 *** 0.88 0.60 *** 0.42 *** 0.94 0.61 *** 0.38 *** 0.82 ** 0.59 *** 

30 to 39 0.75 *** 1.05 0.89 * 0.62 *** 1.02 0.83 ** 0.70 *** 1.08 0.86 * 0.67 *** 1.04 0.88 * 

Children ever born (ref: 1 or 2)

None 0.91 0.80 ** 0.76 ** 0.78 0.91 0.85 0.56 *** 0.98 0.79 ** 0.84 0.84 * 0.79 ** 

3 or 4 1.14 0.94 1.02 0.99 1.04 1.06 0.95 1.08 1.08 1.05 0.97 1.00 

5+ 1.11 0.89 0.90 0.94 1.00 0.96 0.90 1.09 1.01 0.96 0.94 0.90 

Education (ref: Primary)

None 0.84 0.93 0.86 * 0.70 ** 0.87 * 0.77 *** 0.81 * 0.99 0.87 * 0.75 * 0.94 0.84 * 

Secondary or higher 0.91 1.26 ** 1.26 ** 0.89 1.39 *** 1.40 *** 0.85 1.32 *** 1.21 * 0.89 1.34 *** 1.36 *** 

Works for cash 2.40 *** 1.11 2.23 *** 2.62 *** 1.27 ** 2.37 *** 1.86 *** 1.25 ** 2.15 *** 2.16 *** 1.16 1.95 *** 

Has regular media exposure 0.93 0.99 0.97 0.84 1.12 1.08 0.96 0.98 0.97 0.98 0.96 0.96 

Age at first marriage 

(ref: Less than 18 years) 

18-24 years 0.96 0.98 0.97 1.06 0.93 0.94 0.92 0.96 0.93 1.06 1.04 1.06 

25 years or more 0.85 0.98 0.92 0.71 * 1.07 0.96 0.71 ** 1.03 0.86 0.76 1.12 1.02 

Spousal age difference 

(ref: Less than 5 years)

Wife is 5-9 years younger 0.92 1.10 1.07 0.91 1.08 1.06 1.09 1.03 1.07 1.08 1.00 1.02 

Wife is 10+ years younger 1.29 ** 0.89 * 0.96 1.36 ** 0.92 1.00 1.16 0.95 1.00 1.40 ** 0.94 1.03 

Husband coresident n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Urban residence 1.93 *** 1.44 *** 1.86 *** 2.13 *** 1.48 *** 1.84 *** 2.72 *** 1.27 ** 2.00 *** 2.28 *** 1.32 *** 1.68 *** 

Extended family residence 0.78 ** 0.64 *** 0.57 *** 0.66 *** 0.63 *** 0.56 *** 0.65 *** 0.72 *** 0.60 *** 0.85 0.63 *** 0.58 *** 

Wealth index (ref: Poorest)

Poorer 0.85 1.19 * 1.13 0.88 1.15 1.12 0.91 1.05 1.01 0.96 1.09 1.09 

Middle 0.90 1.24 * 1.20 0.83 1.24 * 1.18 1.19 1.03 1.11 0.97 1.14 1.13 

Richer 0.88 1.12 1.05 0.83 1.21 1.14 1.19 0.96 1.03 0.95 1.21 1.18 

Richest 0.75 1.30* 1.17 0.60 * 1.43 ** 1.24 1.00 0.98 0.96 0.74 1.45 ** 1.36 * 

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose 

husbands have completed high 

school 1.00 1.00 * 1.00 ** 1.00 1.00 ** 1.00 ** 1.00 1.01 *** 1.01 *** 1.00 1.00 ** 1.00 ** 

Percentage of women who 

watch television at least weekly 1.01 ** 1.00 1.00 1.01 * 1.00 * 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ** 0.99 *** 

Constant 0.06 *** 0.79 * 1.40 ** 0.05 *** 0.89 1.45 ** 0.09 *** 0.47 *** 0.91 0.09 *** 1.45 ** 2.59 *** 

*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

n/a = Not available
81

Appendix Table 2B.17. Odds ratios (estimated using logistic regression) for correlates of the likelihood that a currently married woman 

will participate in making a specific decision: Cambodia

Variables

Decisions about woman's 

own health care

Decisions about large 

household purchases

Decisions about purchases for 

daily needs 

 Decisions about visits to

family or friends 

Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly

Age group (ref: 40 to 49)

15 to 19 0.53 * 1.14 0.34 ** 0.48 * 1.01 0.38 ** 0.52 * 1.33 0.29 * 0.30 ** 1.29 0.16 ** 

20 to 29 0.77 0.99 0.47 ** 0.60 ** 0.99 0.45 *** 0.71 * 1.12 0.33 ** 0.59 * 1.19 0.31 ** 

30 to 39 0.88 0.97 0.61 * 0.92 1.00 0.86 0.88 1.07 0.64 0.77 1.23 0.88 

Children ever born (ref: 1 or 2)

None 0.85 0.99 0.76 0.63 0.99 0.69 0.66 * 1.19 0.60 0.67 1.05 0.65 

3 or 4 0.93 1.00 0.85 0.96 1.07 1.11 0.97 1.10 1.33 0.73 1.38 * 1.40 

5+ 0.89 1.02 0.79 0.79 1.05 0.75 1.11 0.91 1.18 0.68 1.37 0.95 

Education (ref: Primary) 

None 0.89 1.08 0.97 0.86 1.04 0.85 0.76 * 1.18 0.59 * 0.99 1.01 1.01 

Secondary or higher 1.17 0.92 1.20 0.71 1.29 1.07 0.92 1.12 1.15 0.93 1.10 1.09 

Works for cash 1.30 ** 0.82 * 1.15 1.11 0.97 1.11 1.21 0.83 1.08 1.51 ** 0.67 *** 0.81 

Has regular media exposure 1.18 0.88 1.02 0.90 1.09 0.98 1.37 ** 0.75 * 1.23 0.94 0.96 0.67 

Age at first marriage

(ref: Less than 18 years) 

18-24 years 1.01 0.94 0.85 0.91 1.02 0.91 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.93 0.74 

25 years or more 0.83 1.06 0.72 0.55 ** 1.28 0.67 0.81 1.24 0.95 0.85 0.92 0.39 * 

Spousal age difference 

(ref: Less than 5 years)

Wife is 5-9 years younger 0.94 1.01 0.89 1.02 0.98 1.00 0.85 1.17 0.97 1.04 0.92 0.81 

Wife is 10+ years younger 1.24 0.83 1.00 1.06 0.87 0.84 0.72 * 1.26 0.56 1.41 0.73 0.86 

Husband coresident 0.41 *** 2.24 *** 0.87 0.36 *** 3.04 *** 1.43 0.50 * 3.58 *** 1.98 0.27 *** 4.26 *** 3.01 ** 

Urban residence 0.80 1.12 0.79 1.04 0.87 0.82 1.06 0.96 1.14 1.25 0.85 1.17 

Extended family residence 0.88 1.04 0.84 0.97 0.83 0.68 ** 0.75 ** 0.98 0.28 *** 1.10 0.92 1.03 

Wealth index (ref: Poorest)

Poorer 1.33 * 0.86 1.24 0.83 1.35 * 1.34 0.83 1.33 * 1.35 0.79 1.10 0.72 

Middle 1.25 1.03 1.85 * 0.75 1.51 ** 1.46 1.19 1.00 2.44 * 0.80 1.28 1.33 

Richer 1.46 * 0.73 * 0.98 0.69 * 1.37 * 1.03 0.80 1.17 0.66 0.92 0.95 0.66 

Richest 1.61 ** 0.73 1.32 0.61 * 1.38 0.90 1.18 0.80 0.79 0.70 1.48 1.70 

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose 

husbands have completed high 

school 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01 * 1.00 * 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Percentage of women who 

watch television at least weekly 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Constant 0.86 0.64 7.11 *** 0.67 0.49 ** 3.07 *** 2.83 *** 0.12 *** 6.56 *** 0.49 * 0.99 6.50 *** 

*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001
82

Appendix Table 2B.18. Odds ratios (estimated using logistic regression) for correlates of the likelihood that a currently married woman 

will participate in making a specific decision: Indonesia

Variables

Decisions about woman's 

own health care

Decisions about large 

household purchases

Decisions about purchases for 

daily needs 

 Decisions about visits to 

family or friends 

Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly

Age group (ref: 40 to 49)

15 to 19 0.73 *** 1.02 0.56 *** 0.91 0.67 *** 0.54 *** 0.64 *** 1.12 0.32 *** 0.78 0.80 * 0.55 *** 

20 to 29 0.89 ** 0.99 0.75 *** 0.91 0.83 *** 0.70 *** 0.96 0.94 0.62 *** 0.86 * 1.01 0.85 * 

30 to 39 0.98 0.97 0.90 * 0.97 0.96 0.92 * 1.07 0.92 * 0.98 0.97 1.02 1.00 

Children ever born (ref: 1 or 2)

None 0.79 *** 1.12 * 0.78 *** 0.88 0.97 0.87 * 0.75 *** 1.21 ** 0.61 *** 0.84 * 0.99 0.81 ** 

3 or 4 1.05 0.91 ** 0.91 1.12 * 0.89 ** 0.92 1.08 0.86 *** 0.77 ** 1.03 0.95 0.93 

5+ 0.98 0.86 *** 0.71 *** 1.34 *** 0.67 *** 0.71 *** 1.08 0.84 ** 0.71 ** 1.19 ** 0.82 *** 0.83 * 

Education (ref: Primary)

None 0.84 *** 1.03 0.74 *** 0.88 0.88 * 0.77 *** 0.88 * 0.98 0.59 *** 1.02 0.90 0.84 * 

Secondary or higher 1.01 1.08 * 1.20 *** 1.01 1.15 *** 1.24 *** 1.00 1.04 1.17 0.89 * 1.14 *** 1.12 * 

Works for cash 1.18 *** 0.96 1.37 *** 1.19 *** 1.07 * 1.30 *** 1.10 * 0.99 1.54 *** 1.24 *** 1.04 1.46 *** 

Has regular media exposure 0.93 * 1.01 0.86 ** 1.08 1.03 1.10 * 1.19 *** 0.82 *** 1.03 1.04 1.01 1.06 

Age at first marriage 

(ref: Less than 18 years) 

18-24 years 0.96 1.03 0.98 0.96 1.05 1.04 0.91 * 1.12 ** 1.04 0.99 1.04 1.07 

25 years or more 0.87 ** 1.14 * 0.97 0.91 1.10 1.08 0.83 ** 1.25 *** 1.03 0.80 ** 1.21 ** 1.08 

Spousal age difference 

(ref: Less than 5 years)

Wife is 5-9 years younger 0.97 1.04 1.03 1.06 0.95 0.97 1.03 0.99 1.11 0.97 1.00 0.97 

Wife is 10+ years younger 1.08 0.92 * 0.99 1.27 *** 0.82 *** 0.91 * 1.03 0.95 0.94 1.17 ** 0.86 *** 0.91 

Husband coresident 0.29 *** 3.35 *** 0.55 *** 0.20 *** 2.85 *** 0.74 ** 0.72 *** 1.79 *** 1.55 ** 0.15 *** 4.50 *** 0.83 

Urban residence 1.28 *** 0.79 *** 1.07 1.52 *** 0.78 *** 0.97 1.17 *** 0.84 *** 1.04 1.08 0.85 *** 0.81 *** 

Extended family residence 0.98 1.01 0.98 1.13 ** 0.99 1.09 * 0.80 *** 1.18 *** 0.69 *** 1.12 ** 0.95 1.04 

Wealth index (ref: Poorest)

Poorer 1.04 0.97 1.02 0.92 0.94 0.86 ** 1.14 ** 0.86 ** 1.00 1.03 0.91 * 0.87 * 

Middle 1.01 1.01 1.03 0.86 * 0.97 0.85 ** 1.19 ** 0.84 ** 1.12 1.08 0.88 * 0.87 * 

Richer 1.13 ** 0.92 1.10 0.96 0.88 ** 0.80 *** 1.26 *** 0.81 *** 1.22 1.14 0.88 * 0.93 

Richest 1.30 *** 0.84 ** 1.32 *** 0.84 * 0.95 0.82 ** 1.17 * 0.88 1.28 0.99 0.99 0.98 

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose husbands 

have completed high school 1.00 *** 1.00 *** 1.00 1.00 * 1.00 ** 1.01 *** 1.00 *** 1.01 *** 1.00 1.00 1.00 *** 1.00 *** 

Percentage of women who watch 

television at least weekly 1.00 *** 1.00 *** 1.00 1.00 *** 1.00 *** 1.00 1.00 *** 1.00 *** 1.00 1.00 * 1.00 *** 1.00 * 

Constant 2.99 *** 0.19 *** 11.01 *** 0.92 0.48 *** 3.75 *** 4.44 *** 0.12 *** 12.40 *** 1.13 0.48 *** 5.97 *** 

*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001
83

Appendix Table 2B.19. Odds ratios (estimated using logistic regression) for correlates of the likelihood that a currently married woman 

will participate in making a specific decision: Nepal

Variables

Decisions about woman's 

own health care

Decisions about large 

household purchases

Decisions about purchases for 

daily needs 

 Decisions about visits to 

family or friends 

Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly

Age group (ref: 40 to 49)

15 to 19 0.17 *** 0.32 *** 0.20 *** 0.16 *** 0.23 *** 0.15 *** 0.16 *** 0.29 *** 0.14 *** 0.13 *** 0.26 *** 0.16 *** 

20 to 29 0.51 *** 0.72 ** 0.55 *** 0.44 *** 0.53 *** 0.40 *** 0.48 *** 0.69 *** 0.43 *** 0.43 *** 0.62 *** 0.44 *** 

30 to 39 0.92 0.79 ** 0.82 ** 0.85 0.80 ** 0.77 *** 0.94 0.82 * 0.83 ** 0.82 * 0.79 ** 0.74 *** 

Children ever born (ref: 1 or 2)

None 0.48 *** 0.69 * 0.54 *** 0.60 ** 0.78 0.67 ** 0.56 *** 0.71 * 0.57 *** 0.58 ** 0.65 ** 0.58 *** 

3 or 4 1.31 ** 1.02 1.20 * 1.43 *** 1.07 1.28 *** 1.46 *** 1.15 1.49 *** 1.50 *** 1.04 1.28 *** 

5+ 0.98 1.14 1.08 1.07 1.08 1.08 1.11 1.17 1.17 1.29 * 1.02 1.13 

Education (ref: Primary)

None 0.69 *** 1.12 0.85 0.75 ** 0.95 0.81 ** 0.71 *** 1.08 0.78 ** 0.78 * 0.90 0.79 ** 

Secondary or higher 0.85 1.42 ** 1.12 0.86 1.50 *** 1.22 1.10 1.19 1.18 0.90 1.16 1.03 

Works for cash 1.95 *** 1.50 *** 1.95 *** 2.19 *** 1.27 ** 1.95 *** 2.13 *** 1.11 2.18 *** 1.69 *** 1.18 * 1.56 *** 

Has regular media exposure 1.34 *** 0.90 1.09 1.36 *** 1.05 1.20 ** 1.29 *** 1.03 1.23 *** 1.23 * 1.02 1.12 * 

Age at first marriage

(ref: Less than 18 years)

18 years or more 1.17 * 0.91 1.03 1.00 0.95 0.96 0.89 0.96 0.89 * 1.16 0.93 1.02 

Spousal age difference 

(ref: Less than 5 years)

Wife is 5-9 years younger 1.04 0.91 0.96 1.30 ** 1.06 1.18 ** 1.22 ** 1.04 1.18 ** 1.16 1.07 1.13 * 

Wife is 10+ years younger 1.25 * 0.92 1.07 1.50 *** 1.11 1.33 *** 1.24 * 1.05 1.21 * 1.38 ** 1.03 1.20 * 

Husband coresident 0.09 *** 1.57 *** 0.25 *** 0.12 *** 1.86 *** 0.37 *** 0.20 *** 2.83 *** 0.40 *** 0.09 *** 2.92 *** 0.41 *** 

Urban residence 1.50 ** 0.78 * 1.08 0.98 0.66 *** 0.73 *** 1.02 0.77 * 0.90 1.58 *** 0.80 * 1.11 

Extended family residence 0.42 *** 0.71 *** 0.51 *** 0.44 *** 0.56 *** 0.43 *** 0.41 *** 0.75 *** 0.42 *** 0.39 *** 0.59 *** 0.42 *** 

Wealth index (ref: Poorest)

Poorer 0.93 1.03 0.99 0.71 ** 1.12 0.94 0.92 0.98 0.94 0.78 * 1.14 1.00 

Middle 0.78 * 1.17 1.00 0.69 ** 1.14 0.93 0.88 1.08 0.96 0.82 1.14 1.02 

Richer 0.88 1.12 1.01 0.67 ** 1.06 0.86 0.77 ** 1.01 0.83 * 0.80 1.19 1.04 

Richest 1.05 1.27 1.23 0.71 * 1.23 1.01 0.85 1.22 1.01 0.98 1.26 1.22 

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose 

husbands have completed high 

school 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01 *** 1.00 1.00 * 1.01 ** 1.00 1.00 * 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Percentage of women who watch 

television at least weekly 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01 *** 1.01 ** 1.01 *** 1.01 *** 1.00 1.01 *** 1.00 1.00 1.00 * 

Constant 0.76 0.08 *** 0.94 0.33 *** 0.10 *** 0.66 *** 0.77 * 0.06 *** 1.12 0.78 0.10 *** 1.21 

*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001
84

Appendix Table 2B.20. Odds ratios (estimated using logistic regression) for correlates of the likelihood that a currently married woman 

will participate in making a specific decision: Philippines

Variables

Decisions about woman's 

own health care

Decisions about large 

household purchases

Decisions about purchases for 

daily needs 

 Decisions about visits to 

family or friends 

Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly

Age group (ref: 40 to 49)

15 to 19 0.70 * 1.08 0.51 * 0.56 ** 0.55 *** 0.30 *** 0.40 *** 0.97 0.23 *** 0.88 0.59 *** 0.33 *** 

20 to 29 0.89 1.05 0.77 0.82 * 0.82 ** 0.61 *** 0.57 *** 1.32 *** 0.49 *** 0.83 * 0.98 0.65 *** 

30 to 39 0.96 1.05 0.98 0.82 ** 1.05 0.85 * 0.82 *** 1.16 * 0.82 * 0.77 *** 1.13 * 0.77 ** 

Children ever born (ref: 1 or 2)

None 0.82 * 1.06 0.63 ** 0.97 0.84 0.78 * 0.83 * 1.02 0.77 * 0.99 0.97 0.91 

3 or 4 0.99 1.04 1.11 1.19 * 0.88 * 0.99 1.10 0.95 1.12 1.12 0.92 1.03 

5+ 1.05 0.94 1.00 1.07 0.93 0.97 0.96 0.98 0.86 1.01 0.97 0.95 

Education (ref: Primary)

None 0.67 * 1.56 * 0.94 0.33 *** 1.80 *** 0.93 0.61 ** 1.79 *** 1.27 0.86 1.33 1.60 

Secondary or higher 0.94 1.16 * 1.19 0.85 * 1.09 0.95 1.09 0.96 1.10 0.85 * 1.15 * 1.02 

Works for cash 0.88 * 1.29 *** 1.33 ** 1.18 ** 1.06 1.30 *** 1.10 * 1.02 1.29 *** 0.98 1.15 ** 1.33 *** 

Regular media exposure 1.08 0.87 0.88 1.30 ** 0.82 * 0.97 1.20 * 0.84 * 1.05 0.94 0.97 0.82 

Age at marriage 

(ref: Less than 18 years) 

Between 18 and 24 years 1.11 0.98 1.32 * 0.97 0.96 0.91 0.98 0.95 0.86 1.05 0.98 1.04 

25 or more years 1.10 1.02 1.46 * 0.91 1.15 1.11 0.89 1.11 0.93 0.99 1.08 1.16 

Spousal age difference 

(ref: Less than 5 years)

Wife is 5-9 years younger 1.07 1.04 1.44 ** 1.15 * 1.05 1.25 ** 1.04 1.02 1.14 1.04 1.01 1.10 

Wife is 10+ years younger 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.02 0.94 0.94 1.04 0.93 0.94 1.11 0.86 0.89 

Husband coresident 0.54 *** 2.34 *** 1.05 0.41 *** 2.59 *** 1.37 ** 0.62 *** 2.74 *** 1.58 *** 0.31 *** 3.54 *** 1.37 *

Urban residence 1.07 0.98 1.21 0.94 1.00 0.93 1.04 0.91 0.93 0.99 0.97 0.93 

Extended family structure 1.11 0.83 ** 0.87 1.14 * 0.76 *** 0.78 *** 0.83 *** 0.93 0.59 *** 1.17 ** 0.81 *** 0.84 *

Wealth index (ref: Poorest)

Poorer 1.16 0.90 1.22 0.97 1.02 1.00 1.19 * 0.91 1.22 0.99 1.03 1.06 

Middle 1.08 0.98 1.22 0.74 ** 1.21 * 0.96 1.13 0.93 1.16 1.00 1.05 1.12 

Richer 1.10 1.03 1.52 * 0.68 *** 1.28 ** 0.96 1.06 1.04 1.23 0.83 1.31 ** 1.28 

Richest 1.23 0.89 1.41 0.59 *** 1.50 *** 1.05 0.96 1.13 1.16 0.86 1.28 * 1.30 

Community level variables

Percentage of women whose 

husbands have completed high 

school 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 * 1.00 ** 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Percentage of women who watch 

TV regularly 1.00 1.00 * 0.99 ** 1.00 *** 0.99 *** 1.00 ** 1.01 *** 0.99 *** 1.00 1.01 *** 0.99 *** 0.99 *** 

Constant 4.32 *** 0.14 *** 20.87 *** 0.31 *** 0.83 3.09 *** 1.00 0.30 *** 4.11 *** 0.79 0.71 * 8.75 *** 

*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001
85

Appendix Table 2B.21. Odds ratios (estimated using logistic regression) for correlates of the likelihood that a currently married woman 

will participate in making a specific decision: Bolivia

Variables

Decisions about woman's 

own health care

Decisions about large 

household purchases

Decisions about purchases for 

daily needs 

 Decisions about visits to 

family or friends 

Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly

Age group (ref: 40 to 49)

15 to 19 0.75 * 1.09 0.67 * 0.28 *** 0.79 0.46 *** 0.60 *** 0.95 0.31 *** 0.52 *** 0.97 0.44 *** 

20 to 29 0.95 0.99 0.85 0.53 *** 0.95 0.67 *** 0.75 *** 1.03 0.47 *** 0.62 *** 1.14 0.67 *** 

30 to 39 0.92 1.05 0.91 0.65 *** 1.09 0.87 * 0.87 * 1.06 0.79 * 0.73 *** 1.11 0.80 ** 

Children ever born (ref: 1 or 2)

None 0.72** 1.21 0.73 * 0.92 0.82 0.75 * 0.62 *** 1.15 0.53 *** 1.10 0.79 * 0.73 *

3 or 4 1.07 0.92 0.98 0.88 0.88 * 0.82 ** 1.11 0.89 * 1.00 0.93 0.97 0.87 

5+ 1.10 0.82 ** 0.81 * 0.98 0.77 *** 0.71 *** 0.99 0.90 0.71 ** 0.99 0.82 ** 0.68 *** 

Education (ref: Primary)

None 1.30 *** 0.70 *** 0.88 1.06 0.93 0.92 0.94 0.92 0.69 ** 1.33 ** 0.76 *** 0.84 

Secondary or higher 1.17 ** 0.97 1.38 *** 1.12 1.10 1.19 ** 0.90 1.09 0.91 1.13 1.12 1.46 *** 

Works for cash 1.21 *** 0.85 *** 1.08 1.66 *** 0.97 1.21 *** 1.31 *** 0.86 *** 1.44 *** 1.19 ** 0.94 1.12 

Regular media exposure 0.93 1.08 1.01 0.84 1.25 ** 1.21 * 1.08 1.04 1.24 * 0.97 1.16 1.19 

Age at marriage 

(ref: Less than 18 years) 

Between 18 and 24 years 1.10 * 0.93 1.05 0.86 1.05 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.97 0.84 ** 1.11 * 0.97 

25 or more years 1.22 ** 0.83 * 1.07 0.78 * 1.16 1.07 1.02 0.99 0.99 0.77 ** 1.25 ** 1.10 

Spousal age difference 

(ref: Less than 5 years) 

Wife is 5-9 years younger 1.06 1.01 1.19 * 0.99 0.95 0.94 1.03 0.99 1.05 1.02 0.97 0.97 

Wife is 10+ years younger 0.92 1.09 0.99 1.27 * 0.79 *** 0.84 * 0.77 *** 1.19 * 0.79 * 1.15 0.97 1.13 

Husband coresident 0.30 *** 3.09 *** 0.53 *** 0.13 *** 3.45 *** 0.93 0.43 *** 3.71 *** 1.53 *** 0.13 *** 5.41 *** 0.71 ** 

Urban residence 1.10 0.97 1.16 1.22 0.87 0.93 1.17 * 0.86 * 1.06 1.28 ** 0.87 1.07 

Extended family structure 0.91 1.03 0.85 1.04 0.73 *** 0.70 *** 0.76 *** 0.91 0.47*** 1.16 * 0.84 ** 0.89 

Wealth index (ref: Poorest)

Poorer 1.07 0.98 1.07 1.71 *** 1.09 1.28 ** 1.83 *** 0.72 *** 1.67 *** 1.18 1.08 1.27 *

Middle 1.15 0.87 1.01 1.51 * 1.06 1.17 2.21 *** 0.60 *** 1.86 *** 0.94 1.27 * 1.29 *

Richer 1.24 * 0.86 1.18 1.71 ** 1.10 1.31 * 2.57 *** 0.55 *** 2.40 *** 0.99 1.34 ** 1.54 ** 

Richest 1.86 *** 0.64 *** 1.78 *** 1.79 ** 1.03 1.27 2.24 *** 0.53 *** 1.50 * 1.03 1.31 * 1.67 ** 

Community level variables

Percentage of women whose 

husbands have completed high 

school 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Percentage of women who watch 

TV regularly 1.00 * 1.00 * 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 *** 1.00 *** 1.00 1.00 ** 1.00 ** 1.00 

Constant 2.82 *** 0.22 *** 13.14 *** 0.45 *** 0.54 *** 2.74 *** 1.41 ** 0.20 *** 3.25 *** 1.31 * 0.42 *** 8.63 *** 

*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001
86

Appendix Table 2B.22. Odds ratios (estimated using logistic regression) for correlates of the likelihood that a currently married woman 

will participate in making a specific decision: Haiti

Variables

Decisions about woman's 

own health care

Decisions about large 

household purchases

Decisions about purchases for 

daily needs 

 Decisions about visits to 

family or friends 

Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly

Age group (ref: 40 to 49)

15 to 19 0.40 *** 0.44 ** 0.18 *** 0.20 *** 0.85 0.21 *** 0.29 *** 0.93 0.21 *** 0.45 *** 0.98 0.18 *** 

20 to 29 0.69 ** 0.86 0.49 *** 0.47 *** 1.05 0.45 *** 0.59 *** 1.05 0.42 *** 0.95 0.82 0.45 ** 

30 to 39 0.85 0.91 0.71 ** 0.84 1.02 0.78 0.87 0.99 0.69 * 0.92 0.94 0.57 ** 

Children ever born (ref: 1 or 2)

None 0.97 0.63 * 0.64 ** 0.83 0.59 ** 0.56 *** 0.76 0.62 ** 0.52 *** 0.90 0.88 0.70 

3 or 4 1.04 0.89 0.93 1.15 0.89 1.03 1.15 0.97 1.23 0.91 1.18 1.24 

5+ 0.99 0.80 0.74 1.04 0.90 0.93 1.13 0.93 1.15 0.98 1.03 1.03 

Education (ref: Primary)

None 0.81 * 1.14 0.90 1.04 1.05 1.11 0.95 1.02 0.93 1.10 0.84 0.79 

Secondary or higher 0.79 1.18 0.87 0.74 * 1.12 0.85 0.84 1.16 0.98 0.85 0.93 0.59 ** 

Works for cash 1.40 *** 0.86 1.27 * 1.56 *** 1.10 1.77 *** 1.63 *** 0.97 2.09 *** 1.39 *** 0.81 * 1.42 ** 

Regular media exposure 1.12 0.83 * 0.93 0.97 0.83 * 0.78 * 0.95 0.89 0.79 * 1.03 0.93 0.93 

Age at marriage 

(ref: Less than 18 years) 

Between 18 and 24 years 0.92 1.07 0.97 0.81 * 1.06 0.86 0.96 0.96 0.90 0.94 1.02 0.89 

25 or more years 0.74 * 1.12 0.78 0.79 1.39 * 1.13 0.95 1.27 1.36 0.81 1.21 0.89 

Spousal age difference 

(ref: Less than 5 years)

Wife is 5-9 years younger 0.95 1.21 * 1.18 0.98 1.29 ** 1.33 ** 0.86 1.30 ** 1.14 0.95 1.07 1.03 

Wife is 10+ years younger 1.19 1.03 1.29 * 1.12 0.97 1.09 1.06 1.03 1.12 1.34 ** 0.84 1.41 

Husband coresident 0.30 *** 2.93 *** 0.65 *** 0.37 *** 3.15 *** 1.20 0.63 *** 2.99 *** 1.88 *** 0.22 *** 5.79 *** 0.92 

Urban residence 1.18 1.01 1.25 0.88 1.03 0.91 1.01 1.06 1.12 0.82 1.02 0.64 *

Extended family structure 1.05 1.01 1.07 0.89 0.91 0.80 * 0.94 0.93 0.81 * 1.02 1.01 1.08 

Wealth index (ref: Poorest)

Poorer 0.83 1.38 ** 1.16 0.83 1.43 ** 1.30 1.04 1.17 1.37 * 0.94 1.26 1.56 *

Middle 0.90 1.17 1.04 1.08 1.01 1.11 1.16 1.01 1.29 1.03 1.06 1.27 

Richer 1.06 1.04 1.14 1.03 1.29 1.42 1.28 1.13 1.76 ** 1.58 ** 0.76 1.74 *

Richest 0.87 1.28 1.14 1.18 1.40 1.80 * 1.41 1.05 1.84 * 1.40 1.12 3.34 ** 

Community level variables

Percentage of women whose 

husbands have completed high 

school 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 * 1.00 1.00 0.99 ** 0.99 * 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Percentage of women who watch 

TV regularly 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01 

Constant 1.32 * 0.20 *** 3.26 *** 0.58 *** 0.31 *** 2.02 *** 0.87 0.25 *** 2.89 *** 2.36 *** 0.18 *** 7.71 *** 

*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001
87

Appendix Table 2B.23. Odds ratios (estimated using logistic regression) for correlates of the likelihood that a currently married woman 

will participate in making a specific decision: Nicaragua

Variables

Decisions about woman's 

own health care

Decisions about large 

household purchases

Decisions about purchases 

for daily needs 

 Decisions about visits to 

family or friends 

Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly Alone Jointly

Alone or 

jointly

Age group (ref: 40 to 49)

15 to 19 0.79 1.11 0.78 0.50 ** 0.91 0.65 ** n/a n/a n/a 0.82 0.83 0.62 ** 

20 to 29 0.86 1.13 0.91 0.57 *** 0.97 0.74 *** n/a n/a n/a 0.84 1.00 0.81 *

30 to 39 0.90 1.15 * 1.11 0.83 1.09 1.01 n/a n/a n/a 0.89 1.04 0.92 

Children ever born (ref: 1 or 2)

None 0.68 *** 1.13 0.59 *** 1.01 0.81 * 0.78 * n/a n/a n/a 0.84 1.12 0.99 

3 or 4 0.92 1.04 0.89 1.08 0.94 0.97 n/a n/a n/a 0.95 1.12 1.15 

5+ 0.96 1.01 0.88 1.02 0.91 0.88 n/a n/a n/a 1.14 0.88 0.90 

Education (ref: Primary)

None 0.92 0.97 0.84 0.84 0.99 0.94 n/a n/a n/a 0.89 0.94 0.86 *

Secondary or higher 1.16 * 1.08 2.02 *** 1.03 1.59 *** 1.78 *** n/a n/a n/a 0.98 1.26 *** 1.49 *** 

Works for cash 1.62 *** 0.68 *** 1.31 ** 2.38 *** 0.96 1.54 *** n/a n/a n/a 1.71 *** 0.78 *** 1.31 *** 

Regular media exposure 0.99 1.06 1.08 0.92 0.98 0.93 n/a n/a n/a 0.98 1.04 1.02 

Age at marriage 

(ref: Less than 18 years) 

Between 18 and 24 years 0.92 1.10 1.04 0.79 ** 1.08 0.97 n/a n/a n/a 0.89 1.15 * 1.09 

25 or more years 0.84 1.19 1.03 0.73 1.11 0.99 n/a n/a n/a 0.85 1.33 * 1.47 *

Spousal age difference 

(ref: Less than 5 years)

Wife is 5-9 years younger 1.06 0.96 1.03 1.01 0.94 0.93 n/a n/a n/a 1.13 0.91 0.98 

Wife is 10+ years younger 0.95 0.96 0.81 * 0.96 0.85 * 0.82 ** n/a n/a n/a 1.01 0.96 0.95 

Husband coresident 0.42 *** 2.31 *** 0.81 0.19 *** 2.70 *** 0.83 n/a n/a n/a 0.22 *** 3.23 *** 0.68 ** 

Urban residence 1.03 1.05 1.21 1.00 1.01 1.01 n/a n/a n/a 1.08 1.02 1.10 

Extended family structure 1.12 * 0.82 *** 0.82 * 1.48 *** 0.93 1.11 n/a n/a n/a 1.14 * 0.91 0.99 

Wealth index (ref: Poorest)

Poorer 1.05 1.07 1.19 0.86 1.21 * 1.13 n/a n/a n/a 1.14 1.14 1.24 *

Middle 0.88 1.20 1.02 0.86 1.16 1.06 n/a n/a n/a 1.17 1.11 1.19 

Richer 0.84 1.28 * 1.12 0.77 1.42 ** 1.30 * n/a n/a n/a 1.35 * 1.21 1.77 *** 

Richest 1.03 1.13 1.67 * 0.86 1.32 * 1.36 * n/a n/a n/a 1.50 * 1.08 1.87 *** 

Community level variables

Percentage of women whose 

husbands have completed high 

school 1.00 ** 1.00 ** 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 n/a n/a n/a 1.00 * 1.00 1.00 

Percentage of women who watch 

TV regularly 1.00 1.00 1.00 * 1.01 ** 1.00 1.00 n/a n/a n/a 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Constant 1.26 0.41 *** 7.80 *** 0.35 *** 0.51 *** 2.42 *** n/a n/a n/a 0.91 0.51 *** 7.06 *** 

*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

n/a = Not available

89

3 Gender Roles

3.1 Introduction

A fundamental element of empowerment is the rejection of the ascription of seemingly 

immutable and essentially unequal rights and privileges on the basis of a person‘s sex. One such 

normatively ascribed ―right‖ of husbands is to regulate and control their wives‘ behavior and bodies 

through whatever actions necessary, including the use of violence. Acceptance of this normatively 

prescribed power of men over women reflects an acceptance of unequal gender roles, on the one hand, 

and a lack of conscientization about women‘s entitlement to bodily security and integrity, on the other. 

Hence, women who perceive as justified the control of husbands over their wives can be considered to be 

less empowered than women who think otherwise (Correa and Petchesky, 1994; Sen and Batliwala, 2000; 

United Nations, 1995; United Nations, 1996). Although such attitudes do not necessarily signify approval 

of these rights for men, they do signify women‘s acceptance of norms that give men these rights.

Notably, the importance of conscientization regarding gender inequality—that is, the ability to 

recognize gender inequality and to acknowledge that gender relations can and should be altered to achieve 

greater equality—was recognized as a critical step in the Women‘s Equality and Empowerment (WEEF) 

model adopted by UNICEF in 1993 for gender mainstreaming in its country programs. The WEEF is 

based on the analytical framework shown below. Longwe (1991) developed the WEEF, which assumes 

the following successive steps in the process of women‘s empowerment:

Control



Participation



Conscientization



Access



Welfare

The WEEF has been criticized as being too analytical because the different stages are not defined 

empirically (UNICEF, 2000). Furthermore, each stage of the model subsumes the earlier stage; however, 

little evidence is available to show that the different stages, particularly conscientization and control, are 

necessarily sequential in the way that the model assumes. Nonetheless, the model was pioneering in its 

very early explicit recognition of conscientization as a critical element of women‘s empowerment. 

In the DHS, conscientization regarding gender equality is recognized, along with women‘s 

participation in decisionmaking, as evidence of empowerment. Accordingly, to measure conscientization, 

DHS uses two sets of questions:

The first set of questions asks respondents whether they think that a husband is justified in 

beating his wife if she goes out without telling him, if she neglects the children, if she argues 

with him, if she refuses to have sex with him, or if she burns the food. These reasons, which 

range from reasons that involve suspicions about a wife‘s moral character to those that may 

be considered more trivial, such as not cooking properly, were deliberately chosen to provide 

variation in the perceived seriousness of behavioral-norm violations. 

The second set of questions asks if the respondent thinks that a wife is justified in refusing to 

have sex with her husband when she knows that her husband has a sexually transmitted 
90

disease, she knows her husband has sex with other women, she has recently given birth, or 

she is tired or not in the mood. 

Agreement with any of the reasons justifying wife beating and disagreement with any of the 

reasons for a woman‘s refusal to have sex with her husband indicate a low level of women‘s 

empowerment because these attitudes imply an acceptance of men‘s exercise of power over women. 

This chapter first describes and analyzes women‘s acceptance of the right of husbands to beat 

their wives, followed by a description and analysis of women‘s acceptance of the right of women to 

refuse sex to their husbands. In each case, the proportions of currently married women who agree with the 

different statements in different countries are compared, and a bivariate and multivariate examination is 

conducted of the correlates of agreement by reason. Finally, the correlates of two summary indicators of 

attitudes regarding gender roles are discussed: women‘s disagreement with all specified reasons for wife 

beating and agreement with all specified reasons justifying a wife refusing her husband sex.

From an empowerment perspective, what is important is that women not agree with any reason 

justifying wife beating and agree with all specified reasons justifying a woman‘s right to refuse her 

husband sex. If women agree with even one reason for wife beating and disagree with even one of the 

specified reasons for which a wife is justified in refusing her husband sex, or both, they are effectively 

agreeing with norms that sustain gender inequality by putting the control and discipline of wives in the 

hands of their husbands.

3.1A Dependent Variables

Attitudes towards wife beating. Acceptance of wife beating as justified for each of the five reasons—if the 

wife goes out without telling her husband, if the wife neglects the children, if the wife argues with her 

husband, if the wife refuses to have sex with her husband, and if she burns the food—is analyzed using 

six different variables:

The first five dependent variables correspond to the five reasons included in the DHS to 

justify wife beating. For each reason, a response of ―yes‖ (that is, agreement that the reason 

justifies the husband beating his wife) is scored as 1 and any other response is scored as 0. 

Note that each of these variables is negatively associated with empowerment and 

conscientization in favor of gender equality. 

The sixth dependent variable is ―agreement with none of the five reasons to justify wife 

beating.‖ For this variable, a code of 1 is assigned only if the woman has a response of ―no‖ 

to each of the five specified reasons to justify wife beating; otherwise, a code of 0 is 

assigned. This indicator is positively associated with empowerment and conscientization in 

favor of gender equality.

Attitudes towards a wife’s right to refuse sex with her husband. Acceptance of a woman‘s right to refuse 

sex with her husband for four different reasons—when she knows that her husband has a sexually 

transmitted disease, when she knows that her husband has sex with other women, when she has recently 

given birth, and when she is tired or not in the mood—is analyzed using five different variables:

The first four dependent variables correspond to each of the four reasons justifying a 

woman‘s right to refuse her husband sex. For each reason, a response of ―yes‖ (agreement) is 

scored as 1, and any other response is scored as 0. Each of these variables is positively

associated with empowerment and conscientization regarding gender equality.
91

The fifth variable is ―agreement with a woman‘s right to refuse sex with her husband for all 

of the four specified reasons.‖ For this variable, a code of 1 is assigned only if the woman 

has a response of ―yes‖ to each of the four specified reasons for a woman refusing her 

husband sex; otherwise, a code of 0 is assigned. This variable is also positively related to 

empowerment and conscientization regarding gender equality.

Two additional variables are used in discussions of the distribution of women by gender-role 

attitudes across countries: the percentage of women who agree with all specified reasons to justify wife 

beating and the percentage who agree with none of the specified reasons to justify a wife‘s right to refuse 

her husband sex. These two variables are not examined in the analyses of correlates. 

3.1B Independent Variables 

The explanatory variables include most of the different individual, husband, union, and household 

variables described in Chapter 1: age in years, number of children ever born, education level, employment 

for cash, regular media exposure, age at first marriage, spousal age difference, residence in an extended 

family, residence in an urban area, and household wealth. 

These characteristics are all known correlates of women‘s empowerment and gender-role 

attitudes (Hindin, 2003). In particular, age, education, media exposure, and employment for cash are all 

potential sources of empowerment, whereas marital and household characteristics, such age at first 

marriage, spousal age difference, nuclear family and urban residence, and wealth, are aspects of the 

setting for empowerment because they reflect the opportunities available to women (Kishor, 2000). The 

expected relationship of each of these variables with gender-role attitudes and conscientization regarding 

gender equality are explored below.

Age. In most regions of the world, a woman‘s age is positively correlated with her level of empowerment 

when empowerment is measured by indicators such as having a role in household decisions. Because 

marriage and childbearing are highly valued and synonymous with responsibility, women gain more 

respect, rights, and freedoms with age and number of children. Nonetheless, it is unclear whether 

empowerment, as measured by gender-role attitudes, varies positively with age or not. Women who are 

younger are more likely to benefit from and adapt to changes in societal values and attitudes and, thus, 

might be more likely than older women to have less rigid views on women‘s roles. However, women who 

have already passed through the various life-cycle stages might benefit from their experience, particularly 

in matters of sex. Being able to successfully negotiate life at the individual, family, and societal levels is 

likely to positively influence women‘s attitudes towards their own rights and entitlements. Accordingly, it 

is hypothesized here that older women, due to the higher levels of wisdom and experience that age 

potentially accords, are more likely to question unequal gender norms, particularly the norms concerning 

the requirement that women be subservient to their husbands with regard to sex. 

Number of children ever born. As with age, more status and empowerment is accorded to women who 

bear children. However, also as with age, it is difficult to predict whether the number of children a woman 

has will have a positive, negative, or nonlinear effect on gender-role attitudes. This is because, although 

having children can differentiate women in terms of status from married women who have no children, 

women who have 1 or 2 children are also likely to have a different world view from women who have 5 

or more children. Women who have a large number of children might be more likely to support the status 

quo, whereas women who have no children or only a few children might have broken with tradition. 

However, because bearing and rearing children provide women with greater net status, self-esteem, and 

agency, it is expected that women with children will disapprove of wife beating and approve of women‘s 

right to refuse sex with their husband. 
92

Education and media exposure. An important aspect of education, particularly higher education, is that it 

provides access to new ideas and alternative gender norms and behaviors. As a result, education is a 

critical source of empowerment. Thus, the expectation is that women with more education are more likely 

to have a gender-egalitarian view of the world and less likely to believe that wife beating is ever justified. 

They are also more likely to agree that women have a right to refuse sex with their husband.

Employment for cash. Employment has the potential to expose women to nontraditional gender roles. 

Most employment environments base respect, prestige, and seniority on knowledge, experience, and 

skills, and not on the employee‘s sex. In addition, earning cash is likely to empower women in ways that 

favor conscientization and promote gender-egalitarian attitudes. Such empowerment, for example, could 

potentially flow from women‘s increased bargaining power within the household or increased sense of 

personal achievement and knowledge that they, like the men in their lives, can support their families 

financially. Thus, it is hypothesized here that women who work for cash are less likely to agree with 

gender norms that promote wife beating or a husband‘s sexual control of his wife. 

Media exposure. Access to the media (television, newspapers, or radio), like access to education, is likely 

to expose women to more gender-egalitarian roles and ideals. This suggests that women who have regular 

media exposure should be less likely to agree that wife beating is justified for any reason and also less 

likely to agree that a husband has a right to control his wife sexually. 

Age at first marriage. Research conducted in Benin, Colombia, India, and Turkey suggests that women 

who marry at a younger age are more likely than women who marry at an older age to agree that wife 

beating is justified (Jenson and Thornton, 2003). This is not surprising because a woman‘s age at first 

marriage is typically inversely related to access to sources of empowerment, such as education. Young 

ages at first marriage for women typically reflect a low status of women and a predominance of genderinegalitarian norms at the community level. Furthermore, women who marry at a younger age do not have 

time to develop their own identity and opinions. Thus, it is expected that disagreement with wife beating 

and agreement with a wife‘s right to refuse sex with her husband is likely to increase as women‘s age at 

first marriage increases.

Spousal age difference. Since age, with its ascriptions of status, experience, and seniority, is a potential 

resource for empowerment, the age difference between spouses is considered to be a measure of gender 

inequity within the household. Also, large spousal age differences are associated with younger ages at 

first marriage and lower education for women (Tiemoko, 2001). It is thus hypothesized that women who 

are much younger than their husband are more likely to agree that wife beating is justified for the 

specified reasons and disagree that a woman has a right to refuse sex with her husband.

Urban residence. Urban areas typically have a concentration of people from many different backgrounds 

who are engaged largely in nonagricultural work; widespread availability of services, including 

educational and media-related services; and a variety of nontraditional living arrangements and lifestyles. 

The demands of urban living are likely to undermine the notion, as well as the practice, of rigidly defined 

gender roles. It is thus hypothesized that urban living promotes gender-egalitarian views. More 

specifically, urban women are more likely than rural women to disagree that wife beating is ever justified 

and agree that a woman has a right to refuse sex with her husband. 

Living in a nonnuclear/extended family. It is expected that women who live in extended families (families 

that are typically multigenerational) are likely to be less empowered than women who live in a nuclear 

family (families that are typically smaller than extended families). Women living in an extended family 

must consider other adults in the household with regard to decisionmaking or personal autonomy, 

whereas, women in nuclear households only need to negotiate with their partners. Thus, residence in an 

extended family might not be a setting that enhances empowerment. Also important for gender 
93

socialization is the fact that coresidence with members of older generations will probably reinforce more 

traditional gender norms. 

Wealth. The effect of household wealth on gender-role attitudes is difficult to predict. On the one hand, 

household wealth can provide the means for exposure to better education, media, and other sources of 

empowerment, such as networks of educated persons and books. On the other hand, wealthier households 

can afford to more effectively adhere to patriarchal gender norms. Such gender norms typically limit 

women‘s exposure to the outside world, often by encouraging practices such as ―purdah‖ and limiting 

women‘s labor-force participation and exposure to nonfamilial gender roles. In countries that already 

have son preference and where only sons carry forward the family name and inherit property, wealthier 

households have a stronger incentive to perpetuate gender-inegalitarian beliefs. Ultimately, however, it is 

hypothesized that the role of wealth in enabling exposure to gender-egalitarian beliefs and lifestyles 

promotes egalitarian gender-role attitudes at the individual level. Specifically, it is expected that women 

in wealthier households will be less likely to agree that wife beating is justified and more likely to accept 

a woman‘s right to refuse sex with her husband than women in poorer households. 

Community-level indicators. Logistic regression equations control for the socioeconomic development of 

the community using two indicators: the percentage of women in the community whose husbands have at 

least a secondary education and the percentage of women in the community who watch television at least 

once a week. It is expected that the more socioeconomically developed a community is, the more 

egalitarian the views of its women will be. Hence, both community-level indicators are hypothesized to 

have a positive association with disagreement that wife beating is ever justified and agreement that a 

woman has a right to refuse sex with her husband. Note that although both indicators are positively 

correlated with development, one measures socioeconomic advancement using men as the gauge and the 

other uses women as the gauge. It is thus expected that women‘s attitudes will be more strongly affected 

by the second indicator than by the first one. 

In the sections that follow, the distribution across countries of each of the dependent variables and 

relevant correlates are discussed.

3.2A Agreement That Husbands Have a Right to Beat Their Wives across 

Countries

Table 3.1 shows the percentage of all women who said yes to each of the five separate reasons 

justifying a husband beating his wife, as well as the percentages that agree with all of the reasons and with 

none of the reasons. Agreement with none of the reasons is a key empowerment indicator because it 

signifies women‘s rejection of the idea that men have the right to beat their wives for at least these, if not 

all, reasons. 

Table 3.1 shows that in all sub-Saharan African countries except Malawi, as well as in Jordan and 

Morocco, a minority of women (from 10 percent in Mali to 49 percent in Ghana) disagree with all the 

specified reasons justifying wife beating. In contrast, in Armenia, Malawi, and all of the Asian and Latin 

American/Caribbean countries, the majority of currently married women (from 58 percent in Haiti to 83 

percent in Nicaragua) do not agree that any of the specified reasons justifies wife beating. Nonetheless, 

these results attest to a high level of socialization regarding men‘s ―right‖ to control women in most of the 

countries included in this report.

These data are summarized in Figure 3.1, which shows the mean and the ranges across regions in 

the percentages of women who agree with none of the five reasons for wife beating. By region, agreement 

with none of the reasons justifying wife beating is highest in the Latin America/Caribbean region, closely 

followed by the Asia region and lowest in the sub-Saharan Africa region. Notably, less than one out of 

every two women in all countries together reject the notion that a husband is justified in beating his wife.
94

Table 3.1. Percentage of currently married women who agree that a husband is justified in beating 

his wife for the specified reasons

Country

Percentage of women who agree that a husband is justified in 

beating his wife if:

Agree with 

none of the 

reasons

Agree with 

all of the 

reasons

She goes out 

without her 

husband's 

permission

She neglects 

the children

She argues 

with him

She refuses 

sex with him

She burns 

the food

Sub-Saharan Africa

Benin 46.6 54.0 42.0 18.5 30.9 36.1 11.7 

Burkina Faso 55.5 56.9 54.1 39.9 26.8 27.1 15.8 

Cameroon 36.0 46.2 29.1 23.7 20.7 42.8 10.8 

Ghana 36.6 39.9 33.1 23.0 15.8 48.9 9.5 

Kenya 42.3 58.6 49.3 33.0 17.5 28.5 10.1 

Malawi 16.8 21.6 18.8 18.2 16.6 64.0 5.2 

Mali 76.9 72.6 63.3 76.7 34.1 9.6 26.9 

Mozambique 38.7 39.1 34.8 37.4 24.7 44.2 14.6 

Nigeria 59.2 52.7 47.4 43.5 34.3 30.8 26.1 

Rwanda 39.1 58.8 12.2 38.0 22.7 33.6 6.5 

Uganda 57.5 69.2 39.2 26.4 22.6 22.7 9.9 

Zambia 82.1 62.6 55.1 50.7 46.8 12.4 28.1 

Zimbabwe 28.7 31.1 33.7 25.9 12.2 47.9 5.9 

North Africa/West 

Asia/Europe

Armenia 22.1 29.5 15.8 7.6 5.0 65.0 2.2 

Jordan 23.9 36.3 4.0 n/a 59.5 34.7 3.2 

Morocco 55.0 53.4 55.9 48.5 25.7 31.6 21.8 

Asia

Cambodia 26.7 29.3 19.3 9.4 11.3 60.0 2.9 

Indonesia 18.3 19.8 5.2 6.9 2.9 74.9 1.6 

Nepal 12.1 25.1 8.7 3.0 5.0 71.3 1.3 

Philippines 9.9 21.5 5.7 3.6 3.3 74.5 1.0 

Latin America/Caribbean

Bolivia 10.1 17.1 7.2 3.1 5.5 77.1 1.5 

Haiti 31.5 27.9 10.9 16.3 9.9 58.3 3.2 

Nicaragua 8.3 12.4 6.0 4.0 6.3 83.0 2.2 

n/a = Not available

Figure 3.1. Percentage of women who agree with none of the five specified reasons justifying a 

husband beating his wife: Ranges and means by region and for all countries

35

44

70

73

47

0

20

40

60

80

100

Sub-Saharan Africa North Africa/West 

Asia/Europe

Asia Latin 

America/Caribbean

All countries

Percentage
95

The percentages of women who agree with all reasons are also low (less than 5 percent) in all 

Latin American/Caribbean and Asian countries, as well as in Armenia and Jordan. In fact, Jordan is the 

only country where very few women agree with all the reasons justifying wife beating and yet, only a 

minority agree with none of the reasons. The highest levels of agreement with all five reasons are in 

Zambia (28 percent), Mali (27 percent), Nigeria (26 percent), and Morocco (22 percent). In the 

remaining countries, between 5 and 16 percent of women agree with all reasons. Together, these results 

reveal a very high level of socialization to unequal power relations between husbands and wives in most 

sub-Saharan African countries, Morocco, and, to some extent, Jordan.

An examination of the pattern of agreement with reasons justifying wife beating shows a high 

level of consistency across regions, although the extent of agreement varies greatly between regions 

(Figure 3.2). The range in the extent of agreement with each reason is highest in sub-Saharan Africa. for 

most of the reasons. The average level of agreement with each of the reasons is also highest in subSaharan Africa, followed by North Africa/West Asia/Europe. The average level of agreement is very 

similar across the other two regions. 

The reason agreed to most often as justifying wife beating in all regions is if the wife neglects the 

children; 51 percent of women, on average, agreed with this reason in the sub-Saharan Africa region, 40 

percent in the North Africa/West Asia/Europe region, 24 percent in the Asia region, and 19 percent in the 

Latin America/Caribbean region. The second most commonly accepted reason across the different regions 

is when the wife goes out without telling her husband. In all regions except North Africa/West 

Asia/Europe, the third most common reason is when the wife argues with her husband, followed by if she 

refuses sex with him and, finally, if she burns the food. Only in North Africa/West Asia/Europe is 

agreement that burning the food justifies wife beating more common than agreement that arguing with her 

husband or refusing to have sex with him justifies wife beating. This result is largely due to the fact that 

Jordan, one of the three countries whose results are included in the average for this region, has the highest 

proportion of women (60 percent) agreeing that this reason justifies wife beating. The pattern of women‘s 

agreement that different reasons justify wife beating also suggests that women are thinking about gender 

roles and duties when answering these questions. 

An analysis by country shows that in 16 of the 23 countries, the reason that women are most 

likely to agree justifies wife beating is if the wife neglects the children; in another five countries, this is 

the second most common reason with which women agree. In only Mali and Morocco does this reason 

generate less agreement than some of the other reasons. Furthermore, in all countries except Kenya and 

Jordan, the second most common reason generating agreement is if the wife goes out without telling her 

husband. The reason least likely to receive agreement is if the wife burns the food. However, the level of 

agreement even with this least agreed with reason ranges from as high as 60 percent in Jordan, 47 percent 

in Zambia, and 31-34 percent in Benin, Mali, and Nigeria to as low as 3-6 percent in Indonesia, the 

Philippines, Nepal, Armenia, Bolivia, and Nicaragua. Overall, the average level of agreement with all five 

reasons is highest, at 60-65 percent, in Mali and Zambia; followed by 40-48 percent in Morocco, Nigeria, 

Burkina Faso, Uganda, and Kenya; and lowest, at 7-9 percent, in Nicaragua, Bolivia, and the Philippines.

Table 3.1 and Figures 3.1 and 3.2 all attest to the fact that even among different types of genderrole violations, the one that appears to respondents to be most egregious and, hence, most likely to 

deserve beatings is a woman‘s neglect of her children. Even in countries where women are least likely to 

agree with any reason, such as in Armenia, the four Asian countries, and the three Latin 

American/Caribbean countries, levels of agreement with this reason tend to be at least twice as high as 

with most other reasons.
96

Figure 3.2 Percentage of women who agree with each reason justifying a husband beating his wife, by reason according to 

Figure 3.2. Percentage of women who agree with each reason justifying a husband beating his wife, by reason, according to re region: Ranges and means gion:

Ranges and means 

17

24

10 6 6

0

20

40

60

80

100

Goes 

out

Neglects

children

Argues Refuses

sex

Burns

food

Percentage

Asia

47 51

39 35

25

0

20

40

60

80

100

Goes

out

Neglects

children

Argues Refuses

sex

Burns

food

Percentage

Sub-Saharan Africa

17 19

8 8 7

0

20

40

60

80

100

Goes

out

Neglects

children

Argues Refuses

sex

Burns

food

Percentage

Latin America/Caribbean

34 40

25 28 30

0

20

40

60

80

100

Goes

out

Neglects

children

Argues Refuses

sex

Burns

food

Percentage

North Africa/West Asia/Europe
97

3.2B Correlates of Agreement with Justifications for Wife Beating, by Reason

Bivariate and multivariate tools of analysis are used to understand how agreement with wife 

beating for specific reasons varies by women‘s characteristics and those of their husbands and 

communities. In addition to providing a better understanding of the differences in gender attitudes in 

various contexts, analyzing the level of agreement with the five justifications for wife beating makes it 

possible to separate women‘s attitudes towards the female roles of wife, mother, and domestic partner. 

The bivariate distributions and odds ratios from multivariate logistic regressions are given by 

reason and country in Appendix Table 3A.1-23. The bivariate analysis shows whether different categories 

of women have different attitudes towards wife beating. The multivariate analysis shows the relationship 

of women‘s agreement with wife beating and specific characteristics, net of other confounding 

characteristics. The dependent variables analyzed in this section are each of the five reasons justifying 

wife beating. In each case, a woman‘s response is coded as 1 when she agrees that the reason justifies 

wife beating and as 0 otherwise. 

The explanatory factors included are those described earlier: women‘s age in years, number of 

children ever born, education level, employment for cash, regular media exposure, age at first marriage, 

spousal age difference, residence in an urban area, residence in an extended family, and household 

wealth. In addition, all the logistic regression equations include the two community-level variables.

Given that this analysis includes 23 countries and five dependent variables for each country, the 

results of the bivariate and multivariate analyses are provided in summary form for ease of understanding 

in Summary Tables 3A-D. 

Women’s Characteristics

Age. Age can imply maturity of ideas as well as inflexibility. However, the bivariate and multivariate 

results show that women‘s age has a generally negative relationship with agreement with four of the five 

justifications for wife beating. That is, older women are less likely than younger women to agree that wife 

beating is justified when the wife goes out without her husband‘s permission, neglects her children, 

argues with her husband, and burns the food. However, contrary to expectations, agreement with wife 

beating if the wife refuses to have sex with her husband does not decline with age but, rather, tends to 

increase or vary nonlinearly.

The bivariate results show that for four of the five justifications for wife beating, agreement 

varies significantly by age in more than half of the countries (Summary Table 3A). In most of these 

countries, agreement is negatively associated with age. This negative relationship is generally due to the 

fact that women age 15-19 agree more often with the justifications for wife beating than older women. 

Notably, even after the analysis controls for women‘s other demographic, marital, and residential 

characteristics, the number of countries where age is significantly and negatively related to inequitable 

gender beliefs remains the same or increases slightly. However, once women‘s individual and other 

characteristics are controlled for, the generally negative relationship between age and agreement with 

inequitable beliefs is not dominated only by the greater agreement among the youngest women. Instead, 

agreement tends to decrease more uniformly with age in a larger number of countries. Armenia is the only 

country where attitudes towards wife beating are not related at all to a woman‘s age, with or without 

controls.
98

Summary Table 3A. Number of countries where agreement with the specified justification for wife 

beating has an association of the specified type with the respondent's age and number of children 

ever born: Results of bivariate analysis and analysis with controls

Variable

Wife goes

out without

telling husband

Wife 

neglects 

children

Wife argues

with husband

Wife refuses 

sex with 

husband

Wife burns 

food

Age

Bivariate

Generally negative 11 11 8 1 8

Generally negative or nonlinear 4 3 5 9 4

Does not vary significantly by age 8 9 10 12 11

With controls

Generally negative 12 14 8 2 13

Decreases with age 3 4 2 1 0

Decreases with age to age 20-29 years 5 5 2 1 7

Significantly higher only for women age 15-19 

years 4 5 4 0 6

Generally negative or nonlinear 1 0 4 11 2

Does not vary significantly by age 10 9 11 9 8

Children ever born

Bivariate

Generally positive 9 9 7 14 9

Generally negative or nonlinear 5 5 5 2 3

Does not vary significantly by number of children 

ever born 9 9 11 6 11

With controls

Generally positive 6 12 7 4 6

Increases with number of children ever born 5 4 3 2 1

Significantly higher only for women with 5 or 

more children 1 6 4 1 4

Significantly lower only for women with no 

children 0 2 0 1 1

Generally negative or nonlinear 8 3 4 4 4

Does not vary by number of children ever born 9 8 12 14 13

The relationship between age and agreement with wife beating if the wife refuses sex with her 

husband is different from the relationships with agreement that wife beating is justified for the other 

reasons. Age is significantly related to agreement that wife beating is justified when the wife refuses sex 

with her husband in 10 countries in the bivariate analysis, but 13 in the multivariate analysis. In only two 

countries, Nigeria and Indonesia, is the likelihood of agreement higher in the younger groups than the 

older ones. In two countries, Cameroon and Mali, the youngest women (age 15-19) are less likely than the 

oldest women to agree that beating wife beating is justified if she refuses sex. In the remaining countries, 

age has a nonlinear relationship with attitudes towards wife beating for this reason. In particular, in 

Nicaragua, the Philippines, and Zimbabwe, the youngest and oldest women do not have significantly 

different beliefs. However, women in the middle age groups (20-29 and 30-39 years) are more likely to 

agree that refusal of sex is justification for wife beating. Similarly, women age 30-39 in Burkina Faso, 

Haiti, Rwanda, and Zambia and women age 20-29 in Cambodia and Morocco, are less likely than women 

in the oldest group to agree with this justification for wife beating, whereas the younger groups have 

similar beliefs to the oldest group.

In summary, a woman‘s age is significantly related to agreement with one or more justifications 

for wife beating in all countries except Armenia. Furthermore, in almost all of the countries where age has 

a strong relationship with agreement, older women are less likely to believe that wife beating is justified 

for almost all the reasons than younger women. However, the relationship between age and agreement 

that husbands are justified in being violent when their wives refuse to have sex with them varies greatly 

between countries but tends not to be positive. 

Number of children ever born. It was hypothesized that agreement with equitable gender beliefs will 

increase with the number of children a woman has. This hypothesis is not supported by the data.
99

The bivariate results show that agreement that wife beating is justified for each of the five reasons 

varies significantly by number of children ever born in 12-16 countries. In most of these countries, the 

proportion agreeing with each reason tends to be higher among women with more children, particularly 

women who have had 5 or more children. Furthermore, in 12 of the 22 countries for which data on this 

reason are available, the proportion of women agreeing that wife beating is justified when the wife refuses 

sex is significantly higher only among women with 5 or more children.

The effect of including controls for age and other factors on the relationship of agreement with 

wife beating and number of children ever born is not the same across reasons. Agreement that a wife‘s 

going out without her husband‘s permission justifies wife beating increases with number of children in six 

countries but decreases or varies nonlinearly in eight countries. In Armenia, Burkina Faso, Indonesia, and 

Nigeria, women who have more than 1 or 2 children (the reference group is 1-2 children) are more likely 

to believe that wife beating is justified for this reason. 

Among the countries where a nonlinear relationship is found between number of children ever 

born and agreement that wife beating is justified when the wife goes out without permission, women who 

have 3 or 4 children are the only group to be significantly different from the reference group in four 

countries (Nicaragua, the Philippines, Haiti, and Uganda). The relationship is U-shaped in three countries 

(Kenya, Jordan, and Morocco) where women who have no children and women who have more children 

are more likely than women with 1 or 2 children to believe that wife beating for this reason is justified.

Agreement that wife beating is justified if the wife argues with her husband, refuses sex with her 

husband, or burns the food is also positively associated with number of children ever born in 4-7 

countries each. However, the level of agreement does not vary by number of children born in 12-14 

countries. In particular, agreement that wife beating is justified if the wife refuses sex with her husband, 

which increases with number of children in the bivariate analysis in 14 countries, is positive in the 

multivariate analysis in only 4 countries. 

Finally, with the addition of controls, the relationship between number of children ever born and 

women‘s attitudes towards wife beating when the wife neglects her children stands out. This relationship 

is not significant in only eight countries. In 12 of the remaining 15 countries, the relationship is generally 

positive but not linear. Specifically:

In Mozambique and Zambia, agreement is significantly lower only among women with no 

children.

In Benin, Burkina Faso, Mali, Nigeria, Rwanda, and Zimbabwe, agreement is significantly 

higher only among women with 5 or more children. 

In Indonesia and Kenya, women with no children do not have different beliefs from women 

with 1-2 children, but women with 3 or more children are significantly more likely to agree 

that wife beating is justified by child neglect.

Armenia and the Philippines are the only two countries where agreement increases more or 

less uniformly with number of children ever born.

In societies that value motherhood highly, women who have children gain status within the 

family and society, and thus, are likely to be more empowered after going through this stage in the lifecycle. Furthermore, bearing children and envisioning the children‘s futures might influence women to 

want and seek more equitable outcomes for their children. However, this analysis shows that women who 

have more children are more likely to accept inequitable gender roles than women with fewer children. It 

must be noted that the association between number of children and acceptance of unequal gender roles 
100

could be endogenous; that is, women‘s attitudes towards gender roles might influence the number of 

children they bear. 

Education. The expectation that women with more education are more likely to have gender-egalitarian 

views and less likely to believe that wife beating is justified is upheld by both the bivariate and 

multivariate analyses (Appendix Tables 3A.1-3A.23 and Summary Table 3B).

Summary Table 3B. Number of countries where agreement with the specified justification 

for wife beating has an association of the specified type with the respondent's 

education level, employment for cash, and media exposure: Results of bivariate 

analysis and analysis with controls

Variable

Wife goes 

out without

telling husband

Wife neglects 

children

Wife argues 

with husband

Wife refuses 

sex with 

husband

Wife burns

food

Education

Bivariate

Generally negative 21 18 21 21 22

Decreases monotonically 12 12 15 15 14

Less likely only for women with secondary 

or higher education 9 6 6 5 7

More likely only for women with no 

education 0 0 0 1 1

Generally negative or nonlinear 2 4 1 0 1

Does not vary by education level 0 1 1 1 0

With controls

Generally negative 19 16 19 19 20

Decreases monotonically 10 6 11 12 9

Less likely only for women with secondary 

or higher education 9 10 8 7 11

More likely only for women with no 

education 0 0 0 1 0

Generally negative or nonlinear 4 4 2 0 1

Does not vary by education level 0 3 2 3 2

Works for cash

Bivariate

Negative 15 12 12 14 13

Positive 2 1 2 0 1

Does not vary by employment for cash 6 10 9 8 9

With controls

Negative 8 7 7 4 6

Positive 4 6 5 5 3

Does not vary by employment for cash 11 10 11 13 14

Regular media exposure

Bivariate

Negative 19 16 20 21 20

Positive 1 2 0 0 1

Does not vary by media exposure 3 5 3 1 2

With controls

Negative 9 9 13 13 13

Positive 3 4 2 0 2

Does not vary by media exposure 11 10 8 9 8

In most of the 23 countries, the bivariate analysis reveals that lower percentages of educated 

women agree that wife beating is justified for each of the five reasons compared with women with no 

education. This is true in at least 18 countries for each of the five justifications for wife beating. In 

slightly more than half the countries, the percentage of women who agree that wife beating is justified 

decreases almost linearly as the level of education increases. In most of the remaining countries, the 

strong association between education level and agreement with the various justifications for wife beating 

only holds for women with secondary or higher education. 

Controls for confounding factors, including urban residence and household wealth, marginally 

reduce the number of countries where education and inequitable gender attitudes are significantly related. 
101

Nonetheless, the only countries where education is not significantly related to attitudes towards wife 

beating for at least two of the five reasons are Cambodia (for all reasons except if the wife goes out 

without permission), Uganda (for all reasons except when the wife goes out without her husband‘s 

permission or neglects the children), and the Philippines (when the wife neglects the children or refuses to 

have sex with him). Notably, education is significantly related to agreement with the first reason in all 

countries. 

Furthermore, even with controls, in almost all countries and for almost all reasons education 

remains negatively associated with inequitable gender roles. The only exception is Indonesia, where for 

three of the five reasons, the likelihood of a woman agreeing that wife beating is justified actually falls 

with education level. In contrast, in Armenia, Jordan, Morocco, and Rwanda, the multivariate analysis 

reveals a largely negative linear relationship between level of education and agreement with each of the 

five reasons. In most other countries, the association between education and women‘s agreement that wife 

beating is justified is only negative for women with secondary or higher education for one or more 

reasons, as shown in Figure 3.3 below. 

Figure 3.3. Countries where only women with secondary or higher education are less likely to 

agree that wife beating is justified, based on logistic regression results*

Wife goes out without 

telling her husband

Wife neglects the 

children

Wife argues with her 

husband

Wife refuses sex with 

her husband

The wife burns 

the food

Bolivia, Cambodia, 

Ghana, Haití, Mali, 

Nepal, Philippines, 

Uganda, Zimbabwe

Bolivia, Burkina Faso, 

Ghana, Haití, Kenya, 

Mozambique, Nigeria, 

Uganda, Zambia, 

Zimbabwe

Bolivia, Burkina Faso, 

Cameroon, Haiti, Mali, 

Nepal, Zambia

Bolivia, Haiti, Malawi, 

Mali, Nicaragua, Zambia, 

Zimbabwe

Benin, Bolivia, Burkina 

Faso, Ghana, Haiti, 

Indonesia, Kenya, Mali, 

Nepal, Philippines, 

Zambia

* The reference category is women with primary education.

The figure shows that women with secondary or higher education have lower odds of agreeing 

with three of the five reasons in Burkina Faso, Ghana, Nepal, and Zimbabwe; with four of the five 

reasons in Mali and Zambia; and with all of the reasons in Bolivia and Haiti. 

These results suggest that lack of education is an important factor that is associated with women‘s 

acceptance of unequal gender roles. In a significant number of countries, the more education a woman 

has, the less likely she is to agree that wife beating is justified in any situation. However, in certain 

contexts, simply having primary education is not enough to empower women; at least secondary 

education is required. In many countries, the beliefs of women who have only primary education 

regarding a husband‘s right to beat his wife are no different from those of women who have no education. 

Employment for cash. The expectation that employment for cash will be related to greater exposure to 

nontraditional gender roles, financial empowerment, and decreased dependency on the husband as the 

breadwinner underlies the hypothesis that women who work for cash are less likely to accept gender 

norms that justify wife beating. This hypothesis is supported by the bivariate results (Summary Table B 

and Appendix Table 3A.1-23) that show that a much lower percentage of women employed for cash, than 

women not employed for cash, agree with wife beating for any of the five reasons in the majority of 

countries. However, the addition of controls for education and wealth of the household reduces the 

significance of the relationship in some cases, and converts the relationship to a positive one in some 

others. 

Specifically, with the introduction of controls, the relationship between employment and 

agreement with wife beating is not significant in 10-14 countries, depending on the reason. The 

relationship is negative in 6-8 countries for all reasons except if the wife refuses sex with her husband. 

For this latter reason, the odds of women agreeing are significantly lower for women employed for cash 

only in four countries and significantly higher in five. 
102

The association between employment and agreement with wife beating shows great variation 

across countries. In Bolivia, Haiti, Kenya, and Zambia, employment for cash is not related to agreement 

with each of the reasons for wife beating. In Cameroon, Malawi, Mali, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, and the 

Philippines, the relationship is not significant for four of the five reasons. In contrast, women employed 

for cash, compared with women not employed for cash, have a significantly lower likelihood of agreeing 

with each of the reasons in Ghana, Jordan, Rwanda, and Uganda and with four of the five reasons in 

Morocco and Zimbabwe. In Cambodia, Indonesia, and Mozambique, they have a significantly higher 

likelihood of agreeing with at least four of the five reasons. 

Overall, the results suggest that women employed for cash do have more gender-egalitarian 

attitudes in most countries. However, in many countries, it is not their employment status that is directly 

responsible for these attitudes. Instead, controls for education and wealth appear to mediate the 

relationship between employment for cash and agreement that wife beating is justified. 

Regular media exposure. Regular exposure to mass media (exposure at least once a week to television, 

newspapers, or radio), like access to education, is hypothesized to negatively affect the likelihood that 

women will agree with wife beating for any of the specified reasons. This expectation is largely upheld by 

the results of both the bivariate and multivariate analyses. 

The distributions of women who agree with the various justifications for wife beating by their 

regular exposure to one or more forms of media are shown in Summary Table 3B and Appendix Table 

3A.1-23. The results show that, in the vast majority of countries (16-21) and for each of the reasons, the 

percentage of women who agree with wife beating is much lower among women who are regularly 

exposed to media than among those who are not.

In the multivariate analysis, however, the relationship becomes insignificant in 8-11 countries. 

Nonetheless, in almost all of the countries where exposure to media is significantly associated with 

women‘s attitudes towards wife beating, the relationship remains negative. That is, women who have 

regular exposure to at least one of three types of media are less likely to believe that wife beating is 

justified. This pattern is consistent for all five justifications, suggesting that exposure to media has the

effect of broadening women‘s attitudes towards gender roles. In this context, it is notable that the 

influence of media exposure is least likely to be negative on agreement with two justifications, neglecting 

the children and going out without permission.

The results by country show that in Armenia, Cameroon, Ghana, Malawi, Morocco, 

Mozambique, Nigeria, Rwanda, and Zambia, regular media exposure appears to directly influence and 

result in more gender-egalitarian beliefs, as reflected by attitudes towards wife beating. In contrast, in 

Jordan, Nicaragua, and the Philippines, media exposure does not have a significant direct relationship 

with agreement with wife beating. In the remaining countries, the relationship varies by reason but is 

rarely positive, except in Benin and Mali. 

Union Characteristics

Age at first marriage. Age at first marriage for the individual woman is typically related inversely to 

sources of empowerment, such as higher education and paid, formal employment. It is therefore 

hypothesized that the lower a woman‘s age is at first marriage, the more likely she will be to agree that 

wife beating is justified.
103

Summary Table 3C. Number of countries where agreement with the specified justification for wife 

beating has an association of the specified type with the respondent's age at first marriage and 

spousal age difference: Results of bivariate analysis and analysis with controls

Variable

Wife goes

out without 

telling husband

Wife 

neglects 

children

Wife argues 

with husband

Wife refuses 

sex with

husband

Wife burns 

food

Age at first marriage 

Bivariate

Generally negative 16 18 15 12 15

Generally positive 0 0 0 0 0

Varies only for women first married at age 18-24 

years 3 1 4 4 3

Does not vary by age at first marriage 4 4 4 6 5

With controls

Generally negative 9 12 8 9 6

Monotonically negative 6 7 4 8 5

Less likely only for women married after age 25 

years 3 5 4 1 1

Generally positive 2 0 0 1 0

Different only for women first married at age 18-24 

years 2 6 7 4 9

Does not vary by age at marriage 10 5 8 8 8

Spousal age difference 

Bivariate

Generally positive 7 5 5 7 5

Monotonically positive 1 1 2 1 0

More likely only for women who are at least 10 

years younger than their husband 6 4 3 6 5

Different only for women who are 5-9 years 

younger than their husband 5 4 1 2 0

Generally negative 2 2 0 1 1

Does not vary by spousal age difference 9 12 17 12 17

With controls

Generally positive 1 2 3 3 2

Different only for women who are 5-9 years 

younger than their husband 6 1 5 3 3

Generally negative 1 2 0 1 0

Does not vary by spousal age difference 15 18 15 15 18

Appendix Table 3A.1-23 and Summary Table 3C show that in a majority of countries (16-19), the 

proportion of women agreeing with each of the five reasons for wife beating declines as age at first 

marriage increases. In a few countries (1-4), only women who were first married at age 18-24 years are 

less likely to agree that wife beating is justified for most of the reasons; women married after age 24 in 

these countries are no different in their agreement with wife beating than women married before age 18. 

Once controls are introduced into the analysis, agreement with wife beating no longer varies 

significantly by age at first marriage in five countries when the wife neglects the children and in 8-10 

countries for the other reasons. Haiti is the only country where women‘s agreement with wife beating 

does not vary by age at first marriage for all five reasons. 

Notably, however, in countries where the relationship is significant, it continues to be largely 

negative or nonlinear (i.e., the attitudes of women married at age 18-24 years are different). Figure 3.4 

below lists the countries with different types of negative and nonlinear relationships between age at first 

marriage and agreement that wife beating is justified for each of the five reasons.
104

Figure 3.4. Countries where age at first marriage is negatively or nonlinearly associated with 

agreement with justifications for wife beating, based on logistic regression results*

Relationship

Wife goes out 

without telling her 

husband

Wife neglects the 

children

Wife argues with 

her husband

Wife refuses sex 

with her husband

Wife burns

the food

Increasing age at first 

marriage associated

with decreasing 

agreement with wife 

beating

Armenia, 

Cambodia, 

Cameroon, 

Jordan, Kenya, 

Nigeria

Armenia, Burkina 

Faso, Cambodia, 

Cameroon, Mali, 

Nigeria, 

Philippines

Armenia, 

Cameroon, 

Kenya,

Nigeria

Burkina Faso, 

Cameroon, Kenya, 

Mali, Morocco, 

Nigeria, Zambia, 

Zimbabwe

Burkina Faso, 

Cameroon, Jordan, 

Mali, Nigeria

Only women married 

after age 24 years are 

less likely to agree with 

wife beating

Indonesia, 

Morocco,

Philippines

Bolivia, Jordan, 

Kenya, Malawi, 

Morocco

Morocco, 

Uganda, 

Zambia,

Zimbabwe

Philippines Malawi

Only women married 

between ages 18 and 

24 years are less likely 

to agree with 

wife beating

Mali, Nepal Nepal, Rwanda Bolivia, Burkina 

Faso, Cambodia, 

Ghana, Mali, 

Nepal

Armenia, 

Cambodia, 

Ghana, Uganda

Armenia, Bolivia, 

Nepal, Rwanda, 

Uganda, Zimbabwe

Only women married 

between age 18 and 24 

years are more likely to 

agree with wife beating

Benin, Indonesia, 

Mozambique, 

Nicaragua

Nicaragua Indonesia, 

Mozambique, 

Nicaragua

*Reference category is women who were first married before age 18 years.

It is notable that in some countries, only an age at first marriage between 18 and 24 years is 

associated with attitudes indicating empowerment. This is particularly true in Nepal, where women in this 

group are less likely than those married at a younger or older age to agree that a husband is justified in 

beating his wife for four of the five reasons. Nicaragua is unique in that age at first marriage appears to 

bear a positive relationship with agreement that wife beating is justified for two of the five reasons; for 

the remaining three reasons, women first married between ages 18 and 24 years are more likely to agree 

than women married at a younger or older age.

In summary, age at first marriage is associated with women‘s attitudes towards gender roles. In 

general, women who first marry after age 18 years are less likely to agree that wife beating is justified in 

the majority of countries.

Spousal age difference. The bivariate results generally show only mixed support for the hypothesis that 

women who are much younger than their husbands will be more likely to agree that wife beating is 

justified. Furthermore, in the multivariate analysis results for most countries and reasons, the effect of 

spousal age difference is largely explained away.

The bivariate results in Appendix Table 3A.1-23 and Summary Table 3C show that the 

percentage of women agreeing with wife beating varies by spousal age difference in only some countries 

(6-14). Furthermore, where significant variation exists, the relationship is largely nonlinear or positive. 

A significant relationship becomes even less common with the introduction of controls. In 

addition, in most countries where the relationship is significant, women who are 10 or more years 

younger than their husbands tend not to have different attitudes from those of women who are less than 5 

years younger than their husband. 

Only in a few countries is spousal age difference consistently related to women‘s acceptance of 

wife beating. In Benin and Mali, women 10 years or more younger than their husband are more likely 

than other women to agree that at least four of the five reasons justify wife beating, even when the 
105

analysis controls for all other confounding variables. In Morocco, for three of the five reasons, the highest 

age difference is associated with a reduced likelihood of agreement. In contrast, in Kenya, women who 

are 5-9 years younger than their husbands are less likely than others to agree that wife beating is justified. 

Finally, in Nicaragua, women who are 5-9 years younger than their husbands are more likely to agree that 

wife beating is justified for four of the five reasons.

In summary, in a majority of countries, women‘s attitudes towards wife beating do not vary by 

spousal age difference. In the countries where the association is significant, the direction of the 

relationship is not consistent.

Household Characteristics

Urban residence. Living in an urban area is thought to be associated with less traditional, more genderegalitarian views. Results of the bivariate analysis presented in Appendix Table 3A.1-23 and Summary 

Table 3D support this hypothesis. 

In at least 20 of the 23 countries, women in urban areas are less likely to believe that wife beating 

is justified than women in rural areas. However, when controls for women‘s characteristics and those of 

their households are added, the significance of the relationship between place of residence and women‘s 

attitude towards wife beating disappears for many countries. Ultimately, urban residence contributes 

significantly to women‘s attitudes towards wife beating in 9-15 countries, depending on the reason. 

Bolivia, Cameroon, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Rwanda are the only countries where attitudes towards wife 

beating do not vary by place of residence for any of the five reasons. In a few countries, with the addition 

of controls, the relationship becomes positive. 

Overall, however, in the majority of countries where place of residence is significantly associated 

with women‘s attitudes towards wife beating, women who live in urban areas are less likely than women 

who live in rural areas to agree that wife beating is justified if the wife goes out without telling her 

husband (in 9 of 12 countries), neglects the children (10 of 13 countries), and burns the food (12 of 15 

countries). However, urban women are less likely than rural women to agree that wife beating is justified 

when a wife argues with her husband or refuses sex with him in only a few more countries than the 

number of countries where urban women are more likely than rural women to agree.

Only four countries (Jordan, Mali, Morocco, and Mozambique) show a consistent pattern of 

urban women being less likely to hold gender-inegalitarian attitudes compared with their rural 

counterparts. In each of these countries, women who live in urban areas are significantly less likely than 

women who live in rural areas to agree that wife beating is justified for each reason asked about. 

Additionally, in Armenia, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malawi, Philippines, Uganda, and Zimbabwe, this is true 

for at least three of the five reasons for wife beating.

On the other hand, in a few countries, women in urban areas are more likely than women in rural 

areas to agree that a husband is justified in beating his wife. In Ghana, Nigeria, and Zambia, women in 

urban areas are significantly more likely than women in rural areas to agree with at least four out of the 

five justifications for wife beating; whereas, in Nepal and Kenya, the positive relationship holds for two 

of the five reasons. In all, there are six countries where for at least one reason, agreement that wife 

beating is justified is higher among urban than rural women.

In summary, urban residence is more often positively associated with more gender-egalitarian 

attitudes than rural residence, as measured by attitudes towards wife beating. However, in a significant 

number of countries, women‘s attitudes towards wife beating do not vary by their place of residence. 
106

Summary Table 3D. Number of countries where agreement with the specified justification for wife 

beating has an association of the specified type with the respondent's area of residence, 

residence in an extended family, wealth index, and community controls: Results of bivariate 

analysis (except for community controls) and analysis with controls 

Variable

Wife goes 

out without 

telling husband

Wife neglects 

children

Wife argues 

with husband

Wife refuses 

sex with 

husband

Wife burns

food

Urban residence

Bivariate

Negative 21 22 22 20 21

Positive 0 1 0 0 0

Does not vary by area of residence 2 0 1 2 2

With controls

Negative 9 10 7 5 12

Positive 3 3 5 4 3

Does not vary by area of residence 11 10 11 13 8

Residence in extended family

Bivariate

Positive 3 4 3 3 3

Negative 9 8 11 11 8

Does not vary by extended family residence 11 11 9 8 12

With controls

Positive 2 5 5 3 5

Negative 2 4 1 1 2

Does not vary by extended family residence 19 14 17 18 16

Wealth index

Bivariate

Generally negative 18 16 18 16 20

Significantly lower in top three or four quintiles 8 10 14 15 14

Significantly lower only in wealthiest one or two 

quintiles

12 6 4 1 6

Positive or nonlinear 4 6 2 4 2

Does not vary by wealth quintile 1 1 3 2 1

With controls

Generally negative 11 13 15 14 12

Significantly lower in top three or four quintiles 7 7 7 10 6

Significantly lower only in wealthiest one or two 

quintiles

4 6 8 4 6

Generally positive 1 1 0 1 1

Nonlinear 7 6 7 7 8

Does not vary by wealth quintile 4 3 1 1 2

Community controls

Percentage of women whose husbands have at 

least a high school education Negative 8 7 6 9 6

Positive 4 4 6 3 4

Not significant 10 11 10 10 12

Percentage of women who watch television at 

least weekly Negative 7 10 8 12 10

Positive 4 5 2 4 5

Not significant 12 8 13 6 8

The multivariate analysis results show that household structure does not directly influence 

agreement with wife beating in 14-19 countries. In 11 of these countries, the relationship is not significant 

for any of the five reasons. Importantly, however, the addition of controls tends to reverse the bivariate 

relationship; in countries where the relationship is significant, it is more likely to be positive with the 

addition of controls (i.e., the odds of agreeing are higher for women in extended families) than negative. 

Figure 3.5 below lists the countries with a significant relationship between living in an extended family 

and agreement with wife beating by type of relationship and reason justifying wife beating.
107

Figure 3.5. Countries where the relationship between living in an extended family and agreement 

with specific reasons justifying wife beating is significant, by type of relationship and reason for 

wife beating, based on logistic regression results

Relationship with 

living in an 

extended family

Wife goes out 

without telling

her husband

Wife neglects

the children

Wife argues with

her husband

Wife refuses sex 

with her husband

Wife burns 

the food

Positive Burkina Faso, 

Jordan

Bolivia, Burkina 

Faso, Ghana, 

Jordan, Morocco

Burkina Faso, 

Ghana, Jordan, 

Mali, Morocco

Bolivia, Ghana, 

Morocco

Bolivia, Burkina 

Faso, Jordan, Mali, 

Morocco

Negative Haiti, Uganda Armenia, Haiti, 

Indonesia, Rwanda

Haiti Indonesia Mozambique, 

Rwanda

Figure 3.5 shows that in Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Jordan, Mali, and Morocco, when the 

relationship between extended family living and attitudes towards wife beating is significant for any of 

the justifications, it is women who live in extended families who are more likely than women who live in 

nuclear families to agree with wife beating. This is also true for almost all of the reasons in Burkina Faso, 

Jordan, and Morocco. The reverse is true in six countries (Armenia, Haiti, Indonesia, Mozambique, 

Rwanda, and Uganda) where women living in extended families are less likely to agree with wife beating 

for one or more of the reasons asked about. 

In general, in the majority of the 23 countries in this study, women‘s attitudes towards unequal 

gender roles do not vary by whether they live in an extended family or a nuclear family. In the few 

countries where this association is significant, the direction is almost evenly distributed between negative 

and positive when the justifications are that the wife goes out without permission or she neglects the 

children; more countries have a positive relationship than a negative one for the remaining reasons. 

Household wealth. Although it is, a priori, difficult to predict the effect of household wealth on genderrole attitudes, the data reveal that wealth is positively associated with gender-egalitarian beliefs. 

In particular, Appendix Table 3A.1-23 and Summary Table 3C show that in the bivariate 

analysis, the association of wealth and agreement with wife beating is negative in 16-20 countries. In 

several of the remaining countries, the relationship is nonlinear, with agreement with wife beating not 

varying unidirectionally with increased wealth. 

The largely negative association of wealth with women‘s agreement with wife beating remains 

significant even after controls are introduced into the analysis. In fact, despite the controls, there is no 

country where wealth does not have a significant influence on women‘s attitudes towards wife beating for 

at least two of the five reasons. Figure 3.6 below lists the countries by type of relationship between wealth 

and agreement with wife beating according to the different reasons justifying wife beating. 

Figure 3.6 shows that there are only six countries where wealth is not significantly related to 

attitudes towards wife beating; in Cambodia, this is true for a majority of the reasons. Cambodia is also 

unique, along with Mozambique and Rwanda, because in these countries, the likelihood of agreement 

with wife beating increases with wealth for one or more reasons. Furthermore, there are a few countries 

where women in the middle wealth quintiles are more likely to agree with wife beating. This is true for 

most of the reasons in Burkina Faso, Mali, and Zambia. However, with these few exceptions, it is evident 

that for most reasons and in most countries, the richest groups are least likely to agree with wife beating. 

Notably, in several countries, women in the lower middle wealth quintiles appear to hold more traditional 

gender-role attitudes than women in the poorest or richer quintiles. 
108

Figure 3.6. Countries by relationship between wealth and women’s agreement that specific 

reasons justify wife beating based on the logistic regression results*

Relationship with 

wife beating

Wife goes 

out without telling 

her husband

Wife neglects the 

children

Wife argues with 

her husband

Wife

refuses sex 

with her 

husband

Wife burns 

the food

Negative

Women in top three or 

four quintiles are less 

likely to agree that wife 

beating is justified for 

the specified reason

Armenia, Ghana, 

Indonesia, Jordan, 

Morocco, 

Nicaragua, 

Philippines

Armenia, Indonesia, 

Jordan, Morocco, 

Nigeria, Philippines, 

Rwanda, Zimbabwe

Armenia, Bolivia, 

Jordan, Morocco, 

Nicaragua, Nigeria, 

Zimbabwe

Armenia, Benin, 

Bolivia, Burkina 

Faso, Ghana, Haiti, 

Morocco, Nicaragua, 

Rwanda, Zimbabwe

Armenia, Bolivia, 

Ghana, Jordan, 

Morocco, Nigeria

Women in top one or 

two quintiles are less 

likely to agree that wife 

beating is justified for 

the specified reason

Benin, Bolivia, 

Malawi, Uganda

Bolivia, Cambodia, 

Ghana, Kenya, 

Malawi, Nicaragua

Benin, Cameroon, 

Ghana, Indonesia, 

Kenya, Malawi, 

Philippines, Uganda

Indonesia, Malawi, 

Nigeria, Uganda

Burkina Faso, 

Cameroon, 

Indonesia, Malawi, 

Uganda, Zimbabwe

Positive

Women in top three or 

four quintiles are more 

likely to agree that wife 

beating is justified for 

the specified reason

Mozambique Rwanda Rwanda

Women in highest 

quintile are most likely 

to agree that wife 

beating is justified for 

the specified reason

Cambodia

Nonlinear

Women in middle 1-3 

quintiles are more likely 

to agree that wife 

beating is justified for 

the specified reason

Burkina Faso, Mali, 

Zambia

Burkina Faso, 

Cameroon, Mali, 

Mozambique, 

Zambia

Burkina Faso, Mali, 

Mozambique, Nepal, 

Rwanda, Zambia

Kenya, Mali, Nepal, 

Zambia

Mali, Mozambique, 

Nepal

S- or inverted Ushaped relationship 

between wealth and 

agreement that the 

specified reason 

justifies wife beating, 

but women in the 

richest quintile are least 

likely to agree

Cameroon, Haiti, 

Nigeria, Zimbabwe

Haiti Haiti Cameroon, 

Mozambique, 

Philippines

Benin, Haiti, 

Nicaragua, 

Philippines, Zambia

No significant 

relationship between 

wealth and agreement 

that the specified 

reason justifies wife 

beating 

Cambodia, Kenya, 

Nepal, Rwanda

Benin, Nepal, 

Uganda

Cambodia Cambodia Kenya, Rwanda

*Reference category is the first wealth quintile.

Community-level Characteristics

Both variables used to measure community characteristics—the percentage of women in the 

community whose husbands have secondary or higher education and the percentage of women in the 

community who watch television regularly—are expected to positively influence individual women‘s 

empowerment and gender conscientization, and therefore be negatively associated with women‘s 

agreement that wife beating is justified. Both community indicators measure the socioeconomic status of 

the communities in which women live. 
109

The results provided in Appendix Table 3A.1-23 and summarized in Summary Table 3D show 

that in 10-12 countries, living in communities where a higher proportion of husbands have secondary or 

higher education does not significantly affect women‘s attitudes towards wife beating for one or more of 

the reasons. In fact, this relationship is not significant for all five reasons in Nicaragua and Rwanda; for 

four of the reasons in Armenia, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, and the Philippines; and for three of 

the reasons in Nigeria, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. 

In several countries, the relationship is positive, contrary to expectations; that is, women who live 

in communities where men are more educated are more likely to agree that wife beating is justified for the 

specified reasons. This is particularly true in Uganda, where this community characteristic is positively 

associated with agreement with all five reasons for wife beating and in Bolivia and Indonesia, where the 

relationship is positive for four of the five reasons. Furthermore, in Armenia, Kenya, Malawi, 

Mozambique, and Zambia, the relationship is either positive for 1-2 reasons or not significant. 

Nonetheless, in a majority of the countries (6-9) where the relationship is significant, the direction 

of the association is negative. For example, it is negative in Benin and Ghana for all five reasons; in 

Cambodia, Haiti, Morocco, and Nepal for four reasons; and in Burkina Faso for three reasons. Overall, in 

about half the countries (11), the relationship is negative for at least one of the reasons. 

The second indicator of the community‘s socioeconomic status, the percentage of women in the 

community with regular exposure to television, is also not consistently related to women‘s agreement 

with wife beating Specifically, this indicator is unrelated in 12-13 countries to agreement that wife 

beating is justified if the wife goes out without telling her husband and if the wife argues with her 

husband. The indicator is also unrelated to agreement that wife beating is justified if the wife neglects the 

children and if she burns the food in eight countries each. Agreement that wife beating is justified if the 

wife refuses sex with her husband is unrelated to women‘s television exposure in the community in six 

countries. 

Nonetheless, where a significant relationship exists between agreement with wife beating and 

living in a community where a large proportion of women are exposed to television, the relationship tends 

to be negative more often than positive. Benin and Nepal are the only countries where agreement that 

wife beating is justified is higher for all five reasons for women who live in communities with greater 

television exposure for women. In addition, in Burkina Faso, Jordan, and Zimbabwe, the relationship is 

positive or not significant for each of the five reasons. In most of the remaining countries (15 of 23), the 

relationship is negative for one or more reasons. 

In Armenia, Kenya, Indonesia, and Uganda, women‘s higher media exposure in the community is 

associated with a lower likelihood of agreement that each of the five reasons justifies wife beating. In 

Cameroon, Morocco, Mozambique, Nigeria, the Philippines, and Zambia, this is true for at least three of 

the five reasons. Cambodia and Mali are exceptions in that, in these countries, the relationship between 

community-level television exposure and agreement with wife beating is significant and negative for

some reasons but significant and positive for others. 

In summary, agreement with wife beating is either not influenced at all by the socioeconomic 

status of the community or it is often negatively related to this status. However, it is worth noting that the 

relationship can vary greatly by country and reason. In addition, the data suggest that the negative 

association hypothesized between community socioeconomic development and gender conscientization is 

upheld more consistently for the factor that is more directly associated with the empowerment of women 

themselves—the level of women‘s media exposure in the community. 
110

3.3A Women’s Agreement That a Wife Has the Right to Refuse Sex with Her 

Husband across Countries

A woman‘s ability to control her own sexual life is an important aspect of her empowerment and 

bodily integrity. This ability is also essential for a woman‘s health, particularly for her ability to avoid 

sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Accordingly, to gauge women‘s rejection of norms that prevent 

women from being able to freely decide when to have sex, respondents are asked if they think that a wife 

is justified in refusing sex with her husband when: a) she knows her husband has an STD, b) she knows 

her husband has sex with other women, c) she has recently given birth, and d) she is tired or not in the 

mood. 

Agreement with all of the reasons justifying a wife‘s right to refuse sex with her husband is 

positively associated with empowerment because it challenges gender unequitable norms that emphasize 

men‘s control over women‘s sexual lives. However, the different reasons for justifying a woman‘s 

refusing sex with her husband asked about do vary in the extent to which they challenge sexual norms. 

For example, refusing sex after a woman has recently given birth might be far more normatively 

acceptable (because a woman‘s health after birth can be delicate) than refusing sex for any of the other 

reasons; in addition, many cultures recommend against sexual activity soon after a birth. It is expected

that for a person socialized into believing that a husband should never be refused sex, the reason that 

would be most difficult to accept is when the wife is tired or not in the mood because this suggests that it 

is acceptable that the choice about having sex can rest with women. 

Table 3.2 shows the percentages of currently married women who say ―yes‖ to each reason 

justifying a wife‘s refusal of sex with her husband by country and reason. In addition, it shows the 

percentage who agree with all four reasons and with none of the reasons. Note that data are not available 

for Zimbabwe for the justification ―when she knows that the husband has an STD‖ and for Jordan for the 

justification ―when she knows the husband has sex with other women.‖ 

Table 3.2 shows that among the 23 countries in this study, agreement with all four reasons 

justifying a woman refusing sex with her husband ranges from 10 percent in Mali to 90 percent in Nepal. 

Figure 3.7 provides a summary of these data for all countries by region. The mean across all 

countries is 55 percent and more than half of the women agree with all four reasons in 15 of the 23 

countries. Nonetheless, there is great variation in this indicator across countries and particularly across 

regions. As the figure shows, agreement with all four reasons is lowest in the sub-Saharan Africa region 

and highest in the Asia region, closely followed by the Latin America/Caribbean region. Notably, the 

range of agreement is also greatest in the sub-Saharan Africa region. 

Some countries where agreement levels are particularly low are Mali (10 percent), Morocco (28 

percent), and Zimbabwe (36 percent). In contrast, levels of agreement are high in Nepal (90 percent), the 

Philippines (85 percent), and Nicaragua (81 percent).
111

Table 3.2. Percentages of currently married women who agree that a wife is justified in refusing 

to have sex with her husband for the specified reasons, by reason

Country

Percentage of women who agree that a wife is justified in 

refusing sex with her husband when:

Agree with all 

of the reasons

Agree with 

none of 

the 

reasons

She knows that 

her husband 

has a sexually 

transmitted 

disease

She knows 

that her 

husband has 

sex with 

other women

She has 

recently 

given birth

She is tired 

or not in 

the mood

Sub-Saharan Africa

Benin 88.0 56.6 87.3 74.3 47.4 4.5

Burkin/a Faso 79.6 63.5 84.4 62.9 44.9 6.2

Cameroon 87.9 70.6 85.9 76.0 54.2 3.3

Ghan/a 85.8 77.8 84.1 74.4 61.8 7.5

Kenya 88.6 79.0 86.6 60.5 51.2 5.7

Malawi 75.3 70.2 80.0 62.6 51.0 13.8

Mali 45.2 32.2 56.2 29.1 9.7 24.2

Mozambique 80.0 51.9 86.3 62.7 42.8 8.3

Nigeria 86.0 70.6 69.7 52.8 43.4 9.4

Rwanda 89.2 69.0 77.2 58.2 42.5 5.1

Uganda 91.7 75.8 90.6 80.7 65.0 3.2

Zambia 87.5 73.8 92.1 69.3 54.3 3.6

Zimbabwe n/a 61.7 84.6 51.6 36.2 8.4

North Africa/West Asia/

Europe

Armenia 92.8 85.8 86.8 71.2 63.0 4.3

Jordan 94.4 n/a 95.3 68.8 65.8 1.3

Morocco 94.3 90.9 38.4 58.8 27.9 2.5

Asia

Cambodia 68.8 67.8 70.8 68.5 62.1 25.7

Indonesia 85.0 83.6 91.0 69.3 61.5 6.5

Nepal 95.3 93.9 97.4 96.7 90.1 1.1

Philippines 95.5 90.8 95.5 91.4 85.0 2.6

Latin America/Caribbean

Bolivia 86.9 90.7 91.3 79.7 68.2 2.6

Haiti 88.5 76.9 87.4 74.5 64.3 7.6

Nicaragua 93.1 91.1 94.6 86.7 80.6 3.2

n/a = Not available

The proportion of women who agree with none of the reasons is less than 5 percent in 11 

countries and less than 10 percent in all countries except Cambodia, Mali, and Malawi. Cambodia is 

particularly interesting, with 26 percent of women agreeing with none of the four reasons and 62 percent 

agreeing with all four reasons. This implies that only 12 percent of Cambodian women agree with at least 

one but not all reasons. The only other countries with such low percentages of women agreeing with at 

least one but not all reasons are Nepal, Nicaragua, and the Philippines, where the vast majority of women, 

as noted above, agree with all four reasons. 

An examination of the percentages of women agreeing with each of the reasons justifying 

women‘s refusal of sex with their husbands yields both expected and unexpected findings (Table 3.2 and 

Figure 3.7). As expected, the reason justifying women refusing sex with their husbands with which 

women are least likely to agree in 15 of the 23 countries is being tired or not in the mood. Nonetheless, 

levels of agreement even with this reason range from 97 percent in Nepal and 91 percent in the 

Philippines to 52 percent in Zimbabwe and 29 percent in Mali. The average level of agreement with this 

reason across all countries is 69 percent. 
112

Figure 3.7. Percentage of women who agree with all four specified reasons justifying a wife’s 

refusal to have sex with her husband: Ranges and means by region and for all countries

Unexpectedly, there is no one reason with which women are most likely to agree. In fact, there 

are 10 countries where women are most likely to agree that a woman is justified in refusing to have sex 

with her husband when she has recently given birth and another 10 countries where women are most 

likely to agree that a woman is justified when she knows that her husband has an STD. The average 

agreement level for the first of these two reasons is 83 percent, with a range of 38 percent in Morocco to 

97 percent in Nepal. The average percentage of women who agree with the second reason is marginally 

higher, at 85 percent, with a range of 45 percent in Mali to 96 percent in the Philippines. Furthermore, in 

countries where these two reasons do not generate the highest levels of agreement, they tend to generate 

the second highest agreement levels. 

Also unexpected is the fact that there are very few countries where women do not think that the 

wife‘s knowing that her husband has sex with other women justifies a wife refusing sex with her husband. 

In 7 countries, this is the reason least likely to generate agreement and in 12 countries, it generates the 

second lowest agreement level. Specifically, the range of agreement with this reason has a mean across all 

countries of 74 percent and a range of 31 percent in Mali to 94 percent in the Philippines.

Finally, Figure 3.8 shows how agreement with the different reasons varies by region. On average, 

the proportion of women agreeing that knowing that her husband has an STD justifies a wife refusing sex 

with her husband is lowest in the sub-Saharan African region and highest in the North Africa/West 

Asia/Europe region. However, the range of variation in the average level of agreement with this reason 

across regions is only 12 percentage points, lower than for any other reason. Agreement is also lowest, at 

only 66 percent on average, in sub-Saharan Africa that refusing sex is justified when a woman knows that 

her husband has sex with other women; in the other regions, the average level of agreement with this 

reason ranges from 84 to 88 percent. 

47

52

75 71

55

0

20

40

60

80

100

Sub-Saharan Africa North Africa/West 

Asia/Europe

Asia Latin 

America/Caribbean

All countries

Percentage
113

Figure 3.8. Percentage of women who agree with specified reasons justifying a wife’s refusal of sex with her husband, by reason, 

according to region: Ranges and means

82

66

82

63

0

20

40

60

80

100

He has an

STD

He has sex

with other

women

She has just

given birth

She is tired

or not in the

mood

Percentage

Sub-Saharan Africa

94 88

74

66

0

20

40

60

80

100

He has an

STD

He has sex

with other

women

She has just

given birth

She is tired

or not in the

mood

Percentage

North Africa/West Asia/Europe

86 84 89

82

0

20

40

60

80

100

He has an

STD

He has sex

with other

women

She has just

given birth

She is tired

or not in the

mood

Percentage

Asia

90 86 91

80

0

20

40

60

80

100

He has an

STD

He has sex

with other

women

She has just

given birth

She is tired

or not in the

mood

Percentage

Latin America/Caribbean
114

For refusing sex when the woman has recently given birth, however, agreement is lowest in the 

North Africa/West Asia/Europe region at only 74 percent and highest in the Latin America/Caribbean 

region at 91 percent; the level of agreement with this reason in the sub-Saharan Africa region, at an 

average of 82 percent, is similar to the average level in the Asia region, at 89 percent. The range in the 

average agreement level with this reason across regions is 17 percentage points, even though the 

expectation had been that there would be a uniformly high level of agreement with this reason. 

Finally, with regard to agreement that refusal of sex is justified when the woman is tired or not in 

the mood, the regions cluster into two groups: sub-Saharan Africa and North Africa/West Asia/Europe, 

where the average agreement level is 63-66 percent, and Asia and Latin America/Caribbean regions, 

where the average agreement level is 80-82 percent. Notably, the agreement level is, as expected, lower 

for this reason than any other reason in all regions. However, in the Asia and Latin America/Caribbean 

regions, agreement levels with this reason are not much lower than for any other reason. In the subSaharan Africa region, the average agreement level with this reason is about the same as the average 

agreement level with a woman‘s refusal to have sex because her husband has sex with other women, 

suggesting perhaps that these two reasons are perceived similarly in this part of the world.

3.3B Correlates of Women’s Agreement with a Wife’s Right to Refuse Sex with 

Her Husband

This section examines the variations in women‘s agreement with each of the four reasons 

justifying a wife refusing sex with her husband according to women‘s, marital, and household 

characteristics. In addition, to assess the direct effects of each of the explanatory variables, logistic 

regressions are run with controls for the socioeconomic development of the community. The dependent 

variables are those defined earlier, with a response being coded as 1 when the woman agrees that the 

specific reason justifies a wife refusing sex with her husband and as 0 otherwise. 

Detailed results of the analyses for each of the 23 countries are shown in Appendix Tables 3B.1-

23. Bivariate and multivariate relationships are summarized across countries to facilitate comparison in 

Summary Tables 3E-H. 

Women’s Characteristics

Age. In most countries, women‘s agreement with the different reasons justifying a wife‘s refusal of sex 

with her husband does not vary significantly with age. While this is true for each reason, it is particularly 

true for the reasons she has recently given birth and is tired or not in the mood. There is insignificant 

variation in agreement levels between age groups for these two reasons in 17 and 18 countries, 

respectively. Also, when the question refers to a wife‘s right to refuse her husband sex when she knows 

her husband has sex with other women, women in the age group 20-29 or 30-39 years are more likely to 

agree than women aged 40 and over in all eight countries where the relationship is significant.
115

Summary Table 3E. Number of countries where agreement with the specified justification for a 

wife's refusal to have sex with her husband has an association of the specified type with the 

respondent's age and number of children ever born: Results of bivariate analysis 

and analysis with controls

Variable

Husband has a 

sexually 

transmitted 

disease

Husband has sex 

with other women

Wife has recently 

given birth

Wife is tired or 

not in the mood

Age

Bivariate

Generally negative or nonlinear 5 8 3 4

Generally positive 3 0 3 1

Does not vary significantly by age 14 14 17 18

With controls

Generally negative 1 5 2 0

Nonlinear 3 7 8 6

Generally positive 6 0 1 2

Does not vary significantly by age 12 10 12 15

Children ever born

Bivariate

Generally positive 2 2 8 4

Generally negative 6 6 2 5

Nonlinear 2 3 2 2

Does not vary by number of children ever 

born 12 11 11 12

With controls

Generally positive 4 10 15 6

Increases with number of children ever born 0 2 2 2

Significantly higher only for women with 5 or 

more children 1 1 2 1

Significantly lower only for women with no 

children 3 7 11 3

Generally negative 2 1 0 2

Nonlinear 0 2 0 6

Does not vary by number of children ever 

born 16 9 8 9

The importance of age in women‘s agreement that a wife is justified in refusing sex with her 

husband under different circumstances becomes more evident in some countries when the analysis 

controls for other individual and background characteristics. The summary results of the logistic 

regression in Summary Table 3E show that the variation in agreement with age is significant in about half 

the countries for all reasons except when the wife is tired or not in the mood. Furthermore, the significant 

relationships vary greatly in the direction of association by reason. The relationship of age with agreement 

that refusal of sex is justified when the woman knows that her husband has an STD is positive in 6 of the 

10 countries where the relationship is significant. However, the relationship is negative or nonlinear in 12 

countries for the reason ―when the woman knows that her husband has sex with other women‖ and mostly 

nonlinear, when significant, for the remaining two reasons. 

In particular, women in the youngest age groups in Bolivia, Mali, Nicaragua, and Zambia are less 

likely to agree that a wife has the right to refuse sex with her husband when she knows that he has an STD 

compared with women age 40-49; in Cameroon and Jordan, women age 15-29 years are less likely than 

their oldest counterparts to agree. The opposite relationship is dominant when women are asked about a 

wife‘s right to refuse sex when she knows that her husband has sex with other women. In Indonesia, the 

likelihood of agreeing that this reason justifies refusal of sex decreases with each age group; in Nepal and 

Uganda, the youngest age group is the most likely to agree that this reason justifies refusal of sex; and in 

Mali and Burkina Faso, women age 15-29 years are more likely to agree that this reason justifies refusal 

of sex than women in the oldest group. 
116

In general, the results of the logistic regression of women‘s attitudes towards a wife‘s right to 

refuse sex with her husband indicate that, typically, age does not directly influence women‘s opinions in 

this matter and that, when it does, the women least likely to agree that most reasons justify a woman‘s 

refusal of sex with her husband are often the youngest and oldest women. 

Number of children ever born. In many countries, bearing children is associated with increased status for 

women within the marriage, which suggests that having children might increase women‘s support for the 

right of women to decide when to have sex with their husbands. 

However, the bivariate analysis results (Appendix Tables 3B.1-23 and Summary Table 3E) show 

that, although women‘s agreement levels do vary significantly with the number of children women have 

in about half the countries, the relationship is not always positive. In fact, for three of the four reasons 

(knowing that the husband has an STD, knowing that he has sex with other women, and being tired or not 

in the mood), the percentage of women agreeing generally decreases with the number of children in the 

majority of countries where agreement varies by parity. The percentage of women agreeing that women 

who have recently given birth are justified in refusing sex with their husbands is significantly higher only 

among women with higher parity. 

The multivariate analysis shows that in some countries, there is no association between parity and 

a woman‘s opinion about whether a wife has the right to refuse sex with her husband. Notably, of the 23 

countries in the study, there are nine (Cameroon, Ghana, Haiti, Jordan, Mali, Nepal, Nigeria, Rwanda, and 

Zambia) where women‘s responses do not vary by the number of children they have for three of the four 

reasons; in Cambodia, the relationship is not significant for any reason. 

Furthermore, the introduction of controls reduces the number of countries where women‘s 

agreement that a woman has a right to refuse sex when the husband has an STD varies significantly with 

number of children. In the six countries where this relationship is significant, in three (Malawi, 

Mozambique, and Uganda) women who have no children are less likely to agree than women with 

children, in one (Burkina Faso) only women with 5 or more children are more likely to agree, and in two 

(Indonesia and Morocco), only women with 5 or more children are less likely to agree than other women. 

However, for the remaining reasons, the association between parity and women‘s agreement becomes 

significant in a few more countries when controls are introduced into the analysis. 

Specifically, the multivariate analysis shows that the relationship between parity and agreeing 

that a wife‘s refusal to have sex with her husband is justified when she knows that her husband has sex 

with other women and when she has recently given birth is primarily positive in the majority of countries 

(10 and 15, respectively). In most of these countries, women with no children are less likely to agree than 

women with children. This is particularly true in Armenia, Benin, Kenya, Indonesia, and Malawi, where 

agreement follows this pattern for both reasons. 

The association between number of children and women‘s agreement with a wife‘s right to refuse 

sex when she is tired or not in the mood stands out because of the almost equal numbers of countries 

where the direction of association is positive and in which the direction is negative or nonlinear. The 

countries where the relationship tends to be positive are Armenia, Malawi, and Mozambique (where 

women with no children are significantly less likely to agree); Bolivia and the Philippines (where women 

with 3-4 or more children are most likely to agree); and Burkina Faso (where only women with 5 or more 

children are most likely to agree). In contrast, in Ghana and Nigeria, the relationship is generally negative. 

In Benin, Indonesia, Kenya, Morocco, Nicaragua, and Zimbabwe, the relationship is nonlinear.

In sum, the multivariate results support the hypothesis that women who have children are more 

likely to agree that a wife has a right to refuse sex with her husband. However, there are only three 

countries (Burkina Faso, Malawi, and Mozambique) where this is true for all four reasons. Notably, too, 
117

in a significant number of countries, this positive association is dominated by the difference between 

women who have no children and the reference category (women who have 1-2 children) and does not 

increase linearly with the number of children. 

Education. In general, the bivariate and multivariate results support the hypothesis that education level is 

positively associated with women‘s attitudes towards a wife‘s right to refuse sex with her husband. In 12-

17 countries, the percentage of women who agree that women have this right either increases 

monotonically with education level, is lower only for women with no education, or is highest among 

women with secondary or higher education for three of the four reasons. The only reason for which the 

percentage of women agreeing varies significantly by education level in only about half the countries is 

when the woman has recently given birth. However, even for this reason the relationship is generally 

positive when it is significant. 

Summary Table 3F. Number of countries where agreement with the specified justification for a 

wife's refusal to have sex with her husband has an association of the specified type with the 

respondent's education level, employment for cash, and media exposure: Results of bivariate 

analysis and analysis with controls

Variable

Husband has a 

sexually 

transmitted 

disease

Husband has sex 

with other women

Wife has recently 

given birth

Wife is tired or 

not in the mood

Education 

Bivariate

Generally positive 17 15 11 16

Generally negative 0 1 1 0

Does not vary by education level 5 6 11 7

With controls

Generally positive 17 17 14 16

Increases monotonically 10 6 5 3

More likely only for women with secondary or

higher education 2 2 2 4

Less likely only for women with no education 5 9 7 9

Generally negative or nonlinear 0 1 2 2

Does not vary by education level 5 4 7 5

Works for cash

Bivariate

Positive 12 14 14 15

Negative 0 1 2 3

Does not vary by employment for cash 10 7 7 5

With controls

Positive 8 11 10 12

Negative 2 2 2 1

Does not vary by employment for cash 12 9 11 10

Regular media exposure

Bivariate

Positive 19 17 13 14

Negative 0 0 0 0

Does not vary by media exposure 3 5 10 9

With controls

Positive 14 10 12 11

Negative 0 0 1 1

Does not vary by media exposure 8 12 10 11

When controls are added, the number of countries where there is a significant relationship 

remains the same for three of the four reasons and increases for the reason if the woman has recently 

given birth. The only country where education level is not associated with women‘s attitudes towards a 

wife‘s refusal of sex for all reasons is Cambodia; Benin and Nepal are the only countries where education 

level has a significant relationship with agreement that wife has a right to refuse sex with her husband 

only for one of the reasons. Furthermore, education level is negatively associated with women‘s 

agreement that a woman has a right to refuse sex with her husband when she knows that her husband has 
118

sex with other women in the Philippines and is negatively related to agreement when the woman has 

recently given birth in both Benin and the Philippines. 

Figure 3.9 lists countries by the type of positive relationship between education level and 

agreement that a wife has a right to refuse sex with her husband by reason. Only countries where the 

relationship is positive are included.

Figure 3.9. Countries where a positive relationship exists between education level and agreement 

that a wife has the right to refuse sex with her husband, by reason, based on logistic 

regression results*

Relationship

Wife knows that

her husband 

has an STD

Wife knows that her 

husband has sex with 

other women

Wife has recently

given birth

Wife is tired or not 

in the mood

Increases linearly Armenia, Bolivia,

Burkina Faso, 

Cameroon, 

Indonesia, Jordan, 

Malawi, Mozambique, 

Nicaragua, Zambia

Armenia, Burkina Faso, 

Cameroon, Malawi, 

Mozambique, Zimbabwe

Armenia, Bolivia, 

Indonesia, Jordan, 

Nicaragua

Bolivia, Burkina Faso, 

Nicaragua

Only women with 

secondary or higher 

education are more likely 

to agree 

Nigeria, Ghana Bolivia, Indonesia Burkina Faso, 

Mozambique

Mali, Indonesia, 

Mozambique, Zimbabwe

Only women with no 

education are less likely 

to agree

Haiti, Kenya, Mali, 

Morocco, Nepal

Ghana, Haiti, Kenya, Mali, 

Morocco, Nicaragua, 

Rwanda, Uganda, Zambia

Cameroon, Haiti,

Kenya, Mali, Malawi, 

Nigeria, Uganda

Cameroon, Ghana, 

Jordan, Kenya, Malawi, 

Morocco, Nigeria, 

Uganda, Zambia

*Reference category is women with only primary-level education

Overall, education level increases the likelihood that women will support more gender-egalitarian 

sex roles. Countries differ greatly, however, in whether what matters is level of education or whether 

women have or have not received any education at all. 

Employment for cash. As expected, a higher percentage of women employed for cash agree that a wife 

has a right to refuse sex with her husband for each of the four reasons than women not employed for cash 

in the majority (12-15) of countries. However, in 10 countries, the percentage agreeing does not vary 

significantly with employment for cash when the wife knows that her husband has an STD and in 5-7 

countries it does not vary significantly for the remaining three reasons. 

These results are largely mirrored by the multivariate analysis results. The multivariate results 

show only a small reduction in the number of countries where the relationship between employment and 

attitudes towards refusal of sex for each reason is significant. Of particular note are the following results:

Armenia, Bolivia, Jordan, and the Philippines are the only countries where agreement that a 

wife has a right to refuse sex with her husband does not vary by women‘s employment status 

for all four reasons. 

Ghana, Indonesia, Morocco, Nepal, Nicaragua, and Zimbabwe are the only countries where 

the relationship is significant for only one reason. Notably, in Nepal and Zimbabwe, the 

relationship is negative when it is significant. 
119

In Cambodia and the three sub-Saharan African countries (Malawi, Nigeria, and Zambia), 

women‘s employment is positively associated with their agreement that a wife has a right to 

refuse sex with her husband for all four reasons. 

In Mali, although the relationship is significant for all four reasons, women employed for 

cash are more likely to agree that a wife has a right to refuse sex with her husband for only 

two of the four reasons, namely, when the wife knows that her husband has sex with other 

women and when she is tired or not in the mood. 

In Benin, Haiti, Mozambique, Rwanda, and Uganda, the association is positive and 

significant for three of the four reasons.

In Burkina Faso, the association is negative and significant for three of the four reasons. 

In summary, employment for cash is an important correlate of women‘s attitudes towards a 

woman‘s right to refuse sex with her husband in a large number of countries. Women employed for cash 

are more likely to agree that a woman has a right to refuse sex for each of the four reasons.

Media exposure. The expectation that women who have regular exposure to media will have 

nontraditional gender-role attitudes is largely upheld by both the bivariate and multivariate analyses. 

The percentages of women agreeing that a wife has the right to refuse sex for each of the four 

reasons are significantly higher among women who are regularly exposed to the media than women 

without such exposure. This is true in 19 countries when the wife knows that her husband has an STD, 17 

countries when the wife knows that her husband has sex with other women, but only 13 countries when 

the wife has recently given birth and 14 when the wife is tired or not in the mood. There are no countries 

where women not regularly exposed to the media are more likely to agree with each of the reasons.

The introduction of controls tends to reduce some of the positive effects of media on attitudes, 

however. After controls are introduced, the positive association between media exposure and support for a 

woman‘s right to refuse sex is restricted to only 14 countries when the woman knows that her husband 

has an STD and 10-12 countries for the other reasons.

In Bolivia, Cambodia, Cameroon, and Morocco, regular media exposure is positively associated 

with agreement that a woman has a right to refuse sex for each of the four reasons. In Armenia, Burkina 

Faso, Kenya, Mali, Mozambique, Nicaragua, and Rwanda, media exposure is positively associated with 

agreement that a woman has a right to refuse sex for at least three of the four reasons. In Benin, 

Indonesia, Jordan, Nepal, Nigeria, and Uganda, the association is positive for one or two reasons. In 

Ghana, the Philippines, Zambia, and Zimbabwe, media exposure is unrelated to women‘s attitudes 

towards refusal of sex by wives for all reasons. Haiti and Malawi are the only countries where the 

relationship is negative for one reason (when the wife is tired or not in mood in Haiti and after a recent 

birth in Malawi); for all other reasons, there is no significant relationship in these countries. 

In summary, by and large, women who are exposed regularly to the media tend to have more 

liberal gender-role attitudes than those who are not regularly exposed. 

Union Characteristics

Age at first marriage. A higher age at first marriage is hypothesized to be positively associated with an 

egalitarian outlook on gender roles. Appendix Table 3B.1-23 and Summary Table 3G show only mixed 

support for this hypothesis, however. The percentage of women agreeing that each of the reasons justifies 

a wife refusing sex with her husband generally increases with age at first marriage in only 5-8 countries, 
120

depending on the reason. Notably, for the reason the wife has recently given birth, the relationship is 

negative or nonlinear in nine countries. 

The inclusion of controls weakens the association between attitudes towards refusal of sex and 

age at first marriage. With controls, age at marriage is no longer relevant to women‘s agreement that a 

wife has a right to refuse sex when she is tired or not in the mood in 16 countries and for the remaining 

three reasons in 11-13 countries. Age at first marriage is unrelated to women‘s agreement that refusal of 

sex is justified for all four reasons in Kenya, Jordan, Morocco, Rwanda, and Uganda, and for three of the 

four reasons in Ghana, Indonesia, Nicaragua, the Philippines, and Zambia. Furthermore, the direction of 

the relationship is no longer predominantly positive, as suggested by the bivariate analysis; in fact, it is 

negative or nonlinear in 6-8 countries and positive in only 1-4 countries.

Summary Table 3G. Number of countries where agreement with the specified justification for a 

wife's refusal to have sex with her husband has an association of the specified type with the 

respondent's age at first marriage and spousal age difference: Results of bivariate analysis and 

analysis with controls

Variable

Husband has a 

sexually 

transmitted 

disease

Husband has sex 

with other women

Wife has recently 

given birth

Wife is tired or 

not in the mood

Age at first marriage 

Bivariate

Generally positive 8 6 5 5

Generally negative or nonlinear 4 4 9 4

Does not vary by age at first marriage 10 12 9 14

With controls

Generally positive 4 4 3 1

Monotonically positive 2 3 3 0

More likely only for women married after 

age 25 years 2 1 0 1

Generally negative or nonlinear 7 5 8 6

Does not vary by age at first marriage 11 13 12 16

Spousal age difference 

Bivariate

Generally negative 7 5 3 5

Generally positive or nonlinear 1 0 3 1

Does not vary by spousal age difference 14 17 17 17

With controls

Generally negative 5 7 4 6

Monotonically negative 3 1 1 0

Less likely only for women who are at least 

10 years younger than their husband 2 6 3 6

Generally positive or nonlinear 3 0 5 6

Does not vary by spousal age difference 14 15 14 11

Overall, there are only three countries (Mali, Nepal, and Nigeria) where age at first marriage is 

significantly associated with women‘s agreement that a woman has a right to refuse sex for each of the 

four reasons; however, in none of these countries is the nature of the significant relationship identical for 

all reasons. In Mali, the relationship is linear and negative for two of the reasons and for two, only women 

who were married between the ages of 18 and 24 years are more likely to agree. In Nepal, the relationship 

is linear but positive for two reasons and nonlinear for the other two. In Nigeria, the relationship is 

negative for two reasons and nonlinear for the other two. 

Benin and Malawi are the only countries where the relationship is significant for three of the four 

reasons. In Benin, the significant relationships are nonlinear, with women married between the ages of 18 

and 24 years being most likely to agree that a wife‘s refusal of sex is justified for all reasons other than 

knowing that her husband has an STD. In Malawi, the significant relationships are also nonlinear, except 
121

that women married between ages 18 and 24 years are less likely to agree than other women. In the 

remaining countries, the relationship is significant for only two or fewer of the reasons.

These results show that although age at first marriage does affect women‘s gender-role attitudes 

in several countries, marriage at ages older than 24 years is not necessarily associated with an increased 

likelihood of holding gender-egalitarian beliefs. In many countries, it is women married between ages 18 

and 24 years who are most likely to agree with statements about the right of women to refuse sex with 

their husbands if they do not want sex. 

Spousal age gap. A large spousal age difference is likely to put the younger partner at a disadvantage with 

respect to control, rights, and resources. Hence, women with husbands much older than themselves are 

hypothesized to be less likely to agree that women are justified in refusing sex with their husband. 

However, the bivariate results show that in the majority of countries (14 when the wife knows that her 

husband has an STD and 17 each for the other reasons), the proportion of women agreeing that women 

have a right to refuse sex with their husbands does not vary significantly by spousal age difference. 

However, when the relationship is significant, it tends to be negative (Appendix Tables 3B.1-23 and 

Summary Table 3G).

The inclusion of controls in the multivariate analysis increases the number of countries where the 

spousal age gap is significantly associated with women‘s attitudes towards a wife‘s refusal of sex. This is 

especially true for the reason when the wife is tired or not in the mood; with controls, spousal age 

difference has a significant association with agreement with a woman‘s right to refuse sex for this reason 

in half the countries, more than for any other reason. Benin and Haiti are the only two countries where the 

relationship is significant for all four reasons. Armenia, Cameroon, Jordan, Nicaragua, the Philippines, 

and Rwanda are the only countries where no significant relationship exists between spousal age difference 

and agreement that a wife has a right to refuse sex for any of the four reasons. 

Figure 3.10 lists countries according to type of relationship between agreement that a wife has a 

right to refuse sex with her husband and spousal age difference by reason. Only countries where the 

relationship is significant are listed. 

Figure 3.10. Countries where a significant relationship exists between spousal age difference and 

agreement that a wife has a right to refuse sex with her husband, by reason, based on logistic 

regression results*

Relationship

Wife knows that her 

husband has an STD

Wife knows that her 

husband has sex with 

other women

Wife has recently 

given birth

Wife is tired or not in 

the mood

Negative

Agreement tends to decrease 

linearly 

Burkina Faso, Haiti, 

Mali

Mozambique Mali

Only women at least 10 years 

younger than their husbands are 

less likely to agree 

Benin, Cambodia Benin, Burkina Faso, 

Cambodia, Haiti, Kenya, 

Uganda

Benin, Kenya, 

Zimbabwe

Burkina Faso, 

Cambodia, Haiti, 

Mozambique, Nigeria, 

Zambia

Nonlinear

Only women 5-9 years younger 

than their husbands are less likely 

to agree

Uganda Haiti

Only women 5-9 years younger are 

significantly more likely to agree 

Nepal Benin, Ghana, 

Indonesia

Positive

Agreement tends to increase 

linearly with spousal age difference

Bolivia Malawi, Mozambique Malawi, Nepal

Agreement is higher among 

women at least 10 years younger 

than their husbands

Bolivia, Morocco Morocco

*Reference category is wife is less than 4 years younger than her husband
122

The figure shows great variation by reason between and within countries in the relationship 

between spousal age difference and agreement that a wife has a right to refuse sex with her husband. 

Household Characteristics

Urban residence. Urban living is expected to encourage nontraditional beliefs and attitudes, including 

attitudes regarding gender roles. In keeping with this expectation, in about half or more of the countries, 

higher percentages of women in urban areas than rural areas agree that a woman has a right to refuse sex 

for each of the four reasons (Appendix Table 3B.1-23 and Summary Table 3H). However, once controls 

are added to the analysis, area of residence has a less significant impact on the likelihood that a woman 

will agree with each of the specified reasons in 12-14 of the 23 countries. Notably, in countries where 

urban residence is significantly correlated with agreement, the relationship is not necessarily positive. 

Summary Table 3H. Number of countries where agreement with the specified justification for a 

wife's refusal to have sex with her husband has an association of the specified type with the 

respondent's area of residence, residence in an extended family, wealth index, and community 

controls: Results of bivariate analysis (except for community controls) and analysis 

with controls

Variable

Husband has a 

sexually 

transmitted 

disease

Husband has sex 

with other women

Wife has recently 

given birth

Wife is tired or 

not in the mood

Urban residence

Bivariate

Positive 16 12 10 11

Negative 2 3 4 5

Does not vary by area of residence 4 7 9 7

With controls

Positive 5 5 4 4

Negative 5 3 5 5

Does not vary by area of residence 12 14 14 14

Residence in extended family

Bivariate

Positive 9 6 5 8

Negative 0 2 3 3

Does not vary by extended family residence 13 14 15 12

With controls

Positive 4 3 2 3

Negative 1 4 3 3

Does not vary by extended family residence 17 15 18 17

Wealth index

Bivariate

Generally positive 15 13 9 12

Nonlinear or negative 2 3 6 5

Does not vary by wealth quintile 5 6 8 7

With controls

Generally positive 9 5 4 3

Significantly higher in top three or four 

quintiles 3 4 1 1

Significantly higher only in wealthiest one or 

two quintiles 6 1 3 2

Generally negative 2 4 3 5

Nonlinear 6 3 9 10

Does not vary by wealth quintile 5 10 7 5

Community controls

Percentage of women whose husbands have 

at least a high school education

Positive 4 4 5 5

Negative 2 3 3 3

Not significant 15 15 14 14

Percentage of women who watch television at 

least weekly

Positive 9 6 9 6

Negative 5 3 8 5

Not significant 8 13 6 12
123

Specifically, agreement that a woman has a right to refuse sex does not vary significantly by area 

of residence for any of the reasons in Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Jordan, Mozambique, Nigeria, 

the Philippines, or Zimbabwe and for three of the reasons in Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, and 

Nepal. Furthermore, in Armenia, Benin, Haiti, Malawi, Nepal, Rwanda, and Zambia, the relationship with 

urban living, when significant, is negative; in Uganda, the relationship negative for each of the four 

reasons. In other words, in these countries, the net effect of urban living is a reduced likelihood that 

women will agree that a wife has a right to refuse sex with her husband. In fact, the multivariate analysis 

shows that the only countries where urban living is consistently and positively associated with women‘s 

agreement that a woman has a right to refuse sex for each of the four reasons are Mali, Morocco, and 

Nicaragua and for some of the reasons in Cameroon, Ghana, Indonesia, and Kenya. Thus, in only 7 of the 

23 countries does urban living have a net positive effect on women‘s acceptance of a wife‘s right to refuse 

sex with her husband for one or more reasons. 

This analysis suggests that although urban women in most countries are more likely than rural 

women to agree that a wife should have the right to refuse sex with her husband for the specified reasons, 

this effect is largely explained away when controls are included in the analysis. In seven countries, the net 

effect of urban living appears to be a reduction in the likelihood that women will agree that a woman has 

a right to refuse sex with her husband. 

Residence in an extended family. Residence in an extended family is expected to be more compatible with 

accepting patriarchal and traditional gender roles than residence in a nuclear family. However, the 

bivariate results in Appendix Table 3B.1-23, summarized in Summary Table 3H, do not support this 

expectation. In the majority of countries (12-15), in fact, agreement that the different reasons justify a 

woman in refusing sex with her husband does not vary significantly by type of household structure. When 

the variation is significant, a higher proportion of women in an extended family tends to agree that a 

woman has a right to refuse sex with her husband than those living in a nuclear family. 

Residence in an extended family also appears to have no significant net effect in most countries 

(15-18). Furthermore, in Ghana, Haiti, Indonesia, Kenya, Nigeria, and Zimbabwe, for the reasons for 

which the relationship of agreement with family structure is significant at all, women in extended families 

are more likely to agree that a wife has a right to refuse sex with her husband than women in nuclear 

families. Only in Armenia, Bolivia, Cameroon, Jordan, Mali, and Mozambique are women in extended 

families less likely to agree that a woman has a right to refuse sex with her husband for even one reason. 

Thus, overall, it can be concluded that extended family living does not significantly influence 

women‘s attitudes towards a wife‘s sexual rights in most countries. In countries where living in an 

extended family does have a significant effect on women‘s attitudes towards a wife‘s right to refuse sex 

with her husband, the relationship is not always as predicted. 

Wealth. Household wealth is, on balance, hypothesized as being positively associated with the likelihood 

of having gender-egalitarian beliefs. Indeed, Appendix Table 3B.1-23 and Summary Table 3H show that 

in the majority of countries, women in the top wealth quintiles are more likely than women in the lower 

quintiles to agree that women should have the right to refuse sex with their husband for most of the 

specified reasons. In only 5-8 countries does agreement not vary by wealth quintile.

Household wealth status remains an important variable influencing attitudes regarding women‘s 

refusal of sex with their husband even when controls are introduced into the analysis. The relationship is 

significant in all but 5-10 countries. Furthermore, there is no country where the relationship is not 

significant for all four reasons. However, with the introduction of controls, the complexity of the 

relationship increases by reason across countries.
124

Figure 3.11 lists countries by relationship between wealth and women‘s agreement that a woman 

has a right to refuse sex with her husband for each of the specified reasons based on the multivariate 

analysis. 

Figure 3.11. Countries according to the association between household wealth and agreement 

that a woman has a right to refuse sex with her husband for specified reasons, based on logistic 

regression results*

Relationship

Wife knows that her 

husband has an STD

Wife knows that her 

husband has sex with 

other women

Wife has recently

given birth

Wife is tired or not

in the mood

Generally positive Armenia, Benin, Bolivia, 

Cameroon, Indonesia, 

Jordan, Mozambique, 

Philippines, Zambia

Cameroon, Haiti, Indonesia, 

Philippines, Uganda

Indonesia, Mozambique, 

Philippines, Uganda

Haiti, Jordan, Uganda

Generally negative Burkina Faso, Morocco Burkina Faso, Ghana,

Mali, Rwanda

Burkina Faso,

Morocco, Nigeria

Burkina Faso, Kenya, Mali, 

Morocco, Nigeria

Nonlinear Cambodia, Ghana, 

Kenya, Malawi, Nepal, 

Rwanda

Benin, Kenya, Nigeria Benin, Cambodia, 

Cameroon, Ghana, 

Malawi, Mali, Nicaragua, 

Rwanda, Zimbabwe

Benin, Cambodia, Ghana, 

Indonesia, Malawi, 

Mozambique, Nepal, 

Nicaragua, Rwanda, 

Zimbabwe

Does not vary by 

wealth quintile

Haiti, Mali, Nicaragua, 

Nigeria, Uganda

Armenia, Cambodia,

Bolivia, Malawi,

Morocco, Mozambique, 

Nepal, Nicaragua,

Zambia, Zimbabwe

Armenia, Bolivia, Haiti, 

Jordan, Kenya, Nepal, 

Zambia

Armenia, Bolivia, 

Cameroon, Philippines, 

Zambia

*Reference category is women in households in the lowest wealth quintile.

The figure shows clearly that there is great variation within and across countries in the 

relationship between wealth and agreement that a wife has a right to refuse sex with her husband, 

depending on the reason provided as justification. In fact, there is no country where the relationship is 

positive for all four reasons. However, in Armenia, Bolivia, Haiti, Jordan, the Philippines, Uganda, and 

Zambia, when the relationship is significant for one or more reasons, it is always positive. Only in 

Burkina Faso is the relationship negative for all four reasons. 

Notably too, the relationship is positive in the largest number of countries (9) when the reason for 

refusing sex is that the wife knows that her husband has an STD. The relationship is negative (5 

countries) or nonlinear (10 countries) in the largest number of countries when the woman is tired or not in 

the mood. Finally, wealth is unrelated to agreement that a woman has a right to refuse sex when she 

knows that her husband has sex with other women in 10 countries, more than for any other reason. 

In summary, the results of the multivariate analysis suggest that more egalitarian attitudes 

towards gender roles do not typically have a monotonic positive relationship with wealth in most 

countries. Although wealth does have a significant net effect on such attitudes, its effect tends to vary in 

most countries by reason. Notably, too, the effect is least likely to be positive for the reason the woman is 

tired or not in the mood.

Community-level Characteristics

The two variables used in this study to measure the level of community influence on women‘s 

empowerment are (1) percentage of women in the community whose husbands have secondary or higher 

education and (2) the percentage of women in the community with regular exposure to television. These 

variables are expected to have a generally positive association with women‘s agreement that a wife has a 

right to refuse sex with her husband. 
125

The multivariate results shown in Appendix Table 3B.1-23 and summarized in Table 3H reveal 

that this expectation is upheld more consistently for the second variable, which more directly captures 

individual women‘s access to development benefits, than for the first variable. In fact, the first 

community-level variable is unrelated to agreement with a wife refusing her husband sex in 14-15 

countries depending on the reason. In contrast, the second variable is unrelated to agreement in 6-8 

countries when the wife knows that her husband has an STD or she has recently given birth. However, for 

the remaining two reasons, even this community variable is unrelated to agreement in about half the 

countries. 

Also, the first community-level variable is unrelated to agreement in five countries (Burkina 

Faso, Cambodia, Kenya, Nicaragua, and Zambia) for all four reasons and nine countries (Armenia, 

Ghana, Haiti, Malawi, Mali, Morocco, the Philippines, Rwanda, and Uganda) for three of the four 

reasons. The second community-level variable is not related to agreement for all four reasons in only 

Jordan, Rwanda, and Zimbabwe, and for three reasons in an additional five countries (Cameroon, Malawi, 

Morocco, Nicaragua, and Zambia). 

Countries where the relationship is significant are listed in Figure 3.12 by community-level 

variable and reason.

Figure 3.12. Countries according to association between community-level variables and 

acceptance of wives’ right to refuse sex with their husbands, based on results from multivariate 

logistic regression

Relationship

Wife knows that her 

husband has an STD

Wife knows that her 

husband has sex with 

other women

Wife has recently

given birth

Wife is tired or not

in the mood

Percentage of women whose husbands have secondary or higher education

Positive Benin, Mali, Indonesia, 

Nepal

Benin, Indonesia, 

Mozambique, Uganda

Benin, Indonesia, 

Mozambique, Nigeria, 

Morocco

Armenia, Benin, Nepal, 

Nigeria, Rwanda

Negative Cameroon, Ghana Cameroon, Malawi, 

Philippines

Bolivia, Cameroon, 

Zimbabwe

Bolivia, Haiti, Zimbabwe

Percentage of women who watch television regularly

Positive Bolivia, Cambodia, Haiti, 

Indonesia, Kenya, 

Morocco, Nigeria, 

Philippines, Uganda

Bolivia, Cambodia, 

Indonesia, Kenya, Nigeria, 

Philippines

Bolivia, Cambodia, Ghana, 

Haiti,

Indonesia, Nigeria, 

Philippines, Uganda, Zambia

Bolivia, Cambodia, Ghana, 

Haiti, Indonesia, Uganda

Negative Armenia, Benin, Burkina 

Faso, Mali, Mozambique

Armenia, Mali, 

Mozambique

Armenia, Benin, Cameroon, 

Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, 

Nepal, Nicaragua

Armenia, Benin, Burkina 

Faso, Mali, Nepal

It is apparent from Figure 3.12 that Benin and Indonesia are the only countries where the 

relationship between the variable measuring male education levels in the community and women‘s 

agreement that a wife has a right to refuse sex with her husband is positive for at least three of the four 

reasons. Cameroon is the only country where the relationship is negative for three of the four reasons, 

whereas Bolivia and Zimbabwe are the only countries where the relationship is negative for two reasons. 

Notably, however, when the relationship is significant, it is more likely to be positive than negative. 

In contrast, the second community-level variable—the percentage of women in the community 

who watch television regularly—has a significant relationship with women‘s acceptance of egalitarian 

gender roles in more countries, mirroring the results for the other measures of empowerment in this study. 

In fact, the relationship is positive for all four reasons in Bolivia, Cambodia, and Indonesia and positive 

for three reasons in the Philippines, Nigeria, Haiti, and Uganda. 
126

Among countries where the relationship is significant, it is positive more often than it is negative 

when the wife knows that her husband has an STD and when the husband has sex with other women. The 

relationship is equally positive and negative in approximately equal numbers of countries for the other 

two reasons. Notably, in Armenia, Benin, Mali, and Mozambique, the relationship is negative for at least 

three of the four reasons. 

These results suggest that community-level development has an impact on women‘s gender-role 

attitudes, particularly when the nature of development involves women directly. However, whether such 

development leads to more gender-egalitarian attitudes depends on the country.

3.4 Correlates of Summary Indicators of Gender-role Attitudes

In this final section, the correlates of the two summary indicators for gender-role attitudes 

(defined in Section 3.1) are examined, namely agreement that none of the five reasons justifies wife 

beating (if the wife goes out without asking the husband, if the wife neglects the children, if the wife 

argues with her husband, if the wife refuses sex with her husband, and if the wife burns the food) and 

agreement with all of the four reasons for a wife‘s refusal to have sex with her husband (when the wife 

knows that her husband has an STD, when she knows that her husband has sex with other women, when 

she has recently given birth, and when she is tired or not in the mood). 

If a woman agrees that even one reason justifies wife beating, she is agreeing that a husband has a 

right to beat his wife. Similarly, when she disagrees with even one of the four reasons that justify a wife‘s 

refusal to have sex with her husband, she is agreeing with the idea that sexual intercourse in marriage 

does not require mutual consent and that there are circumstances in which a wife should not refuse sex 

with her husband. True conscientization with regard to gender equality, and hence true empowerment, 

should involve the total rejection of wife beating for any reason and agreement that in a couple, the wife 

is justified in refusing to have sex with her husband when she is not ready for it for any reason. 

The conceptual importance of the two summary indicators suggests the need to better understand 

the factors that influence them. In addition, because attitudes towards wife beating and refusal of sex are 

both hypothesized to be measures of gender-role attitudes, it is relevant to examine the extent of overlap 

among the correlates of the two indicators. 

The correlates of the summary indicators cannot be easily derived, however, from the analysis 

thus far because the correlates of acceptance of wife beating and acceptance of a wife‘s right to refuse sex 

with her husband vary substantively by type of justification for the behavior. Accordingly, logistic 

regressions are run separately for the two summary indicators. The results are given in Appendices Tables 

3C and 3D. 

Summary Table 3I provides a summary of the findings as well as the list of countries where the 

two summary indicators are related in the same way to the specified explanatory variable. (The bivariate 

results in Appendix Tables 3C and 3D are not discussed in the text). 
127

Summary Table 3I. Number of countries where each variable has the specified relationship with 

women's disagreement with all five of the specified reasons justifying wife beating and 

agreement with all four of the specified reasons justifying a wife's refusal to have sex with her 

husband: Results of analysis with controls

Variable and type of association

Wife beating: 

agreement 

with none of 

the five 

specified 

reasons

Wife's refusal 

to have sex: 

agreement 

with all four 

specified 

reasons

Countries where the variable has the 

same relationship with both types of 

gender-role attitudes

Age

Generally positive 17 0 None

Nonlinear 1 11 None

Does not vary significantly by age 5 12 Cambodia

Children Ever born

Generally negative 12 0 None

Generally positive 2 8 Malawi

Nonlinear 2 7 None

Does not vary by number of children ever 

born 7 8 Cambodia, Cameroon, Ghana, Rwanda

Education 

Generally positive 16 19

Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Haiti, Jordan, 

Kenya, Mali, Morocco, Mozambique, 

Nicaragua, Nigeria, Rwanda, Uganda, 

Zimbabwe

Generally negative 2 0 None

Nonlinear 3 0 None

Does not vary by education level 2 4 Nepal, Philippines

Works for cash

Positive 5 13 Ghana, Morocco, Rwanda, Uganda

Negative 7 3 Burkina Faso, Philippines

Does not vary by employment for cash 11 7 Haiti, Indonesia, Mali, Zimbabwe

Regular media exposure

Positive 8 11 Armenia, Cameroon, Morocco, Mozambique, 

Rwanda

Negative 5 1 None

Does not vary by media exposure 10 11 Jordan, Kenya, Nigeria, Philippines, Uganda

Age at first marriage 

Generally positive 10 5 Cameroon, Philippines, Zimbabwe

Generally negative 0 2 None

Different (nonlinear) only for women first 

married at age 18-24 years 3 2 None

Does not vary by age at first marriage 10 14 Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Haiti, Mali, 

Mozambique, Uganda, Zambia

Spousal age difference 

Generally negative 2 8 None

Generally positive 1 3 None

Nonlinear 3 2 None

Does not vary by spousal age difference 17 10 Indonesia, Jordan, Nepal, Nicaragua, 

Philippines, Zimbabwe

Continued...
128

Summary Table 3I—Continued

Variable and type of association

Wife beating: 

agreement 

with none of 

the five 

specified 

reasons

Wife's refusal 

to have sex: 

agreement 

with all four 

specified 

reasons

Countries where the variable has the 

same relationship with both types of 

gender-role attitudes

Urban residence

Positive 9 5 Mali

Negative 4 4 Zambia

Does not vary by area of residence 10 14 Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Nigeria, Zimbabwe

Residence in extended family

Negative 4 2 None

Positive 5 5 Indonesia

Does not vary by extended family residence 14 16 Benin, Bolivia, Cameroon, Malawi, Mali, 

Nepal, Nicaragua, Philippines, Zambia

Wealth index

Generally positive 14 7 Haiti, Indonesia, Jordan, Uganda, Zimbabwe

Generally negative 1 6 None

Nonlinear 7 6 Mozambique

Does not vary by wealth quintile 1 4 Cambodia

Community controls

Percentage of women whose husbands have 

at least a high school education

Positive 7 7 Benin, Morocco, Nigeria

Negative 6 2 Cameroon 

Not significant 9 13 Armenia, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Nepal, 

Nicaragua, Philippines

Percentage of women who watch television 

at least weekly

Positive 9 6 Indonesia, Philippines

Negative 4 6 Benin, Mali, Nepal

Not significant 10 11 Burkina Faso, Malawi, Nicaragua, Nigeria, 

Rwanda, Zimbabwe

Age. In most countries (17 of 23), rejection of wife beating for all reasons is negatively associated with 

age. Thus, the older a woman is, the more likely she is to reject wife beating for all reasons. In five of 

these countries, the youngest women (age 15-19 years) are less likely than women in the other age groups 

to reject wife beating. 

In contrast, countries are divided into two groups with respect to the relationship of age with 

women‘s agreement that a wife has a right to refuse sex with her husband. In about half the countries, 

acceptance does not vary significantly by age. In all but one of the remaining countries, the relationship is 

nonlinear—the likelihood of acceptance among the younger group is similar to that of the oldest age 

group; however, women in the middle age groups differ significantly. For example, in Bolivia, Indonesia, 

Malawi, Mali, and the Philippines, women age 20-29 years, those age 30-39 years, or both are more likely 

to agree that a wife has a right to refuse sex with her husband for all reasons. In contrast, in Armenia, 

Ghana, Haiti, Jordan, and Kenya, women age 20-29 years, those age 30-39 years, or both are less likely to 

agree that a wife has a right to refuse sex with her husband for all reasons than women age 40-49 years. In 

Burkina Faso alone, older women are less likely than younger women to agree that a woman has a right to 

refuse sex with her husband. Summary Table 3I also shows that, with the exception of Cambodia, there 

are no countries where age has the same effect, significant or not, on the two gender-role attitudes. 
129

Number of children ever born. The extent of women‘s rejection of wife beating for all reasons does not 

vary by the number of children they have in seven countries (Cambodia, Cameroon, Ghana, Nepal, 

Nicaragua, Rwanda, and Uganda). In 12 of the remaining 16 countries, women are less likely to disagree 

that wife beating is justified the more children they have, particularly if they have 5 or more children. 

Similarly, in eight countries (Cambodia, Cameroon, Ghana, Haiti, Mali, Nigeria, Rwanda, and 

Zambia), agreement that a wife has a right to refuse sex with her husband does not differ by number of 

children. However, unlike the relationship between number of children and rejection of wife beating, the 

relationship between number of children and agreement that a wife has a right to refuse sex with her 

husband, where significant, is either nonlinear or generally positive.

There are very few countries where the relationship of number of children, like age, with both 

gender-role attitudes is the same. 

Education. Education level is significantly related to both gender-role attitudes in almost all countries. 

The only exceptions are Nepal and the Philippines, where education level is not significantly associated 

with both gender-role attitudes, and Benin and Cambodia, where it is not significantly related to women‘s 

attitudes towards a woman‘s right to refuse sex with her husband. 

However, in some countries, even when the relationship is significant, education level is not 

positively associated with more egalitarian gender-role attitudes. For example, in Armenia and Indonesia, 

women with a higher education level have higher odds of agreeing that wife beating is justified; and in 

Cameroon, Malawi, and Zambia, the odds of women disagreeing that wife beating is justified are higher 

for both women with no education and women with secondary or higher education than for women with 

only primary education. In the remaining 16 countries where the relationship is significant, rejection of 

wife beating increases with the level of education. 

In contrast, there are no countries where education is negatively associated with agreement that a 

wife has a right to refuse sex with her husband. In all countries where the relationship is significant, the 

relationship is generally positive including eight countries (Cameroon, Ghana, Haiti, Kenya, Morocco, 

Nigeria, Rwanda, and Zambia) where only women with no education are less likely than other women to 

agree that a wife has a right to refuse sex with her husband. 

Notably, education is the only variable that has a similar relationship with both gender-role 

attitudes in more than half (16) of the countries. 

Employment for cash. Being employed for cash has the hypothesized effect on women‘s agreement that a 

wife has a right to refuse sex with her husband more often than on women‘s disagreement that wife 

beating is justified. In fact, employment for cash is positively related to agreement that a wife has a right 

to refuse sex with her husband in 13 countries, whereas women employed for cash have significantly 

higher odds of disagreeing that wife beating is justified in only 5 countries (Ghana, Jordan, Morocco, 

Rwanda, and Uganda). Among these countries, Jordan is the only one where the relationship is not the 

same for both gender-role attitudes. 

Notably too, there are more countries where employment for cash is negatively associated with 

the likelihood that women will disagree that wife beating is justified than that a wife does not have a right 

to refuse sex with her husband. These countries include Burkina Faso and the Philippines, where cash 

employment is negatively associated with both types of gender-egalitarian attitudes. 

Overall, however, there are only 10 countries where the relationship of employment for cash is 

the same with the two gender-role attitudes. 
130

Media exposure. Women‘s regular media exposure is unrelated to both the likelihood that women will 

reject wife beating and that they will agree that a wife has a right to refuse sex with her husband in similar 

numbers of countries (10 and 11, respectively). In addition, media exposure increases the likelihood that 

women will have both attitudes in a majority of the remaining countries. 

Notably, however, there are only five countries where media exposure is positively associated 

with both attitudes and five where it is not significantly associated with both attitudes. The only countries 

where regular media exposure has a negative effect on the likelihood that women will reject wife beating 

are Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Indonesia, and Mali. The only country where media exposure has a 

negative effect on acceptance of a wife‘s right to refuse sex with her husband is Haiti. 

Age at first marriage. A higher age at first marriage has a positive relationship with the rejection of wife 

beating in 10 countries. In contrast, higher age at first marriage has a positive relationship with a woman‘s 

acceptance that a wife has a right to refuse sex with her husband in only five countries. Cameroon, the 

Philippines, and Zimbabwe are the only three countries where women married at older ages are more 

likely than women married at younger ages to not agree with all five reasons for wife beating and all four 

reasons for a woman to refuse sex with her husband. 

In two countries (Indonesia and Nicaragua), women first married between age 18 and 24 are less 

likely to reject all reasons for wife beating than women married before age 18 or after age 24. In Nepal 

only, women married between age 18 and 24 are more likely than women married at a younger or older 

age to reject all the reasons for wife beating. The relationship between age at first marriage and the other 

gender-role attitude is also nonlinear in Bolivia and Malawi but is negative in Cambodia and Nigeria. 

Among all countries where the relationship is not significant, there are, however, only eight where it is 

not significant for both types of attitudes. 

Spousal age difference. This variable has a significant association with the rejection of wife beating in 

only 6 of the 23 countries. Even in these six countries, there is no consistency in the direction of the 

relationship. There are only two countries (Benin and Mali) where a smaller age difference between 

spouses is consistently associated with an increased likelihood of rejecting wife beating. In contrast, 

spousal age difference has a significant relationship with women‘s acceptance of a wife‘s right to refuse 

sex with her husband in 13 of the 23 countries; the relationship is negative in 8 of these countries. 

Thus, spousal age difference has little effect on women‘s attitudes towards wife beating. 

However, a greater age difference is associated with a lower likelihood of acceptance of a wife‘s right to 

refuse sex with her husband. Notably, there are no countries where the relationship of spousal age 

difference with the two gender-role attitudes is significant and similar. However, there are six countries 

where the relationship with both types of attitudes is not significant.

Urban residence. Urban versus rural residence makes a significant difference in attitudes towards wife 

beating in 13 of the 23 countries. In nine of these (Benin, Cambodia, Indonesia, Jordan, Malawi, Mali, 

Mozambique, the Philippines, and Uganda), the relationship is positive, i.e., urban women are more likely 

to reject wife beating than rural women. The opposite is true, however, in Ghana, Haiti, Nepal, and 

Zambia. 

In contrast, urban residence is significantly related to acceptance of a wife‘s right to refuse sex 

with her husband in only nine countries, and the relationship is positive in only five (Bolivia, Kenya, 

Mali, Morocco, and Nicaragua). The countries where the relationship is negative are Armenia, Rwanda, 

Uganda, and Zambia. Mali is the only country where the relationship of urban residence with both 

gender-role attitudes is positive. Zambia is the only country where the relationship is negative for both 

attitudes. Furthermore, urban residence is not significantly associated with both gender-role attitudes in 

four countries. 
131

Thus, overall, urban residence has dissimilar effects, if any, on the two gender-role attitudes in 17 

of the 23 countries. 

Residence in an extended family. Extended family residence has a significant effect on the likelihood that 

women will reject wife beating in only nine countries; in these countries, the relationship is negative in 

Burkina Faso, Ghana, Jordan, and Morocco and positive in Armenia, Cambodia, Indonesia, Rwanda, and 

Uganda. Extended family residence has a significant effect on the likelihood that women will accept a 

wife‘s right to refuse sex with her husband in only seven countries; the relationship is negative in 

Mozambique and Nigeria and positive in Haiti, Indonesia, Kenya, Morocco and Zimbabwe. 

In countries where the relationship is significant, Indonesia is the only one where the relationship 

is in the same direction for both gender-role attitudes. In Indonesia, women living in an extended family 

are more likely not to agree that wife beating is justified and more likely to agree that a woman has the 

right to refuse sex with her husband. 

There are nine countries where the relationship is not significant for both gender-role attitudes.

Wealth. The wealth of a woman‘s household has a significant relationship with both types of gender-role 

attitudes in most countries. However, wealth has a more consistently positive association with the 

rejection of wife beating (the relationship is positive in 14 countries) than with agreement that a wife has 

a right to refuse sex with her husband (the relationship is positive in only 7 countries). In addition, wealth 

is negatively associated with the acceptance of a wife‘s right to refuse sex with her husband in six 

countries, compared with only one country (Rwanda) in which it is negatively associated with the 

rejection of wife beating. 

Despite the strongly significant effect of wealth, this variable has a similar effect on both genderrole attitudes in only seven countries. 

Community-level controls. The two indicators of the socioeconomic status of the communities in which 

women live do not have a consistent relationship with the two gender-role attitudes in most countries. 

However, both indicators are significantly related to women‘s rejection of wife beating more often (13 

countries for the level of husbands‘ education in the community and 13 countries for the exposure of 

women in the community to television) than with women‘s acceptance of a woman‘s right to refuse sex 

with her husband (9 countries and 12 countries, respectively). 

The first community socioeconomic status indicator, the percentage of women whose husbands 

have at least high school education, is positively associated with women‘s rejection of wife beating and 

acceptance of a woman‘s right to refuse sex with her husband in seven countries each. The relationship is 

positive with both gender-role attitudes in three countries (Benin, Morocco, and Nigeria). In six countries, 

(Bolivia, Cameroon, Indonesia, Kenya, Uganda, and Zambia), women living in a community with a 

higher level of male education are less likely than others to reject wife beating. The negative association 

is evident for the other gender-role attitude in only two countries, Cameroon and Zimbabwe. 

In contrast, women living in a community in which, on average, a higher proportion of women is 

exposed to television are more likely to reject wife beating in nine countries and more likely to accept it 

in four countries. Women in such communities are also more likely to accept the right of a wife to refuse 

sex with her husband in six countries and reject this right in six countries. Indonesia and the Philippines 

are the only countries where the relationship of this community-level variable is positive for both genderrole attitudes. Benin, Mali, and Nepal are the only countries where the relationship is negative for both. 

Overall, in about half the countries (11 for both community-level indicators), the relationship of 

each community-level indicator to both gender-role attitudes is the same.
132

Thus, overall, the community-level indicators are relevant to understanding women‘s gender-role 

attitudes. However, their effect is not necessarily in the expected direction. For example, the level of male 

education in the community is positively associated with women‘s rejection of wife beating in about the

same number of countries as countries where the association is negative. Women‘s regular exposure to 

television in the community is positively associated with the acceptance of a wife‘s right to refuse sex 

with her husband in the same number of countries as the number where the association is negative. 

3.5 Conclusions

The extensive analysis presented in this chapter points to one overarching conclusion: although 

the two sets of questions on women‘s attitudes towards wife beating and women‘s right to refuse sex with 

their husbands are theorized to be two aspects of women‘s levels of conscientization through their genderrole attitudes, they do not appear to measure the same thing. In fact, the two sets of attitudes vary greatly 

in terms of the characteristics of women, households and communities where they are manifested. Many 

of the explanatory variables that have a positive relationship with one type of attitude have a negative 

relationship with the other. The same characteristic has a similar relationship to both types of attitudes in 

only a few countries. In fact, as the analysis of the summary indicators of the two attitudes shows, with 

the exception of education level, no other characteristic is similarly related to both gender-role attitudes in 

a majority of the 23 countries studied.
133

Appendix Table 3A.1. Percentage of currently married women who agree that a husband is 

justified in beating his wife for the specified reason, by background characteristics, and odds 

ratios (estimated using multivariable logistic regression): Benin

A husband is justified in beating his wife if:

She goes

out without 

telling him

She neglects 

the children

She argues 

with him

She refuses to 

have sex

with him

She burns

the food

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR % OR % OR

Age 

15 to 19 49.1 1.18 58.3 1.34 43.9 1.27 20.9 1.09 36.1 1.38 +

20 to 29 47.4 1.13 54.2 1.18 43.0 1.37 ** 19.0 1.08 31.1 1.22

30 to 39 44.4 0.95 52.3 1.01 40.3 1.08 16.8 0.89 30.5 1.14

40 to 49 47.6 1.00 55.1 1.00 42.1 1.00 19.7 1.00 29.8 1.00

Children ever born

None 41.0 0.89 49.9 0.96 39.9 1.13 17.4 1.05 28.9 1.03

1 or 2 44.1 1.00 50.4 1.00 38.5 1.00 17.1 1.00 28.2 1.00

3 or 4 46.2 1.09 52.1 1.11 40.1 1.11 17.7 1.10 30.5 1.13

5+ 49.9 1.15 59.0 1.37 ** 46.5 1.39 ** 20.5 1.16 33.8 1.20

Education

None 51.4 1.21 * 59.1 1.18 + 46.7 1.19 * 21.4 1.26 * 34.8 1.14

Primary 40.9 1.00 47.7 1.00 35.5 1.00 13.6 1.00 25.3 1.00

Secondary or higher 18.2 0.44 *** 24.9 0.52 *** 16.9 0.51 *** 5.2 0.51 * 10.9 0.57 **

Work 

Does not work 41.1 1.00 52.3 1.00 38.4 1.00 19.5 1.00 31.6 1.00

Works for cash 47.5 1.28 ** 54.3 1.02 42.6 1.22 * 18.4 0.95 30.8 0.95

Media exposure

No regular exposure 49.1 1.00 53.9 1.00 43.5 1.00 22.5 1.00 31.9 1.00

Weekly exposure 45.3 1.08 54.1 1.35 *** 41.2 1.19 ** 16.5 0.86 + 30.5 1.23 **

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 49.9 1.00 57.1 1.00 45.8 1.00 21.0 1.00 34.8 1.00

18-24 years 45.3 1.03 53.4 1.14 + 40.0 1.02 16.7 0.93 28.6 0.95

25 years or more 32.5 0.99 37.3 1.00 29.9 1.05 14.3 1.22 20.8 1.03

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 44.2 1.00 50.6 1.00 36.8 1.00 16.1 1.00 27.5 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 45.6 1.04 53.2 1.11 41.6 1.22 * 18.1 1.16 29.6 1.08

Wife is 10+ years younger 49.1 1.07 57.4 1.14 + 46.1 1.31 *** 20.6 1.19 + 34.6 1.22 *

Residence

Rural 51.0 1.00 60.0 1.00 45.7 1.00 20.1 1.00 35.5 1.00

Urban 38.2 0.96 42.7 0.81 * 35.0 1.07 15.5 1.26 * 22.4 0.86

Family structure

Nuclear 48.0 1.00 55.6 1.00 44.2 1.00 19.9 1.00 32.8 1.00

Extended 43.9 1.01 51.1 1.01 37.9 0.93 16.1 0.94 27.5 0.94

Wealth index

Poorest 53.7 1.00 60.6 1.00 49.9 1.00 25.8 1.00 38.4 1.00

Poorer 52.9 0.98 61.2 1.04 51.5 1.10 25.0 1.02 40.3 1.08

Middle 48.9 0.88 60.6 1.07 44.4 0.90 16.2 0.65 *** 31.5 0.80 *

Richer 48.2 1.05 52.8 1.00 37.9 0.80 * 15.9 0.74 * 28.9 0.84

Richest 26.6 0.68 * 32.3 0.77 24.2 0.63 ** 8.4 0.47 *** 13.5 0.49 ***

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose 

husbands have completed high 

school n/a 0.99 *** n/a 0.98 *** n/a 0.98 *** n/a 0.97 *** n/a 0.98 ***

Percentage of women who watch 

television at least weekly n/a 1.00 + n/a 1.01 * n/a 1.01 ** n/a 1.02 *** n/a 1.01 ***

Constant n/a 0.70 *** n/a 1.07 n/a 0.63 *** n/a 0.23 *** n/a 0.41 ***

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) 

from the value for the reference category.

+p<0.10, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

OR = Odds ratio

n/a = Not available or not applicable
134

Appendix Table 3A.2. Percentage of currently married women who agree that a husband is justified 

in beating his wife for the specified reason, by background characteristics, and odds ratios 

(estimated using multivariable logistic regression): Burkina Faso

A husband is justified in beating his wife if:

She goes

out without

telling him

She neglects 

the children

She argues 

with him

She refuses to 

have sex

with him

She burns

the food

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR % OR % OR

Age 

15 to 19 53.9 1.11 52.5 0.97 51.7 1.02 39.6 0.85 30.4 1.05

20 to 29 54.2 1.07 56.2 1.08 53.6 1.03 39.0 0.95 25.2 0.97

30 to 39 55.4 0.93 57.0 0.99 52.5 0.91 39.2 0.87 * 27.1 1.05

40 to 49 58.8 1.00 59.7 1.00 58.1 1.00 42.9 1.00 27.6 1.00

Children ever born

None 49.2 0.96 51.6 1.01 47.4 0.87 38.4 1.12 29.2 1.25 *

1 or 2 51.7 1.00 53.4 1.00 51.3 1.00 38.3 1.00 25.0 1.00

3 or 4 55.9 1.15 * 56.6 1.08 53.6 1.09 38.6 1.02 26.5 1.02

5+ 59.2 1.31 *** 60.6 1.28 ** 57.7 1.26 ** 42.3 1.08 27.7 0.92

Education

None 57.7 1.18 * 58.5 1.05 55.9 1.01 41.6 1.17 + 27.8 0.99

Primary 49.7 1.00 52.7 1.00 50.9 1.00 35.0 1.00 24.7 1.00

Secondary or higher 22.2 0.35 *** 32.5 0.49 *** 22.4 0.36 *** 14.7 0.29 *** 10.1 0.42 ***

Work 

Does not work 56.4 1.00 57.2 1.00 54.4 1.00 39.7 1.00 27.4 1.00

Works for cash 52.2 1.08 55.7 1.15 * 52.7 1.18 ** 41.0 1.35 *** 24.2 1.08

Media exposure

No regular exposure 57.3 1.00 57.8 1.00 55.0 1.00 41.2 1.00 30.5 1.00

Weekly exposure 53.8 1.01 56.1 1.04 53.2 1.10 * 38.8 1.03 23.4 0.82 ***

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 57.8 1.00 58.8 1.00 56.5 1.00 43.1 1.00 29.4 1.00

18-24 years 52.3 0.93 54.4 0.90 * 50.6 0.92 + 35.0 0.78 *** 22.8 0.79 ***

25 years or more 38.8 0.93 40.3 0.63 ** 38.6 0.82 28.2 0.65 * 15.5 0.63 *

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 54.2 1.00 55.9 1.00 51.8 1.00 36.7 1.00 25.8 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 54.2 0.99 55.6 0.96 52.7 1.03 39.9 1.03 26.0 0.98

Wife is 10+ years younger 56.1 1.00 57.1 1.01 53.6 1.03 40.1 1.07 26.4 0.97

Residence

Rural 58.0 1.00 58.6 1.00 56.3 1.00 41.2 1.00 28.6 1.00

Urban 41.4 0.94 47.1 0.99 41.8 0.89 32.9 0.97 16.8 0.63 ***

Family structure

Nuclear 54.5 1.00 54.9 1.00 52.7 1.00 40.0 1.00 26.0 1.00

Extended 57.0 1.17 *** 59.9 1.22 *** 56.2 1.19 *** 39.8 1.03 28.0 1.19 ***

Wealth index

Poorest 56.5 1.00 58.0 1.00 55.6 1.00 45.8 1.00 30.8 1.00

Poorer 54.6 0.99 54.8 0.92 54.5 0.99 39.8 0.86 * 28.7 0.92

Middle 58.7 1.18 * 60.3 1.13 + 56.7 1.11 39.5 0.84 * 29.7 0.98

Richer 62.4 1.40 *** 61.5 1.18 * 58.5 1.21 * 40.9 0.87 + 23.6 0.78 **

Richest 43.9 1.05 48.4 0.88 43.4 0.96 33.6 0.79 * 19.1 0.70 **

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose husbands 

have completed high school n/a 0.99 ** n/a 0.99 ** n/a 1.00 n/a 0.99 * n/a 1.00

Percentage of women who watch 

television at least weekly n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 + n/a 1.01 **

Constant n/a 0.88 n/a 0.97 n/a 0.91 n/a 0.38 *** n/a 0.20 ***

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) from 

the value for the reference category.

+p<0.10, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

OR = Odds ratio

n/a = Not available or not applicable
135

Appendix Table 3A.3. Percentage of currently married women who agree that a husband is 

justified in beating his wife for the specified reason, by background characteristics, and odds 

ratios (estimated using multivariable logistic regression): Cameroon

A husband is justified in beating his wife if:

She goes 

out without 

telling him

She neglects 

the children

She argues 

with him

She refuses to 

have sex

with him

She burns 

the food

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR % OR % OR

Age 

15 to 19 39.3 1.06 49.4 1.08 34.8 1.10 25.0 0.76* 26.4 1.31+

20 to 29 36.3 1.03 46.9 1.06 29.3 1.07 23.2 0.94 20.4 1.15

30 to 39 35.0 1.00 44.6 1.02 26.3 0.93 23.0 0.95 19.3 1.06

40 to 49 35.0 1.00 45.0 1.00 29.3 1.00 25.4 1.00 19.9 1.00

Children ever born

None 32.4 0.86 45.0 0.95 29.3 1.08 22.0 1.11 19.4 1.02

1 or 2 36.4 1.00 46.9 1.00 28.7 1.00 21.6 1.00 20.0 1.00

3 or 4 36.2 0.93 46.1 0.94 27.5 0.88+ 23.7 0.92 20.7 0.96

5+ 36.9 0.88 46.0 0.93 30.4 0.95 26.5 0.89 21.9 0.92

Education

None 42.2 0.85* 45.2 0.70*** 36.8 0.94 37.9 1.41*** 31.6 1.17+

Primary 39.4 1.00 51.0 1.00 31.7 1.00 23.9 1.00 21.0 1.00

Secondary or higher 26.0 0.78*** 40.9 0.86* 18.5 0.71*** 10.3 0.60*** 10.3 0.71***

Work 

Does not work 37.3 1.00 46.2 1.00 30.2 1.00 26.3 1.00 23.8 1.00

Works for cash 34.8 1.00 46.2 1.02 28.0 1.05 21.3 0.93 17.8 0.88+

Media exposure

No regular exposure 41.5 1.00 50.2 1.00 35.7 1.00 31.0 1.00 27.4 1.00

Weekly exposure 30.5 0.86* 42.1 0.81*** 22.4 0.81** 16.4 0.85* 14.0 0.85*

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 40.2 1.00 48.5 1.00 33.2 1.00 28.7 1.00 25.3 1.00

18-24 years 30.3 0.80*** 43.4 0.85** 23.6 0.84** 16.2 0.75*** 13.7 0.72***

25 years or more 23.1 0.70** 35.8 0.72** 14.8 0.63** 11.7 0.68* 9.9 0.71*

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 34.3 1.00 45.9 1.00 26.4 1.00 20.1 1.00 19.2 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 35.0 0.98 45.9 0.98 27.3 1.00 21.3 1.02 19.5 1.00

Wife is 10+ years younger 38.2 0.98 46.7 0.92 32.2 1.04 28.1 1.08 22.9 0.92

Residence

Rural 41.6 1.00 49.6 1.00 34.5 1.00 30.0 1.00 26.9 1.00

Urban 30.2 0.96 42.7 0.98 23.4 1.09 17.2 1.08 14.2 0.95

Family structure

Nuclear 37.1 1.00 46.5 1.00 30.5 1.00 25.9 1.00 22.3 1.00

Extended 34.6 1.00 45.7 1.01 27.1 1.00 20.9 1.01 18.6 1.04

Wealth index

Poorest 41.8 1.00 47.0 1.00 36.8 1.00 33.2 1.00 30.1 1.00

Poorer 42.9 1.15+ 52.3 1.27** 36.3 1.11 32.0 1.23* 29.1 1.10

Middle 39.3 1.16+ 50.3 1.28** 30.4 1.11 26.0 1.29** 21.2 0.94

Richer 34.0 1.15 45.4 1.20+ 26.2 1.07 18.0 1.09 14.4 0.82

Richest 21.9 0.79+ 36.3 0.93 15.0 0.76+ 8.7 0.75+ 7.9 0.60**

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose 

husbands have completed high 

school n/a 1.00+ n/a 1.00+ n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00+ n/a 1.00

Percentage of women who watch 

television at least weekly n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00** n/a 0.99*** n/a 0.99** n/a 0.99**

Constant n/a 0.54*** n/a 0.76*** n/a 0.41*** n/a 0.31*** n/a 0.22***

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) from 

the value for the reference category.

+p<0.10, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

OR = Odds ratio

n/a = Not available or not applicable
136

Appendix Table 3A.4. Percentage of currently married women who agree that a husband is 

justified in beating his wife for the specified reason, by background characteristics, and odds 

ratios (estimated using multivariable logistic regression): Ghana

A husband is justified in beating his wife if:

She goes

out without

telling him

She neglects

the children

She argues 

with him

She refuses 

to have sex 

with him

She burns

the food

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR % OR % OR

Age 

15 to 19 51.1 1.48+ 51.8 1.54+ 47.4 1.58+ 26.3 1.13 22.6 1.02

20 to 29 39.2 1.28+ 43.9 1.43** 35.9 1.23 24.1 1.26 16.9 1.22

30 to 39 34.7 1.06 38.8 1.19+ 31.6 1.17 23.6 1.19 16.3 1.23

40 to 49 33.1 1.00 33.8 1.00 28.8 1.00 19.8 1.00 12.1 1.00

Children ever born

None 38.0 1.04 38.5 0.90 32.6 0.92 22.6 1.03 16.7 1.10

1 or 2 36.1 1.00 39.8 1.00 34.1 1.00 21.7 1.00 16.3 1.00

3 or 4 35.9 1.08 38.9 1.04 30.4 0.86 21.9 1.02 14.1 0.78+

5+ 37.4 1.09 41.4 1.05 34.5 0.97 25.4 1.09 16.5 0.86

Education

None 47.9 1.11 52.9 1.09 44.6 1.34** 34.3 1.27* 24.7 1.04

Primary 37.3 1.00 42.3 1.00 31.6 1.00 21.3 1.00 14.7 1.00

Secondary or higher 23.1 0.63*** 23.1 0.56*** 21.2 0.70** 11.5 0.60*** 6.4 0.53***

Work 

Does not work 46.7 1.00 53.6 1.00 41.5 1.00 31.5 1.00 23.0 1.00

Works for cash 34.3 0.82* 36.8 0.66*** 31.2 0.84* 21.0 0.74** 14.1 0.76**

Media exposure

No regular exposure 49.7 1.00 56.0 1.00 44.0 1.00 33.6 1.00 25.0 1.00

Weekly exposure 32.4 0.84* 34.8 0.74*** 29.6 0.85+ 19.6 0.85+ 12.8 0.83+

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 39.4 1.00 43.4 1.00 37.4 1.00 25.7 1.00 17.4 1.00

18-24 years 34.8 0.96 38.4 0.91 31.0 0.86+ 21.0 0.82* 15.0 0.88

25 years or more 33.4 1.35+ 32.8 1.12 24.7 0.85 22.0 1.14 13.0 0.99

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 33.4 1.00 36.3 1.00 31.6 1.00 19.7 1.00 13.6 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 36.5 0.99 40.7 0.94 32.4 0.84* 23.1 1.08 15.4 0.95

Wife is 10+ years younger 40.3 1.02 43.1 0.89 35.7 0.91 26.6 1.08 18.6 0.96

Residence

Rural 41.5 1.00 45.3 1.00 37.4 1.00 26.2 1.00 19.9 1.00

Urban 29.2 1.30* 32.0 1.45** 26.7 1.33* 18.2 1.65*** 9.7 1.34+

Family structure

Nuclear 36.1 1.00 39.4 1.00 32.5 1.00 21.8 1.00 15.3 1.00

Extended 37.8 1.01 41.4 1.19* 34.7 1.19* 26.3 1.27** 17.1 1.03

Wealth index

Poorest 51.5 1.00 57.1 1.00 46.8 1.00 38.2 1.00 30.2 1.00

Poorer 43.2 0.97 44.0 0.97 36.2 0.89 25.2 0.85 18.3 0.86

Middle 35.5 0.77* 40.2 0.93 33.5 0.82 20.5 0.71* 14.7 0.70*

Richer 31.0 0.64** 35.8 0.83 29.8 0.73* 19.3 0.62** 10.5 0.54**

Richest 21.2 0.43*** 21.9 0.60** 18.6 0.43*** 11.0 0.41*** 4.3 0.26***

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose 

husbands have completed 

high school n/a 0.99*** n/a 0.99*** n/a 0.99*** n/a 0.99*** n/a 0.99***

Percentage of women who 

watch television at least 

weekly n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00

Constant n/a 1.22+ n/a 1.96*** n/a 0.98 n/a 0.58*** n/a 0.37***

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) 

from the value for the reference category.

+p<0.10, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

OR = Odds ratio

n/a = Not available or not applicable
137

Appendix Table 3A.5. Percentage of currently married women who agree that a husband is 

justified in beating his wife for the specified reason, by background characteristics, and odds 

ratios (estimated using multivariable logistic regression): Kenya

A husband is justified in beating his wife if:

She goes

out without 

telling him

She neglects 

the children

She argues

with him

She refuses 

to have sex 

with him

She burns 

the food

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR % OR % OR

Age 

15 to 19 57.7 1.96*** 69.4 1.91*** 61.3 1.78*** 33.3 0.99 23.1 1.45+

20 to 29 44.3 1.60*** 60.4 1.46*** 52.9 1.67*** 33.0 1.14 17.8 1.25

30 to 39 38.3 1.17+ 55.5 1.13 43.5 1.02 30.3 0.93 16.1 1.06

40 to 49 39.7 1.00 56.0 1.00 47.0 1.00 37.0 1.00 17.4 1.00

Children ever born

None 52.5 1.54** 59.2 1.01 54.4 1.30+ 25.3 0.89 18.8 1.24

1 or 2 37.1 1.00 53.1 1.00 44.9 1.00 27.2 1.00 15.0 1.00

3 or 4 40.9 1.17+ 59.0 1.25** 46.5 1.13 32.5 1.16+ 16.2 1.03

5+ 46.6 1.43** 63.1 1.40** 54.8 1.48*** 40.1 1.44** 20.8 1.38*

Education

None 61.5 1.43*** 69.9 1.07 64.9 1.21+ 50.1 1.34** 25.8 0.92

Primary 46.2 1.00 63.5 1.00 54.4 1.00 35.7 1.00 19.2 1.00

Secondary or higher 22.2 0.43*** 40.7 0.54*** 28.4 0.48*** 16.6 0.49*** 8.9 0.54***

Work 

Does not work 47.1 1.00 62.9 1.00 54.0 1.00 36.5 1.00 19.6 1.00

Works for cash 37.6 0.91 54.2 0.94 44.6 0.98 29.4 0.96 15.4 0.95

Media exposure

No regular exposure 54.7 1.00 69.1 1.00 62.7 1.00 45.1 1.00 24.1 1.00

Weekly exposure 38.8 0.87+ 55.5 0.88 45.4 0.82* 29.5 0.76** 15.6 0.92

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 51.9 1.00 65.3 1.00 58.8 1.00 40.7 1.00 21.8 1.00

18-24 years 37.6 0.83** 56.7 0.96 45.3 0.87+ 29.4 0.87+ 15.6 0.95

25 years or more 27.2 0.70* 38.0 0.63*** 28.8 0.64** 18.9 0.59*** 10.2 0.77

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 39.9 1.00 56.5 1.00 46.7 1.00 32.1 1.00 17.6 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 42.8 0.94 58.0 0.91 47.7 0.88+ 30.4 0.82** 15.9 0.76**

Wife is 10+ years younger 45.4 0.89 62.4 0.95 55.3 0.98 38.1 0.91 20.0 0.89

Residence

Rural 44.7 1.00 62.5 1.00 53.0 1.00 35.7 1.00 18.9 1.00

Urban 34.1 1.25* 44.9 0.86 36.3 1.19+ 23.6 1.18 12.7 1.21

Family structure

Nuclear 43.5 1.00 60.5 1.00 50.6 1.00 34.9 1.00 18.7 1.00

Extended 40.2 0.99 55.0 0.90 46.7 0.97 29.3 0.94 15.3 0.89

Wealth index

Poorest 55.4 1.00 70.4 1.00 65.0 1.00 42.3 1.00 24.1 1.00

Poorer 46.2 0.91 62.7 0.87 56.9 0.96 38.8 1.23* 21.8 1.16

Middle 43.4 0.97 61.5 0.98 49.5 0.85 35.6 1.26* 16.5 0.87

Richer 38.6 0.90 58.4 0.96 45.5 0.91 30.1 1.19 15.7 0.90

Richest 30.5 0.78 42.9 0.78+ 32.9 0.76+ 20.7 1.01 10.9 0.85

Community-level 

variables

Percentage of women 

whose husbands have 

completed high school n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00* n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00

Percentage of women who 

watch television at least 

weekly n/a 0.99*** n/a 0.99*** n/a 0.99*** n/a 0.99*** n/a 0.99***

Constant n/a 0.90 n/a 1.34*** n/a 1.20* n/a 0.55*** n/a 0.23***

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) from 

the value for the reference category.

+p<0.10, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

OR = Odds ratio

n/a = Not available or not applicable
138

Appendix Table 3A.6. Percentage of currently married women who agree that a husband is 

justified in beating his wife for the specified reason, by background characteristics, and odds 

ratios (estimated using multivariable logistic regression): Malawi

A husband is justified in beating his wife if:

She goes 

out without 

telling him

She neglects 

the children

She argues 

with him

She refuses 

to have sex 

with him

She burns 

the food

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR % OR % OR

Age 

15 to 19 23.9 1.33* 27.5 1.19 24.1 1.13 20.6 0.85 21.0 1.01

20 to 29 16.7 0.90 22.1 0.93 19.3 0.97 18.3 0.87 17.2 0.95

30 to 39 14.9 0.90 20.0 0.98 16.4 0.90 17.1 0.87 14.3 0.89

40 to 49 16.0 1.00 19.5 1.00 18.3 1.00 18.3 1.00 15.8 1.00

Children ever born

None 21.2 1.12 23.3 0.88 22.6 1.09 20.3 1.14 19.5 1.10

1 or 2 17.7 1.00 23.3 1.00 20.3 1.00 19.0 1.00 17.9 1.00

3 or 4 16.9 1.01 22.3 0.95 17.5 0.87+ 17.7 0.91 15.7 0.88+

5+ 14.9 0.87 19.2 0.80** 17.6 0.82* 17.3 0.79* 15.2 0.83*

Education

None 15.3 0.84** 19.3 0.80*** 17.3 0.80*** 18.3 0.91 15.5 0.86*

Primary 18.5 1.00 23.6 1.00 20.9 1.00 19.2 1.00 18.1 1.00

Secondary or higher 9.5 0.57*** 15.3 0.68** 8.8 0.57*** 9.5 0.63*** 8.1 0.70**

Work 

Does not work 17.1 1.00 21.4 1.00 18.8 1.00 17.9 1.00 16.6 1.00

Works for cash 15.9 1.03 22.4 1.09 19.0 1.08 19.2 1.12+ 16.5 1.06

Media exposure

No regular exposure 18.3 1.00 23.6 1.00 21.1 1.00 20.6 1.00 20.0 1.00

Weekly exposure 15.6 0.92 20.1 0.89* 17.0 0.82*** 16.3 0.83** 13.8 0.76***

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 17.3 1.00 22.1 1.00 19.4 1.00 18.8 1.00 17.0 1.00

18-24 years 16.6 1.03 21.5 0.96 18.5 0.98 17.6 0.92 16.3 0.93

25 years or more 12.0 0.81 14.4 0.74+ 14.4 0.83 15.8 0.82 12.0 0.70+

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 16.8 1.00 21.8 1.00 19.2 1.00 18.6 1.00 17.5 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 18.0 1.06 22.2 0.99 19.0 0.99 18.0 1.00 16.4 0.94

Wife is 10+ years younger 14.3 0.89 20.2 0.99 17.7 0.97 17.8 0.99 14.7 0.89

Residence

Rural 17.6 1.00 23.0 1.00 20.4 1.00 19.4 1.00 18.1 1.00

Urban 11.9 0.92 13.4 0.82* 9.6 0.65*** 10.9 0.94 7.6 0.82+

Family structure

Nuclear 17.2 1.00 22.2 1.00 19.4 1.00 18.5 1.00 17.0 1.00

Extended 15.7 0.96 20.0 0.92 17.1 0.92 17.4 0.98 15.1 0.98

Wealth index

Poorest 18.5 1.00 23.3 1.00 20.8 1.00 20.4 1.00 19.6 1.00

Poorer 18.1 0.92 22.9 0.94 20.0 0.91 20.4 1.04 17.6 0.94

Middle 18.8 0.96 23.9 0.97 21.8 0.94 20.6 0.91 18.6 0.93

Richer 16.2 0.84+ 21.5 0.93 19.2 0.96 17.1 0.86+ 17.0 1.01

Richest 12.2 0.72** 16.1 0.82+ 12.0 0.75** 11.9 0.75** 9.5 0.73**

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose 

husbands have completed high 

school

n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.01** n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00

Percentage of women who 

watch television at least weekly n/a 1.00 n/a 0.99 n/a 1.00 n/a 0.99* n/a 0.99*

Constant n/a 0.17*** n/a 0.23*** n/a 0.17*** n/a 0.21*** n/a 0.16***

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) from 

the value for the reference category.

+p<0.10, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

OR = Odds ratio

n/a = Not available or not applicable
139

Appendix Table 3A.7. Percentage of currently married women who agree that a husband is 

justified in beating his wife for the specified reason, by background characteristics, and odds 

ratios (estimated using multivariable logistic regression): Mali

A husband is justified in beating his wife if:

She goes

out without 

telling him

She neglects 

the children

She argues 

with him

She refuses 

to have sex 

with him

She burns 

the food

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR % OR % OR

Age 

15 to 19 78.0 1.11 76.1 1.23+ 64.3 1.03 74.2 0.81+ 34.1 0.92

20 to 29 76.4 1.07 71.6 1.16* 62.8 1.07 75.6 0.93 34.0 0.99

30 to 39 77.6 1.13+ 73.6 1.17* 63.7 1.08 78.6 1.11 34.5 1.02

40 to 49 76.3 1.00 70.7 1.00 62.9 1.00 76.9 1.00 33.6 1.00

Children ever born

None 74.1 1.01 70.0 0.95 59.9 1.03 69.6 0.86+ 31.7 1.02

1 or 2 74.9 1.00 71.5 1.00 62.4 1.00 75.7 1.00 33.6 1.00

3 or 4 76.5 1.07 71.4 1.07 62.0 1.10 75.4 1.02 33.9 1.04

5+ 78.8 1.13 74.2 1.18* 65.0 1.12+ 79.2 1.06 34.9 0.94

Education

None 78.3 1.00 72.7 0.79** 64.6 0.91 77.9 1.00 34.7 0.93

Primary 77.1 1.00 77.3 1.00 63.7 1.00 77.6 1.00 36.2 1.00

Secondary or higher 54.4 0.50*** 60.2 0.61*** 41.7 0.58*** 54.9 0.60*** 19.3 0.65***

Work 

Does not work 77.7 1.00 73.0 1.00 64.4 1.00 77.4 1.00 32.6 1.00

Works for cash 76.1 0.96 72.1 0.95 62.0 0.94 75.9 0.96 35.7 1.15**

Media exposure

No regular exposure 76.7 1.00 70.0 1.00 68.3 1.00 78.5 1.00 34.2 1.00

Weekly exposure 77.1 1.36*** 74.0 1.43*** 60.4 0.96 75.6 1.04 34.0 1.20***

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 79.0 1.00 74.9 1.00 65.7 1.00 78.6 1.00 36.6 1.00

18-24 years 72.7 0.84** 67.4 0.82*** 58.3 0.92+ 72.9 0.90+ 28.5 0.82***

25 years or more 62.6 0.80 60.1 0.80+ 47.8 0.88 61.9 0.76* 21.0 0.69**

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 71.3 1.00 65.2 1.00 55.8 1.00 73.8 1.00 29.1 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 76.0 1.25** 70.8 1.23** 60.4 1.13+ 74.2 1.01 31.6 1.08

Wife is 10+ years younger 78.7 1.39*** 75.2 1.40*** 66.6 1.41*** 78.8 1.28*** 36.5 1.33***

Residence

Rural 79.5 1.00 74.0 1.00 66.7 1.00 78.4 1.00 36.2 1.00

Urban 69.1 0.64*** 68.1 0.61*** 52.7 0.77*** 71.5 0.81* 27.4 0.72***

Family structure

Nuclear 78.3 1.00 73.1 1.00 64.0 1.00 77.6 1.00 34.3 1.00

Extended 72.1 0.95 70.6 0.96 60.5 1.10+ 73.2 1.04 33.3 1.09+

Wealth index

Poorest 77.4 1.00 69.8 1.00 62.4 1.00 75.4 1.00 33.1 1.00

Poorer 79.9 1.32*** 74.8 1.30*** 66.0 1.29*** 79.9 1.30*** 34.7 1.12+

Middle 79.2 1.37*** 74.3 1.25*** 68.3 1.38*** 78.0 1.27** 36.7 1.22**

Richer 79.7 1.36*** 74.8 1.27*** 68.0 1.48*** 81.3 1.37*** 37.4 1.33***

Richest 67.3 0.91 68.8 1.02 50.1 0.93 67.9 0.89 27.8 1.03

Community-level 

variables

Percentage of women 

whose husbands have 

completed high school n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 0.99* n/a 1.00

Percentage of women who 

watch television at least 

weekly n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00* n/a 1.00** n/a 1.00+ n/a 1.00

Constant n/a 1.95*** n/a 1.63*** n/a 1.47*** n/a 2.20*** n/a 0.37***

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) from 

the value for the reference category.

+p<0.10, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

OR = Odds ratio

n/a = Not available or not applicable
140

Appendix Table 3A.8. Percentage of currently married women who agree that a husband is 

justified in beating his wife for the specified reason, by background characteristics, and odds 

ratios (estimated using multivariable logistic regression): Mozambique

A husband is justified in beating his wife if:

She goes

out without 

telling him

She neglects

the children

She argues 

with him

She refuses 

to have sex 

with him

She burns

the food

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR % OR % OR

Age 

15 to 19 42.3 1.12 40.5 1.05 39.6 1.26* 38.8 1.15 27.7 1.42**

20 to 29 38.8 1.02 39.2 0.98 35.6 1.10 37.1 1.13 24.2 1.17+

30 to 39 36.5 0.94 37.7 0.90 32.1 1.01 36.9 1.05 24.2 1.00

40 to 49 39.9 1.00 40.1 1.00 34.7 1.00 38.4 1.00 24.8 1.00

Children ever born

None 39.4 0.96 35.2 0.79** 35.3 0.98 37.7 1.03 24.0 0.93

1 or 2 40.4 1.00 40.9 1.00 36.1 1.00 36.9 1.00 25.5 1.00

3 or 4 38.1 0.92 40.0 0.95 35.6 1.02 36.9 0.93 23.9 0.93

5+ 37.5 0.88+ 37.9 0.92 33.0 0.95 38.3 0.97 24.7 0.96

Education

None 42.2 1.15** 41.2 1.05 37.3 1.16** 41.5 1.18** 27.6 1.11+

Primary 36.6 1.00 38.2 1.00 33.6 1.00 35.4 1.00 22.9 1.00

Secondary or higher 22.8 0.64*** 25.4 0.74* 20.4 0.60*** 15.1 0.52*** 11.1 0.59**

Work 

Does not work 39.1 1.00 38.9 1.00 34.8 1.00 37.7 1.00 24.7 1.00

Works for cash 37.0 1.21** 40.2 1.29*** 35.1 1.34*** 36.3 1.33*** 24.8 1.41***

Media exposure

No regular exposure 42.2 1.00 41.5 1.00 37.5 1.00 40.7 1.00 27.4 1.00

Weekly exposure 35.0 0.77*** 36.5 0.83*** 32.0 0.84*** 34.0 0.90* 21.7 0.87*

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 39.4 1.00 39.0 1.00 35.0 1.00 38.4 1.00 24.8 1.00

18-24 years 37.9 1.03 39.4 1.09+ 34.6 1.04 35.3 0.99 24.6 1.12+

25 years or more 34.6 0.90 38.1 0.97 34.0 1.00 39.9 1.07 23.3 1.01

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 39.0 1.00 39.6 1.00 36.0 1.00 37.5 1.00 25.1 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 38.5 1.03 38.3 0.96 34.0 0.97 37.1 1.03 25.3 1.01

Wife is 10+ years younger 38.5 1.05 39.2 0.98 33.9 0.98 38.0 1.04 23.3 0.93

Residence

Rural 41.6 1.00 41.6 1.00 37.4 1.00 41.3 1.00 27.7 1.00

Urban 31.7 0.75*** 33.0 0.82** 28.5 0.82* 28.0 0.79** 17.3 0.77**

Family structure

Nuclear 39.2 1.00 39.1 1.00 35.4 1.00 38.7 1.00 26.2 1.00

Extended 38.0 0.97 39.1 1.06 33.8 0.95 35.3 0.98 22.0 0.83**

Wealth index

Poorest 38.1 1.00 37.5 1.00 34.5 1.00 37.8 1.00 25.9 1.00

Poorer 43.9 1.33*** 43.4 1.33*** 38.4 1.21** 43.0 1.16* 28.0 1.17+

Middle 42.5 1.37*** 43.0 1.41*** 39.6 1.34*** 43.3 1.29*** 30.2 1.35***

Richer 37.9 1.33*** 40.5 1.39*** 33.6 1.20* 36.6 1.13 21.8 0.99

Richest 30.1 1.23+ 30.4 1.10 26.4 1.03 24.3 0.82+ 14.9 0.84

Community-level 

variables

Percentage of women 

whose husbands have 

completed high school n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00+

Percentage of women who 

watch television at least 

weekly n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00* n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00+ n/a 0.99**

Constant n/a 0.52*** n/a 0.60*** n/a 0.48*** n/a 0.52*** n/a 0.27**

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) from 

the value for the reference category.

+p<0.10, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

OR = Odds ratio

n/a = Not available or not applicable
141

Appendix Table 3A.9. Percentage of currently married women who agree that a husband is 

justified in beating his wife for the specified reason, by background characteristics, and odds 

ratios (estimated using multivariable logistic regression): Nigeria

A husband is justified in beating his wife if:

She goes

out without 

telling him

She neglects

the children

She argues

with him

She refuses

to have sex 

with him

She burns

the food

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR % OR % OR

Age 

15 to 19 74.7 1.94*** 59.3 1.43* 54.4 1.25 53.9 1.40* 41.1 1.32+

20 to 29 59.2 1.55*** 52.7 1.40*** 47.0 1.22* 43.0 1.34** 33.1 1.29*

30 to 39 55.1 1.20* 50.0 1.13 44.7 1.08 38.9 1.04 32.0 1.09

40 to 49 57.8 1.00 53.5 1.00 48.5 1.00 46.0 1.00 36.5 1.00

Children ever born

None 61.0 1.00 49.4 1.00 45.7 1.00 47.2 1.00 31.7 1.00

1 or 2 57.0 0.95 50.9 0.91 46.1 0.94 37.4 1.32* 31.5 0.84

3 or 4 58.8 1.20+ 52.7 1.12 46.4 1.05 43.5 1.29** 33.6 1.13

5+ 60.6 1.25* 54.7 1.18+ 49.2 1.02 46.7 1.30** 37.3 1.10

Education

None 72.9 1.59*** 61.3 1.11 56.4 1.21* 55.5 1.35*** 43.3 1.17+

Primary 53.6 1.00 52.0 1.00 46.3 1.00 38.7 1.00 31.8 1.00

Secondary or higher 33.8 0.66*** 34.0 0.66*** 28.2 0.68*** 21.0 0.75** 16.4 0.70**

Work 

Does not work 66.3 1.00 56.2 1.00 50.3 1.00 48.9 1.00 38.4 1.00

Works for cash 54.0 0.85* 50.0 1.02 45.0 1.06 39.4 0.98 31.0 0.95

Media exposure

No regular exposure 66.0 1.00 62.5 1.00 58.5 1.00 54.3 1.00 46.8 1.00

Weekly exposure 55.2 1.09 46.8 0.79*** 40.6 0.72*** 37.0 0.79*** 26.7 0.64**

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 68.1 1.00 58.2 1.00 52.6 1.00 51.3 1.00 40.1 1.00

18-24 years 44.8 0.68*** 44.0 0.81** 39.9 0.84* 30.7 0.65*** 24.7 0.70***

25 years or more 27.6 0.50*** 32.0 0.58*** 23.8 0.51*** 15.8 0.41*** 13.9 0.48***

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 51.8 1.00 49.6 1.00 45.1 1.00 36.1 1.00 30.6 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 56.5 1.07 50.8 1.07 46.0 1.02 42.8 1.19+ 33.5 1.08

Wife is 10+ years younger 63.4 1.16 55.2 1.15 49.2 1.05 46.6 1.22* 36.2 1.06

Residence

Rural 64.0 1.00 57.0 1.00 51.4 1.00 48.1 1.00 38.3 1.00

Urban 48.4 1.18* 42.9 1.11 38.3 1.23** 33.0 1.31*** 25.2 1.35***

Family structure

Nuclear 59.7 1.00 52.9 1.00 48.4 1.00 44.8 1.00 35.0 1.00

Extended 57.9 1.04 52.2 1.09 44.5 0.96 39.8 0.94 32.2 1.09

Wealth index

Poorest 69.5 1.00 64.0 1.00 57.8 1.00 56.4 1.00 46.5 1.00

Poorer 71.1 0.99 61.9 0.86+ 57.7 0.99 54.1 0.96 43.9 0.88

Middle 64.5 0.84+ 53.8 0.68*** 50.4 0.82* 47.9 0.87 38.5 0.78**

Richer 59.0 0.97 49.6 0.77* 41.2 0.73** 37.7 0.81+ 25.8 0.62***

Richest 28.5 0.59*** 31.0 0.62** 26.4 0.62** 17.3 0.62** 12.8 0.47***

Community-level 

variables

Percentage of women 

whose husbands have 

completed high school n/a 0.99*** n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00* n/a 1.00

Percentage of women who 

watch television at least 

weekly n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00* n/a 1.00 n/a 0.99** n/a 0.99**

Constant n/a 1.27** n/a 0.95 n/a 0.72*** n/a 0.67*** n/a 0.45***

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) from 

the value for the reference category.

+p<0.10, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

OR = Odds ratio

n/a = Not available or not applicable
142

Appendix Table 3A.10. Percentage of currently married women who agree that a husband is 

justified in beating his wife for the specified reason, by background characteristics, and odds 

ratios (estimated using multivariable logistic regression): Rwanda

A husband is justified in beating his wife if:

She goes

out without

telling him

She neglects

the children

She argues 

with him

She refuses

to have sex

with him

She burns

the food

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR % OR % OR

Age 

15 to 19 43.0 1.29 64.0 1.70* 12.8 1.44 33.1 0.85 29.1 1.66+

20 to 29 36.5 0.98 58.1 1.21 11.2 1.04 35.3 0.86 20.5 0.93

30 to 39 39.5 0.96 57.8 0.98 12.4 0.95 36.9 0.76** 22.4 0.85

40 to 49 42.8 1.00 61.1 1.00 13.8 1.00 45.7 1.00 26.2 1.00

Children ever born

None 38.8 0.89 57.7 1.01 8.3 0.68 32.7 0.86 21.9 0.92

1 or 2 36.2 1.00 55.7 1.00 11.2 1.00 35.0 1.00 20.7 1.00

3 or 4 36.8 1.01 57.1 1.11 12.2 1.10 35.1 0.97 21.0 1.07

5+ 42.8 1.06 62.4 1.26+ 13.7 1.18 43.1 1.07 25.3 1.15

Education

None 47.8 1.37*** 65.1 1.16* 15.7 1.35** 46.6 1.36*** 27.5 1.16+

Primary 37.8 1.00 59.5 1.00 11.2 1.00 36.1 1.00 21.9 1.00

Secondary or higher 16.0 0.42*** 33.3 0.41*** 6.1 0.60+ 18.4 0.50*** 9.8 0.55**

Work 

Does not work 43.8 1.00 61.5 1.00 14.9 1.00 42.7 1.00 25.1 1.00

Works for cash 30.1 0.74** 48.6 0.86+ 6.3 0.43*** 26.5 0.59*** 16.3 0.74**

Media exposure

No regular exposure 43.7 1.00 63.8 1.00 14.6 1.00 42.7 1.00 25.8 1.00

Weekly exposure 33.0 0.85* 52.3 0.84* 9.1 0.61*** 31.9 0.81** 18.4 0.83*

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 42.8 1.00 64.0 1.00 13.7 1.00 40.6 1.00 25.5 1.00

18-24 years 37.8 0.89 57.7 0.84* 11.7 0.91 37.4 0.89 21.4 0.83*

25 years or more 39.1 1.03 53.5 0.88 12.5 1.21 35.6 0.86 24.1 1.16

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 40.4 1.00 60.3 1.00 12.2 1.00 39.1 1.00 22.7 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 34.4 0.82* 55.4 0.83* 11.5 1.12 34.0 0.90 21.2 1.01

Wife is 10+ years younger 40.5 1.10 58.6 0.96 13.6 1.25+ 39.5 1.14 23.7 1.14

Residence

Rural 41.6 1.00 61.6 1.00 13.1 1.00 40.6 1.00 24.5 1.00

Urban 24.6 1.05 42.9 0.78 7.6 0.89 22.9 0.80 12.0 0.87

Family structure

Nuclear 41.6 1.00 61.6 1.00 13.0 1.00 40.4 1.00 24.4 1.00

Extended 27.9 0.85 46.6 0.77** 8.9 0.86 27.5 0.89 15.0 0.78*

Wealth index

Poorest 42.2 1.00 57.7 1.00 11.8 1.00 36.6 1.00 24.9 1.00

Poorer 44.9 1.10 66.6 1.50*** 14.2 1.18 45.7 1.47*** 27.7 1.13

Middle 43.9 1.09 63.5 1.36** 14.0 1.41* 41.6 1.33* 24.2 1.01

Richer 38.0 0.97 57.9 1.24+ 12.6 1.50* 37.6 1.28* 23.2 1.12

Richest 26.6 1.11 46.8 1.53** 7.9 1.43 26.7 1.44* 12.8 1.01

Community-level 

variables

Percentage of women 

whose husbands have 

completed high school n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00

Percentage of women who 

watch television at least 

weekly n/a 0.98*** n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 0.99 n/a 1.00

Constant n/a 0.51*** n/a 0.97 n/a 0.09*** n/a 0.38*** n/a 0.25***

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) from 

the value for the reference category.

+p<0.10, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

OR = Odds ratio

n/a = Not available or not applicable
143

Appendix Table 3A.11. Percentage of currently married women who agree that a husband is 

justified in beating his wife for the specified reason, by background characteristics, and odds 

ratios (estimated using multivariable logistic regression): Uganda

A husband is justified in beating his wife if:

She goes

out without 

telling him

She neglects 

the children

She argues 

with him

She refuses 

to have sex 

with him

She burns

the food

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR % OR % OR

Age 

15 to 19 63.1 1.38* 69.5 1.00 46.1 1.07 30.7 1.21 30.0 1.66**

20 to 29 58.5 1.18 70.0 1.13 36.3 0.84 25.3 1.08 21.9 1.23

30 to 39 54.5 0.98 67.8 1.01 39.9 1.01 26.0 1.04 21.3 1.05

40 to 49 56.7 1.00 69.6 1.00 41.9 1.00 27.6 1.00 22.7 1.00

Children ever born

None 55.4 0.84 71.0 1.15 40.1 1.09 24.6 1.02 25.2 1.18

1 or 2 60.6 1.00 69.4 1.00 38.4 1.00 24.4 1.00 21.6 1.00

3 or 4 55.6 0.83* 68.7 0.96 36.0 0.93 24.7 1.00 20.2 0.97

5+ 57.0 0.92 69.2 0.95 41.5 0.96 29.0 1.15 24.4 1.21

Education

None 59.8 0.99 71.6 1.08 44.9 0.99 32.5 1.13 28.0 1.11

Primary 59.2 1.00 70.5 1.00 40.0 1.00 26.0 1.00 22.3 1.00

Secondary or higher 44.9 0.77** 58.7 0.72*** 23.9 0.85 15.8 0.88 13.6 0.85

Work 

Does not work 62.9 1.00 74.3 1.00 46.3 1.00 33.3 1.00 28.0 1.00

Works for cash 52.5 0.69*** 64.6 0.69*** 32.7 0.61*** 20.1 0.57*** 17.8 0.57***

Media exposure

No regular exposure 60.7 1.00 72.7 1.00 46.2 1.00 31.8 1.00 26.9 1.00

Weekly exposure 54.4 0.99 66.0 0.89 32.6 0.85* 21.3 0.88 18.6 0.92

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 58.8 1.00 69.9 1.00 41.3 1.00 28.9 1.00 24.5 1.00

18-24 years 55.5 1.02 67.9 1.03 36.2 0.92 22.5 0.85* 19.4 0.84+

25 years or more 55.5 0.96 71.2 1.01 32.9 0.70+ 23.3 0.91 24.0 1.09

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 57.8 1.00 69.5 1.00 39.2 1.00 26.6 1.00 23.4 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 56.4 0.92 68.8 0.96 40.1 1.00 27.6 1.07 20.6 0.86

Wife is 10+ years younger 58.5 1.07 69.6 1.05 37.1 0.94 24.0 0.93 23.0 1.03

Residence

Rural 59.4 1.00 70.9 1.00 42.0 1.00 28.5 1.00 24.6 1.00

Urban 44.5 0.81* 58.3 0.78* 20.3 0.83 12.0 0.85 9.3 0.60***

Family structure

Nuclear 59.3 1.00 69.9 1.00 40.2 1.00 27.6 1.00 23.4 1.00

Extended 52.3 0.86* 67.5 0.94 36.3 0.97 23.0 0.89 20.5 0.98

Wealth index

Poorest 60.9 1.00 72.9 1.00 47.4 1.00 33.1 1.00 27.8 1.00

Poorer 62.9 1.14 74.1 1.11 48.7 1.07 31.7 0.98 29.5 1.11

Middle 60.8 1.05 70.2 0.94 40.5 0.84 27.0 0.88 22.6 0.89

Richer 56.5 0.91 67.0 0.87 35.4 0.69** 25.1 0.78* 19.3 0.80+

Richest 45.3 0.72* 61.0 0.81 21.8 0.51*** 13.7 0.50*** 12.4 0.61**

Community-level 

variables

Percentage of women 

whose husbands have 

completed high school n/a 1.01** n/a 1.01*** n/a 1.01*** n/a 1.01*** n/a 1.01***

Percentage of women who 

watch television at least 

weekly n/a 0.99** n/a 0.99*** n/a 0.98*** n/a 0.98*** n/a 0.98***

Constant n/a 1.11 n/a 1.78*** n/a 0.42*** n/a 0.27*** n/a 0.18***

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) from 

the value for the reference category.

+p<0.10, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

OR = Odds ratio

n/a = Not available or not applicable
144

Appendix Table 3A.12. Percentage of currently married women who agree that a husband is 

justified in beating his wife for the specified reason, by background characteristics, and odds 

ratios (estimated using multivariable logistic regression): Zambia

A husband is justified in beating his wife if:

She goes

out without 

telling him

She neglects

the children

She argues 

with him

She refuses 

to have sex

with him

She burns

the food

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR % OR % OR

Age 

15 to 19 87.9 2.58*** 68.9 1.86*** 64.6 1.88*** 54.5 0.98 56.8 1.79***

20 to 29 83.0 1.63*** 64.0 1.41** 56.2 1.38** 50.1 1.01 47.8 1.42**

30 to 39 80.1 1.17 60.2 1.08 52.2 1.11 48.3 0.85+ 43.8 1.05

40 to 49 79.8 1.00 59.4 1.00 51.6 1.00 54.2 1.00 43.8 1.00

Children ever born

None 77.5 0.59** 57.1 0.67** 53.5 0.75* 49.4 0.96 48.1 0.93

1 or 2 82.4 1.00 63.2 1.00 56.2 1.00 48.3 1.00 45.6 1.00

3 or 4 81.8 1.02 62.2 0.97 53.2 0.95 49.3 1.03 46.0 1.08

5+ 82.9 1.43** 63.4 1.17 55.8 1.20+ 53.8 1.15 48.1 1.32**

Education

None 77.5 0.69*** 64.1 0.94 56.6 0.91 52.5 0.90 50.5 1.01

Primary 85.3 1.00 66.3 1.00 59.8 1.00 55.8 1.00 50.7 1.00

Secondary or higher 76.5 0.61*** 52.1 0.69*** 42.2 0.65*** 36.4 0.60*** 34.6 0.70***

Work 

Does not work 82.6 1.00 63.3 1.00 55.9 1.00 52.3 1.00 47.5 1.00

Works for cash 81.1 1.02 61.3 1.06 53.6 1.07 47.7 0.92 45.6 1.09

Media exposure

No regular exposure 83.5 1.00 66.9 1.00 60.5 1.00 55.5 1.00 52.1 1.00

Weekly exposure 80.5 0.83+ 57.7 0.82** 49.0 0.87+ 45.1 0.86* 40.8 0.88+

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 83.8 1.00 65.0 1.00 57.4 1.00 54.8 1.00 50.1 1.00

18-24 years 80.8 1.07 60.3 1.04 53.2 1.07 45.9 0.86* 43.2 0.96

25 years or more 67.1 0.73 47.0 0.75 36.2 0.68* 34.0 0.60** 30.2 0.73

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 80.4 1.00 61.6 1.00 55.5 1.00 50.8 1.00 46.5 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 83.3 1.19* 63.3 1.08 54.8 1.01 49.2 0.90 47.4 1.06

Wife is 10+ years younger 82.5 1.15 62.7 1.07 55.0 0.99 53.6 1.04 46.5 0.98

Residence

Rural 81.7 1.00 64.2 1.00 58.4 1.00 52.7 1.00 49.9 1.00

Urban 82.8 1.24 59.7 1.37** 49.1 1.22+ 47.0 1.52*** 41.2 1.34**

Family structure

Nuclear 82.7 1.00 64.7 1.00 56.7 1.00 53.1 1.00 48.6 1.00

Extended 81.1 0.94 59.2 0.92 52.5 1.07 46.7 0.95 43.9 0.97

Wealth index

Poorest 76.6 1.00 61.1 1.00 57.0 1.00 50.1 1.00 48.9 1.00

Poorer 83.4 1.57*** 66.9 1.31** 61.5 1.21* 55.9 1.26* 52.4 1.16

Middle 86.5 1.83*** 69.1 1.43*** 61.6 1.20+ 57.2 1.30** 54.4 1.23*

Richer 84.3 1.51* 61.8 1.11 54.2 0.90 51.5 1.20 44.8 0.92

Richest 77.8 1.05 52.0 0.97 39.3 0.58** 36.6 0.88 31.7 0.67*

Community-level 

variables

Percentage of women 

whose husbands have 

completed high school n/a 1.01* n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00* n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00

Percentage of women who 

watch television at least 

weekly n/a 1.00 n/a 0.99** n/a 0.99** n/a 0.99*** n/a 0.99**

Constant n/a 3.07*** n/a 1.50*** n/a 0.98 n/a 0.94 n/a 0.84

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) from 

the value for the reference category.

+p<0.10, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

OR = Odds ratio

n/a = Not available or not applicable
145

Appendix Table 3A.13. Percentage of currently married women who agree that a husband is 

justified in beating his wife for the specified reason, by background characteristics, and odds 

ratios (estimated using multivariable logistic regression): Zimbabwe

A husband is justified in beating his wife if:

She goes

out without

telling him

She neglects 

the children

She argues

with him

She refuses 

to have sex 

with him

She burns 

the food

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR % OR % OR

Age 

15 to 19 44.1 2.72*** 43.6 2.86*** 49.7 2.63*** 30.6 1.42 22.9 3.68***

20 to 29 28.4 1.65*** 32.6 2.13*** 33.7 1.82*** 24.6 1.29+ 11.9 1.88**

30 to 39 25.6 1.12 27.9 1.30* 29.9 1.22+ 26.2 1.18 9.8 1.02

40 to 49 27.0 1.00 26.4 1.00 31.9 1.00 26.2 1.00 11.6 1.00

Children ever born

None 32.6 1.10 33.5 0.99 36.2 0.97 22.4 0.94 12.1 0.84

1 or 2 27.5 1.00 30.7 1.00 33.2 1.00 23.8 1.00 11.6 1.00

3 or 4 26.9 1.12 29.2 1.15 29.9 0.93 26.6 1.09 12.3 1.26

5+ 31.4 1.34* 32.8 1.48** 37.3 1.14 29.9 1.13 13.2 1.36

Education

None 33.9 1.11 35.2 1.10 46.8 1.48** 34.5 1.21 20.6 1.71**

Primary 33.4 1.00 35.5 1.00 40.7 1.00 32.3 1.00 14.9 1.00

Secondary or higher 23.0 0.76** 25.8 0.75** 24.0 0.57*** 17.6 0.64*** 7.8 0.66**

Work 

Does not work 32.1 1.00 33.9 1.00 36.6 1.00 27.3 1.00 13.8 1.00

Works for cash 25.3 0.80** 28.2 0.80** 30.6 0.88+ 24.4 1.01 10.6 0.81+

Media exposure

No regular exposure 34.6 1.00 34.8 1.00 41.3 1.00 33.0 1.00 15.5 1.00

Weekly exposure 24.5 0.92 28.4 1.08 28.2 0.98 20.7 0.82* 9.8 0.88

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 33.3 1.00 35.2 1.00 40.1 1.00 31.2 1.00 17.1 1.00

18-24 years 26.7 0.98 29.1 0.93 30.1 0.87 23.3 0.81* 9.1 0.72**

25 years or more 18.5 0.80 22.1 0.94 20.7 0.72+ 15.3 0.47*** 8.6 0.68

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 26.9 1.00 28.4 1.00 30.3 1.00 23.8 1.00 11.1 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 30.3 1.05 33.2 1.12 36.5 1.24* 26.7 1.06 11.8 1.01

Wife is 10+ years younger 29.4 0.90 31.7 0.94 34.2 0.94 26.8 0.87 13.4 1.01

Residence

Rural 34.2 1.00 35.4 1.00 40.5 1.00 31.6 1.00 15.2 1.00

Urban 19.1 0.69+ 23.4 0.97 21.6 1.04 15.7 0.66+ 6.8 0.41**

Family structure

Nuclear 29.0 1.00 30.1 1.00 33.2 1.00 25.9 1.00 12.4 1.00

Extended 28.4 0.88 32.8 1.08 34.5 1.03 25.9 0.96 11.7 0.87

Wealth index

Poorest 35.5 1.00 40.8 1.00 48.1 1.00 37.8 1.00 15.8 1.00

Poorer 38.9 1.22+ 37.8 0.93 41.5 0.88 32.7 0.88 15.2 1.02

Middle 31.1 0.91 31.1 0.70** 37.1 0.70** 27.4 0.70** 14.3 0.97

Richer 24.2 0.91 27.8 0.64** 29.4 0.59*** 22.2 0.76+ 12.5 1.03

Richest 17.6 0.69+ 21.0 0.49*** 17.0 0.34*** 12.9 0.48** 4.6 0.44*

Community-level 

variables

Percentage of women 

whose husbands have 

completed high school n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00+ n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 0.99*

Percentage of women who 

watch television at least 

weekly n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.02**

Constant n/a 0.36*** n/a 0.61** n/a 0.61** n/a 0.23*** n/a 0.11***

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) 

from the value for the reference category.

+p<0.10, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

OR = Odds ratio

n/a = Not available or not applicable
146

Appendix Table 3A.14. Percentage of currently married women who agree that a husband is 

justified in beating his wife for the specified reason, by background characteristics, and odds 

ratios (estimated using multivariable logistic regression): Armenia

A husband is justified in beating his wife if:

She goes

out without 

telling him

She neglects 

the children

She argues 

with him

She refuses 

to have sex

with him

She burns 

the food

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR % OR % OR

Age 

15 to 19 38.4 1.45 37.4 1.10 32.7 1.49 8.1 0.60 7.1 0.87

20 to 29 22.5 1.01 30.2 0.98 16.5 1.05 7.0 0.78 4.9 1.14

30 to 39 22.2 1.02 29.5 0.96 16.1 1.10 7.2 0.83 5.5 1.19

40 to 49 20.5 1.00 28.4 1.00 13.7 1.00 8.4 1.00 4.4 1.00

Children ever born

None 18.1 0.86 19.5 0.68* 16.3 1.18 4.2 0.66 3.7 0.92

1 or 2 17.5 1.00 24.8 1.00 13.4 1.00 6.4 1.00 3.9 1.00

3 or 4 26.7 1.30** 35.3 1.20* 17.7 1.06 8.7 1.05 6.0 1.04

5+ 38.3 1.96*** 43.1 1.32+ 25.4 1.33 14.9 1.45 9.9 1.48

Education

None or primary 42.0 1.00 49.8 1.00 34.9 1.00 18.2 1.00 12.7 1.00

Secondary or higher 20.7 0.65** 28.1 0.69** 14.4 0.57*** 6.8 0.55*** 4.4 0.54**

Work 

Does not work 25.3 1.00 32.9 1.00 17.8 1.00 8.2 1.00 5.5 1.00

Works for cash 11.3 0.55*** 18.2 0.64*** 8.9 0.66*** 5.4 0.89 3.1 0.92

Media exposure

No regular exposure 40.5 1.00 46.5 1.00 28.8 1.00 16.9 1.00 11.7 1.00

Weekly exposure 20.3 0.61*** 27.8 0.68*** 14.5 0.66** 6.7 0.57*** 4.3 0.62**

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 33.1 1.00 41.1 1.00 24.2 1.00 11.3 1.00 8.2 1.00

18-24 years 20.1 0.76** 27.6 0.79* 14.2 0.75** 6.7 0.72* 4.1 0.73+

25 years or more 12.9 0.59** 18.6 0.59** 9.2 0.51** 5.8 0.65 4.5 0.86

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 20.5 1.00 27.8 1.00 14.9 1.00 7.8 1.00 4.8 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 24.7 0.99 32.6 1.05 17.3 0.99 7.2 0.77+ 5.2 0.86

Wife is 10+ years younger 23.0 0.84 28.7 0.87 15.5 0.77 7.6 0.75 5.4 0.86

Residence

Rural 33.6 1.00 43.2 1.00 23.7 1.00 11.2 1.00 8.7 1.00

Urban 13.7 0.74** 19.6 0.71*** 10.0 0.74* 4.9 0.86 2.3 0.48**

Family structure

Nuclear 20.4 1.00 30.0 1.00 15.1 1.00 7.5 1.00 5.2 1.00

Extended 23.4 1.07 29.2 0.87+ 16.4 0.94 7.6 1.08 4.8 0.92

Wealth index

Poorest 41.7 1.00 49.1 1.00 28.5 1.00 14.8 1.00 11.1 1.00

Poorer 29.1 0.69*** 39.9 0.81* 20.2 0.82+ 8.8 0.69* 6.6 0.85

Middle 17.7 0.49*** 27.8 0.66*** 14.5 0.65** 6.7 0.67* 3.7 0.67+

Richer 15.0 0.45*** 19.9 0.47*** 10.2 0.50*** 4.8 0.51** 2.5 0.58+

Richest 9.2 0.34*** 13.4 0.37*** 7.0 0.43*** 3.5 0.40** 1.7 0.42*

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose 

husbands have completed 

high school n/a 1.01* n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.01

Percentage of women who 

watch television at least 

weekly n/a 0.99** n/a 0.99*** n/a 0.99*** n/a 0.98*** n/a 0.98**

Constant n/a 0.47+ n/a 0.97 n/a 0.55 n/a 0.52 n/a 0.15*

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) 

from the value for the reference category.

+p<0.10, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

OR = Odds ratio

n/a = Not available or not applicable
147

Appendix Table 3A.15. Percentage of currently married women who agree that a husband is 

justified in beating his wife for the specified reason, by background characteristics, and odds 

ratios (estimated using multivariable logistic regression): Jordan

A husband is justified in beating his wife if:

She goes

out without 

telling him

She neglects 

the children

She argues

with him

She refuses 

to have sex

with him

She burns 

the food

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR % OR % OR

Age 

15 to 19 35.3 1.69* 46.8 1.44+ 4.6 1.02 n/a n/a 73.9 1.91**

20 to 29 23.8 1.22 35.3 1.04 2.7 0.78 n/a n/a 61.2 1.36**

30 to 39 21.9 1.08 33.6 0.89 3.8 0.88 n/a n/a 57.5 1.04

40 to 49 26.2 1.00 41.1 1.00 6.1 1.00 n/a n/a 58.8 1.00

Children ever born

None 30.6 1.33* 40.1 1.24+ 7.0 2.11** n/a n/a 63.9 1.19

1 or 2 20.4 1.00 31.6 1.00 2.2 1.00 n/a n/a 54.7 1.00

3 or 4 18.3 0.94 28.7 0.94 2.4 1.28 n/a n/a 54.4 1.13

5+ 29.2 1.27* 44.5 1.45*** 5.8 1.61* n/a n/a 65.6 1.52***

Education

None 63.3 1.93*** 73.8 1.79*** 21.0 1.84*** n/a n/a 84.0 1.83***

Primary 48.6 1.00 58.3 1.00 9.9 1.00 n/a n/a 78.5 1.00

Secondary or higher 17.9 0.34*** 30.8 0.46*** 2.1 0.30*** n/a n/a 55.2 0.51***

Work 

Does not work 25.3 1.00 38.0 1.00 4.3 1.00 n/a n/a 61.2 1.00

Works for cash 10.8 0.54*** 20.5 0.61*** 1.6 0.50* n/a n/a 42.7 0.59***

Media exposure

No regular exposure 23.4 1.00 33.6 1.00 4.3 1.00 n/a n/a 55.3 1.00

Weekly exposure 24.0 1.02 36.6 1.05 4.0 0.97 n/a n/a 59.9 1.08

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 30.7 1.00 44.6 1.00 5.5 1.00 n/a n/a 69.6 1.00

18-24 years 22.1 0.87+ 34.5 0.93 3.2 0.84 n/a n/a 57.0 0.78***

25 years or more 18.4 0.78+ 27.4 0.80+ 4.5 1.09 n/a n/a 49.8 0.72**

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 23.6 1.00 35.8 1.00 3.8 1.00 n/a n/a 58.1 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 22.2 0.85* 35.6 0.90 3.2 0.91 n/a n/a 60.0 0.97

Wife is 10+ years younger 27.9 1.10 38.8 1.02 6.1 1.06 n/a n/a 61.2 1.00

Residence

Rural 37.0 1.00 49.7 1.00 8.6 1.00 n/a n/a 72.8 1.00

Urban 20.6 0.69*** 32.9 0.72*** 2.9 0.65*** n/a n/a 56.0 0.67***

Family structure

Nuclear 23.6 1.00 36.0 1.00 3.9 1.00 n/a n/a 59.2 1.00

Extended 26.0 1.39*** 38.2 1.23* 4.9 1.62** n/a n/a 61.2 1.27**

Wealth index

Poorest 38.7 1.00 51.0 1.00 8.7 1.00 n/a n/a 72.5 1.00

Poorer 27.3 0.76** 38.1 0.76*** 4.4 0.68* n/a n/a 63.1 0.78**

Middle 20.7 0.52*** 35.8 0.68*** 2.3 0.39*** n/a n/a 61.6 0.76**

Richer 19.6 0.51*** 29.8 0.56*** 2.5 0.42*** n/a n/a 54.4 0.67***

Richest 11.0 0.32*** 24.4 0.49*** 1.8 0.39*** n/a n/a 42.4 0.47***

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose 

husbands have completed 

high school n/a 1.01** n/a 1.01** n/a 1.01 n/a n/a n/a 1.01**

Percentage of women who 

watch television at least 

weekly n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Constant n/a 0.34*** n/a 0.57** n/a 0.04*** n/a n/a n/a 1.69*

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) 

from the value for the reference category.

+p<0.10, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

OR = Odds ratio

n/a = Not available or not applicable
148

Appendix Table 3A.16. Percentage of currently married women who agree that a husband is 

justified in beating his wife for the specified reason, by background characteristics, and odds 

ratios (estimated using multivariable logistic regression): Morocco

A husband is justified in beating his wife if:

She goes

out without

telling him

She neglects 

the children

She argues

with him

She refuses 

to have sex 

with him

She burns 

the food

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR % OR % OR

Age 

15 to 19 72.5 1.69** 67.9 1.42* 71.1 1.49* 59.5 1.11 37.9 1.64**

20 to 29 58.3 1.24* 55.8 1.14 57.5 1.08 46.9 0.83* 26.0 1.08

30 to 39 51.6 1.08 50.8 1.06 53.1 1.04 46.3 0.94 23.7 0.98

40 to 49 53.7 1.00 52.5 1.00 55.8 1.00 51.0 1.00 26.2 1.00

Children ever born

None 56.8 1.22* 53.1 1.07 55.6 1.10 44.4 1.00 24.9 1.01

1 or 2 48.1 1.00 47.3 1.00 48.6 1.00 39.6 1.00 20.4 1.00

3 or 4 51.8 1.02 50.7 1.01 53.5 1.09 47.0 1.12 23.8 1.10

5+ 66.0 1.16+ 63.9 1.13 67.4 1.26** 62.5 1.24* 34.4 1.28**

Education

None 68.2 1.54*** 65.7 1.42*** 67.5 1.26*** 61.1 1.46*** 34.9 1.67***

Primary 47.6 1.00 46.8 1.00 50.7 1.00 39.8 1.00 16.2 1.00

Secondary or higher 18.4 0.39*** 19.3 0.40*** 22.5 0.43*** 14.9 0.44*** 3.9 0.33***

Work 

Does not work 58.7 1.00 56.5 1.00 59.2 1.00 51.2 1.00 27.3 1.00

Works for cash 27.6 0.60*** 30.7 0.75*** 31.5 0.67*** 28.2 0.81* 13.8 1.07

Media exposure

No regular exposure 77.7 1.00 76.8 1.00 78.5 1.00 72.3 1.00 46.5 1.00

Weekly exposure 51.0 0.83* 49.3 0.76*** 51.9 0.74*** 44.3 0.73*** 22.0 0.83**

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 62.9 1.00 61.1 1.00 64.1 1.00 57.7 1.00 30.7 1.00

18-24 years 54.4 1.06 52.4 0.98 54.8 0.97 46.5 0.90+ 24.6 0.98

25 years or more 36.3 0.83+ 36.9 0.83* 38.5 0.79* 31.0 0.72*** 16.2 1.04

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 57.0 1.00 55.7 1.00 57.0 1.00 50.4 1.00 27.0 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 54.1 0.92 51.8 0.88* 55.5 0.98 48.0 0.95 24.7 0.99

Wife is 10+ years younger 53.2 0.88* 52.2 0.89+ 54.8 0.94 46.4 0.90+ 25.1 1.00

Residence

Rural 75.3 1.00 72.8 1.00 73.4 1.00 66.8 1.00 40.9 1.00

Urban 39.8 0.73*** 38.9 0.74*** 42.8 0.83* 34.8 0.74*** 14.3 0.80**

Family structure

Nuclear 52.0 1.00 50.4 1.00 53.1 1.00 46.2 1.00 23.1 1.00

Extended 59.4 1.07 57.9 1.13* 60.1 1.16** 52.0 1.16** 29.6 1.23***

Wealth index

Poorest 80.7 1.00 78.3 1.00 79.7 1.00 72.7 1.00 49.1 1.00

Poorer 73.8 0.92 71.0 0.86+ 71.2 0.78** 63.3 0.87+ 37.1 0.81**

Middle 56.7 0.64*** 54.9 0.61*** 57.6 0.61*** 50.9 0.80* 22.1 0.55***

Richer 41.6 0.50*** 39.3 0.44*** 45.1 0.48*** 36.2 0.62*** 15.1 0.45***

Richest 23.9 0.34*** 25.2 0.34*** 27.6 0.33*** 20.9 0.45*** 6.4 0.28***

Community-level variables

Percentage of women 

whose husbands have 

completed high school n/a 1.00* n/a 1.00+ n/a 1.00*** n/a 0.99*** n/a 1.00

Percentage of women who 

watch television at least 

weekly n/a 1.00+ n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00* n/a 1.00**

Constant n/a 1.22 n/a 1.06 n/a 1.34* n/a 1.07 n/a 0.33***

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) from 

the value for the reference category.

+p<0.10, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

OR = Odds ratio

n/a = Not available or not applicable
149

Appendix Table 3A.17. Percentage of currently married women who agree that a husband is 

justified in beating his wife for the specified reason, by background characteristics, and odds 

ratios (estimated using multivariable logistic regression): Cambodia

A husband is justified in beating his wife if:

She goes

out without 

telling him

She neglects 

the children

She argues 

with him

She refuses 

to have sex 

with him

She burns 

the food

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR % OR % OR

Age 

15 to 19 25.9 1.21 31.8 1.29 20.6 0.81 9.3 0.62 11.2 0.94

20 to 29 25.2 1.01 28.5 1.08 18.7 0.89 8.0 0.58* 11.9 0.95

30 to 39 27.8 1.10 31.1 1.21 18.0 0.85 9.7 0.92 9.6 0.87

40 to 49 26.6 1.00 27.0 1.00 21.6 1.00 10.5 1.00 13.1 1.00

Children ever born

None 19.0 0.87 24.8 0.84 19.6 1.22 9.2 1.18 14.4 1.40

1 or 2 23.6 1.00 28.0 1.00 16.7 1.00 9.3 1.00 10.3 1.00

3 or 4 29.1 1.14 30.4 1.00 20.5 1.12 10.1 0.89 11.0 1.19

5+ 28.4 0.95 30.2 0.94 20.5 0.98 9.0 0.66+ 11.8 0.98

Education

None 28.3 0.96 31.8 0.98 20.6 0.99 11.3 1.26 14.9 1.22

Primary 27.8 1.00 29.5 1.00 19.5 1.00 8.8 1.00 9.9 1.00

Secondary or higher 17.6 0.67* 22.2 0.79 15.5 0.83 7.7 0.87 8.8 0.94

Work 

Does not work 24.6 1.00 27.3 1.00 16.9 1.00 9.1 1.00 11.6 1.00

Works for cash 30.4 1.47*** 32.9 1.54*** 23.6 1.76*** 10.1 1.29+ 10.9 1.22

Media exposure

No regular exposure 26.4 1.00 28.7 1.00 20.0 1.00 11.0 1.00 15.3 1.00

Weekly exposure 26.8 1.10 29.6 1.14 19.0 1.13 8.6 1.11 9.3 0.66**

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 30.1 1.00 33.3 1.00 21.8 1.00 9.4 1.00 10.8 1.00

18-24 years 25.3 0.78* 27.2 0.76** 17.6 0.72** 8.8 0.74* 11.1 0.93

25 years or more 21.8 0.63* 27.4 0.70+ 20.9 0.92 13.3 1.03 14.2 1.40

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 27.2 1.00 29.5 1.00 19.3 1.00 10.1 1.00 10.6 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 25.6 0.96 29.8 0.94 20.4 0.93 7.9 0.80 13.5 1.35*

Wife is 10+ years younger 25.0 0.80 25.1 0.79 17.0 0.89 8.1 0.91 12.0 1.01

Residence

Rural 28.3 1.00 31.0 1.00 20.1 1.00 9.6 1.00 12.1 1.00

Urban 17.5 0.75+ 19.2 0.73* 15.1 0.85 8.6 1.03 6.8 0.65*

Family structure

Nuclear 27.7 1.00 29.5 1.00 19.4 1.00 9.3 1.00 11.3 1.00

Extended 24.6 0.85 28.9 0.98 19.2 0.96 9.7 0.97 11.4 0.96

Wealth index

Poorest 29.3 1.00 35.2 1.00 19.4 1.00 12.3 1.00 14.8 1.00

Poorer 27.6 1.01 29.1 0.86 18.4 1.05 7.5 0.78 10.7 0.92

Middle 28.4 1.10 29.9 0.92 20.1 1.12 10.0 1.23 11.8 1.27

Richer 29.7 1.15 31.3 0.89 21.4 1.27 9.2 1.09 11.8 1.23

Richest 18.1 0.83 20.8 0.71+ 17.2 1.16 8.5 1.48 7.6 1.58+

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose 

husbands have completed 

high school n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00+ n/a 0.99* n/a 0.99* n/a 0.99***

Percentage of women who 

watch television at least 

weekly n/a 1.00+ n/a 1.00* n/a 1.00+ n/a 0.99** n/a 1.00

Constant n/a 0.27*** n/a 0.34*** n/a 0.36*** n/a 0.21*** n/a 0.27***

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) 

from the value for the reference category.

+p<0.10, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

OR = Odds ratio

n/a = Not available or not applicable
150

Appendix Table 3A.18. Percentage of currently married women who agree that a husband is 

justified in beating his wife for the specified reason, by background characteristics, and odds 

ratios (estimated using multivariable logistic regression): Indonesia

A husband is justified in beating his wife if:

She goes

out without 

telling him

She neglects 

the children

She argues

with him

She refuses 

to have sex

with him

She burns

the food

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR % OR % OR

Age 

15 to 19 24.6 1.67*** 24.1 1.90*** 7.0 1.66*** 9.2 1.61*** 3.7 1.39+

20 to 29 21.7 1.47*** 23.3 1.54*** 5.5 1.34*** 7.2 1.29*** 3.1 1.35**

30 to 39 16.8 1.22*** 18.3 1.20*** 4.5 1.13+ 6.6 1.16* 2.8 1.09

40 to 49 15.7 1.00 17.1 1.00 5.4 1.00 6.7 1.00 2.7 1.00

Children ever born

None 21.5 1.09 20.1 0.96 5.9 1.02 6.9 1.05 3.4 0.98

1 or 2 17.8 1.00 19.3 1.00 4.5 1.00 6.3 1.00 2.5 1.00

3 or 4 17.7 1.20*** 19.4 1.22*** 5.2 1.19** 6.8 1.20** 2.9 1.13

5+ 19.5 1.45*** 21.6 1.52*** 7.0 1.52*** 9.1 1.54*** 4.1 1.50***

Education

None 17.4 0.87* 17.3 0.89* 7.3 1.20* 7.7 1.15+ 3.0 0.89

Primary 19.2 1.00 20.5 1.00 5.7 1.00 7.7 1.00 3.4 1.00

Secondary or higher 17.3 1.07+ 19.1 1.08* 4.0 0.78*** 5.7 0.92 2.2 0.73***

Work 

Does not work 18.6 1.00 20.1 1.00 5.1 1.00 7.0 1.00 2.9 1.00

Works for cash 17.6 1.08* 19.0 1.04 5.3 1.26*** 6.6 1.11* 2.8 1.16*

Media exposure

No regular exposure 20.7 1.00 22.6 1.00 7.8 1.00 8.6 1.00 5.1 1.00

Weekly exposure 17.8 1.10* 19.2 1.09* 4.6 0.89+ 6.5 0.96 2.4 0.78***

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 19.7 1.00 20.2 1.00 5.7 1.00 8.0 1.00 3.1 1.00

18-24 years 18.0 1.00 20.2 1.07* 4.9 1.06 6.3 0.96 2.8 1.14+

25 years or more 13.4 0.84** 15.5 0.96 3.8 0.98 5.2 0.95 2.3 1.16

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 18.1 1.00 19.8 1.00 5.0 1.00 6.8 1.00 2.8 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 18.9 1.01 19.9 1.01 5.3 0.91+ 7.2 1.03 2.9 0.97

Wife is 10+ years younger 17.6 1.04 18.9 1.06 5.3 0.98 6.4 1.02 3.3 1.04

Residence

Rural 21.2 1.00 22.3 1.00 6.1 1.00 7.8 1.00 3.6 1.00

Urban 14.9 0.89** 16.7 0.92* 4.0 0.91 5.8 0.92 2.1 0.79**

Family structure

Nuclear 18.8 1.00 20.3 1.00 5.2 1.00 7.4 1.00 2.9 1.00

Extended 17.4 0.97 18.8 0.92** 5.1 1.03 5.9 0.91* 2.9 1.00

Wealth index

Poorest 24.2 1.00 26.9 1.00 8.9 1.00 9.9 1.00 5.5 1.00

Poorer 21.6 1.05 22.2 0.99 5.5 1.11 7.7 1.06 3.1 1.07

Middle 18.0 0.84*** 19.1 0.79*** 4.7 1.01 6.7 0.91 2.7 0.95

Richer 17.2 0.80*** 17.9 0.70*** 3.9 0.95 5.8 0.94 1.8 0.86

Richest 10.6 0.49*** 12.6 0.48*** 2.7 0.69*** 4.4 0.74** 1.3 0.78+

Community-level variables

Percentage of women 

whose husbands have 

completed high school n/a 1.00*** n/a 1.01*** n/a 1.00*** n/a 1.00 n/a 1.01***

Percentage of women who 

watch television at least 

weekly n/a 0.99*** n/a 0.99*** n/a 0.99*** n/a 0.99*** n/a 0.98***

Constant n/a 0.41*** n/a 0.40*** n/a 0.21*** n/a 0.17*** n/a 0.10***

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) 

from the value for the reference category.

+p<0.10, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

OR = Odds ratio

n/a = Not available or not applicable
151

Appendix Table 3A.19. Percentage of currently married women who agree that a husband is 

justified in beating his wife for the specified reason, by background characteristics, and odds 

ratios (estimated using multivariable logistic regression): Nepal

A husband is justified in beating his wife if:

She goes

out without

telling him

She neglects 

the children

She argues

with him

She refuses 

to have sex 

with him

She burns 

the food

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR % OR % OR

Age 

15 to 19 12.5 0.98 27.8 1.33* 11.4 1.16 3.2 0.86 6.3 1.00

20 to 29 13.1 1.08 27.0 1.29** 8.9 1.04 2.7 0.88 5.1 1.09

30 to 39 10.9 0.93 24.1 1.12 7.5 0.84 3.2 0.99 4.3 0.94

40 to 49 11.9 1.00 21.6 1.00 8.4 1.00 3.4 1.00 4.8 1.00

Children ever born

None 13.0 1.16 26.2 0.93 10.6 1.28 3.7 1.54 6.6 1.48+

1 or 2 12.3 1.00 26.8 1.00 8.4 1.00 2.3 1.00 4.6 1.00

3 or 4 11.6 0.91 24.5 0.94 7.9 0.92 2.9 1.06 4.2 0.78

5+ 12.2 0.93 23.5 0.96 9.1 0.99 3.8 1.13 5.6 0.94

Education

None 12.7 0.95 24.8 0.96 9.4 0.94 3.7 1.61* 5.8 1.21

Primary 12.7 1.00 26.1 1.00 8.7 1.00 1.9 1.00 4.0 1.00

Secondary or higher 8.4 0.63** 26.0 0.97 4.8 0.58** 0.7 0.38* 1.2 0.37**

Work 

Does not work 11.9 1.00 24.7 1.00 8.7 1.00 3.1 1.00 5.0 1.00

Works for cash 14.0 1.18 28.4 1.18* 8.2 1.04 2.8 1.06 4.3 1.03

Media exposure

No regular exposure 13.8 1.00 25.2 1.00 10.3 1.00 3.7 1.00 6.2 1.00

Weekly exposure 10.4 0.75*** 25.1 0.96 7.0 0.70*** 2.4 0.80 3.7 0.71**

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 12.7 1.00 25.5 1.00 9.6 1.00 3.3 1.00 5.7 1.00

18-24 years 10.8 0.86+ 24.3 0.89+ 6.3 0.74** 2.3 0.83 3.3 0.72*

25 years or more 10.7 0.85 25.4 1.13 5.7 0.53 4.1 1.40 0.8 0.35

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 12.4 1.00 25.6 1.00 9.0 1.00 3.2 1.00 5.2 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 12.0 0.95 24.8 0.95 8.0 0.87 2.7 0.91 4.7 0.97

Wife is 10+ years younger 11.0 0.97 24.0 0.98 8.5 1.03 2.9 1.00 4.6 1.15

Residence

Rural 12.0 1.00 24.7 1.00 8.7 1.00 3.1 1.00 5.1 1.00

Urban 13.1 1.20 29.0 1.19+ 8.0 1.36+ 2.7 1.08 3.5 0.93

Family structure

Nuclear 11.7 1.00 24.8 1.00 8.2 1.00 2.9 1.00 4.7 1.00

Extended 12.5 1.05 25.5 1.00 9.1 1.04 3.2 1.14 5.2 1.04

Wealth index

Poorest 12.0 1.00 24.3 1.00 8.0 1.00 2.7 1.00 4.6 1.00

Poorer 12.7 1.07 27.3 1.12 8.9 1.16 3.3 1.24 5.5 1.16

Middle 12.8 1.02 25.2 1.03 10.2 1.36* 3.8 1.55* 5.4 1.27

Richer 11.9 0.99 23.4 0.89 9.6 1.28+ 2.9 1.23 6.2 1.54*

Richest 11.3 0.93 25.7 0.84 6.6 1.06 2.5 1.49 3.2 1.06

Community-level variables

Percentage of women 

whose husbands have 

completed high school n/a 0.99* n/a 1.00 n/a 0.98*** n/a 0.98*** n/a 0.97***

Percentage of women who 

watch television at least 

weekly n/a 1.01** n/a 1.00** n/a 1.01*** n/a 1.01* n/a 1.02***

Constant n/a 0.15*** n/a 0.38*** n/a 0.11*** n/a 0.03*** n/a 0.04***

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) from 

the value for the reference category.

+p<0.10, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

OR = Odds ratio

n/a = Not available or not applicable
152

Appendix Table 3A.20. Percentage of currently married women who agree that a husband is 

justified in beating his wife for the specified reason, by background characteristics, and odds 

ratios (estimated using multivariable logistic regression): Philippines

A husband is justified in beating his wife if:

She goes

out without 

telling him

She neglects 

the children

She argues 

with him

She refuses 

to have sex 

with him

She burns 

the food

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR % OR % OR

Age 

15 to 19 14.6 1.27 28.0 1.27 6.7 1.30 5.0 1.37 5.0 1.49

20 to 29 9.7 0.97 21.5 1.00 5.7 1.16 3.4 1.22 2.8 0.92

30 to 39 9.7 0.98 21.1 0.97 5.8 1.08 4.1 1.47* 3.7 1.21

40 to 49 9.8 1.00 21.7 1.00 5.5 1.00 2.8 1.00 3.0 1.00

Children ever born

None 6.6 0.75 16.9 0.81+ 3.5 0.64+ 3.0 1.05 2.0 0.57+

1 or 2 7.9 1.00 18.6 1.00 4.8 1.00 2.7 1.00 2.8 1.00

3 or 4 10.6 1.20+ 22.3 1.17* 5.9 1.24+ 3.9 1.23 3.5 1.07

5+ 13.1 1.08 26.8 1.19* 7.6 1.30+ 4.8 1.23 4.2 0.97

Education

None 23.6 1.20 35.8 1.20 5.4 0.50* 4.7 0.61 6.8 1.01

Primary 15.2 1.00 26.4 1.00 8.1 1.00 5.1 1.00 5.2 1.00

Secondary or higher 7.3 0.72*** 19.2 0.96 4.7 0.85 2.9 0.85 2.4 0.64**

Work 

Does not work 10.7 1.00 21.6 1.00 6.1 1.00 3.9 1.00 3.5 1.00

Works for cash 8.7 1.01 21.3 1.14* 5.1 1.03 3.1 1.01 2.9 1.00

Media exposure

No regular exposure 16.6 1.00 27.5 1.00 8.2 1.00 6.2 1.00 5.2 1.00

Weekly exposure 9.2 1.17 20.9 1.06 5.4 1.03 3.3 0.85 3.1 1.00

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 14.0 1.00 28.3 1.00 7.8 1.00 5.2 1.00 4.3 1.00

18-24 years 9.7 0.89 21.3 0.82** 5.6 0.90 3.7 0.81 3.3 1.05

25 years or more 5.5 0.66** 14.8 0.61*** 3.8 0.78 1.5 0.44*** 2.3 0.83

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 9.9 1.00 21.4 1.00 5.7 1.00 3.7 1.00 3.3 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 9.4 0.78** 22.4 0.88+ 5.2 0.84 3.5 0.82 3.1 0.88

Wife is 10+ years younger 10.2 0.92 20.2 0.85+ 6.5 1.10 2.9 0.71 3.4 1.07

Residence

Rural 13.8 1.00 25.7 1.00 7.8 1.00 4.8 1.00 4.7 1.00

Urban 6.5 0.91 17.9 0.93 3.9 0.66*** 2.5 0.78+ 2.1 0.56***

Family structure

Nuclear 10.8 1.00 22.7 1.00 6.2 1.00 3.8 1.00 3.4 1.00

Extended 7.9 1.01 19.1 1.01 4.7 0.93 3.1 1.01 3.1 1.24

Wealth index

Poorest 19.6 1.00 31.1 1.00 9.4 1.00 6.4 1.00 6.1 1.00

Poorer 12.3 0.78* 24.9 0.82* 7.5 0.89 4.1 0.73+ 3.3 0.71*

Middle 8.0 0.56*** 21.6 0.72*** 5.4 0.78 3.7 0.75 3.4 0.82

Richer 6.1 0.49*** 17.9 0.66*** 4.0 0.67* 2.1 0.50** 2.1 0.63*

Richest 3.6 0.32*** 12.3 0.44*** 2.1 0.40*** 1.6 0.39*** 1.6 0.54*

Community-level variables

Percentage of women

whose husbands have 

completed high school n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.01* n/a 1.00

Percentage of women who 

watch television at least 

weekly n/a 0.99*** n/a 1.00** n/a 1.00 n/a 0.99** n/a 1.00

Constant n/a 0.18*** n/a 0.34*** n/a 0.05*** n/a 0.03*** n/a 0.04***

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) 

from the value for the reference category.

+p<0.10, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

OR = Odds ratio

n/a = Not available or not applicable
153

Appendix Table 3A.21. Percentage of currently married women who agree that a husband is 

justified in beating his wife for the specified reason, by background characteristics, and odds 

ratios (estimated using multivariable logistic regression): Bolivia

A husband is justified in beating his wife if:

She goes

out without 

telling him

She neglects 

the children

She argues 

with him

She refuses 

to have sex 

with him

She burns 

the food

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR % OR % OR

Age 

15 to 19 15.5 1.56* 24.6 1.47* 10.1 1.15 5.2 1.33 9.2 1.18

20 to 29 9.2 0.95 16.9 1.03 6.6 0.81+ 2.5 0.80 4.5 0.78+

30 to 39 10.4 1.00 17.2 1.07 6.8 0.85 3.1 0.84 5.5 0.83+

40 to 49 10.2 1.00 16.1 1.00 8.2 1.00 3.6 1.00 6.2 1.00

Children ever born

None 10.5 1.05 15.8 1.00 6.7 0.97 2.6 0.65 5.4 1.01

1 or 2 8.7 1.00 16.3 1.00 6.0 1.00 2.5 1.00 4.1 1.00

3 or 4 9.5 1.11 16.4 1.12 7.2 1.06 2.4 1.06 4.4 0.96

5+ 12.4 1.17 19.0 1.08 8.7 1.02 4.5 1.33 8.2 1.19

Education

None 12.0 0.86 19.2 0.97 10.5 1.04 5.4 1.12 9.6 1.01

Primary 12.7 1.00 19.6 1.00 8.9 1.00 3.6 1.00 6.9 1.00

Secondary or higher 5.7 0.56*** 12.8 0.72*** 3.7 0.58*** 1.7 0.74+ 2.4 0.59***

Work 

Does not work 11.5 1.00 18.0 1.00 8.1 1.00 3.7 1.00 7.0 1.00

Works for cash 9.1 1.01 16.4 1.05 6.6 1.10 2.6 1.04 4.3 0.91

Media exposure

No regular exposure 13.1 1.00 17.0 1.00 9.3 1.00 6.1 1.00 9.0 1.00

Weekly exposure 9.8 1.04 17.1 1.24* 7.0 1.18 2.7 0.76+ 5.1 1.10

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 11.2 1.00 19.4 1.00 8.7 1.00 3.8 1.00 7.2 1.00

18-24 years 9.8 1.05 16.5 0.93 6.6 0.76** 2.8 0.85 4.7 0.78**

25 years or more 9.2 0.94 14.3 0.82* 6.3 0.85 2.6 0.81 4.7 0.77

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 9.6 1.00 16.5 1.00 6.9 1.00 2.9 1.00 5.3 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 11.6 1.06 18.7 1.00 7.6 0.95 3.5 1.05 5.5 0.94

Wife is 10+ years younger 11.1 1.08 18.4 1.05 8.6 1.19 3.9 1.15 6.8 1.20

Residence

Rural 13.2 1.00 19.5 1.00 10.0 1.00 4.7 1.00 8.8 1.00

Urban 8.5 0.94 15.8 0.97 5.7 0.97 2.2 1.34 3.7 0.92

Family structure

Nuclear 10.0 1.00 16.8 1.00 7.4 1.00 2.9 1.00 5.4 1.00

Extended 10.8 1.06 19.1 1.22** 6.5 1.09 3.9 1.53** 5.9 1.28*

Wealth index

Poorest 13.3 1.00 20.1 1.00 11.0 1.00 5.6 1.00 10.3 1.00

Poorer 12.4 0.91 19.2 0.92 9.6 0.76* 4.6 0.82 7.5 0.69**

Middle 12.0 0.89 20.0 0.88 7.0 0.58*** 2.5 0.45*** 5.3 0.46***

Richer 8.9 0.69* 16.1 0.63*** 5.9 0.50*** 1.7 0.31*** 3.2 0.31***

Richest 4.4 0.39*** 10.2 0.42*** 3.1 0.25*** 1.6 0.26*** 2.0 0.21***

Community-level 

variables

Percentage of women 

whose husbands have 

completed high school n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00* n/a 1.01*** n/a 1.01*** n/a 1.00*

Percentage of women who 

watch television at least 

weekly n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00

Constant n/a 0.10*** n/a 0.17*** n/a 0.06*** n/a 0.03*** n/a 0.04***

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) from 

the value for the reference category.

+p<0.10, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

OR = Odds ratio

n/a = Not available or not applicable
154

Appendix Table 3A.22. Percentage of currently married women who agree that a husband is 

justified in beating his wife for the specified reason, by background characteristics, and odds 

ratios (estimated using multivariable logistic regression): Haiti

A husband is justified in beating his wife if:

She goes

out without 

telling him

She neglects 

the children

She argues 

with him

She refuses 

to have sex 

with him

She burns 

the food

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR % OR % OR

Age

15 to 19 39.9 1.22 44.0 2.29*** 11.9 1.55 21.2 0.93 18.1 1.28

20 to 29 30.2 0.90 25.3 1.23 11.6 1.05 13.5 0.83 10.5 0.94

30 to 39 29.3 0.87 27.5 1.00 8.6 0.67* 14.8 0.79+ 6.7 0.70*

40 to 49 34.5 1.00 27.9 1.00 13.2 1.00 20.8 1.00 11.4 1.00

Children ever born

None 29.4 1.16 27.7 1.22 7.7 0.81 13.9 1.04 8.8 1.27

1 or 2 28.3 1.00 25.3 1.00 8.8 1.00 13.7 1.00 9.4 1.00

3 or 4 33.8 1.24+ 32.4 1.24+ 12.1 1.27 13.8 1.23 9.2 1.24

5+ 33.7 1.02 27.2 1.11 13.1 1.04 21.3 1.26 11.1 1.07

Education

None 35.1 1.06 31.4 0.92 14.3 1.16 22.2 1.12 12.3 0.93

Primary 34.1 1.00 29.1 1.00 11.1 1.00 14.6 1.00 10.4 1.00

Secondary or higher 17.8 0.57*** 17.2 0.62** 2.8 0.45** 6.7 0.54** 3.3 0.47**

Work 

Does not work 30.6 1.00 28.8 1.00 11.6 1.00 16.3 1.00 10.5 1.00

Works for cash 32.2 0.96 27.4 0.93 10.5 0.94 16.3 0.87 9.5 1.07

Media exposure

No regular exposure 33.2 1.00 30.5 1.00 14.2 1.00 19.8 1.00 11.2 1.00

Weekly exposure 30.4 1.22* 26.1 1.15 8.7 1.08 13.8 1.16 9.0 1.00

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 32.3 1.00 29.7 1.00 12.8 1.00 17.9 1.00 12.2 1.00

18-24 years 33.5 1.01 27.4 1.00 9.9 0.88 15.9 0.98 9.2 0.82

25 years or more 21.8 0.90 25.3 1.09 10.4 0.90 14.1 1.04 6.9 0.93

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 30.1 1.00 31.0 1.00 10.3 1.00 16.0 1.00 9.5 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 32.9 1.29** 28.5 1.03 11.5 1.14 15.0 1.14 10.9 0.91

Wife is 10+ years younger 32.8 1.04 20.9 0.95 11.5 0.97 18.5 1.13 9.7 1.04

Residence

Rural 34.5 1.00 31.8 1.00 14.0 1.00 18.7 1.00 12.2 1.00

Urban 26.6 1.15 21.2 1.16 5.8 1.01 12.2 0.88 5.9 0.84

Family structure

Nuclear 34.2 1.00 27.3 1.00 12.7 1.00 16.6 1.00 10.4 1.00

Extended 28.4 0.78** 28.5 0.83* 8.8 0.79* 15.9 1.05 9.2 0.87

Wealth index

Poorest 39.2 1.00 37.1 1.00 18.9 1.00 24.7 1.00 16.3 1.00

Poorer 34.1 0.81+ 26.0 0.72** 14.1 0.70* 15.1 0.60*** 14.1 0.71*

Middle 31.6 0.87 32.2 0.78* 8.9 0.68* 17.0 0.77+ 7.4 0.70*

Richer 35.6 0.83 28.3 0.81 9.7 0.79 17.5 0.69+ 9.5 0.91

Richest 16.9 0.48** 15.7 0.62* 3.6 0.53+ 7.1 0.51* 2.6 0.37*

Community-level variables

Percentage of women 

whose husbands have 

completed high school n/a 1.00+ n/a 0.99* n/a 0.99+ n/a 1.00 n/a 0.99+

Percentage of women who 

watch television at least 

weekly n/a 1.00 n/a 0.99* n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00

Constant n/a 0.48*** n/a 0.54*** n/a 0.13*** n/a 0.19*** n/a 0.11***

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) from 

the value for the reference category.

+p<0.10, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

OR = Odds ratio

n/a = Not available or not applicable
155

Appendix Table 3A.23. Percentage of currently married women who agree that a husband is 

justified in beating his wife for the specified reason, by background characteristics, and odds 

ratios (estimated using multivariable logistic regression): Nicaragua

A husband is justified in beating his wife if:

She goes

out without 

telling him

She neglects 

the children

She argues 

with him

She refuses 

to have sex 

with him

She burns 

the food

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR % OR % OR

Age 

15 to 19 13.4 2.28*** 18.0 1.98*** 8.4 1.90** 4.4 1.63 10.2 2.30***

20 to 29 8.9 1.35* 14.0 1.48** 6.4 1.25 4.4 1.40+ 6.7 1.35+

30 to 39 6.4 0.93 9.9 1.00 4.9 0.90 3.2 0.90 4.8 0.84

40 to 49 7.7 1.00 11.2 1.00 5.9 1.00 4.4 1.00 6.4 1.00

Children ever born

None 9.2 0.97 13.4 0.98 5.3 0.82 2.9 0.76 6.8 0.94

1 or 2 6.9 1.00 11.6 1.00 5.1 1.00 3.0 1.00 5.3 1.00

3 or 4 7.9 1.26+ 12.3 1.18 5.9 1.16 4.1 1.36+ 5.8 1.15

5+ 10.2 1.25 13.4 1.11 7.7 1.07 5.6 1.27 8.2 1.22

Education

None 14.4 1.22* 18.6 1.20* 11.5 1.28* 7.7 1.25 12.2 1.35**

Primary 10.8 1.00 14.8 1.00 7.3 1.00 5.0 1.00 7.8 1.00

Secondary or higher 2.5 0.36*** 6.8 0.55*** 1.9 0.32*** 1.1 0.29*** 1.8 0.35***

Work 

Does not work 10.2 1.00 13.3 1.00 7.3 1.00 4.8 1.00 7.7 1.00

Works for cash 5.3 0.86 11.1 1.19* 4.1 0.92 2.9 0.88 4.3 0.90

Media exposure

No regular exposure 13.3 1.00 16.6 1.00 9.4 1.00 6.7 1.00 10.2 1.00

Weekly exposure 7.8 1.03 12.0 1.03 5.7 1.20 3.8 1.18 6.0 1.06

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 9.2 1.00 13.5 1.00 6.4 1.00 4.1 1.00 6.6 1.00

18-24 years 7.3 1.30** 11.5 1.15+ 5.7 1.28* 4.1 1.48** 6.5 1.59***

25 years or more 4.5 1.60* 6.8 1.06 3.3 1.48 2.5 1.80+ 2.5 1.27

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 7.3 1.00 12.1 1.00 5.4 1.00 3.6 1.00 5.9 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 10.6 1.29** 12.9 1.02 6.9 1.22+ 4.9 1.36* 7.1 1.22+

Wife is 10+ years younger 8.2 0.91 13.2 0.93 6.9 1.12 4.2 1.00 6.8 0.96

Residence

Rural 12.8 1.00 16.8 1.00 9.4 1.00 6.1 1.00 10.3 1.00

Urban 4.9 0.88 9.2 1.04 3.5 0.90 2.5 1.10 3.4 0.87

Family structure

Nuclear 8.5 1.00 12.7 1.00 6.4 1.00 4.5 1.00 6.7 1.00

Extended 7.8 1.08 12.0 1.04 5.4 0.97 3.3 0.96 5.8 0.95

Wealth index

Poorest 16.5 1.00 19.5 1.00 12.4 1.00 8.6 1.00 13.3 1.00

Poorer 11.7 0.77* 16.1 0.89 8.1 0.76* 5.2 0.70* 8.2 0.69**

Middle 8.5 0.65** 13.4 0.80 4.8 0.65* 3.5 0.49** 6.6 0.75

Richer 4.1 0.41*** 8.9 0.62** 3.4 0.48** 1.9 0.30*** 3.0 0.48**

Richest 1.9 0.27*** 5.5 0.42*** 2.2 0.43** 1.4 0.29*** 1.6 0.33***

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose 

husbands have completed 

high school n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00

Percentage of women who 

watch television at least 

weekly n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00

Constant n/a 0.07*** n/a 0.15*** n/a 0.06*** n/a 0.03*** n/a 0.05***

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) from 

the value for the reference category.

+p<0.10, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

OR = Odds ratio

n/a = Not available or not applicable
156

Appendix Table 3B.1. Percentage of currently married women who agree that a wife is justified in 

refusing to have sex with her husband for the specified reason, by background characteristics, and 

odds ratios (estimated using multivariable logistic regression): Benin

A wife is justified in refusing sex with her husband when:

She knows that 

her husband 

has a sexually 

transmitted 

disease

She knows that 

her husband 

has sex with 

other women

She has recently 

given birth

She is tired or

not in the mood

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR % OR

Age

15 to 19 83.3 0.79 51.2 1.12 84.7 1.29 68.6 0.98

20 to 29 88.2 1.00 58.2 1.16 88.3 1.26 75.2 1.09

30 to 39 88.9 1.08 57.7 1.15 87.0 1.04 73.5 0.92

40 to 49 87.6 1.00 52.8 1.00 86.7 1.00 75.4 1.00

Children ever born

None 85.8 0.88 52.4 0.77* 81.7 0.62** 67.8 0.79+

1 or 2 88.6 1.00 59.5 1.00 88.3 1.00 73.8 1.00

3 or 4 89.1 1.02 58.1 0.96 88.5 1.14 76.6 1.25*

5 + 87.2 0.93 54.0 0.93 86.9 1.12 74.4 1.17

Education

None 87.1 1.01 54.8 0.88 87.2 0.93 74.3 1.04

Primary 89.9 1.00 60.4 1.00 88.5 1.00 73.9 1.00

Secondary or higher 91.2 0.87 63.2 1.05 85.2 0.68+ 74.4 1.01

Work 

Does not work 83.7 1.00 53.5 1.00 82.8 1.00 69.6 1.00

Works for cash 88.7 1.42** 57.1 1.14 88.1 1.44** 75.0 1.22*

Media exposure

No regular exposure 84.2 1.00 54.4 1.00 86.5 1.00 71.6 1.00

Weekly exposure 89.9 1.47*** 57.7 1.04 87.8 1.10 75.6 1.23**

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 86.4 1.00 52.6 1.00 85.9 1.00 72.9 1.00

18-24 years 89.4 1.14 60.2 1.28*** 88.7 1.30* 75.7 1.17*

25 years or more 89.6 0.96 59.4 1.10 87.3 1.28 73.4 1.15

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 89.6 1.00 60.0 1.00 88.1 1.00 73.5 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 89.0 0.98 57.1 0.92 88.9 1.08 76.4 1.17+

Wife is 10+ years younger 86.0 0.77* 53.5 0.82* 85.6 0.81+ 73.2 0.98

Residence

Rural 87.2 1.00 56.4 1.00 88.2 1.00 74.6 1.00

Urban 89.6 0.92 56.9 0.82* 85.7 0.76* 73.6 0.97

Family structure

Nuclear 87.8 1.00 56.8 1.00 87.0 1.00 74.3 1.00

Extended 88.4 0.95 56.1 0.92 88.0 1.14 74.2 1.01

Wealth index

Poorest 83.5 1.00 51.2 1.00 83.3 1.00 71.6 1.00

Poorer 86.2 1.10 56.1 1.18+ 89.1 1.59*** 74.9 1.15

Middle 88.9 1.34* 55.9 1.16 89.9 1.61*** 76.7 1.22+

Richer 90.1 1.36+ 60.3 1.22+ 88.1 1.38* 75.1 1.12

Richest 91.8 1.60+ 59.9 1.00 86.1 1.39 73.0 1.01

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose husbands have 

completed high school n/a 1.02*** n/a 1.01*** n/a 1.01*** n/a 1.01***

Percentage of women who watch television at least 

weekly n/a 0.99* n/a 1.00 n/a 0.99*** n/a 0.99**

Constant n/a 4.93*** n/a 1.04 n/a 5.11*** n/a 2.33***

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) from 

the value for the reference category.

+p<0.10, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

OR = Odds ratio

n/a = Not available or not applicable
157

Appendix Table 3B.2. Percentage of currently married women who agree that a wife is 

justified in refusing to have sex with her husband for the specified reason, by background 

characteristics, and odds ratios (estimated using multivariable logistic regression): 

Burkina Faso

A wife is justified in refusing sex with her husband when:

She knows that 

her husband 

has a sexually 

transmitted 

disease

She knows 

that her 

husband 

has sex with 

other women

She has recently 

given birth

She is tired or 

not in the mood

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR % OR

Age

15 to 19 76.9 1.04 61.0 1.26+ 82.1 1.03 62.3 1.20

20 to 29 80.3 1.19+ 65.3 1.25** 86.1 1.49*** 65.5 1.31***

30 to 39 79.6 1.02 62.1 1.02 82.9 1.03 61.1 1.03

40 to 49 79.3 1.00 63.2 1.00 84.2 1.00 60.8 1.00

Children ever born

None 77.0 0.94 61.2 0.97 83.3 0.99 60.0 0.86

1 or 2 78.8 1.00 61.9 1.00 84.3 1.00 64.2 1.00

3 or 4 79.2 1.13 64.3 1.14+ 82.9 0.91 62.6 1.03

5 + 80.8 1.28* 64.6 1.36*** 85.6 1.34** 62.6 1.17+

Education

None 79.6 0.83+ 63.0 0.73*** 84.8 0.86 62.7 0.72***

Primary 79.1 1.00 66.6 1.00 82.8 1.00 63.8 1.00

Secondary or higher 79.8 1.36+ 67.7 1.40* 79.5 1.33+ 64.2 1.34*

Work 

Does not work 79.9 1.00 64.6 1.00 85.3 1.00 64.2 1.00

Works for cash 78.1 1.02 59.5 0.85** 80.8 0.84* 57.6 0.79***

Media exposure

No regular exposure 79.1 1.00 63.0 1.00 84.9 1.00 63.5 1.00

Weekly exposure 80.0 1.26*** 64.0 1.13* 83.9 1.15* 62.3 1.04

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 79.8 1.00 63.3 1.00 85.7 1.00 63.0 1.00

18-24 years 79.3 1.07 64.3 1.10* 82.3 0.88+ 62.5 1.03

25 years or more 77.2 1.11 55.8 0.77 81.6 0.89 64.3 1.30

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 80.8 1.00 64.4 1.00 83.7 1.00 65.5 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 78.6 0.86+ 63.9 0.96 83.4 0.99 63.3 0.98

Wife is 10+ years younger 78.9 0.86* 61.5 0.87* 84.6 1.00 60.3 0.86*

Residence

Rural 80.5 1.00 64.4 1.00 85.4 1.00 64.2 1.00

Urban 74.1 1.18 58.8 1.16 78.9 1.13 55.7 1.07

Family structure

Nuclear 79.8 1.00 64.9 1.00 84.8 1.00 64.0 1.00

Extended 79.1 1.06 61.4 1.00 83.8 1.08 61.1 1.02

Wealth index

Poorest 82.0 1.00 66.6 1.00 86.8 1.00 67.1 1.00

Poorer 82.1 0.95 66.8 1.05 86.6 1.00 65.0 0.92

Middle 80.5 0.80* 63.5 0.85* 84.8 0.87 64.6 0.87+

Richer 79.4 0.76** 60.9 0.79** 84.8 0.88 61.6 0.80**

Richest 72.8 0.50*** 59.0 0.61*** 78.3 0.54*** 54.6 0.58***

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose husbands have 

completed high school n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00

Percentage of women who watch television at 

least weekly n/a 1.00* n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00+

Constant n/a 5.12*** n/a 2.09*** n/a 5.92*** n/a 2.23***

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) 

from the value for the reference category.

+p<0.10, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

OR = Odds ratio

n/a = Not available or not applicable
158

Appendix Table 3B.3. Percentage of currently married women who agree that a wife is justified in 

refusing to have sex with her husband for the specified reason, by background characteristics, 

and odds ratios (estimated using multivariable logistic regression): Cameroon

A wife is justified in refusing sex with her husband when:

She knows that her 

husband has a 

sexually 

transmitted 

disease

She knows that 

her husband 

has sex with 

other women

She has recently 

given birth

She is tired or

not in the mood

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR % OR

Age

15 to 19 84.5 0.64** 67.9 0.97 86.6 1.35+ 75.1 0.95

20 to 29 87.8 0.79+ 71.6 1.06 87.0 1.18 76.9 0.94

30 to 39 89.3 0.95 71.9 1.08 85.0 0.97 76.4 0.99

40 to 49 87.9 1.00 68.2 1.00 84.3 1.00 73.8 1.00

Children ever born

None 89.3 0.97 72.0 1.05 83.9 0.72** 77.7 0.96

1 or 2 88.5 1.00 71.6 1.00 86.9 1.00 77.6 1.00

3 or 4 88.1 0.98 71.2 1.00 86.9 0.98 77.3 0.97

5 + 86.5 0.96 68.8 0.99 85.1 0.93 72.9 0.91

Education

None 80.5 0.53*** 63.1 0.63*** 85.6 0.76** 62.0 0.40***

Primary 88.1 1.00 71.5 1.00 87.5 1.00 80.4 1.00

Secondary or higher 94.4 1.76*** 76.5 1.21** 84.2 0.90 83.3 1.14

Work 

Does not work 87.4 1.00 68.9 1.00 85.4 1.00 73.3 1.00

Works for cash 88.3 0.90 72.3 1.10+ 86.4 1.10 78.6 1.17*

Media exposure

No regular exposure 83.8 1.00 66.7 1.00 86.0 1.00 71.1 1.00

Weekly exposure 91.9 1.37*** 74.6 1.21** 85.9 1.19* 80.9 1.24**

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 85.4 1.00 67.7 1.00 86.1 1.00 73.9 1.00

18-24 years 90.9 1.13 74.2 1.19** 86.1 1.10 79.1 0.94

25 years or more 97.1 3.16*** 82.6 1.85*** 83.1 0.96 81.5 0.90

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 88.5 1.00 71.2 1.00 85.9 1.00 77.2 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 88.8 1.05 72.1 1.09 86.6 1.02 77.1 1.03

Wife is 10+ years younger 86.6 1.05 69.0 1.04 85.3 0.93 74.2 1.07

Residence

Rural 84.3 1.00 68.2 1.00 86.4 1.00 72.1 1.00

Urban 91.6 1.40** 73.2 1.08 85.5 1.18 80.1 1.14

Family structure

Nuclear 86.8 1.00 70.2 1.00 86.0 1.00 74.6 1.00

Extended 89.2 1.02 71.3 0.91+ 85.9 1.00 77.9 0.95

Wealth index

Poorest 83.1 1.00 66.0 1.00 88.6 1.00 68.8 1.00

Poorer 83.5 0.95 68.1 1.06 85.4 0.73** 72.3 0.95

Middle 87.4 1.16 68.9 1.08 85.6 0.74* 75.9 0.90

Richer 91.2 1.34+ 72.7 1.33* 85.3 0.85 81.7 1.16

Richest 94.6 1.59* 78.1 1.68*** 84.2 0.82 82.2 0.99

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose husbands have 

completed high school n/a 1.00* n/a 0.99*** n/a 1.00* n/a 1.00

Percentage of women who watch television at 

least weekly n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 0.99* n/a 1.00

Constant n/a 14.30*** n/a 3.86*** n/a 8.09*** n/a 2.96***

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) from 

the value for the reference category.

+p<0.10, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

OR = Odds ratio

n/a = Not available or not applicable
159

Appendix Table 3B.4. Percentage of currently married women who agree that a wife is justified in 

refusing to have sex with her husband for the specified reason, by background characteristics, 

and odds ratios (estimated using multivariable logistic regression): Ghana

A wife is justified in refusing sex with her husband when:

She knows that 

her husband has 

a sexually 

transmitted 

disease

She knows that 

her husband 

has sex with 

other women

She has recently 

given birth

She is tired or 

not in the mood

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR % OR

Age

15 to 19 83.2 0.78 82.5 1.24 88.4 0.96 75.4 0.81

20 to 29 85.7 0.95 78.7 1.03 83.8 0.76+ 75.6 0.84

30 to 39 85.2 0.81 76.0 0.91 83.3 0.79+ 72.9 0.81*

40 to 49 87.3 1.00 78.5 1.00 85.1 1.00 74.9 1.00

Children ever born

None 86.4 0.82 80.5 1.00 88.4 1.26 79.5 1.37+

1 or 2 85.9 1.00 78.8 1.00 84.9 1.00 76.4 1.00

3 or 4 85.1 1.05 77.1 1.04 83.8 0.95 72.4 0.87

5 + 86.3 1.16 76.8 1.05 82.7 0.87 72.9 0.84

Education

None 85.1 0.91 72.4 0.61*** 82.0 0.86 69.6 0.76**

Primary 84.3 1.00 81.5 1.00 84.3 1.00 76.7 1.00

Secondary or higher 87.9 1.32* 80.9 0.95 86.4 1.09 77.9 1.02

Work 

Does not work 86.1 1.00 73.5 1.00 84.6 1.00 73.2 1.00

Works for cash 85.7 0.99 78.8 1.23* 84.0 1.07 74.7 1.13

Media exposure

No regular exposure 85.8 1.00 75.8 1.00 83.2 1.00 73.7 1.00

Weekly exposure 85.8 1.00 78.5 0.98 84.4 0.96 74.6 0.88

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 85.8 1.00 78.3 1.00 83.9 1.00 74.5 1.00

18-24 years 85.5 1.00 77.4 0.99 83.8 0.91 75.0 0.91

25 years or more 87.9 1.15 78.3 1.07 86.9 1.04 70.9 0.67*

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 84.9 1.00 78.1 1.00 84.7 1.00 73.2 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 85.8 1.13 78.4 1.14 84.6 1.09 77.1 1.31**

Wife is 10+ years younger 87.0 1.21 76.9 1.03 82.8 1.02 72.9 1.07

Residence

Rural 84.7 1.00 75.9 1.00 83.1 1.00 72.2 1.00

Urban 87.4 1.16 80.6 1.39* 85.6 0.97 77.6 1.10

Family structure

Nuclear 84.9 1.00 77.3 1.00 83.9 1.00 73.9 1.00

Extended 88.2 1.39** 79.2 1.23* 84.8 1.04 75.8 1.12

Wealth index

Poorest 86.0 1.00 73.9 1.00 83.1 1.00 72.7 1.00

Poorer 85.5 0.88 77.0 0.88 83.0 0.90 72.1 0.85

Middle 82.2 0.71* 79.0 0.82 81.8 0.76+ 72.4 0.78+

Richer 85.7 0.84 80.1 0.72+ 84.7 0.95 76.1 0.85

Richest 89.4 1.00 79.3 0.59* 87.8 0.86 78.8 0.79

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose husbands have 

completed high school n/a 1.00* n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00

Percentage of women who watch television at 

least weekly n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.01** n/a 1.00*

Constant n/a 7.47*** n/a 3.39*** n/a 5.14*** n/a 2.44***

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) from 

the value for the reference category.

+p<0.10, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

OR = Odds ratio

n/a = Not available or not applicable
160

Appendix Table 3B.5. Percentage of currently married women who agree that a wife is justified 

in refusing to have sex with her husband for the specified reason, by background 

characteristics, and odds ratios (estimated using multivariable logistic regression): Kenya

A wife is justified in refusing sex with her husband when:

She knows that 

her husband 

has a sexually 

transmitted 

disease

She knows that 

her husband 

has sex with 

other women

She has recently 

given birth

She is tired or 

not in the mood

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR % OR

Age

15 to 19 86.1 0.85 77.1 0.93 83.4 1.04 62.0 1.09

20 to 29 88.7 0.86 79.2 0.86 87.4 1.17 62.4 1.09

30 to 39 88.9 0.95 78.3 0.88 87.3 1.17 58.0 0.90

40 to 49 88.4 1.00 80.2 1.00 84.9 1.00 60.3 1.00

Children ever born

None 87.8 0.73 86.6 0.68* 83.5 0.69* 62.0 0.88

1 or 2 90.2 1.00 81.8 1.00 87.7 1.00 62.7 1.00

3 or 4 89.1 1.03 79.0 0.87 87.0 0.93 58.6 0.86+

5 + 86.7 1.02 76.8 0.95 85.6 1.15 59.8 1.03

Education

None 78.6 0.64*** 65.8 0.56*** 77.6 0.65*** 50.9 0.67***

Primary 89.3 1.00 79.6 1.00 86.9 1.00 62.4 1.00

Secondary or higher 92.8 0.99 85.6 1.11 91.1 1.19 61.8 0.96

Work 

Does not work 87.3 1.00 76.5 1.00 85.6 1.00 57.4 1.00

Works for cash 89.9 1.12 81.4 1.17* 87.5 1.03 63.6 1.24***

Media exposure

No regular exposure 81.8 1.00 71.7 1.00 80.8 1.00 54.7 1.00

Weekly exposure 90.5 1.30* 81.1 1.11 88.2 1.35** 62.2 1.16+

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 86.1 1.00 77.1 1.00 85.3 1.00 61.5 1.00

18-24 years 90.0 1.12 79.4 0.93 86.9 1.01 59.6 0.92

25 years or more 90.8 1.03 85.2 1.07 90.3 1.17 61.8 0.93

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 89.9 1.00 81.0 1.00 87.8 1.00 61.1 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 88.6 0.95 79.8 0.98 87.0 0.92 61.6 1.00

Wife is 10+ years younger 86.7 0.87 74.9 0.81* 84.1 0.83+ 58.0 0.89

Residence

Rural 87.1 1.00 77.1 1.00 85.6 1.00 59.6 1.00

Urban 93.8 1.19 85.5 0.99 90.0 1.08 63.8 1.38**

Family structure

Nuclear 87.9 1.00 78.7 1.00 86.2 1.00 58.9 1.00

Extended 89.7 1.11 79.6 0.98 87.2 1.05 63.6 1.15*

Wealth index

Poorest 83.3 1.00 73.8 1.00 83.2 1.00 60.5 1.00

Poorer 84.8 0.87 72.6 0.72** 84.6 0.83 61.0 0.93

Middle 86.4 0.92 78.1 0.94 85.8 0.92 59.7 0.78*

Richer 92.6 1.49* 82.4 1.02 87.1 0.91 56.6 0.65***

Richest 94.4 1.36 86.4 1.08 91.1 1.04 64.1 0.66**

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose husbands have 

completed high school n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00

Percentage of women who watch television at 

least weekly n/a 1.01+ n/a 1.01** n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00

Constant n/a 6.23*** n/a 2.72*** n/a 4.85*** n/a 1.31**

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) 

from the value for the reference category.

+p<0.10, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

OR = Odds ratio

n/a = Not available or not applicable
161

Appendix Table 3B.6. Percentage of currently married women who agree that a wife is justified in 

refusing to have sex with her husband for the specified reason, by background characteristics, and 

odds ratios (estimated using multivariable logistic regression): Malawi

A wife is justified in refusing sex with her husband when:

She knows that 

her husband 

has a sexually 

transmitted 

disease

She knows that 

her husband 

has sex with 

other women

She has recently 

given birth

She is tired or 

not in the mood

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR % OR

Age

15 to 19 73.1 0.98 68.2 1.15 76.6 1.00 63.2 1.06

20 to 29 75.5 1.11 71.7 1.30** 80.1 1.15 63.5 1.13

30 to 39 75.6 1.08 70.6 1.20* 81.0 1.15+ 62.0 1.10

40 to 49 75.4 1.00 66.6 1.00 80.2 1.00 60.5 1.00

Children ever born

None 71.4 0.78* 65.8 0.81* 72.8 0.69*** 58.7 0.78**

1 or 2 75.8 1.00 70.5 1.00 79.2 1.00 63.9 1.00

3 or 4 74.8 0.94 70.6 1.04 80.7 1.03 63.6 0.98

5 + 76.1 1.02 70.6 1.10 81.9 1.13 61.3 0.90

Education

None 72.7 0.78*** 67.5 0.79*** 78.9 0.80*** 59.8 0.85**

Primary 76.2 1.00 71.2 1.00 80.5 1.00 63.6 1.00

Secondary or higher 79.2 1.22+ 73.6 1.24* 80.6 1.20 65.6 1.15

Work 

Does not work 73.6 1.00 68.3 1.00 78.8 1.00 60.8 1.00

Works for cash 80.5 1.53*** 75.9 1.50*** 83.5 1.54*** 67.9 1.33***

Media exposure

No regular exposure 74.4 1.00 69.6 1.00 80.4 1.00 61.7 1.00

Weekly exposure 76.1 0.99 70.7 1.01 79.7 0.88* 63.2 1.01

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 75.8 1.00 70.6 1.00 81.1 1.00 63.5 1.00

18-24 years 74.3 0.91+ 69.9 0.93 78.6 0.88* 61.0 0.87**

25 years or more 80.1 1.29 66.3 0.90 79.4 0.91 65.3 0.91

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 75.1 1.00 70.0 1.00 78.6 1.00 61.8 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 75.6 1.05 71.1 1.06 81.0 1.15* 63.4 1.09+

Wife is 10+ years younger 75.2 1.07 68.8 0.99 81.6 1.19* 63.5 1.17*

Residence

Rural 75.6 1.00 70.8 1.00 80.9 1.00 63.7 1.00

Urban 73.3 1.08 66.4 1.08 74.9 0.92 55.9 0.76***

Family structure

Nuclear 75.5 1.00 70.8 1.00 80.1 1.00 62.4 1.00

Extended 74.7 1.00 68.2 0.94 79.6 1.05 62.9 1.02

Wealth index

Poorest 73.6 1.00 69.3 1.00 79.1 1.00 59.7 1.00

Poorer 77.6 1.21* 71.5 1.10 82.3 1.20* 62.0 1.00

Middle 75.9 1.10 71.0 1.07 80.6 1.15 65.0 1.14+

Richer 75.6 1.09 70.6 1.10 80.6 1.14 66.8 1.22**

Richest 73.8 1.01 68.4 1.00 77.3 1.13 59.6 1.07

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose husbands have 

completed high school n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00+ n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00

Percentage of women who watch television at 

least weekly n/a 1.00 n/a 0.99 n/a 0.99* n/a 1.00

Constant n/a 4.32*** n/a 2.93*** n/a 5.03*** n/a 1.76***

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) from 

the value for the reference category.

+p<0.10, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

OR = Odds ratio

n/a = Not available or not applicable
162

Appendix Table 3B.7. Percentage of currently married women who agree that a wife is justified in 

refusing to have sex with her husband for the specified reason, by background characteristics, 

and odds ratios (estimated using multivariable logistic regression): Mali

A wife is justified in refusing sex with her husband when:

She knows that 

her husband 

has a sexually 

transmitted 

disease

She knows that 

her husband 

has sex with 

other women

She has recently 

given birth

She is tired or 

not in the mood

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR % OR

Age

15 to 19 37.1 0.84+ 31.9 1.20+ 49.9 1.02 30.8 1.25*

20 to 29 47.6 1.10 35.0 1.21** 57.4 1.18* 29.7 1.16*

30 to 39 45.5 1.05 30.4 1.09 57.4 1.10 29.3 1.18**

40 to 49 44.8 1.00 29.9 1.00 55.4 1.00 26.5 1.00

Children ever born

None 41.8 0.95 29.4 0.89 46.2 0.67*** 28.3 0.91

1 or 2 44.6 1.00 34.8 1.00 57.2 1.00 30.4 1.00

3 or 4 48.7 1.08 34.1 0.98 58.9 1.02 30.5 1.05

5 + 44.5 1.04 30.3 0.97 56.2 1.03 27.8 0.95

Education

None 43.6 0.72*** 31.7 0.84* 55.7 0.83** 29.0 0.91

Primary 51.6 1.00 35.2 1.00 57.9 1.00 28.9 1.00

Secondary or higher 58.2 1.15 34.8 1.01 61.1 1.11 30.2 1.39**

Work 

Does not work 45.4 1.00 29.2 1.00 60.5 1.00 28.2 1.00

Works for cash 45.1 0.92+ 35.5 1.19*** 51.4 0.80*** 30.1 1.12**

Media exposure

No regular exposure 42.9 1.00 30.9 1.00 57.2 1.00 29.2 1.00

Weekly exposure 46.6 1.21*** 32.9 1.23*** 55.6 1.04 29.0 1.16**

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 43.3 1.00 32.8 1.00 54.8 1.00 30.0 1.00

18-24 years 49.6 1.16** 30.3 0.89* 59.8 1.25*** 26.7 0.87**

25 years or more 55.0 1.40** 32.9 1.07 58.8 1.42** 28.3 0.91

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 50.7 1.00 32.9 1.00 61.7 1.00 29.2 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 44.4 0.86* 32.4 0.98 55.3 0.81** 28.2 1.00

Wife is 10+ years younger 44.4 0.89+ 31.9 1.07 55.2 0.86* 29.6 1.08

Residence

Rural 44.2 1.00 31.8 1.00 56.4 1.00 29.6 1.00

Urban 48.5 1.54*** 33.5 1.58*** 55.5 1.21* 27.5 1.48***

Family structure

Nuclear 45.2 1.00 32.4 1.00 57.4 1.00 29.6 1.00

Extended 45.3 0.95 31.6 0.95 51.7 0.82*** 27.2 0.88*

Wealth index

Poorest 45.6 1.00 36.6 1.00 53.6 1.00 34.1 1.00

Poorer 43.7 0.91 31.8 0.80*** 59.6 1.11+ 30.0 0.81**

Middle 44.4 0.96 29.5 0.72*** 57.0 1.04 28.4 0.76***

Richer 44.2 0.98 31.3 0.70*** 57.2 1.12+ 26.1 0.70***

Richest 48.9 0.87 31.4 0.61*** 53.4 0.88 26.3 0.69***

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose husbands have 

completed high school n/a 1.01*** n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00

Percentage of women who watch television at 

least weekly n/a 0.99*** n/a 1.00** n/a 1.00* n/a 0.99***

Constant n/a 1.42*** n/a 0.65*** n/a 1.60*** n/a 0.63***

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) 

from the value for the reference category.

+p<0.10, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

OR = Odds ratio

n/a = Not available or not applicable
163

Appendix Table 3B.8. Percentage of currently married women who agree that a wife is justified 

in refusing to have sex with her husband for the specified reason, by background 

characteristics, and odds ratios (estimated using multivariable logistic regression): Mozambique

A wife is justified in refusing sex with her husband when:

She knows that 

her husband 

has a sexually 

transmitted 

disease

She knows that 

her husband 

has sex with 

other women

She has recently 

given birth

She is tired or 

not in the mood

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR % OR

Age

15 to 19 79.5 1.02 51.7 1.13 80.9 1.06 59.5 1.06

20 to 29 80.8 0.99 52.9 1.07 87.2 1.10 63.8 1.04

30 to 39 77.9 0.82* 50.4 0.94 85.7 0.86 62.2 0.97

40 to 49 81.9 1.00 52.4 1.00 88.7 1.00 63.3 1.00

Children ever born

None 75.4 0.83+ 46.9 0.82* 70.3 0.40*** 55.4 0.79**

1 or 2 81.1 1.00 54.0 1.00 87.8 1.00 65.0 1.00

3 or 4 81.3 1.15 53.6 1.08 88.5 1.19+ 63.2 1.04

5 + 79.3 1.14 50.1 1.05 87.6 1.23+ 62.3 1.02

Education

None 76.9 0.78*** 49.0 0.92+ 85.8 1.00 60.4 0.92

Primary 82.4 1.00 53.5 1.00 86.7 1.00 64.1 1.00

Secondary or higher 88.1 1.76** 66.9 1.61*** 87.6 1.37+ 74.1 1.60***

Work 

Does not work 78.8 1.00 50.3 1.00 85.9 1.00 61.1 1.00

Works for cash 85.5 1.41*** 59.2 1.25*** 88.0 1.06 70.2 1.31***

Media exposure

No regular exposure 76.5 1.00 48.7 1.00 84.9 1.00 61.4 1.00

Weekly exposure 83.8 1.29*** 55.3 1.20*** 87.9 1.31*** 64.2 1.06

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 79.2 1.00 50.5 1.00 85.6 1.00 61.8 1.00

18-24 years 81.7 1.13+ 54.2 1.08 87.7 1.24** 64.7 1.05

25 years or more 79.6 1.19 53.6 1.11 86.4 1.16 61.4 0.89

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 81.3 1.00 55.6 1.00 86.2 1.00 64.9 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 79.4 1.03 50.8 0.88* 86.0 1.18* 62.5 0.97

Wife is 10+ years younger 78.6 0.97 46.5 0.77*** 86.9 1.16+ 59.1 0.84**

Residence

Rural 79.2 1.00 51.1 1.00 87.0 1.00 62.6 1.00

Urban 82.1 0.91 53.9 1.08 84.6 0.89 63.0 0.99

Family structure

Nuclear 78.7 1.00 52.0 1.00 86.6 1.00 63.2 1.00

Extended 82.3 1.11 51.6 0.90* 85.9 1.03 61.9 0.89*

Wealth index

Poorest 76.4 1.00 50.7 1.00 84.8 1.00 62.9 1.00

Poorer 77.8 0.90 50.9 0.99 86.6 1.18 62.0 0.92

Middle 79.1 1.10 50.3 0.95 86.5 1.09 59.1 0.87+

Richer 83.2 1.35** 50.5 0.90 87.3 1.40** 63.8 0.98

Richest 86.1 1.40* 58.1 1.05 87.0 1.37+ 66.8 1.00

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose husbands have 

completed high school n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00+ n/a 1.01+ n/a 1.00

Percentage of women who watch television at 

least weekly n/a 0.99** n/a 1.00* n/a 0.99*** n/a 1.00

Constant n/a 7.64*** n/a 1.43*** n/a 8.93*** n/a 2.15***

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) 

from the value for the reference category.

+p<0.10, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

OR = Odds ratio

n/a = Not available or not applicable
164

Appendix Table 3B.9. Percentage of currently married women who agree that a wife is justified in 

refusing to have sex with her husband for the specified reason, by background characteristics, 

and odds ratios (estimated using multivariable logistic regression): Nigeria

A wife is justified in refusing sex with her husband when:

She knows that 

her husband 

has a sexually 

transmitted 

disease

She knows that 

her husband 

has sex with 

other women

She has recently 

given birth

She is tired or 

not in the mood

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR % OR

Age

15 to 19 84.6 0.93 71.6 1.27 62.1 1.01 40.1 0.70 *

20 to 29 86.2 1.04 71.0 1.15 71.6 1.23 * 54.6 0.97

30 to 39 86.4 0.98 70.9 1.06 69.5 0.97 53.9 0.92

40 to 49 85.8 1.00 69.0 1.00 70.3 1.00 54.1 1.00

Children ever born

None 83.4 0.97 68.6 0.90 63.4 0.89 44.7 0.84

1 or 2 87.8 1.00 71.4 1.00 71.9 1.00 56.8 1.00

3 or 4 87.0 0.93 71.3 0.96 71.8 0.97 54.0 0.93

5 + 85.0 0.87 70.1 0.93 68.5 0.99 51.4 0.85 +

Education

None 84.1 0.90 70.1 0.87 66.4 0.81 * 44.3 0.63 ***

Primary 85.9 1.00 70.5 1.00 71.1 1.00 60.1 1.00

Secondary or higher 90.6 1.31 + 71.7 1.11 75.6 1.06 65.0 1.06

Work 

Does not work 84.3 1.00 65.7 1.00 64.8 1.00 46.2 1.00

Works for cash 87.6 1.16 + 74.2 1.46 *** 73.3 1.38 *** 58.0 1.43 ***

Media exposure

No regular exposure 82.6 1.00 67.2 1.00 69.6 1.00 50.9 1.00

Weekly exposure 88.1 1.36 *** 72.6 1.28 *** 69.8 1.01 53.9 1.01

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 85.3 1.00 71.4 1.00 66.6 1.00 48.3 1.00

18-24 years 87.5 0.80 * 69.9 0.85 * 76.0 1.20 * 61.4 1.15 +

25 years or more 87.6 0.50 *** 64.7 0.61 *** 74.3 0.93 63.4 0.97

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 86.0 1.00 68.8 1.00 70.3 1.00 58.2 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 87.7 1.17 71.1 1.01 71.7 1.05 56.3 0.94

Wife is 10+ years younger 84.9 0.97 70.8 0.97 68.2 1.00 49.2 0.84 +

Residence

Rural 84.3 1.00 69.9 1.00 68.0 1.00 50.8 1.00

Urban 90.0 0.85 72.1 0.94 73.6 0.97 57.4 0.95

Family structure

Nuclear 85.6 1.00 70.9 1.00 69.8 1.00 53.3 1.00

Extended 87.3 1.19 + 69.8 0.95 69.4 0.96 51.4 0.98

Wealth index

Poorest 82.5 1.00 68.5 1.00 71.0 1.00 52.4 1.00

Poorer 85.1 1.11 71.9 1.18 + 68.3 0.74 ** 47.9 0.74 ***

Middle 83.9 1.07 72.0 1.07 63.8 0.56 *** 46.2 0.63 ***

Richer 90.4 1.18 71.4 0.87 71.5 0.59 *** 56.9 0.66 ***

Richest 89.4 0.89 69.2 0.68 * 74.4 0.45 *** 62.0 0.50 ***

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose husbands have 

completed high school n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.01 *** n/a 1.01 ***

Percentage of women who watch television at 

least weekly n/a 1.01 *** n/a 1.01 ** n/a 1.00 * n/a 1.00

Constant n/a 4.24 *** n/a 1.76 *** n/a 1.52 *** n/a 0.86 +

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) 

from the value for the reference category.

+p<0.10, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

OR = Odds ratio

n/a = Not available or not applicable
165

Appendix Table 3B.10. Percentage of currently married women who agree that a wife is justified in 

refusing her husband sex for specified reason by background characteristics and the odds ratios 

estimated using multivariable logistic regression: Rwanda

A wife is justified in refusing sex with her husband when:

She knows that 

her husband 

has a sexually 

transmitted 

disease

She knows that 

her husband 

has sex with 

other women

She has recently 

given birth

She is tired or not 

in the mood

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR % OR

Age

15 to 19 91.9 3.59 ** 69.2 1.21 73.8 1.58 + 54.1 0.91

20 to 29 89.7 1.43 + 70.2 1.27 + 78.2 1.49 ** 59.2 1.02

30 to 39 88.8 1.24 68.7 1.06 78.4 1.31 * 59.1 1.05

40 to 49 88.4 1.00 67.1 1.00 73.8 1.00 55.6 1.00

Children ever born

None 88.9 0.80 73.5 1.10 70.2 0.67 * 58.3 0.96

1 or 2 89.9 1.00 69.1 1.00 77.4 1.00 58.5 1.00

3 or 4 88.8 1.00 69.1 1.03 78.8 1.16 60.8 1.08

5 + 89.1 1.17 68.1 1.14 77.0 1.29 + 56.3 0.92

Education

None 89.8 1.20 65.3 0.78 ** 75.4 0.87 55.1 0.86 *

Primary 88.9 1.00 70.6 1.00 77.8 1.00 59.7 1.00

Secondary or higher 89.5 0.92 72.9 1.06 80.1 0.97 60.9 0.78 +

Work 

Does not work 89.7 1.00 68.4 1.00 75.7 1.00 57.1 1.00

Works for cash 90.8 1.10 77.1 1.45 *** 82.1 1.43 ** 65.8 1.34 **

Media exposure

No regular exposure 87.9 1.00 67.2 1.00 75.5 1.00 56.5 1.00

Weekly exposure 91.0 1.98 *** 71.3 1.36 *** 79.4 1.32 ** 60.5 1.13

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 89.3 1.00 67.6 1.00 78.0 1.00 56.9 1.00

18-24 years 89.4 1.12 69.3 1.02 76.9 0.92 58.6 0.97

25 years or more 87.7 1.42 69.8 1.06 76.5 1.00 58.6 1.00

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 89.2 1.00 69.7 1.00 76.6 1.00 57.6 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 88.9 1.04 69.0 1.02 77.2 0.98 57.6 1.01

Wife is 10+ years younger 90.0 1.05 67.6 0.98 78.5 1.00 60.4 1.10

Residence

Rural 89.7 1.00 69.7 1.00 76.8 1.00 57.7 1.00

Urban 86.5 0.44 *** 64.9 0.51 *** 78.9 0.91 61.0 0.77 +

Family structure

Nuclear 89.2 1.00 68.5 1.00 77.1 1.00 57.8 1.00

Extended 89.3 1.10 71.2 1.05 77.5 0.92 60.1 0.98

Wealth index

Poorest 88.6 1.00 72.5 1.00 79.2 1.00 61.5 1.00

Poorer 90.2 1.11 68.0 0.76 * 74.7 0.72 * 54.1 0.76 *

Middle 88.7 0.85 67.9 0.71 ** 77.0 0.74 * 57.6 0.86

Richer 89.0 0.73 + 68.3 0.62 *** 76.8 0.68 ** 57.4 0.77 *

Richest 89.4 0.93 69.6 0.71 * 79.3 0.77 62.5 0.86

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose husbands have 

completed high school n/a 1.01 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.01 n/a 1.01 ***

Percentage of women who watch television at 

least weekly n/a 0.99 n/a 1.00 n/a 0.99 n/a 1.00

Constant n/a 9.17 *** n/a 2.21 *** n/a 3.39 *** n/a 1.25 *

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) from 

the value for the reference category.

+p<0.10, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

OR = Odds ratio

n/a = Not available or not applicable
166

Appendix Table 3B.11. Percentage of currently married women who agree that a wife is justified 

in refusing to have sex with her husband for the specified reason, by background characteristics, 

and odds ratios (estimated using multivariable logistic regression): Uganda

A wife is justified in refusing sex with her husband when:

She knows that 

her husband 

has a sexually 

transmitted 

disease

She knows that 

her husband 

has sex with 

other women

She has recently 

given birth

She is tired or 

not in the mood

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR % OR

Age

15 to 19 89.3 0.95 76.2 1.39+ 90.8 1.52 81.5 1.34

20 to 29 91.8 0.96 75.5 1.03 90.8 0.99 80.2 0.98

30 to 39 92.1 0.94 76.6 1.03 90.7 1.00 82.6 1.17

40 to 49 92.4 1.00 75.3 1.00 89.6 1.00 77.5 1.00

Children ever born

None 87.4 0.68+ 72.2 0.81 88.3 0.74 79.5 0.80

1 or 2 91.2 1.00 74.5 1.00 90.9 1.00 79.4 1.00

3 or 4 92.1 1.14 77.4 1.26* 91.2 1.14 82.8 1.18

5 + 92.5 1.19 76.3 1.20+ 90.4 1.07 80.4 1.05

Education

None 89.8 0.85 69.6 0.78** 87.9 0.82+ 73.4 0.68***

Primary 91.9 1.00 77.3 1.00 90.7 1.00 82.4 1.00

Secondary or higher 94.7 1.00 81.5 1.10 95.1 1.02 87.0 1.02

Work 

Does not work 88.1 1.00 75.5 1.00 88.4 1.00 77.0 1.00

Works for cash 95.0 2.35*** 76.2 1.00 92.6 1.31** 84.0 1.30***

Media exposure

No regular exposure 90.6 1.00 73.1 1.00 87.9 1.00 77.3 1.00

Weekly exposure 92.8 1.09 78.4 1.05 93.1 1.47*** 83.8 1.21*

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 90.8 1.00 75.3 1.00 89.8 1.00 80.3 1.00

18-24 years 93.1 1.20 76.4 1.03 91.7 1.15 81.1 0.95

25 years or more 94.5 1.32 80.1 1.32 92.5 1.21 82.2 1.00

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 92.8 1.00 76.5 1.00 91.2 1.00 81.0 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 90.8 0.80+ 77.9 1.03 89.8 0.89 80.3 0.97

Wife is 10+ years younger 91.3 0.84 72.2 0.80** 90.9 0.99 81.0 0.93

Residence

Rural 91.5 1.00 75.4 1.00 89.9 1.00 79.9 1.00

Urban 93.4 0.69+ 78.8 0.72** 95.0 0.70+ 85.7 0.63***

Family structure

Nuclear 91.3 1.00 75.5 1.00 90.2 1.00 79.7 1.00

Extended 92.9 1.12 76.6 0.96 91.7 1.09 83.5 1.05

Wealth index

Poorest 90.1 1.00 69.1 1.00 88.4 1.00 77.1 1.00

Poorer 89.9 0.92 75.0 1.22+ 87.3 0.79 77.5 0.91

Middle 92.6 1.22 76.9 1.35* 90.8 1.07 80.2 1.03

Richer 92.0 1.23 78.3 1.56*** 91.7 1.26 82.6 1.24+

Richest 94.5 1.46 80.7 1.55** 95.4 1.67* 86.6 1.69**

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose husbands have 

completed high school n/a 1.00 n/a 1.01** n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00

Percentage of women who watch television at 

least weekly n/a 1.01+ n/a 1.00 n/a 1.02*** n/a 1.01**

Constant n/a 10.35*** n/a 2.29*** n/a 8.10*** n/a 2.86***

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) 

from the value for the reference category.

+p<0.10, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

OR = Odds ratio

n/a = Not available or not applicable
167

Appendix Table 3B.12. Percentage of currently married women who agree that a wife is justified 

in refusing to have sex with her husband for the specified reason, by background 

characteristics, and odds ratios (estimated using multivariable logistic regression): Zambia

A wife is justified in refusing sex with her husband when:

She knows that 

her husband 

has a sexually 

transmitted 

disease

She knows that 

her husband 

has sex with 

other women

She has recently 

given birth

She is tired or 

not in the mood

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR % OR

Age 

15 to 19 81.5 0.59 * 68.7 0.95 89.7 1.22 64.6 0.84

20 to 29 87.7 0.90 74.7 1.13 92.1 1.23 68.9 0.93

30 to 39 89.1 1.09 75.6 1.20+ 92.9 1.19 71.3 1.05

40 to 49 87.5 1.00 71.3 1.00 92.0 1.00 69.5 1.00

Children ever born

None 85.4 0.98 72.5 1.08 87.0 0.53** 94.9 0.92

1 or 2 87.3 1.00 72.4 1.00 92.2 1.00 68.1 1.00

3 or 4 88.0 1.00 76.3 1.14 92.6 1.03 70.8 1.04

5 + 87.7 0.93 73.5 1.07 92.6 1.18 70.1 1.01

Education

None 82.5 0.72 ** 67.3 0.76** 90.6 0.84 65.6 0.79 *

Primary 87.3 1.00 73.9 1.00 92.1 1.00 69.6 1.00

Secondary or higher 91.0 1.30 + 77.6 1.02 92.9 1.10 70.8 0.99

Work 

Does not work 85.9 1.00 72.4 1.00 91.0 1.00 68.0 1.00

Works for cash 90.4 1.41 *** 76.5 1.14+ 94.0 1.59*** 71.6 1.19 **

Media exposure

No regular exposure 85.1 1.00 71.3 1.00 90.9 1.00 68.4 1.00

Weekly exposure 90.2 1.12 76.8 1.11 93.5 1.21 70.3 1.08

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 86.8 1.00 73.0 1.00 92.0 1.00 69.3 1.00

18-24 years 88.6 1.04 75.1 1.03 92.2 1.02 68.8 0.97

25 years or more 85.9 0.73 73.2 0.82 92.6 0.99 76.5 1.42 +

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 88.1 1.00 73.4 1.00 92.1 1.00 70.0 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 87.2 0.91 74.9 1.05 92.0 0.94 70.0 0.99

Wife is 10+ years younger 87.2 0.87 72.7 0.96 92.6 1.02 67.5 0.86 +

Residence

Rural 86.6 1.00 72.2 1.00 92.2 1.00 70.1 1.00

Urban 89.1 0.72 + 76.9 0.97 91.8 0.55** 67.8 0.77 *

Family structure

Nuclear 86.5 1.00 73.3 1.00 91.8 1.00 68.6 1.00

Extended 89.1 1.01 74.7 0.98 92.6 1.12 70.4 1.07

Wealth index

Poorest 82.8 1.00 69.7 1.00 90.6 1.00 70.1 1.00

Poorer 86.3 1.22 72.3 1.09 92.5 1.24 68.7 0.92

Middle 86.6 1.16 73.0 0.95 91.7 1.12 70.1 0.91

Richer 89.2 1.55 * 75.8 1.00 91.1 1.06 67.8 0.83

Richest 92.0 2.38 ** 78.2 0.98 94.2 1.55 70.2 0.91

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose husbands have 

completed high school n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00

Percentage of women who watch television at 

least weekly n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.01+ n/a 1.00

Constant n/a 6.81 *** n/a 2.28*** n/a 10.74*** n/a 2.16 ***

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) 

from the value for the reference category.

+p<0.10, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

OR = Odds ratio

n/a = Not available or not applicable
168

Appendix Table 3B.13. Percentage of currently married women who agree that a wife is justified in 

refusing to have sex with her husband for the specified reason, by background characteristics, and 

odds ratios (estimated using multivariable logistic regression): Zimbabwe

A wife is justified in refusing sex with her husband when:

She knows that 

her husband 

has a sexually 

transmitted 

disease

She knows that 

her husband 

has sex with 

other women

She has recently 

given birth

She is tired or 

not in the mood

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR % OR

Age 

15 to 19 n/a n/a 58.3 0.86 81.2 0.93 55.4 1.04

20 to 29 n/a n/a 63.2 1.07 84.3 0.90 53.4 0.92

30 to 39 n/a n/a 63.3 1.18 85.2 0.84 50.0 0.92

40 to 49 n/a n/a 56.7 1.00 85.8 1.00 47.8 1.00

Children ever born

None n/a n/a 61.2 0.81 79.8 0.67* 53.0 0.79+

1 or 2 n/a n/a 65.5 1.00 84.7 1.00 56.4 1.00

3 or 4 n/a n/a 58.8 0.81* 84.6 1.13 48.7 0.80*

5 + n/a n/a 58.1 0.96 86.0 1.29 45.9 0.71**

Education

None n/a n/a 47.1 0.64*** 82.3 0.80 48.1 1.04

Primary n/a n/a 58.2 1.00 83.5 1.00 47.1 1.00

Secondary or higher n/a n/a 68.0 1.25* 86.0 1.16 56.6 1.19*

Work 

Does not work n/a n/a 62.1 1.00 84.5 1.00 51.9 1.00

Works for cash n/a n/a 61.3 0.87+ 84.6 0.95 51.4 0.92

Media exposure

No regular exposure n/a n/a 57.5 1.00 83.5 1.00 46.7 1.00

Weekly exposure n/a n/a 64.7 1.05 85.3 1.14 55.2 1.10

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years n/a n/a 58.3 1.00 82.1 1.00 49.6 1.00

18-24 years n/a n/a 63.4 1.10 85.9 1.45** 52.4 1.03

25 years or more n/a n/a 67.6 1.27 88.7 1.97** 58.1 1.24

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger n/a n/a 64.9 1.00 85.9 1.00 53.2 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger n/a n/a 61.1 0.90 85.6 1.01 51.8 0.95

Wife is 10+ years younger n/a n/a 60.2 0.96 82.4 0.76* 49.8 0.96

Residence

Rural n/a n/a 58.4 1.00 84.6 1.00 49.0 1.00

Urban n/a n/a 67.3 1.14 84.5 1.15 56.2 1.18

Family structure

Nuclear n/a n/a 60.2 1.00 83.3 1.00 51.1 1.00

Extended n/a n/a 64.4 1.24** 86.9 1.23+ 52.6 1.07

Wealth index

Poorest n/a n/a 57.4 1.00 85.3 1.00 44.5 1.00

Poorer n/a n/a 57.3 0.93 85.2 0.92 48.4 1.09

Middle n/a n/a 59.4 1.00 86.0 0.92 52.0 1.26*

Richer n/a n/a 60.8 1.01 79.9 0.58** 53.0 1.18

Richest n/a n/a 71.7 1.33 87.2 0.74 58.5 1.43+

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose husbands have 

completed high school n/a n/a n/a 1.00 n/a 0.99+ n/a 0.99***

Percentage of women who watch television at 

least weekly n/a n/a n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00

Constant n/a n/a n/a 1.94*** n/a 8.21*** n/a 1.83***

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) from 

the value for the reference category.

+p<0.10, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

OR = Odds ratio

n/a = Not available or not applicable
169

Appendix Table 3B.14. Percentage of currently married women who agree that a wife is justified in 

refusing to have sex with her husband for the specified reason, by background characteristics, and 

odds ratios (estimated using multivariable logistic regression): Armenia

A wife is justified in refusing sex with her husband when:

She knows that 

her husband 

has a sexually 

transmitted 

disease

She knows that 

her husband 

has sex with 

other women

She has recently 

given birth

She is tired or 

not in the mood

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR % OR

Age 

15 to 19 84.8 0.67 82.7 1.27 74.5 0.62+ 94.6 0.79

20 to 29 91.7 0.83 86.0 0.95 87.3 1.13 68.2 0.82+

30 to 39 93.4 1.00 86.0 0.99 86.4 0.93 71.5 0.89

40 to 49 93.7 1.00 85.7 1.00 87.6 1.00 73.9 1.00

Children ever born

None 87.9 0.67 80.0 0.67* 79.0 0.60** 62.1 0.73*

1 or 2 94.1 1.00 87.3 1.00 88.3 1.00 71.6 1.00

3 or 4 92.2 0.80 85.1 0.87 86.2 0.84 72.0 0.93

5 + 90.1 0.88 81.1 0.77 82.9 0.84 69.6 1.01

Education

None or primary 84.1 1.00 76.4 1.00 78.3 1.00 64.4 1.00

Secondary or higher 93.5 1.73** 86.5 1.77*** 87.4 1.41* 71.7 1.25

Work 

Does not work 92.2 1.00 85.5 1.00 86.1 1.00 70.8 1.00

Works for cash 95.0 1.22 86.9 0.98 89.0 1.07 72.5 0.98

Media exposure

No regular exposure 87.2 1.00 82.1 1.00 80.7 1.00 63.0 1.00

Weekly exposure 93.4 1.54* 86.2 1.18 87.4 1.37* 72.0 1.43**

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 89.6 1.00 84.0 1.00 83.2 1.00 68.6 1.00

18-24 years 93.6 1.31+ 86.4 1.18 87.8 1.35* 71.9 1.16

25 years or more 94.5 1.35 85.3 1.07 86.8 1.30 71.6 1.17

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 93.1 1.00 85.5 1.00 87.4 1.00 70.7 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 92.3 1.04 86.2 1.13 85.8 1.00 71.8 1.13

Wife is 10+ years younger 93.2 1.32 85.9 1.12 86.4 1.12 72.5 1.24

Residence

Rural 91.1 1.00 85.0 1.00 86.4 1.00 72.9 1.00

Urban 94.1 0.99 86.4 1.06 87.1 0.80+ 69.9 0.71**

Family structure

Nuclear 93.6 1.00 86.1 1.00 88.5 1.00 74.4 1.00

Extended 92.2 0.97 85.5 0.97 85.4 0.78* 68.6 0.78**

Wealth index

Poorest 89.6 1.00 84.9 1.00 85.3 1.00 72.5 1.00

Poorer 91.5 1.13 84.7 0.91 86.0 1.00 70.5 0.94

Middle 93.1 1.29 85.1 0.88 85.5 0.98 70.5 1.05

Richer 93.3 1.26 87.0 0.92 86.4 1.01 67.7 0.91

Richest 96.4 2.15** 87.0 0.96 90.3 1.33 74.7 1.27

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose husbands have 

completed high school n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.01 n/a 1.01+

Percentage of women who watch television at 

least weekly n/a 0.98*** n/a 0.99** n/a 0.99* n/a 0.99*

Constant n/a 56.19*** n/a 13.95*** n/a 5.68** n/a 2.06+

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) from 

the value for the reference category.

+p<0.10, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

OR = Odds ratio

n/a = Not available or not applicable
170

Appendix Table 3B.15. Percentage of currently married women who agree that a wife is justified in 

refusing to have sex with her husband for the specified reason, by background characteristics, and 

odds ratios (estimated using multivariable logistic regression): Jordan

A wife is justified in refusing sex with her husband when:

She knows that 

her husband has 

a sexually 

transmitted 

disease

She knows that 

her husband 

has sex with 

other women

She has recently 

given birth

She is tired or 

not in the mood

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR % OR

Age

15 to 19 89.0 0.40* n/a n/a 93.5 0.57 65.4 1.00

20 to 29 93.4 0.56** n/a n/a 95.1 0.51** 67.8 0.90

30 to 39 96.0 1.10 n/a n/a 95.7 0.73+ 69.7 1.02

40 to 49 93.7 1.00 n/a n/a 95.3 1.00 98.9 1.00

Children ever born

None 92.3 0.98 n/a n/a 93.2 0.78 61.8 0.83

1 or 2 94.9 1.00 n/a n/a 95.9 1.00 69.7 1.00

3 or 4 95.6 0.98 n/a n/a 95.6 0.84 70.6 1.03

5 + 93.7 0.80 n/a n/a 95.2 0.75 68.2 0.97

Education

None 79.9 0.35*** n/a n/a 87.0 0.45*** 61.7 0.69 **

Primary 90.9 1.00 n/a n/a 91.8 1.00 65.7 1.00

Secondary or higher 95.9 2.27*** n/a n/a 96.4 2.18*** 69.7 1.09

Work 

Does not work 94.2 1.00 n/a n/a 95.2 1.00 68.6 1.00

Works for cash 96.9 1.39 n/a n/a 96.2 0.95 70.3 1.12

Media exposure

No regular exposure 93.1 1.00 n/a n/a 94.0 1.00 68.5 1.00

Weekly exposure 94.6 1.16 n/a n/a 95.5 1.38+ 68.8 1.00

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 92.5 1.00 n/a n/a 95.3 1.00 68.7 1.00

18-24 years 95.1 1.08 n/a n/a 95.5 0.92 68.7 0.94

25 years or more 95.2 0.94 n/a n/a 94.6 0.70 69.1 0.93

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 93.8 1.00 n/a n/a 95.1 1.00 69.1 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 95.2 1.17 n/a n/a 96.0 1.14 67.2 0.94

Wife is 10+ years younger 94.5 1.15 n/a n/a 94.6 0.82 71.0 1.10

Residence

Rural 92.7 1.00 n/a n/a 94.7 1.00 69.1 1.00

Urban 94.9 0.99 n/a n/a 95.5 0.94 68.7 0.92

Family structure

Nuclear 94.7 1.00 n/a n/a 95.6 1.00 69.1 1.00

Extended 93.0 0.69* n/a n/a 93.9 0.67* 67.0 0.94

Wealth index

Poorest 90.3 1.00 n/a n/a 94.3 1.00 65.7 1.00

Poorer 94.3 1.22 n/a n/a 95.3 1.01 68.7 1.12

Middle 95.9 1.60** n/a n/a 96.0 1.33 67.9 1.11

Richer 95.4 1.45+ n/a n/a 94.6 1.09 70.1 1.26 *

Richest 96.8 1.67* n/a n/a 96.6 1.13 72.0 1.23 +

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose husbands have 

completed high school n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Percentage of women who watch television at 

least weekly n/a 1.00 n/a n/a n/a 1.01 n/a 1.00

Constant n/a 6.54*** n/a n/a n/a 5.53*** n/a 1.62 *

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) from 

the value for the reference category.

+p<0.10, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

OR = Odds ratio

n/a = Not available or not applicable
171

Appendix Table 3B.16. Percentage of currently married women who agree that a wife is justified in 

refusing to have sex with her husband for the specified reason, by background characteristics, and 

odds ratios (estimated using multivariable logistic regression): Morocco

A wife is justified in refusing sex with her husband when:

She knows that 

her husband has 

a sexually 

transmitted 

disease

She knows that 

her husband has 

sex with other 

women

She has recently 

given birth

She is tired or 

not in the mood

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR % OR

Age 

15 to 19 94.8 0.89 89.3 0.85 39.3 1.08 55.5 0.89

20 to 29 95.3 0.96 92.2 1.15 39.4 1.04 58.6 0.93

30 to 39 94.6 1.08 91.0 1.01 38.8 1.03 59.8 0.95

40 to 49 93.1 1.00 89.6 1.00 37.1 1.00 58.3 1.00

Children ever born

None 95.7 1.20 91.5 1.00 39.2 0.91 57.5 0.87 +

1 or 2 95.7 1.00 92.6 1.00 40.1 1.00 61.1 1.00

3 or 4 95.0 0.98 92.4 1.06 39.0 1.02 60.8 1.02

5 + 91.3 0.64 ** 86.9 0.73 * 35.6 0.94 54.3 0.83 *

Education

None 92.7 0.54 *** 88.9 0.70 ** 36.8 0.92 55.7 0.75 ***

Primary 96.6 1.00 93.5 1.00 39.1 1.00 63.8 1.00

Secondary or higher 97.5 1.18 94.8 1.10 43.4 1.05 64.4 0.94

Work 

Does not work 94.2 1.00 90.6 1.00 37.7 1.00 58.2 1.00

Works for cash 95.3 0.82 92.9 0.95 44.3 1.28 ** 62.8 1.01

Media exposure

No regular exposure 89.2 1.00 83.9 1.00 33.8 1.00 48.8 1.00

Weekly exposure 95.2 1.67 *** 92.1 1.75 *** 39.3 1.35 *** 60.5 1.46 ***

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 93.2 1.00 89.1 1.00 37.2 1.00 56.7 1.00

18-24 years 94.9 1.05 91.4 1.08 39.4 1.07 58.8 1.01

25 years or more 95.1 0.79 93.5 1.13 38.6 0.95 64.0 1.12

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 94.1 1.00 90.6 1.00 36.7 1.00 58.0 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 94.5 0.90 91.0 0.96 37.9 1.01 59.0 1.05

Wife is 10+ years younger 94.4 0.96 91.0 0.99 41.5 1.21 *** 59.7 1.10 +

Residence

Rural 92.3 1.00 88.0 1.00 36.5 1.00 54.2 1.00

Urban 95.9 1.45 * 93.0 1.42 ** 39.9 1.25 ** 62.2 1.25 **

Family structure

Nuclear 94.0 1.00 91.3 1.00 37.8 1.00 59.6 1.00

Extended 94.7 1.09 90.2 0.86 + 39.4 1.12 * 57.5 0.96

Wealth index

Poorest 91.3 1.00 87.2 1.00 38.0 1.00 53.2 1.00

Poorer 93.7 0.87 89.6 0.93 38.0 0.84 * 56.8 0.92

Middle 94.6 0.67 * 91.0 0.79 36.1 0.64 *** 59.4 0.84 +

Richer 95.9 0.63 + 92.6 0.80 38.1 0.55 *** 61.6 0.78 *

Richest 96.0 0.46 ** 93.7 0.72 41.9 0.52 *** 62.5 0.69 **

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose husbands have 

completed high school n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 ** n/a 1.00

Percentage of women who watch television at 

least weekly n/a 1.01 * n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00

Constant n/a 10.30 *** n/a 8.18 *** n/a 0.48 *** n/a 1.24 +

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) 

from the value for the reference category.

+p<0.10, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

OR = Odds ratio

n/a = Not available or not applicable
172

Appendix Table 3B.17. Percentage of currently married women who agree that a wife is justified in 

refusing to have sex with her husband for the specified reason, by background characteristics, and 

odds ratios (estimated using multivariable logistic regression): Cambodia

A wife is justified in refusing sex with her husband when:

She knows that 

her husband

has a sexually 

transmitted 

disease

She knows that 

her husband

has sex with 

other women

She has recently 

given birth

She is tired or 

not in the mood

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR % OR

Age

15 to 19 63.6 0.77 65.4 0.80 67.6 0.79 66.4 0.83

20 to 29 66.2 0.97 64.0 0.85 66.9 0.85 63.7 0.84

30 to 39 70.9 1.16 70.1 1.07 72.8 1.13 71.2 1.14

40 to 49 69.3 1.00 68.6 1.00 72.2 1.00 69.6 1.00

Children ever born

None 69.3 1.30 68.6 1.13 71.2 1.12 70.6 1.17

1 or 2 65.8 1.00 65.3 1.00 69.3 1.00 66.7 1.00

3 or 4 68.8 1.03 67.9 1.01 69.1 0.91 66.8 0.90

5 + 70.9 1.05 69.5 0.98 73.3 0.99 70.8 1.01

Education

None 69.0 0.94 68.5 0.95 71.3 0.91 68.5 0.95

Primary 68.2 1.00 66.9 1.00 69.8 1.00 67.6 1.00

Secondary or higher 71.4 0.90 69.7 0.90 73.9 0.92 72.2 0.92

Work 

Does not work 66.5 1.00 65.1 1.00 68.4 1.00 65.9 1.00

Works for cash 72.6 1.21 + 72.4 1.30 ** 75.0 1.29 * 72.9 1.27 *

Media exposure

No regular exposure 63.9 1.00 64.7 1.00 68.0 1.00 64.5 1.00

Weekly exposure 71.2 1.47 *** 69.3 1.32 ** 72.3 1.29 * 70.5 1.41 **

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 69.1 1.00 67.9 1.00 71.2 1.00 68.7 1.00

18-24 years 69.2 0.91 68.1 0.91 70.4 0.87 68.5 0.91

25 years or more 64.9 0.62 * 65.1 0.66 * 71.7 0.74 67.5 0.77

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 69.2 1.00 67.9 1.00 70.7 1.00 68.8 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 69.9 0.89 69.7 0.95 72.3 0.96 70.0 0.89

Wife is 10+ years younger 63.5 0.74 + 62.5 0.75 + 68.8 0.87 62.3 0.72 *

Residence

Rural 67.5 1.00 66.3 1.00 69.3 1.00 66.8 1.00

Urban 76.1 0.91 76.0 1.02 79.4 0.96 77.5 0.94

Family structure

Nuclear 67.1 1.00 66.3 1.00 69.0 1.00 66.5 1.00

Extended 72.2 1.02 70.8 1.01 74.5 1.05 72.4 1.06

Wealth index

Poorest 66.1 1.00 67.0 1.00 67.3 1.00 65.5 1.00

Poorer 66.9 1.26 + 66.7 1.21 68.4 1.27 + 65.0 1.14

Middle 70.0 1.39 * 67.6 1.23 73.7 1.63 ** 70.0 1.40 *

Richer 67.6 1.17 65.1 1.05 68.9 1.21 66.8 1.15

Richest 73.5 1.33 72.7 1.26 76.0 1.37 + 75.1 1.34

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose husbands have 

completed high school n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00

Percentage of women who watch television at 

least weekly n/a 1.01 *** n/a 1.01 *** n/a 1.01 *** n/a 1.01 ***

Constant n/a 1.06 n/a 1.09 n/a 1.35 * n/a 1.12

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) from 

the value for the reference category.

+p<0.10, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

OR = Odds ratio

n/a = Not available or not applicable
173

Appendix Table 3B.18. Percentage of currently married women who agree that a wife is justified in 

refusing to have sex with her husband for the specified reason, by background characteristics, and 

odds ratios (estimated using multivariable logistic regression): Indonesia

A wife is justified in refusing sex with her husband when:

She knows that 

her husband has 

a sexually 

transmitted 

disease

She knows that 

her husband has 

sex with other 

women

She has recently 

given birth

She is tired or 

not in the mood

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR % OR

Age

15 to 19 83.6 1.04 84.6 1.48 *** 89.8 1.20 67.1 0.95

20 to 29 86.3 1.19 ** 85.1 1.43 *** 91.8 1.32 *** 68.6 1.02

30 to 39 85.5 1.11 * 83.7 1.22 *** 91.0 1.12 * 70.5 1.07 *

40 to 49 83.1 1.00 81.5 1.00 90.3 1.00 69.0 1.00

Children ever born

None 83.9 0.90 82.3 0.83 ** 88.6 0.73 *** 68.2 0.88 *

1 or 2 87.2 1.00 85.3 1.00 92.2 1.00 70.7 1.00

3 or 4 84.3 0.99 83.0 1.00 91.2 1.07 70.1 0.97

5 + 79.8 0.88 * 79.6 0.97 88.2 1.06 64.2 0.81 ***

Education

None 77.2 0.77 *** 78.8 0.93 86.8 0.77 *** 69.3 0.94

Primary 82.2 1.00 82.1 1.00 89.3 1.00 68.5 1.00

Secondary or higher 90.4 1.50 *** 86.5 1.19 *** 94.2 1.45 *** 70.5 1.08 *

Work 

Does not work 84.4 1.00 83.2 1.00 90.4 1.00 68.2 1.00

Works for cash 86.4 1.04 84.4 0.97 92.4 1.07 72.0 1.07 *

Media exposure

No regular exposure 79.1 1.00 78.5 1.00 85.5 1.00 67.3 1.00

Weekly exposure 86.3 1.07 84.7 1.04 92.2 1.20 *** 69.8 1.00

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 82.5 1.00 82.3 1.00 89.7 1.00 69.3 1.00

18-24 years 86.3 0.98 84.4 1.02 91.9 0.95 69.0 0.96

25 years or more 89.9 1.15 * 85.0 1.08 92.3 0.98 71.1 0.98

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 85.9 1.00 84.1 1.00 91.7 1.00 68.4 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 84.8 1.00 83.9 0.99 91.1 1.00 71.0 1.05 +

Wife is 10+ years younger 82.9 1.02 81.3 0.95 88.8 0.92 69.2 1.05

Residence

Rural 81.6 1.00 81.1 1.00 88.7 1.00 69.2 1.00

Urban 89.1 1.19 *** 86.5 1.14 ** 93.7 1.24 *** 69.6 1.01

Family structure

Nuclear 84.2 1.00 82.8 1.00 90.5 1.00 68.3 1.00

Extended 86.6 1.12 ** 85.0 1.08 * 92.0 1.05 71.4 1.12 ***

Wealth index

Poorest 77.8 1.00 77.8 1.00 85.7 1.00 66.0 1.00

Poorer 82.8 1.11 * 82.5 1.16 ** 90.0 1.03 71.8 1.14 **

Middle 86.3 1.17 ** 84.9 1.28 *** 92.3 1.13 + 69.3 1.10 *

Richer 87.7 1.31 *** 85.8 1.44 *** 92.7 1.18 * 68.7 1.07

Richest 90.8 1.40 *** 87.0 1.52 *** 94.6 1.21 * 71.1 1.12 *

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose husbands have 

completed high school n/a 1.00 *** n/a 1.00 * n/a 1.00 * n/a 1.00

Percentage of women who watch television at 

least weekly n/a 1.00 *** n/a 1.00 *** n/a 1.01 *** n/a 1.00 ***

Constant n/a 3.05 *** n/a 3.38 *** n/a 4.25 *** n/a 1.53 ***

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) from the 

value for the reference category.

+p<0.10, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

OR = Odds ratio

n/a = Not available or not applicable
174

Appendix Table 3B.19. Percentage of currently married women who agree that a wife is justified in 

refusing to have sex with her husband for the specified reason, by background characteristics, and 

odds ratios (estimated using multivariable logistic regression): Nepal

A wife is justified in refusing sex with her husband when:

She knows that 

her husband has 

a sexually 

transmitted 

disease

She knows that 

her husband 

has sex with 

other women

She has recently 

given birth

She is tired or 

not in the mood

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR % OR

Age

15 to 19 95.8 1.06 94.2 1.51 + 97.2 0.83 96.5 0.92

20 to 29 95.6 1.04 93.8 1.11 97.6 0.81 96.9 0.94

30 to 39 95.2 0.97 93.7 0.96 97.1 0.71 96.4 0.84

40 to 49 94.6 1.00 93.9 1.00 97.6 1.00 96.6 1.00

Children ever born

None 95.6 0.86 93.5 0.77 97.3 0.80 96.8 1.06

1 or 2 96.2 1.00 93.6 1.00 97.8 1.00 96.6 1.00

3 or 4 95.1 1.01 93.9 1.22 97.4 1.08 97.2 1.35

5 + 94.3 0.95 94.3 1.31 + 97.1 0.89 96.0 0.87

Education

None 94.4 0.65 * 93.8 0.91 97.0 0.76 96.4 0.93

Primary 97.0 1.00 94.1 1.00 98.2 1.00 97.4 1.00

Secondary or higher 98.0 1.25 94.3 0.98 98.8 1.32 97.1 1.11

Work 

Does not work 95.4 1.00 94.0 1.00 97.4 1.00 96.8 1.00

Works for cash 94.8 0.71 * 93.3 0.99 98.0 1.41 95.4 0.81

Media exposure

No regular exposure 94.2 1.00 93.8 1.00 97.0 1.00 96.3 1.00

Weekly exposure 96.4 1.34 * 94.0 1.06 97.9 1.28 97.0 1.42 *

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 94.8 1.00 93.6 1.00 97.1 1.00 96.4 1.00

18-24 years 96.4 1.26 + 94.5 1.23 + 98.4 1.55 * 97.4 1.41 *

25 years or more 98.3 3.51 + 95.9 2.32 + 99.2 3.74 97.5 1.79

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 94.9 1.00 93.9 1.00 97.2 1.00 96.4 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 95.9 1.27 + 93.6 1.00 97.7 1.29 96.9 1.28 +

Wife is 10+ years younger 95.8 1.15 94.5 1.09 98.0 1.19 97.6 1.47 +

Residence

Rural 95.3 1.00 94.0 1.00 97.4 1.00 96.8 1.00

Urban 95.5 0.64 * 92.3 0.92 97.5 1.18 95.2 1.03

Family structure

Nuclear 95.4 1.00 93.7 1.00 97.3 1.00 96.6 1.00

Extended 95.2 0.90 94.0 1.06 97.5 1.11 96.7 1.00

Wealth index

Poorest 94.6 1.00 94.2 1.00 97.5 1.00 97.2 1.00

Poorer 95.1 0.98 93.3 0.92 97.1 0.82 96.5 0.76

Middle 93.9 0.72 * 93.8 0.93 96.9 0.76 96.3 0.70 +

Richer 96.3 1.12 94.6 1.14 98.0 1.11 97.7 1.20

Richest 96.5 0.87 93.4 1.01 97.7 0.76 95.6 0.61 +

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose husbands have 

completed high school n/a 1.01 ** n/a 1.00 n/a 1.01 n/a 1.01 *

Percentage of women who watch television at 

least weekly n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 0.99 * n/a 0.99 ***

Constant n/a 20.41 *** n/a 20.60 *** n/a 100.15 *** n/a 41.00 ***

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) from 

the value for the reference category.

+p<0.10, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

OR = Odds ratio

n/a = Not available or not applicable
175

Appendix Table 3B.20. Percentage of currently married women who agree that a wife is justified 

in refusing to have sex with her husband for the specified reason, by background characteristics, 

and odds ratios (estimated using multivariable logistic regression): Philippines

A wife is justified in refusing sex with her husband when:

She knows that 

her husband has 

a sexually 

transmitted 

disease

She knows that 

her husband 

has sex with 

other women

She has recently 

given birth

She is tired or 

not in the mood

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR % OR

Age 

15 to 19 93.8 1.19 86.2 1.03 94.1 1.29 87.4 0.88

20 to 29 95.8 1.23 91.6 1.31 * 95.7 1.27 92.0 1.18

30 to 39 95.4 0.92 90.5 0.99 95.4 0.98 91.0 0.97

40 to 49 95.7 1.00 90.7 1.00 95.7 1.00 91.6 1.00

Children ever born

None 95.5 0.99 88.3 0.70 * 94.6 0.78 90.4 0.96

1 or 2 95.6 1.00 91.5 1.00 95.4 1.00 91.1 1.00

3 or 4 95.8 1.16 90.8 0.99 96.0 1.17 91.9 1.22 *

5 + 95.0 1.14 90.4 1.05 95.4 1.20 91.4 1.24 +

Education

None 94.6 1.19 88.4 1.01 97.3 2.40 + 85.1 0.75

Primary 94.4 1.00 90.6 1.00 95.0 1.00 91.0 1.00

Secondary or higher 96.0 1.08 90.9 0.85 + 95.7 0.94 91.7 0.98

Work 

Does not work 95.3 1.00 90.6 1.00 95.5 1.00 91.6 1.00

Works for cash 95.9 1.05 91.0 1.01 95.6 0.98 91.1 0.90

Media exposure

No regular exposure 93.9 1.00 88.4 1.00 94.6 1.00 89.9 1.00

Weekly exposure 95.7 1.15 91.0 1.06 95.6 1.04 91.5 1.01

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 94.7 1.00 89.6 1.00 95.0 1.00 90.4 1.00

18-24 years 95.6 1.07 91.0 1.08 95.7 1.12 91.7 1.08

25 years or more 96.2 1.25 91.5 1.29 + 95.5 1.15 91.5 1.16

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 95.7 1.00 90.9 1.00 95.6 1.00 91.6 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 95.4 0.96 90.5 0.99 95.4 0.97 90.4 0.89

Wife is 10+ years younger 95.0 0.86 90.5 0.94 95.8 1.02 92.3 1.13

Residence

Rural 95.3 1.00 90.3 1.00 95.2 1.00 90.8 1.00

Urban 95.7 0.88 91.2 0.97 95.8 1.04 91.9 1.04

Family structure

Nuclear 95.5 1.00 90.6 1.00 95.5 1.00 91.3 1.00

Extended 95.5 0.88 91.2 0.99 95.7 0.97 91.5 1.01

Wealth index

Poorest 94.2 1.00 87.9 1.00 94.3 1.00 89.3 1.00

Poorer 94.0 0.88 90.4 1.31 * 95.1 1.11 91.6 1.18

Middle 96.1 1.28 92.0 1.47 ** 95.7 1.20 91.9 1.18

Richer 95.8 1.16 91.6 1.42 * 95.7 1.25 91.6 1.07

Richest 97.5 1.85 ** 92.0 1.59 ** 96.8 1.65 * 90.4 1.24

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose husbands have 

completed high school n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 * n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00

Percentage of women who watch television at 

least weekly n/a 1.01 ** n/a 1.01 *** n/a 1.00 + n/a 1.00

Constant n/a 15.66 *** n/a 7.55 *** n/a 22.04 *** n/a 7.06 ***

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) 

from the value for the reference category.

+p<0.10, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

OR = Odds ratio

n/a = Not available or not applicable
176

Appendix Table 3B.21. Percentage of currently married women who agree that a wife is justified 

in refusing to have sex with her husband for the specified reason, by background characteristics, 

and odds ratios (estimated using multivariable logistic regression): Bolivia

A wife is justified in refusing sex with her husband when:

She knows that

her husband has 

a sexually 

transmitted 

disease

She knows that 

her husband 

has sex with 

other women

She has recently

given birth

She is tired or 

not in the mood

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR % OR

Age

15 to 19 81.5 0.55** 89.2 1.00 89.4 0.83 80.8 1.22

20 to 29 88.2 0.86 91.2 1.13 91.2 0.96 79.6 1.08

30 to 39 87.9 1.03 91.7 1.29** 92.5 1.29* 80.6 1.15*

40 to 49 84.4 1.00 89.2 1.00 89.9 1.00 78.5 1.00

Children ever born

None 88.5 0.80 89.5 0.84 87.7 0.56*** 81.6 0.95

1 or 2 89.8 1.00 92.6 1.00 92.7 1.00 80.5 1.00

3 or 4 88.2 1.03 90.8 0.82* 92.4 1.10 80.8 1.15*

5 + 82.0 0.89 88.8 0.99 89.1 1.10 77.6 1.22*

Education

None 68.9 0.52*** 84.6 0.94 82.9 0.66*** 72.5 0.74***

Primary 84.3 1.00 89.5 1.00 89.5 1.00 77.6 1.00

Secondary or higher 95.2 2.43*** 94.1 1.54*** 96.1 2.36*** 84.8 1.51***

Work 

Does not work 84.6 1.00 89.8 1.00 90.1 1.00 78.2 1.00

Works for cash 88.7 0.93 91.5 0.94 92.2 0.90 80.9 0.97

Media exposure

No regular exposure 73.6 1.00 83.1 1.00 83.1 1.00 70.5 1.00

Weekly exposure 88.4 1.18+ 91.6 1.34** 92.2 1.27* 80.8 1.25**

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 87.2 1.00 90.5 1.00 92.0 1.00 79.3 1.00

18-24 years 86.5 0.77*** 90.5 0.97 90.3 0.75*** 79.6 0.94

25 years or more 87.4 0.80+ 92.2 1.15 93.2 0.84 81.2 1.11

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 86.1 1.00 90.6 1.00 90.8 1.00 79.2 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 88.5 1.19* 91.2 1.03 91.9 1.13 81.2 1.11

Wife is 10+ years younger 88.3 1.19+ 90.7 1.00 93.2 1.28+ 80.4 1.09

Residence

Rural 77.7 1.00 86.5 1.00 85.9 1.00 75.3 1.00

Urban 91.9 1.06 93.1 0.93 94.2 0.90 82.2 0.99

Family structure

Nuclear 86.5 1.00 90.8 1.00 91.2 1.00 79.4 1.00

Extended 88.7 1.07 90.3 0.84+ 91.8 0.98 81.7 1.01

Wealth index

Poorest 75.0 1.00 84.6 1.00 85.2 1.00 74.9 1.00

Poorer 81.4 1.01 88.8 1.12 88.6 0.93 77.0 0.95

Middle 87.0 0.99 92.2 1.15 90.8 0.89 80.4 1.00

Richer 93.6 1.52** 92.7 1.10 94.4 1.19 80.9 0.91

Richest 95.3 1.72** 94.6 1.29 96.4 1.34 84.7 1.00

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose husbands have 

completed high school n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00** n/a 1.00+

Percentage of women who watch television at 

least weekly n/a 1.01*** n/a 1.01*** n/a 1.01*** n/a 1.00***

Constant n/a 4.90*** n/a 5.71*** n/a 6.76*** n/a 3.35***

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable; numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) from 

the value for the reference category.

+p<0.10, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

OR = Odds ratio

n/a = Not available or not applicable
177

Appendix Table 3B.22. Percentage of currently married women who agree that a wife is justified in 

refusing to have sex with her husband for the specified reason, by background characteristics, and 

odds ratios (estimated using multivariable logistic regression): Haiti

A wife is justified in refusing sex with her husband when:

She knows that 

her husband has 

a sexually 

transmitted 

disease

She knows that 

her husband 

has sex with other 

women

She has recently 

given birth

She is tired or 

not in the mood

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR % OR

Age

15 to 19 88.1 0.71 75.6 1.12 85.4 0.74 67.4 0.77

20 to 29 87.5 0.84 76.9 1.02 86.6 1.01 73.0 0.84

30 to 39 88.4 0.80 74.4 0.79 * 87.7 0.79 76.7 0.91

40 to 49 90.2 1.00 80.7 1.00 88.6 1.00 75.4 1.00

Children ever born

None 90.2 0.83 83.1 1.08 88.2 0.76 75.4 0.87

1 or 2 90.3 1.00 78.2 1.00 88.0 1.00 76.2 1.00

3 or 4 89.0 1.12 76.3 0.99 88.2 1.06 72.2 0.97

5 + 85.9 1.26 74.3 1.25 86.0 1.45 + 74.3 1.04

Education

None 82.2 0.58 *** 69.4 0.82 + 82.3 0.70 * 68.4 0.74 **

Primary 91.9 1.00 81.8 1.00 89.8 1.00 79.3 1.00

Secondary or higher 95.2 1.34 82.8 0.99 93.3 1.21 77.4 0.68 **

Work 

Does not work 87.6 1.00 77.0 1.00 84.8 1.00 77.5 1.00

Works for cash 89.0 1.29 * 76.8 1.19 + 88.9 1.75 *** 72.7 1.04

Media exposure

No regular exposure 86.6 1.00 75.4 1.00 85.9 1.00 73.2 1.00

Weekly exposure 89.8 0.99 78.0 0.89 88.4 1.06 75.4 0.82 *

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 86.9 1.00 73.1 1.00 84.6 1.00 71.8 1.00

18-24 years 88.1 1.19 77.4 1.17 88.0 1.33 * 73.8 1.11

25 years or more 94.0 1.26 84.4 1.48 * 92.1 1.46 + 84.1 1.12

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 91.3 1.00 78.8 1.00 89.8 1.00 78.7 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 89.4 0.73 * 81.3 1.02 88.3 0.79 + 76.3 0.85

Wife is 10+ years younger 81.6 0.72 * 67.1 0.76 * 81.1 0.92 63.7 0.79 *

Residence

Rural 85.4 1.00 74.4 1.00 85.1 1.00 71.6 1.00

Urban 93.9 0.67 * 81.3 0.93 91.3 0.63 * 79.5 0.92

Family structure

Nuclear 85.0 1.00 73.3 1.00 84.6 1.00 69.3 1.00

Extended 92.7 1.37 * 81.2 1.12 90.7 1.21 80.7 1.18 +

Wealth Index

Poorest 84.8 1.00 68.6 1.00 83.6 1.00 67.8 1.00

Poorer 80.7 0.83 74.5 1.31 * 82.8 0.98 70.7 1.23

Middle 87.6 1.09 75.8 1.42 * 86.2 1.16 72.0 1.47 **

Richer 93.4 1.14 79.3 1.52 * 89.6 1.05 77.3 1.79 **

Richest 95.5 1.07 86.2 2.45 *** 94.5 0.91 84.6 2.17 **

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose husbands have 

completed high school n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 0.99 *

Percentage of women who watch television at 

least weekly n/a 1.01 * n/a 1.00 n/a 1.01 *** n/a 1.01 *

Constant n/a 6.65 *** n/a 3.86 *** n/a 5.65 *** n/a 3.40 ***

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) from 

the value for the reference category.

+p<0.10, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

OR = Odds ratio

n/a = Not available or not applicable
178

Appendix Table 3B.23. Percentage of currently married women who agree that a wife is justified in 

refusing to have sex with her husband for the specified reason, by background characteristics, and 

odds ratios (estimated using multivariable logistic regression): Nicaragua

A wife is justified in refusing sex with her husband when:

She knows that 

her husband 

has a sexually 

transmitted 

disease

She knows that 

her husband 

has sex with 

other women

She has recently 

given birth

She is tired or not 

in the mood

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR % OR

Age 

15 to 19 91.2 0.69 + 89.9 0.97 92.6 0.80 84.9 0.73 +

20 to 29 92.2 0.79 91.2 1.17 94.2 0.85 96.5 0.84

30 to 39 94.2 1.05 92.0 1.21 + 95.4 1.01 87.6 0.93

40 to 49 93.6 1.00 90.1 1.00 95.0 1.00 86.5 1.00

Children ever born

None 93.0 0.86 92.5 0.94 94.1 0.70 + 84.9 0.77 +

1 or 2 94.2 1.00 92.6 1.00 95.5 1.00 88.9 1.00

3 or 4 93.2 0.90 91.5 0.97 95.0 0.86 86.1 0.80 *

5 + 91.4 0.86 88.2 0.94 93.1 0.84 84.8 0.79 +

Education

None 87.1 0.68 *** 95.9 0.79 * 90.9 0.71 ** 82.1 0.77 **

Primary 92.5 1.00 90.9 1.00 94.0 1.00 86.2 1.00

Secondary or higher 96.5 1.44 * 93.8 1.12 97.1 1.29 + 89.5 1.21 +

Work 

Does not work 91.5 1.00 89.9 1.00 93.3 1.00 85.7 1.00

Works for cash 95.4 1.19 92.9 1.03 96.6 1.36 * 88.1 1.10

Media exposure

No regular exposure 85.1 1.00 83.3 1.00 90.2 1.00 80.3 1.00

Weekly exposure 93.8 1.48 ** 91.9 1.53 *** 95.0 1.20 87.3 1.22 +

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 92.7 1.00 90.7 1.00 94.0 1.00 86.3 1.00

18-24 years 93.5 0.81 * 91.4 0.87 95.4 0.96 87.0 0.90

25 years or more 94.5 0.64 * 94.0 0.89 95.7 0.68 89.0 0.79

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 93.6 1.00 91.4 1.00 94.7 1.00 86.3 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 92.2 0.93 90.7 0.92 94.5 1.01 87.5 1.09

Wife is 10+ years younger 92.1 0.94 90.1 0.93 94.3 1.06 86.6 1.06

Residence

Rural 89.0 1.00 87.5 1.00 91.8 1.00 83.4 1.00

Urban 96.0 1.64 ** 93.7 1.68 *** 96.7 1.59 ** 89.1 1.55 ***

Family structure

Nuclear 92.6 1.00 90.4 1.00 94.3 1.00 86.4 1.00

Extended 93.8 0.95 92.3 1.10 95.1 1.04 87.2 1.01

Wealth index

Poorest 86.2 1.00 85.9 1.00 90.1 1.00 81.2 1.00

Poorer 91.1 1.17 89.6 1.11 93.1 1.27 + 86.5 1.24 *

Middle 94.4 1.08 91.1 0.91 95.2 1.12 87.4 0.95

Richer 95.7 1.18 93.7 0.99 96.5 1.59 + 88.5 0.98

Richest 97.0 1.14 94.5 0.86 97.5 1.31 89.4 0.95

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose husbands have 

completed high school n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00

Percentage of women who watch television at 

least weekly n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 0.99 * n/a 1.00

Constant n/a 8.28 *** n/a 7.09 *** n/a 16.79 *** n/a 5.88 ***

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different (p>0.05) from 

the value for the reference category.

+p<0.10, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

OR = Odds ratio

n/a = Not available or not applicable
179

Appendix Table 3C. Percentage of currently married women who disagree with all five specified 

reasons justifying wife beating and odds ratios (estimated using multivariable logistic regression), 

by background characteristics, according to country

Benin Burkina Faso Cameroon Ghana Kenya

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR % OR % OR

Age 

15 to 19 31.4 0.67 * 28.1 1.00 38.0 0.81 + 35.5 0.61 * 15.0 0.38 ***

20 to 29 35.3 0.76 * 28.5 1.01 42.6 0.88 44.7 0.62 *** 26.3 0.59 ***

30 to 39 37.9 0.92 26.9 1.03 44.5 0.94 50.2 0.75 ** 31.9 0.82 +

40 to 49 36.1 1.00 24.3 1.00 43.8 1.00 55.8 1.00 32.1 1.00

Children ever born

None 40.7 1.09 30.5 0.98 45.6 1.08 48.6 1.03 26.1 0.87

1 or 2 39.1 1.00 30.1 1.00 42.7 1.00 49.1 1.00 33.7 1.00

3 or 4 38.3 0.93 27.1 0.90 42.2 1.01 51.7 1.03 29.0 0.81 *

5+ 31.2 0.73 ** 24.3 0.81 * 42.4 1.03 46.5 0.85 23.6 0.67 ***

Education

None 30.8 0.84 * 25.4 0.90 41.2 1.22 ** 36.5 0.99 18.0 0.98

Primary 41.8 1.00 29.6 1.00 37.8 1.00 45.5 1.00 22.0 1.00

Secondary or higher 68.1 2.08 *** 57.2 2.83 *** 51.0 1.32 *** 66.0 1.75 *** 49.2 2.30 ***

Work 

Does not work 38.6 1.00 26.9 1.00 42.8 1.00 36.5 1.00 24.1 1.00

Works for cash 35.6 0.90 27.9 0.84 ** 42.9 0.95 51.8 1.45 *** 32.9 1.04

Media exposure

No regular exposure 35.9 1.00 26.6 1.00 38.3 1.00 34.3 1.00 19.3 1.00

Weekly exposure 36.1 0.74 *** 27.5 0.88 * 47.4 1.19 ** 53.7 1.25 * 31.1 1.06

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 32.2 1.00 25.4 1.00 39.2 1.00 44.9 1.00 20.2 1.00

18-24 years 37.3 0.93 29.3 1.08 47.6 1.25 *** 50.7 1.06 31.4 1.16 +

25 years or more 53.9 1.00 41.7 1.26 55.6 1.54 *** 57.7 0.89 49.3 1.67 ***

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 40.4 1.00 28.9 1.00 42.8 1.00 52.3 1.00 32.0 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 36.1 0.84 * 28.2 1.01 43.6 1.08 49.4 1.11 28.7 1.05

Wife is 10+ years younger 32.6 0.83 * 27.0 0.99 42.2 1.14 * 44.9 1.04 23.2 0.96

Residence

Rural 30.5 1.00 25.6 1.00 38.3 1.00 43.0 1.00 24.2 1.00

Urban 46.7 1.17 + 35.5 1.07 47.7 1.06 57.7 0.66 *** 43.6 0.98

Family structure

Nuclear 34.4 1.00 28.4 1.00 42.0 1.00 49.6 1.00 26.8 1.00

Extended 39.2 1.00 25.1 0.83 *** 43.9 1.01 47.3 0.85 * 31.7 1.03

Wealth index

Poorest 29.7 1.00 27.7 1.00 41.2 1.00 31.6 1.00 16.9 1.00

Poorer 28.5 0.95 28.9 1.02 34.9 0.72 *** 42.2 1.06 22.0 0.99

Middle 29.6 0.93 24.1 0.81 ** 38.4 0.73 *** 47.9 1.29 * 23.9 0.95

Richer 36.2 1.02 21.7 0.72 *** 44.2 0.75 ** 53.5 1.60 ** 28.4 1.00

Richest 59.0 1.55 ** 34.1 1.01 54.9 0.99 70.1 2.76 *** 47.3 1.48 *

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose 

husbands have completed high 

school n/a 1.02 *** n/a 1.01 ** n/a 1.00 * n/a 1.01 *** n/a 1.00 +

Percentage of women who watch 

television at least weekly n/a 0.99 * n/a 1.00 n/a 1.01 ** n/a 1.00 n/a 1.01 ***

Constant n/a 0.68 *** n/a 0.53 *** n/a 0.86 * n/a 0.36 *** n/a 0.34 ***

Continued...
180

Appendix Table 3C—Continued

Malawi Malawi Mozambique Nigeria Rwanda

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR % OR % OR

Age

15 to 19 56.9 0.89 8.8 0.66 ** 39.6 0.81 + 19.3 0.51 *** 27.3 0.63 +

20 to 29 63.5 1.01 9.4 0.69 ** 43.5 0.88 + 31.0 0.61 *** 34.4 0.86

30 to 39 66.3 1.05 8.8 0.72 *** 46.5 0.98 33.1 0.77 ** 35.0 1.05

40 to 49 66.0 1.00 11.5 1.00 44.6 1.00 32.5 1.00 31.1 1.00

Children ever born

None 59.7 0.95 12.0 1.03 43.1 1.03 30.9 1.04 34.9 0.97

1 or 2 62.6 1.00 10.4 1.00 42.0 1.00 32.7 1.00 36.0 1.00

3 or 4 64.4 1.10 10.0 0.85 44.5 1.10 31.1 0.90 36.1 0.99

5+ 66.0 1.18 * 8.4 0.70 ** 46.1 1.13 + 29.2 0.84 + 30.1 0.85

Education

None 65.9 1.20 *** 9.0 1.02 41.7 0.89 * 20.5 0.74 *** 26.2 0.79 **

Primary 61.5 1.00 8.4 1.00 45.0 1.00 32.5 1.00 33.3 1.00

Secondary or higher 76.6 1.56 *** 21.2 1.91 *** 63.0 1.54 *** 52.3 1.60 *** 61.1 2.49 ***

Work 

Does not work 64.2 1.00 9.2 1.00 43.8 1.00 25.7 1.00 30.2 1.00

Works for cash 63.4 0.91 + 9.9 1.07 46.1 0.84 ** 34.6 1.07 46.3 1.36 ***

Media exposure

No regular exposure 60.2 1.00 10.5 1.00 41.7 1.00 24.9 1.00 28.8 1.00

Weekly exposure 67.1 1.17 ** 9.0 0.65 *** 46.8 1.18 ** 34.4 0.90 40.0 1.21 *

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 63.0 1.00 8.6 1.00 43.6 1.00 23.9 1.00 27.2 1.00

18-24 years 64.7 1.06 11.2 1.03 45.1 0.96 40.9 1.33 *** 35.0 1.32 **

25 years or more 72.6 1.32 * 18.9 1.01 44.8 1.02 60.1 1.94 *** 40.4 1.30 +

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 63.7 1.00 12.8 1.00 44.1 1.00 36.7 1.00 32.8 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 63.3 1.00 10.9 0.82 + 44.9 1.02 32.8 0.99 36.9 1.15 +

Wife is 10+ years younger 66.1 1.06 8.1 0.64 *** 43.3 0.96 27.3 0.92 32.5 0.94

Residence

Rural 61.8 1.00 8.8 1.00 41.4 1.00 27.0 1.00 30.7 1.00

Urban 77.4 1.22 * 12.1 1.65 *** 51.0 1.16 * 39.4 0.91 50.7 1.06

Family structure

Nuclear 63.5 1.00 8.8 1.00 44.0 1.00 30.2 1.00 30.8 1.00

Extended 65.7 1.03 12.2 1.09 44.6 0.99 32.6 1.00 46.2 1.25 *

Wealth index

Poorest 59.6 1.00 10.2 1.00 45.7 1.00 22.8 1.00 33.7 1.00

Poorer 62.2 1.09 8.0 0.71 ** 39.1 0.79 *** 20.2 1.02 26.4 0.69 **

Middle 60.0 1.07 8.5 0.67 *** 39.9 0.71 *** 27.0 1.33 ** 28.8 0.73 *

Richer 64.5 1.11 8.0 0.78 * 43.0 0.71 *** 31.7 1.21 32.9 0.77 *

Richest 74.4 1.35 *** 13.4 1.25 54.0 0.90 55.4 1.68 *** 47.9 0.71 *

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose 

husbands have completed high 

school n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 + n/a 1.00

Percentage of women who watch 

television at least weekly n/a 1.01 n/a 0.99 *** n/a 1.00 * n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00

Constant n/a 2.13 *** n/a 0.21 *** n/a 0.83 ** n/a 0.56 *** n/a 0.67 ***

Continued...
181

Appendix Table 3C—Continued

Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe Armenia Jordan

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR % OR % OR

Age

15 to 19 21.9 0.80 7.3 0.33 *** 28.7 0.27 *** 46.5 0.68 18.2 0.45 **

20 to 29 28.9 0.70 ** 11.7 0.56 *** 46.8 0.49 *** 64.4 0.97 32.8 0.74 **

30 to 39 24.6 0.90 13.8 0.77 + 52.9 0.85 63.8 0.91 36.9 0.97

40 to 49 24.9 1.00 14.7 1.00 51.9 1.00 68.0 1.00 35.2 1.00

Children ever born

None 22.1 0.93 15.5 1.87 *** 44.7 0.98 71.2 1.17 31.9 0.89

1 or 2 21.9 1.00 11.9 1.00 48.9 1.00 70.3 1.00 39.0 1.00

3 or 4 22.8 1.03 13.3 1.06 50.5 0.88 59.2 0.83 * 40.6 0.92

5+ 23.2 1.01 11.6 0.71 * 44.8 0.71 ** 49.2 0.70 * 27.8 0.64 ***

Education

None 20.2 0.95 13.9 1.40 * 39.7 0.87 n/a n/a 9.3 0.49 ***

Primary 21.2 1.00 9.5 1.00 40.7 1.00 42.4 1.00 14.7 1.00

Secondary or higher 34.4 1.45 *** 19.0 1.88 *** 56.9 1.51 *** 66.6 0.70 *** 39.1 2.41 ***

Work 

Does not work 17.3 1.00 12.0 1.00 45.2 1.00 60.8 1.00 32.8 1.00

Works for cash 27.5 1.60 *** 13.2 0.92 50.8 1.12 78.9 1.66 51.8 1.71 ***

Media exposure

No regular exposure 19.4 1.00 10.2 1.00 40.4 1.00 46.6 1.00 38.4 1.00

Weekly exposure 25.8 1.09 15.0 1.31 * 53.4 0.97 66.8 1.48 *** 34.3 0.94

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 21.7 1.00 10.9 1.00 40.7 1.00 50.5 1.00 24.3 1.00

18-24 years 24.1 0.99 13.6 0.92 51.0 1.06 67.5 1.41 36.8 1.27 **

25 years or more 23.3 1.13 25.5 1.45 66.5 1.36 + 77.4 1.82 46.2 1.47 **

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 22.2 1.00 13.1 1.00 51.5 1.00 66.8 1.00 36.1 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 22.8 1.10 12.2 0.95 45.1 0.88 61.5 0.97 ** 33.8 1.05

Wife is 10+ years younger 23.6 1.04 11.8 0.88 46.7 1.08 66.4 1.28 33.2 1.00

Residence

Rural 20.8 1.00 11.9 1.00 40.3 1.00 49.7 1.00 22.2 1.00

Urban 35.1 1.41 ** 13.2 0.69 * 61.4 1.31 76.1 1.37 37.9 1.52 ***

Family structure

Nuclear 21.5 1.00 11.9 1.00 48.1 1.00 65.7 1.00 35.1 1.00

Extended 25.9 1.15 + 13.3 0.92 47.5 1.03 64.4 1.09 * 32.4 0.73 **

Wealth index

Poorest 18.5 1.00 14.9 1.00 34.8 1.00 42.7 1.00 21.4 1.00

Poorer 18.6 0.99 10.0 0.59 *** 37.4 1.01 52.9 1.29 *** 30.9 1.28 **

Middle 20.4 1.06 7.8 0.52 *** 43.7 1.37 ** 66.9 1.68 *** 31.4 1.32 **

Richer 24.2 1.18 12.0 0.92 52.6 1.56 ** 75.3 2.32 41.4 1.70 ***

Richest 32.5 1.36 + 18.8 1.54 66.0 2.40 *** 84.2 3.08 *** 51.5 2.22 ***

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose 

husbands have completed high 

school n/a 0.99 *** n/a 0.99 ** n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a n/a

Percentage of women who watch 

television at least weekly n/a 1.01 *** n/a 1.01 + n/a 1.00 n/a 1.01 *** n/a 0.99 **

Constant n/a 0.41 *** n/a 0.22 *** n/a 0.86 n/a 0.68 *** n/a 0.37 ***

Continued...
182

Appendix Table 3C—Continued

Morocco Cambodia Indonesia Nepal Philippines

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR % OR % OR

Age

15 to 19 18.8 0.68 * 60.2 1.02 70.6 0.57 *** 68.0 0.77 * 65.8 0.80

20 to 29 29.8 0.91 62.0 1.14 70.8 0.66 *** 69.5 0.81 * 75.1 1.04

30 to 39 34.3 0.94 58.7 0.94 76.3 0.83 *** 72.5 0.92 74.6 1.00

40 to 49 31.9 1.00 59.9 1.00 78.3 1.00 74.7 1.00 74.5 1.00

Children ever born

None 32.4 0.89 66.9 1.02 73.4 0.98 69.5 1.02 79.3 1.19

1 or 2 38.8 1.00 62.4 1.00 75.5 1.00 69.8 1.00 78.0 1.00

3 or 4 33.4 0.93 58.3 0.96 75.3 0.81 *** 71.9 1.06 73.5 0.86 *

5+ 20.8 0.82 * 58.1 1.09 72.9 0.67 *** 73.0 1.04 68.6 0.87 +

Education

None 20.1 0.74 *** 57.0 1.15 78.0 1.18 ** 71.6 1.10 58.8 0.89

Primary 35.6 1.00 59.4 1.00 74.2 1.00 69.5 1.00 68.2 1.00

Secondary or higher 66.1 2.28 *** 69.7 1.31 + 75.3 0.92 * 71.4 1.11 77.5 1.08

Work 

Does not work 28.3 1.00 62.4 1.00 74.7 1.00 71.7 1.00 74.2 1.00

Works for cash 55.8 1.42 *** 55.5 0.67 *** 75.4 0.95 67.8 0.86 + 74.9 0.89 *

Media exposure

No regular exposure 12.2 1.00 57.8 1.00 72.3 1.00 71.0 1.00 67.0 1.00

Weekly exposure 35.1 1.29 ** 61.1 0.98 75.5 0.90 ** 71.6 1.06 75.3 0.91

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 23.5 1.00 55.8 1.00 74.3 1.00 70.7 1.00 66.4 1.00

18-24 years 32.6 1.04 61.8 1.26 * 74.6 0.95 + 72.6 1.12 * 74.9 1.25 ***

25 years or more 49.6 1.28 * 63.5 1.39 + 79.8 1.07 72.1 1.00 82.5 1.69 ***

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 30.6 1.00 59.8 1.00 74.8 1.00 71.0 1.00 74.8 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 32.1 1.05 60.1 1.00 74.5 1.00 71.6 1.04 73.3 1.11

Wife is 10+ years younger 32.6 1.10 62.0 1.11 76.3 0.97 72.0 0.99 75.4 1.15

Residence

Rural 15.3 1.00 58.0 1.00 72.1 1.00 71.8 1.00 69.0 1.00

Urban 43.9 1.14 70.7 1.26 + 78.2 1.07 + 66.6 0.82 * 79.2 1.13 +

Family structure

Nuclear 33.8 1.00 58.8 1.00 74.3 1.00 71.5 1.00 73.1 1.00

Extended 28.4 0.91 + 62.2 1.18 + 76.0 1.07 * 71.1 0.99 77.4 0.97

Wealth Index

Poorest 11.0 1.00 54.3 1.00 68.0 1.00 72.3 1.00 62.5 1.00

Poorer 15.8 1.19 59.6 1.09 71.8 0.98 69.1 0.90 70.3 1.25 **

Middle 28.2 1.85 *** 59.7 1.04 74.7 1.22 *** 71.1 0.99 74.7 1.43 ***

Richer 41.5 2.45 *** 58.0 1.03 76.8 1.37 *** 72.8 1.11 79.5 1.66 ***

Richest 60.2 3.40 *** 68.4 1.24 83.2 2.10 *** 70.8 1.21 + 85.3 2.33 ***

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose 

husbands have completed high 

school n/a 1.00 ** n/a 1.00 * n/a 1.00 *** n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00

Percentage of women who watch 

television at least weekly n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.01 *** n/a 1.00 *** n/a 1.00 **

Constant n/a 0.37*** n/a 1.41** n/a 1.81*** n/a 2.14*** n/a 2.27***

Continued...
183

Appendix Table 3C—Continued

Bolivia Haiti Nicaragua

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR

Age

15 to 19 70.0 0.69 ** 48.2 0.63 * 74.3 0.45

20 to 29 77.5 1.00 59.4 0.99 81.3 0.70 **

30 to 39 77.7 1.02 62.8 1.17 86.4 1.01

40 to 49 77.0 1.00 52.9 1.00 84.5 1.00

Children ever born

None 79.8 1.03 62.3 0.92 81.3 1.02

1 or 2 79.0 1.00 61.7 1.00 84.2 1.00

3 or 4 77.7 0.90 + 53.9 0.78 * 83.6 0.87

5+ 74.1 0.90 56.8 0.92 81.2 0.89

Education

None 73.2 1.06 52.4 0.98 74.6 0.85 *

Primary 73.4 1.00 56.4 1.00 79.4 1.00

Secondary or higher 83.9 1.52 *** 75.9 1.66 *** 91.2 2.02

Work 

Does not work 75.7 1.00 58.5 1.00 81.4 1.00

Works for cash 78.3 0.95 58.1 1.00 85.4 0.84 *

Media exposure

No regular exposure 75.9 1.00 54.7 1.00 76.4 1.00

Weekly exposure 77.3 0.80 ** 60.7 0.88 83.6 0.97

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 74.4 1.00 56.1 1.00 81.5 1.00

18-24 years 78.0 1.07 57.7 1.05 84.3 0.82 **

25 years or more 80.3 1.12 66.1 1.08 90.2 0.86

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 77.8 1.00 58.7 1.00 83.7 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 76.0 1.02 57.7 0.82 * 81.8 0.94

Wife is 10+ years younger 75.3 0.95 58.2 0.97 82.6 1.11

Residence

Rural 73.0 1.00 53.1 1.00 77.0 1.00

Urban 79.4 0.98 67.0 0.80 + 87.5 1.01

Family structure

Nuclear 77.3 1.00 56.7 1.00 82.4 1.00

Extended 76.3 0.90 60.2 1.13 84.0 0.98

Wealth index

Poorest 71.9 1.00 47.3 1.00 73.3 1.00

Poorer 73.6 1.16 + 56.2 1.52 *** 78.1 1.13

Middle 74.0 1.27 * 54.2 1.27 * 82.2 1.26 +

Richer 78.8 1.63 *** 55.8 1.34 + 86.9 1.60 **

Richest 87.0 2.64 *** 78.4 2.28 *** 92.8 2.60

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose 

husbands have completed high 

school n/a 1.00 + n/a 1.00 + n/a 1.00

Percentage of women who watch 

television at least weekly n/a 1.00 n/a 1.01 * n/a 1.00

Constant n/a 4.06 *** n/a 1.14 n/a 4.80 ***

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly different 

(p>0.05) from the value for the reference category. 

+p<0.10, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

OR = odds ratio

n/a = Not applicable or not available
184

Appendix Table 3D. Percentage of currently married women who agree with

all of the four specified reasons justifying a wife's refusal to have sex with her husband 

and odds ratios (estimated using multivariable logistic regression), by background 

characteristics, according to country

Benin Burkina Faso Cameroon Ghana Kenya

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR % OR % OR

Age

15 to 19 41.5 1.11 43.3 1.35 * 51.9 0.94 68.8 1.31 48.3 0.85

20 to 29 49.3 1.17 47.3 1.42 *** 54.9 0.99 61.5 0.92 52.9 0.95

30 to 39 47.7 1.08 43.0 1.04 55.4 1.04 60.1 0.83 + 49.1 0.86 +

40 to 49 44.8 1.00 43.7 1.00 51.8 1.00 63.6 1.00 51.9 1.00

Children ever born

None 42.0 0.75 * 41.8 0.94 54.9 0.97 63.6 1.03 48.4 0.75 *

1 or 2 49.7 1.00 43.8 1.00 55.4 1.00 62.3 1.00 54.5 1.00

3 or 4 49.4 1.02 45.4 1.14 * 55.2 0.97 61.5 1.07 49.7 0.82 *

5 + 45.3 0.97 46.0 1.39 *** 52.0 0.94 61.2 1.01 49.8 0.92

Education

None 46.1 0.89 44.9 0.73 *** 46.0 0.56 *** 55.5 0.73 *** 39.4 0.61 ***

Primary 51.0 1.00 44.7 1.00 56.9 1.00 64.8 1.00 52.7 1.00

Secondary or higher 50.6 0.91 44.7 1.44 ** 58.2 1.07 66.4 1.07 54.9 0.98

Work 

Does not work 43.7 1.00 47.0 1.00 52.3 1.00 58.7 1.00 48.6 1.00

Works for cash 48.0 1.16 + 36.7 0.77 *** 56.0 1.10 + 62.5 1.17 + 53.8 1.15 *

Media exposure

No regular exposure 44.8 1.00 47.0 1.00 51.1 1.00 58.9 1.00 44.5 1.00

Weekly exposure 48.7 1.09 42.9 0.99 57.2 1.18 ** 62.7 0.99 53.1 1.13

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 43.7 1.00 45.6 1.00 51.9 1.00 62.9 1.00 50.8 1.00

18-24 years 51.0 1.29 *** 44.1 1.03 57.1 1.09 61.1 0.91 51.0 0.92

25 years or more 48.4 1.12 38.6 0.90 62.3 1.28 * 60.9 0.86 54.0 0.93

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 49.7 1.00 45.8 1.00 54.7 1.00 61.3 1.00 52.4 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 48.0 0.95 45.6 0.99 56.2 1.09 64.4 1.21 * 52.5 1.01

Wife is 10+ years younger 45.4 0.89 42.5 0.87 * 52.1 0.99 59.8 1.03 47.6 0.87 +

Residence

Rural 47.3 1.00 46.8 1.00 52.5 1.00 60.1 1.00 49.5 1.00

Urban 47.6 0.88 34.2 1.03 55.9 1.12 64.3 1.10 57.1 1.40 ***

Family structure

Nuclear 47.6 1.00 47.0 1.00 54.0 1.00 61.4 1.00 49.3 1.00

Extended 47.1 0.93 41.7 0.99 54.4 0.92 62.7 1.10 54.6 1.15 *

Wealth Index

Poorest 42.8 1.00 52.2 1.00 51.7 1.00 59.0 1.00 50.9 1.00

Poorer 47.2 1.14 50.4 0.99 51.7 0.94 61.9 0.86 48.5 0.78 *

Middle 47.8 1.14 46.5 0.81 ** 52.3 0.98 61.3 0.75 * 49.7 0.74 **

Richer 49.9 1.13 39.7 0.67 *** 55.6 1.19 + 62.7 0.66 ** 49.5 0.66 ***

Richest 49.8 1.03 33.5 0.49 *** 59.8 1.38 ** 64.4 0.58 ** 56.2 0.63 **

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose 

husbands have completed 

high school n/a 1.01 *** n/a 1.00 n/a 0.99 *** n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 *

Percentage of women who 

watch television at least 

weekly n/a 0.99 *** n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 * n/a 1.01 ** n/a 1.00

Constant n/a 0.69 *** n/a 0.91 n/a 1.61 *** n/a 1.28 * n/a 0.82 *

Continued...
185

Appendix Table 3D—Continued

Malawi Mali Mozambique Nigeria Rwanda

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR % OR % OR

Age

15 to 19 50.5 1.18 9.5 1.23 40.9 1.05 35.1 0.79 36.6 1.04

20 to 29 52.8 1.29 *** 10.4 1.22 + 43.2 1.02 44.1 1.02 43.5 1.19

30 to 39 50.6 1.18 * 9.6 1.17 + 41.9 0.91 44.0 0.97 43.8 1.12

40 to 49 46.7 1.00 8.8 1.00 44.5 1.00 45.1 1.00 39.6 1.00

Children ever born

None 45.5 0.78 ** 8.5 0.82 35.2 0.77 ** 35.4 0.85 39.4 0.79

1 or 2 52.8 1.00 10.8 1.00 44.1 1.00 46.3 1.00 42.6 1.00

3 or 4 51.1 0.98 10.3 0.98 44.5 1.11 + 44.0 0.92 44.8 1.13

5 + 50.4 1.01 9.0 0.96 42.2 1.05 43.1 0.88 41.5 1.08

Education

None 48.4 0.87 ** 9.3 0.71 *** 41.0 0.94 38.7 0.68 *** 39.0 0.81 **

Primary 51.6 1.00 11.2 1.00 43.6 1.00 49.7 1.00 44.4 1.00

Secondary or higher 56.9 1.18 + 13.0 1.35 + 52.9 1.64 *** 48.2 0.94 44.7 0.84

Work 

Does not work 48.7 1.00 9.7 1.00 41.8 1.00 37.7 1.00 42.3 1.00

Works for cash 57.9 1.32 *** 9.8 0.94 47.0 1.20 ** 47.8 1.41 *** 49.8 1.25 **

Media exposure

No regular exposure 50.0 1.00 9.7 1.00 40.7 1.00 43.2 1.00 41.2 1.00

Weekly exposure 51.8 1.00 9.7 1.13 + 45.0 1.17 ** 43.5 1.00 44.3 1.18 *

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 51.8 1.00 9.7 1.00 41.8 1.00 41.3 1.00 41.8 1.00

18-24 years 50.0 0.91 * 9.7 1.00 44.5 1.05 48.0 1.05 42.8 0.97

25 years or more 49.3 0.90 9.4 0.99 43.2 0.98 44.9 0.77 * 42.5 1.04

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 50.1 1.00 9.9 1.00 46.2 1.00 44.8 1.00 42.6 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 52.4 1.11 * 9.1 0.88 41.9 0.91 + 46.0 0.99 42.8 1.02

Wife is 10+ years younger 50.7 1.13 * 10.1 1.06 37.9 0.79 *** 41.2 0.86 + 42.7 1.05

Residence

Rural 51.6 1.00 9.9 1.00 43.0 1.00 42.6 1.00 42.7 1.00

Urban 47.1 0.92 9.2 1.71 *** 42.1 1.07 45.3 0.98 41.8 0.65 **

Family structure

Nuclear 50.8 1.00 9.7 1.00 43.8 1.00 44.3 1.00 42.1 1.00

Extended 51.4 1.03 9.9 1.01 41.0 0.89 * 40.7 0.89 + 44.5 1.04

Wealth Index

Poorest 48.5 1.00 12.2 1.00 44.7 1.00 44.3 1.00 46.3 1.00

Poorer 50.6 1.05 10.3 0.76 ** 42.5 0.92 41.0 0.88 39.3 0.72 **

Middle 53.1 1.11 8.6 0.68 *** 40.9 0.84 * 40.6 0.79 * 42.7 0.80 +

Richer 53.4 1.15 + 8.6 0.72 *** 41.1 0.82 * 47.1 0.82 + 41.5 0.69 **

Richest 49.5 1.01 8.8 0.60 ** 44.2 0.89 44.6 0.64 ** 44.9 0.80

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose 

husbands have completed 

high school n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.01 *** n/a 1.01 *

Percentage of women who 

watch television at least 

weekly n/a 1.00 n/a 0.99 *** n/a 0.99 * n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00

Constant n/a 1.14 + n/a 0.21 *** n/a 0.93 n/a 0.60 *** n/a 0.64 ***

Continued...
186

Appendix Table 3D—Continued

Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe Armenia Jordan

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR % OR % OR

Age 

15 to 19 65.0 1.28 46.3 0.82 35.0 1.03 56.6 0.86 57.8 0.81

20 to 29 64.0 0.93 53.6 0.92 37.9 1.03 60.4 0.83+ 64.6 0.82+

30 to 39 66.7 1.05 57.7 1.08 37.1 1.05 62.6 0.85+ 67.0 0.97

40 to 49 64.6 1.00 55.0 1.00 31.2 1.00 66.0 1.00 66.4 1.00

Children ever born

None 58.7 0.69** 48.4 0.92 35.1 0.72* 53.0 0.66** 55.7 0.78*

1 or 2 63.6 1.00 51.9 1.00 41.1 1.00 64.9 1.00 67.3 1.00

3 or 4 66.6 1.20* 56.4 1.08 33.1 0.76** 62.7 0.89 68.2 1.01

5 + 65.8 1.13 55.9 1.05 31.3 0.81 55.8 0.84 65.2 0.92

Education

None 56.8 0.76*** 49.3 0.82* 28.4 0.86 53.1 0.59***

Primary 66.5 1.00 54.1 1.00 31.8 1.00 52.9 1.00 62.6 1.00

Secondary or higher 73.9 1.20+ 57.7 0.98 42.1 1.18+ 63.7 1.34* 67.1 1.16+

Work 

Does not work 62.7 1.00 52.6 1.00 36.3 1.00 61.9 1.00 65.5 1.00

Works for cash 67.0 1.13+ 57.3 1.15* 36.1 0.90 66.7 1.05+ 68.7 1.16

Media exposure

No regular exposure 61.6 1.00 52.3 1.00 30.3 1.00 55.0 1.00 65.7 1.00

Weekly exposure 68.1 1.08 56.6 1.05 40.5 1.17+ 63.8 1.33* 65.9 0.98

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 64.8 1.00 53.5 1.00 31.9 1.00 58.9 1.00 65.2 1.00

18-24 years 65.0 0.95 55.4 1.05 38.0 1.16+ 63.9 1.21* 66.2 0.95

25 years or more 67.8 1.10 57.0 1.01 47.3 1.46* 65.6 1.28* 65.6 0.91

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 64.9 1.00 54.7 1.00 39.2 1.00 62.3 1.00 65.8 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 66.7 1.06 55.2 1.00 35.1 0.88 64.1 1.19* 65.3 0.97

Wife is 10+ years younger 63.2 0.86+ 52.3 0.87+ 34.8 0.94 63.4 1.24* 66.9 1.07

Residence

Rural 64.2 1.00 54.0 1.00 32.7 1.00 62.7 1.00 64.9 1.00

Urban 70.1 0.66*** 54.8 0.76* 42.3 1.14 63.2 0.81+ 66.1 0.93

Family structure

Nuclear 64.2 1.00 54.0 1.00 35.2 1.00 65.8 1.00 66.2 1.00

Extended 67.1 1.02 54.8 0.96 38.1 1.15+ 60.7 0.84 63.8 0.93

Wealth Index

Poorest 57.9 1.00 52.1 1.00 30.4 1.00 62.9 1.00 61.2 1.00

Poorer 63.0 1.12 52.6 0.99 30.6 0.93 59.5 0.87 65.9 1.12

Middle 64.8 1.20+ 53.7 0.96 34.9 1.06 62.2 1.01 65.7 1.15

Richer 68.0 1.43** 53.7 1.00 35.2 1.05 61.5 0.94 67.4 1.27*

Richest 72.2 1.60*** 59.3 1.27 47.8 1.54* 68.5 1.22* 69.6 1.20+

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose 

husbands have completed 

high school n/a 1.01** n/a 1.00 n/a 0.99** n/a 1.00 n/a n/a

Percentage of women who 

watch television at least 

weekly n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 0.99*** n/a 1.00

Constant n/a 1.22+ n/a 0.99 n/a 0.88 n/a 1.73*** n/a 1.41+

Continued...
187

Appendix Table 3D—Continued

Morocco Cambodia Indonesia Nepal Philippines

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR % OR % OR

Age

15 to 19 27.5 1.05 58.3 0.85 60.5 1.01 90.6 1.20 79.1 1.08

20 to 29 28.6 1.00 57.4 0.84 61.0 1.03 90.1 1.00 86.2 1.27 *

30 to 39 28.2 0.98 64.9 1.06 62.7 1.06 + 89.9 0.96 84.7 1.02

40 to 49 26.8 1.00 63.6 1.00 60.9 1.00 89.8 1.00 84.9 1.00

Children ever born

None 27.3 0.80 * 62.1 1.12 60.2 0.87 ** 90.0 0.79 + 82.0 0.78 *

1 or 2 30.0 1.00 59.6 1.00 63.5 1.00 90.7 1.00 85.5 1.00

3 or 4 29.1 1.02 61.7 0.99 62.0 0.94 + 89.7 1.05 85.6 1.13

5 + 24.1 0.84 + 64.5 0.98 55.1 0.80 *** 89.8 1.03 84.6 1.20 +

Education

None 25.8 0.84 * 62.7 1.04 58.1 0.91 + 89.4 0.83 79.7 0.98

Primary 29.5 1.00 61.2 1.00 60.1 1.00 91.5 1.00 83.8 1.00

Secondary or higher 33.0 1.00 65.3 0.96 64.2 1.11 *** 92.2 1.05 85.7 0.98

Work 

Does not work 27.0 1.00 59.4 1.00 60.4 1.00 90.3 1.00 85.4 1.00

Works for cash 34.4 1.32 *** 67.0 1.29 * 64.2 1.04 88.8 0.85 84.6 0.90 +

Media exposure

No regular exposure 22.9 1.00 57.1 1.00 57.9 1.00 89.3 1.00 81.8 1.00

Weekly exposure 28.7 1.48 *** 64.7 1.46 *** 62.3 0.97 90.8 1.16 + 85.4 1.05

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 26.5 1.00 61.7 1.00 60.1 1.00 89.4 1.00 82.6 1.00

18-24 years 28.1 1.05 63.2 0.98 62.0 0.98 91.6 1.28 ** 85.7 1.19 *

25 years or more 30.6 1.04 57.5 0.65 * 65.8 1.03 94.3 2.43 * 85.8 1.36 **

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 26.3 1.00 62.6 1.00 61.1 1.00 89.6 1.00 85.4 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 27.7 1.05 63.9 0.89 62.6 1.01 90.6 1.14 84.2 0.96

Wife is 10+ years younger 30.4 1.25 *** 54.7 0.68 * 60.8 1.03 91.1 1.15 84.9 0.99

Residence

Rural 25.3 1.00 60.4 1.00 60.2 1.00 90.2 1.00 84.1 1.00

Urban 29.8 1.45 *** 72.2 1.04 63.1 1.03 88.8 0.91 85.8 0.99

Family structure

Nuclear 27.1 1.00 61.1 1.00 60.4 1.00 90.0 1.00 84.8 1.00

Extended 28.9 1.15 ** 64.1 0.93 63.7 1.11 *** 90.1 1.00 85.4 1.01

Wealth Index

Poorest 28.6 1.00 60.5 1.00 56.0 1.00 90.6 1.00 81.2 1.00

Poorer 26.0 0.69 *** 60.0 1.11 62.3 1.17 *** 89.1 0.84 84.8 1.26 *

Middle 25.4 0.47 *** 61.9 1.18 62.5 1.19 *** 89.0 0.80 + 86.4 1.31 *

Richer 27.3 0.39 *** 59.9 1.02 61.8 1.20 *** 91.4 1.10 85.5 1.20

Richest 31.9 0.37 *** 68.6 1.18 65.2 1.29 *** 90.1 0.88 87.2 1.43 **

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose 

husbands have completed 

high school n/a 1.00 ** n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 + n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00

Percentage of women who 

watch television at least 

weekly n/a 1.00 * n/a 1.01 *** n/a 1.00 *** n/a 1.00 * n/a 1.00 +

Constant n/a 0.28 *** n/a 0.83 n/a 1.06 n/a 12.09 *** n/a 4.17 ***

Continued...
188

Appendix Table 3D—Continued

Bolivia Haiti Nicaragua

Characteristic % OR % OR % OR

Age

15 to 19 63.2 1.04 57.5 0.75 78.3 0.87

20 to 29 69.4 1.13 + 63.8 0.87 80.5 0.99

30 to 39 69.8 1.17 ** 63.6 0.82 + 82.1 1.06

40 to 49 64.9 1.00 68.2 1.00 79.4 1.00

Children ever born

None 68.3 0.81 + 65.9 0.99 78.7 0.74 *

1 or 2 71.4 1.00 66.0 1.00 83.9 1.00

3 or 4 69.4 1.09 63.4 1.04 79.4 0.84 *

5 + 63.3 1.16 * 62.7 1.11 77.8 0.92

Education

None 51.0 0.67 *** 55.7 0.74 ** 72.6 0.76 ***

Primary 64.4 1.00 70.9 1.00 79.9 1.00

Secondary or higher 78.2 1.61 *** 68.5 0.91 85.3 1.30 **

Work 

Does not work 66.1 1.00 67.2 1.00 79.2 1.00

Works for cash 69.9 0.91 * 62.4 1.05 82.6 0.99

Media exposure

No regular exposure 52.4 1.00 62.4 1.00 70.5 1.00

Weekly exposure 70.0 1.18 * 65.5 0.80 * 81.5 1.27 *

Age at first marriage

Less than 18 years 67.4 1.00 62.2 1.00 79.7 1.00

18-24 years 68.0 0.93 63.2 1.11 81.3 0.93

25 years or more 70.8 1.12 73.7 1.17 85.7 0.96

Spousal age difference

Wife is 0-4 years younger 67.3 1.00 68.2 1.00 80.8 1.00

Wife is 5-9 years younger 70.4 1.11 + 67.0 0.95 81.1 1.03

Wife is 10+ years younger 69.3 1.09 52.7 0.75 ** 78.8 1.00

Residence

Rural 57.0 1.00 60.5 1.00 76.0 1.00

Urban 74.3 1.15 * 70.6 0.89 84.0 1.39 ***

Family structure

Nuclear 67.6 1.00 59.4 1.00 80.1 1.00

Extended 71.0 1.02 70.0 1.14 + 81.3 0.99

Wealth Index

Poorest 54.7 1.00 55.0 1.00 72.0 1.00

Poorer 62.2 1.02 60.8 1.29 * 79.7 1.24 *

Middle 69.6 1.08 61.2 1.34 * 81.6 1.06

Richer 73.8 1.08 69.3 1.64 ** 83.5 1.03

Richest 78.5 1.19 74.6 1.69 * 85.1 1.01

Community-level variables

Percentage of women whose husbands have 

completed high school n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00

Percentage of women who watch television at 

least weekly n/a 1.00 *** n/a 1.00 n/a 1.00

Constant n/a 1.62 *** n/a 1.82 *** n/a 3.24 ***

Note: Categories in italics are the reference categories for each variable. Numbers in bold are not significantly

different (p>0.05) from the value for the reference category.

+p<0.10, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

OR = Odds ratio

n/a = Not applicable or not available
189

4 Summary and Conclusions

In this chapter, the findings of the earlier chapters are summarized and generalizable conclusions 

are offered regarding women‘s empowerment. These conclusions provide policy-relevant insights for the 

promotion of women‘s empowerment. 

In Chapter 1, three variables—education level, employment for cash, and regular media 

exposure—were presented as important sources of empowerment; and two variables—age at first 

marriage and spousal age difference—were presented as measuring important aspects of the setting for 

empowerment for currently married women. All of these variables are subject to policy manipulation. 

In this chapter, the relationships between the evidence of empowerment variables—measures of 

women‘s participation in decisionmaking and conscientization about gender equality—and the sources of 

and setting for empowerment variables are summarized for all of the countries included in this report 

together and by region. This is accomplished using a system that scores the independent relationship (i.e., 

the relationship estimated net of all control variables in the multivariate analysis) in every country of each 

evidence of empowerment variable with each setting and each sources variable and then looking at the 

sum of these scores across all countries and by region. The scoring system is based on the hypothesis that 

each of the setting and sources variables should be positively associated with each evidence variable, and 

is as follows:

Score of 1: Relationship is significant and positive (for spousal age difference, this means that 

the relationship with lower spousal age difference is positive).

Score of -1: Relationship is significant and negative or nonlinear.

Score of 0: Relationship is not significant.

This scoring system helps to determine the net direction of the relationship between the 

independent and dependent variables. For example, employment for cash has a positive relationship with 

women making decisions jointly about their own health care in 13 countries, a negative relationship in 3 

countries, and a nonsignificant relationship in 11 countries. The score for this variable is thus +10, 

implying that the net effect of employment for cash is positive across these 23 countries, even though it is 

negative or nonsignificant in some countries. 

Summary Tables 4A-C show the results of this procedure for the different sets of evidence of 

empowerment variables.

4.1A Net Effects of Sources of and Setting for Empowerment Variables on 

Women’s Participation in Decisionmaking 

Summary Table 4A shows the sum of the scores across all countries for each explanatory variable 

for each decision and for all decisions. This is done separately for each type of decisionmaking 

(participation in decisions alone, jointly, and alone or jointly) and shown in the three panels of the table. 

The maximum possible score for each of the sources and setting variables in each panel depends 

on the number of countries for which the data are available. The maximum score is 21 for decisions about 

purchases for daily needs and 23 for each of the other decisions. Thus, across all decisions and all 

countries, the maximum total score for any explanatory variable in a panel is (1*21) + (3*23) = 90. For 

example, if education level were positively related with decisionmaking alone for all four decisions in 

every country, the total score would be 90 in the cell for all countries in the education column. 
190

Summary Table 4A also shows the sum of the scores across the different sources of 

empowerment variables, setting for empowerment variables, and sources and setting variables together 

for each of the different decisions and for all decisions. These total scores are shown in the last three 

columns of the table. The maximum scores possible for these variables are:

For decisions about purchases for daily needs:

63 (21*3) across the three sources of empowerment variables 

42 (21*2) across the two setting for empowerment variables

105 across all five sources and setting variables

For each of the other decisions:

69 (23*3) across the three sources of empowerment variables 

46 (23*2) across the two setting for empowerment variables

115 across all five sources and setting variables 

For all decisions together:

270 across the three sources of empowerment variables 

180 across the two setting for empowerment variables

450 across all sources and setting variables

The lower rows of each panel provide the total scores for explanatory variables by region. 

Because the 23 countries included in this report are not equally divided into the different regions, an 

average-per-country score is also provided to enable comparisons across regions. Note that in this chapter, 

the two regions North Africa/West Asia/Europe and Asia are combined into a single North 

Africa/Asia/Europe region.

Secondary or higher education. An examination of the independent effect of having at least secondary or 

higher education on women‘s participation in decisionmaking yields a score that is positive but relatively 

low for all decisions and for any type of participation (alone, joint, or alone or joint). The low scores 

indicate the inconsistency in the direction of the relationship of education level with decisionmaking of 

any type across countries. However, the positive score does show that the relationship of having at least 

secondary education with any type of decisionmaking is positive in more countries than it is negative, 

nonlinear, or nonsignificant. Notably, for most decisions as well as all decisions, participation in the 

decision at all (i.e., alone or jointly) is more often positively related to having at least secondary education 

than participation alone or participation jointly. 

The highest score for decisionmaking alone is for decisions about purchases for daily needs and 

the lowest score is for decisions about large household purchases. For joint decisionmaking, scores are 

highest and similar for decisions about visits to family or friends and large household purchases. Thus, 

the decisions for which education level is related positively to decisionmaking alone are not the same as 

those for which education level is related positively to decisionmaking jointly. Even so, the net effect of 

education level is positive for all decisions, whether the decisions are made alone or jointly. Across all 

decisions, the total score for education level for all countries is higher for joint decisionmaking (39) than 

for decisionmaking alone (31).
191

Table 4A. Sums of scores based on logistic regression results for the relationship between type 

of decisionmaking (alone or joint) and the sources of empowerment and setting for empowerment 

variables, by decision and for all decisions, and for all countries and by region

 

Selected sources of 

empowerment variables

Selected setting for 

empowerment 

variables

Sum of 

scores 

for 

sources

of 

empowerment

variables

Sum of 

scores 

for setting 

for 

empowerment 

variables

Sum of 

scores for 

sources 

and 

setting for 

empowerment 

variables

Secondary 

or higher 

education

Employed 

for cash

Regular 

media 

exposure

Higher age 

at first 

marriage 

Lower 

spousal 

age 

difference 

Decisionmaking alone

Total score for all countries by 

decision

Woman's own health care 9 19 -6 0 -3 22 -3 19

Large household purchases 3 21 -1 -9 -9 23 -18 5

Purchases for daily needs 14 17 7 -3 1 38 -2 36

Visits to family or friends 5 17 -5 -8 -6 17 -14 3

Total score across all decisions

All countries 31 74 -5 -20 -17 100 -37 63

Sub-Saharan Africa 19 45 -11 -9 -7 53 -16 37

Total score/number of countries in 

region 1.46 3.46 -0.85 -0.69 -0.54 4.08 -1.23 2.85

North Africa/Asia/Europe 13 18 6 -7 -9 37 -16 21

Total score/number of countries in 

region 1.86 2.57 0.86 -1.00 -1.29 5.29 -2.29 3.00

Latin America/Caribbean -1 11 0 -4 -1 10 -5 5

Total score/number of countries in 

region -0.33 3.67 0.00 -1.33 -0.33 3.33 -1.67 1.67

Joint decisionmaking

Total score for all countries by 

decision

Woman's own health care 6 10 -3 -1 3 13 2 15

Large household purchases 12 15 1 0 6 28 6 34

Purchases for daily needs 8 11 -5 1 1 14 2 16

Visits to family or friends 13 10 2 4 6 25 10 35

Total score across all decisions

All countries 39 46 -5 4 16 80 20 100

Sub-Saharan Africa 25 45 -1 -2 13 69 11 80

Total score/number of countries in 

region 1.92 3.46 -0.08 -0.15 1.00 5.31 0.85 6.15

North Africa/Asia/Europe 10 6 -3 4 5 13 9 22

Total score/number of countries in 

region 1.43 0.86 -0.43 0.57 0.71 1.86 1.29 3.14

Latin America/Caribbean 4 -5 -1 2 -2 -2 0 -2

Total score/number of countries in 

region 1.33 -1.67 -0.33 0.67 -0.67 -0.67 0.00 -0.67

Decisionmaking alone or jointly

Total score for all countries by 

decision

Woman's own health care 12 19 -5 1 -2 26 -1 25

Large household purchases 14 22 1 2 3 37 5 42

Purchases for daily needs 15 18 0 -1 3 33 2 35

Visits to family or friends 12 21 -3 1 2 30 3 33

Total score across all decisions

All countries 53 80 -7 3 6 126 9 135

Sub-Saharan Africa 30 49 -11 5 8 68 13 81

Total score/number of countries in 

region 2.31 3.77 -0.85 0.38 0.62 5.23 1.00 6.23

North Africa/Asia/Europe 17 22 4 -3 -3 43 -6 37

Total score/number of countries in 

region 2.43 3.14 0.57 -0.43 -0.43 6.14 -0.86 5.29

Latin America/Caribbean 6 9 0 1 1 15 2 17

Total score/number of countries in 

region 2.00 3.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 5.00 0.67 5.67
192

The ranking of regions differs by type of decisionmaking: secondary or higher education has the 

most consistently positive effect on decisionmaking alone in the North Africa/ Asia/Europe region and on 

joint decisionmaking in the sub-Saharan Africa region. Notably too, the net effect of education level is 

positive for joint decisionmaking in all regions but is negative for decisionmaking alone for the three 

countries in the Latin America/Caribbean region. 

The score in the third horizontal panel (decisionmaking alone or joint) for education level varies 

only slightly by type of decision (ranges from 12 to 15) and is 53 compared to a maximum score of 90 for 

all countries. Any decisionmaking is more likely to be positively related to education level in the North 

Africa/Asia/Europe region than in the other regions, but the net relationship is positive in all regions.

On balance, these results show that education level has the most consistently positive effect on 

women‘s participation in decisionmaking at all. However, whether the effect is stronger for women 

making decisions alone or jointly depends on the type of decision. 

Employment for cash. The net effect of employment for cash on participation (joint or alone) in 

decisionmaking is positive in almost all countries for all four decisions. The score for this variable across 

all countries and decisions is 80 out of a maximum of 90. Furthermore, of all the variables considered, 

employment for cash has the most positive net effect on decisionmaking alone for all four decisions, and 

there is little difference in the scores by decision. Its effect is also positive, but weaker, on joint

decisionmaking. The total score across all countries for decisionmaking alone is 74, compared with 46 for 

joint decisionmaking. Notably, women employed for cash across all countries are more likely to make 

decisions about large household purchases jointly than any of the other three decisions.

The net effect of employment for cash on any participation (alone or joint) in decisionmaking is 

positive in all regions. This variable most consistently affects decisionmaking alone in the Latin 

America/Caribbean region, followed closely by sub-Saharan Africa. For joint decisionmaking its effect is 

strongly positive only in the sub-Saharan Africa region. In the Latin America/Caribbean region its net 

effect is negative. This suggests that in the sub-Saharan African countries, women who are employed for 

cash are consistently more likely to take part in decisionmaking both alone and jointly; in the Latin 

America and Caribbean countries they are more likely to make decisions alone and less likely to make 

them jointly; and in the North Africa/Asia/Europe countries, the effect of employment for cash is positive, 

although relatively weak, on both decisionmaking alone and joint. 

Regular media exposure. The net effect of media exposure is negative on decisionmaking alone for all 

decisions except purchases for daily needs. The net effect of this variable on joint decisionmaking is 

positive for decisions about large household purchases and visits to family or friends; however, its score 

is very low. For both decisionmaking alone and joint decisionmaking, as well as for any participation 

(alone or joint) in decisionmaking, the net result over all countries is negative. The effect of media 

exposure on decisionmaking is surprisingly weak and largely negative in all regions except North 

Africa/Asia/Europe, where the effect for any participation and participation alone is positive.

Sources of empowerment variables as a group. By decision, the effect of the three variables is most 

strongly positive on decisionmaking alone about purchases for daily needs and on joint decisionmaking 

about large household purchases, followed closely by decisions about visits to family or friends. The 

sources of empowerment variables together are most consistently related to decisionmaking alone in 

North Africa/Asia/Europe and with joint decisionmaking in the sub-Saharan Africa region. As a group, 

they affect joint decisionmaking negatively in the Latin America/Caribbean region. 

Any participation in decisionmaking is also positively associated with the sources variables as a 

group. The score is highest for decisions about large household purchases. Across all countries, the total 
193

score is higher for any participation (126 out of 270) than for participation alone (100) or joint

participation (80).

Age at first marriage. An older age at first marriage has a very weak positive net effect on any 

participation in decisionmaking and on joint decisionmaking. By region, the effect of a higher age at first 

marriage is weakly negative in the sub-Saharan Africa region for joint decisionmaking and in the North 

Africa/Asia/Europe region for any participation in decisionmaking. By contrast, a higher age at first 

marriage has a negative net effect on decisionmaking alone and this negative effect is spread across all 

regions. Thus, on average, women who marry for the first time at an older age are less likely to make 

decisions alone. 

Overall, the effect of a higher age at first marriage is to lower the likelihood of women making 

decisions alone, and only marginally increasing the likelihood of participating in decisionmaking at all or 

in making decisions jointly.

Spousal age difference. A lower spousal age difference has a negative net effect on decisionmaking alone

in all countries and all regions for all decisions, except decisions about purchases for daily needs. The 

effect of lower spousal age difference on joint decisionmaking is, however, positive for all decisions, 

particularly for decisions about large household purchases and visits to family or friends. This effect is 

positive in the sub-Saharan Africa and the North Africa/Asia/Europe regions but negative in the third 

region. The net effect of a lower spousal age difference on any participation in decisionmaking is also 

positive, although the total score for any participation for all countries is only 6, compared with 16 for 

joint decisionmaking.

Thus, a lower spousal age difference has a negative net effect on decisionmaking alone but a 

positive net effect on joint decisionmaking, on average. 

Setting for empowerment variables as a group. The sum of scores for the two setting for empowerment 

variables is most strongly negative for decisionmaking alone about large household purchases and visits 

to family or friends; for the same two decisions, however, the sum is positive and highest for joint

decisionmaking. Furthermore, decisionmaking alone is most consistently negatively related to a higher 

age at marriage and a lower spousal age difference in the North Africa/Asia/Europe region; in this same 

region, joint decisionmaking is most consistently positively related to a higher age at marriage and a 

lower spousal age difference. 

The net effect of the two setting for empowerment variables on any participation in 

decisionmaking is slightly positive for all decisions except those about women‘s own health care. 

However, the net effect of these variables is much more consistently positive on joint decisionmaking 

than on any decisionmaking.

Sources and setting variables together. The last column of Summary Table 4A shows that the net effect 

of all five variables summed together on decisionmaking alone and decisionmaking jointly is positive for 

all four decisions. However, the score (36) for decisionmaking alone about purchases for daily needs is 

more than twice as high as the next highest score (19), which is for making decisions alone about 

women‘s own health care. Furthermore, the score for making decisions alone about purchases for daily 

needs is similar to the scores for making joint decisions about large household purchases and visits to 

family or friends. It can thus be concluded that these empowerment variables do not affect all decisions 

equally and that their impact on decisionmaking alone and joint decisionmaking is different. 

Decisionmaking alone is affected equally positively in the two regions of sub-Saharan Africa and 

North Africa/Asia/Europe by the setting and sources variables as a group. However, the effect on joint
194

decisionmaking is strongest in the sub-Saharan Africa region and is negative in the Latin 

America/Caribbean region. 

The net effect of all of these variables is also consistently positive on any participation in any 

decision and in any region. However, the score for the sub-Saharan Africa region is higher for joint

decisionmaking than for any participation in decisionmaking. 

4.1B Net Effects of Sources of and Setting for Empowerment Variables on 

Women’s Gender-role Attitudes

The other evidence of empowerment variables examined in this report relate to women‘s genderrole attitudes, specifically their rejection of spousal violence and their acceptance of a woman‘s right to 

refuse sex with her husband for one or more reasons. Using the scoring system described above, 

Summary Table 4B shows the scores for the net effect of the same sources and setting variables on these 

two sets of evidence variables. As before, the maximum scores depend on the number of countries for 

which the data are available and are as follows:

Disagreement with wife beating:

22 for refusing to have sex with her husband

23 for each of the other four justifications 

Thus, across all justifications and all countries, the maximum score for any explanatory variable 

in the disagreement with wife beating panel is (1*22) + (4*23) = 114. 

As before, the last three columns of Summary Table 4B show the sum of the scores across the 

different sources of empowerment variables, setting variables, and sources and setting variables together 

for each justification and across all justifications. The maximum possible scores in this context are:

For refusing to have sex with her husband:

66 across the three sources of empowerment variables 

44 across the two setting for empowerment variables

110 across all sources and setting variables

For each of the other justifications:

69 across the three sources of empowerment variables 

46 across the two setting for empowerment variables

115 across all sources and setting variables 

For all justifications together:

342 across the three sources of empowerment variables 

228 across the two setting for empowerment variables

570 across all sources and setting variables

Agreement with a wife‘s right to refuse sex with her husband:

22 each for when the husband has an STD and has sex with other women

23 for each of the other two justifications
195

Thus, across all justifications and all countries, the maximum possible score for any explanatory 

variable in the agreement with a wife‘s right to refuse to have sex with her husband panel is (2*22) + 

(2*23) = 90. 

For the sum of the scores across the different sources of empowerment variables, setting

variables, and sources and setting variables together, the maximum scores are:

For when the husband has an STD and when the husband has sex with other women:

66 across the three sources of empowerment variables 

44 across the two setting for empowerment variables

110 across all sources and setting variables

For each of the other justifications:

69 across the three sources of empowerment variables 

46 across the two setting for empowerment variables

115 across all sources and setting variables 

For all justifications together:

270 across the three sources of empowerment variables 

180 across the two setting for empowerment variables

450 across all sources and setting variables

The lower rows of each panel provide the total scores for explanatory variables by region.

Secondary or higher education. In general, the net effect of having secondary or higher education on the 

two gender-role attitudes represented here is consistently positive, although the score does not reach the 

maximum possible for any justification. In addition, there is little variation in the variable‘s effect by 

justification, although higher education has the weakest relationship across countries with disagreement 

that spousal violence is justified when the wife neglects the children. The net relationship of education 

level with both types of gender-role attitudes is strongest in the Latin America/Caribbean region and 

weakest in the North Africa/Asia/ Europe region. 

Employment for cash. The net effect of employment for cash on gender-role attitudes is much weaker 

than on participation in decisionmaking. Of the two gender-role attitudes, scores are much higher for 

women‘s agreement that a wife has a right to refuse sex with her husband than for women‘s rejection of 

wife beating. In fact, for the wife beating variable, the score for employment for cash is very low for four 

of the five justifications and is negative for the justification of refusing to have sex with her husband. 

Although none of the scores for employment for cash is high for women‘s agreement that a wife 

has a right to refuse sex with her husband, they are consistently positive. It is also notable that the net 

scores are highest for the justification that the wife is tired or not in the mood; this justification is 

hypothesized as most directly violating traditional norms about sexual relations between couples.
196

Table 4B. Sums of scores based on logistic regression results for the relationship between the 

two gender-role attitude indicators (agreement that wife beating is justified and agreement that a 

woman has a right to refuse sex with her husband) and the sources of empowerment and setting

for empowerment variables, by justification and for all justifications, 

and for all countries and by region

Selected sources of 

empowerment variables

Selected setting for 

empowerment 

variables

Sum of 

scores 

for 

sources

of 

empowerment

variables

Sum of 

scores 

for setting 

for 

empowerment 

variables

Sum of 

scores for 

sources 

and 

setting for 

empowerment 

variables

Secondary 

or higher 

education

Employed 

for cash

Regular 

media 

exposure

Higher 

age at first 

marriage 

Lower 

spousal 

age 

difference 

Disagreement with wife beating

Total score for all countries by 

justification

Wife goes out without telling husband 15 4 6 5 -6 25 -1 24

Wife neglects children 12 1 5 6 -1 18 5 23

Wife argues with husband 17 2 11 1 -2 30 -1 29

Wife refuses to have sex with 

husband 19 -1 13 4 -1 31 3 34

Wife burns food 19 3 11 -3 -1 33 -4 29

Total score across all 

justifications

All countries 82 9 46 13 -11 137 2 139

Sub-Saharan Africa 46 9 33 13 3 88 16 104

Total score/number of countries in 

region 3.54 0.69 2.54 1.00 0.23 6.77 1.23 8.00

North Africa/Asia/Europe 21 1 14 6 -9 36 -3 33

Total score/number of countries in 

region 3.00 0.14 2.00 0.86 -1.29 5.14 -0.43 4.71

Latin America/Caribbean 15 -1 -1 -6 -5 13 -11 2

Total score/number of countries in 

region 5.00 -0.33 -0.33 -2.00 -1.67 4.33 -3.67 0.67

Agreement with a wife's right to 

refuse sex with her husband

Total score for all countries by 

justification

Wife knows that husband has a 

sexually transmitted disease 17 6 14 -3 2 37 -1 36

Wife knows that husband has sex 

with other women 16 9 10 -1 7 35 6 41

Wife has recently given birth 12 8 11 -5 -1 31 -6 25

Wife is tired or not in the mood 14 11 10 -5 0 35 -5 30

Total score across all justification

All countries 59 34 45 -14 8 138 -6 132

Sub-Saharan Africa 37 25 24 -11 10 86 -1 85

Total score/number of countries in 

region 2.85 1.92 1.85 -0.85 0.77 6.62 -0.08 6.54

North Africa/Asia/Europe 12 5 15 -2 -2 32 -4 28

Total score/number of countries in 

region 1.71 0.71 2.14 -0.29 -0.29 4.57 -0.57 4.00

Latin America/Caribbean 10 4 6 -1 0 20 -1 19

Total score/number of countries in 

region 3.33 1.33 2.00 -0.33 0.00 6.67 -0.33 6.33

Employment for cash has a low but positive score for women‘s disagreement with wife beating in 

the sub-Saharan Africa and North Africa/Asia/Europe regions, but a net negative score in the Latin 

America/Caribbean region. By contrast, employment for cash has a net positive effect on women‘s 

agreement with a woman‘s right to refuse sex with her husband in all regions. The largest effect is in the 

sub-Saharan Africa region, followed by the Latin America/Caribbean region. 
197

Regular media exposure. The net effect of media exposure is consistently positive on both sets of genderrole attitudes. The effect is most consistently positive for women‘s disagreement with wife beating when 

the wife refuses to have sex with her husband and for agreement that a wife has a right to refuse sex with 

her husband when she knows that her husband has a sexually transmitted disease. The latter finding 

suggests that messages about HIV and AIDS could be influencing women‘s responses.

By region, the net effect of media exposure on women‘s disagreement with wife beating is 

negative in the Latin America/Caribbean region, despite the overall positive net effect across all countries. 

The net effect on women‘s agreement that a wife has a right to refuse sex with her husband is positive in 

all regions, however.

Sources of empowerment variables as a group. Of all the justifications for wife beating, the effect of the 

three variables together is most strongly positive for the justification of burning the food, followed closely 

by refusing to have sex with her husband and arguing with him. Notably, the score is smallest for the 

justification of neglecting the children. This suggests that looking after children properly is commonly 

perceived as so integral to a woman‘s role that, in most countries, even education, employment for cash, 

and access to media cannot easily change the view that violations of this fundamental gender role justify 

wife beating. 

These sources variables together are positively related to women‘s disagreement with wife 

beating in all regions. The score is highest in the sub-Saharan Africa region and lowest in the Latin 

America/Caribbean region.

Taken together, the sources variables are even more consistently and positively associated with 

women‘s agreement that a woman has a right to refuse sex with her husband than with their disagreement 

with wife beating. The score for women‘s right to refuse sex to her husband is positive in all regions but 

lowest in North Africa/Europe/Asia. 

Age at first marriage. A higher age at first marriage has a net positive effect on the rejection of all 

justifications for wife beating except for when the wife burns the food. However, the net effect across all 

reasons is positive. The effect is also positive in all regions, except the Latin America/Caribbean region. 

The net effect of a higher age at first marriage on women‘s agreement that a wife has a right to refuse sex 

with her husband is, however, negative for all reasons and across all regions. 

Spousal age difference. A lower spousal age difference has a net negative effect on women‘s attitudes 

towards wife beating in all regions. By contrast, a lower spousal age difference has a net positive, if weak, 

effect on a woman‘s right to refuse sex with her husband. This positive effect is, however, due to the large 

number of countries in the sub-Saharan Africa region where the effect is positive, even though the net 

effect is negative or nil in the remaining regions. 

Setting for empowerment variables together. The net effect of the two setting variables together on 

women‘s disagreement with wife beating is marginally positive, although it is negative for three of the 

justifications. Notably, the score is highest for the justification of neglecting the children. This suggests 

that the most consistent positive effect of the setting variables is on disagreement that wife beating is 

justified for the one reason that is least affected by the sources of empowerment variables. The setting

variables together have a net positive effect only in the sub-Saharan African countries. 

The net effect of the setting variables taken together on agreement that a wife has a right to refuse 

sex with her husband is negative for all reasons except the wife knowing that her husband has sex with 

other women. The effect is also negative in all regions. 
198

Sources and setting variables together. The last column of Summary Table 4B shows that the net effect 

of all five variables summed together on gender-role attitudes is positive. In addition, the effect across all 

countries and justifications is similar for both gender-role attitudes (scores are 139 and 132, respectively). 

Furthermore, the sources and setting variables together have their most consistently positive 

effect on women‘s disagreement with wife beating and on women‘s agreement that a wife has a right to 

refuse sex with her husband in sub-Saharan Africa. The other regions have scores for disagreement with 

wife beating that are much lower than the score for sub-Saharan Africa. The score for the Latin 

America/Caribbean region is less than 1. By contrast, the score for women‘s agreement that a woman has 

a right to refuse sex with her husband in the Latin America/Caribbean region is almost as high as in the 

sub-Saharan Africa region. In the North Africa/Asia/Europe region the score for the sources and setting

variables together are similar for both gender-role attitudes. 

4.1C Net Effects of Sources of and Setting for Empowerment Variables on 

Summary Evidence of Empowerment Indicators

Finally, Summary Table 4C shows the scores for the sources and setting variables for all three 

summary evidence of empowerment variables. The first two evidence of empowerment variables are 

agreement with none of the five reasons for wife beating and agreement with all four reasons justifying a 

wife‘s refusal to have sex with her husband. The third evidence of empowerment variable is women‘s 

participation in making the four specified decisions alone or jointly. The scores for this last variable were 

shown in Summary Table 4A (in the ―all countries‖ row of the third panel); these scores are also 

presented here to summarize the effects of the sources and setting variables on all three summary 

indicators of empowerment together. The maximum scores for the first two variables are: 

23 for agreement with none of the reasons justifying wife beating 

23 for agreement with all the reasons justifying a wife‘s refusal to have sex with her husband

Across all three summary variables, the maximum score (90 [see section 4.1A]) + (2*23) = 136. 

The maximum scores across the different sources of empowerment variables, setting for 

empowerment variables, and sources and setting variables together for the three different summary 

indictors are:

For each of the two gender-role summary indicators:

69 across the three sources of empowerment variables 

46 across the two setting for empowerment variables

115 across all sources and setting variables

For the decisionmaking summary indicator, see Section 4.1A above.

For all three variables together:

408 across the three sources of empowerment variables 

372 across the two setting for empowerment variables

680 across all sources and setting variables

For women‘s disagreement with all five justifications for wife beating, Summary Table 4C shows 

that among all the sources and setting variables, the variable that most consistently has a positive 

association with disagreement with wife beating is secondary or higher education. Even for education 
199

level, however, the score is only 11, compared with the maximum of 23. This is followed by a higher age 

at first marriage (positive score of 7) and regular media exposure (positive score of 3). For the other two 

variables, the net score is negative. Notably, employment for cash has a negative net effect on women‘s 

rejection of wife beating for all reasons, although it is positively associated with their rejection of four of 

the five justifications for wife beating (see Summary Table 4B). 

Table 4C. Sums of scores based on logistic regression results for the relationship between any 

participation in decisionmaking (alone or joint) and the sources of empowerment and setting for 

empowerment variables, and between the two gender-role attitude indicators (disagreement with 

wife beating for any specificied reason and agreement that a woman has a right to refuse sex with 

her husband for each specified reason) and the sources of empowerment and setting for 

empowerment variables

Selected sources of 

empowerment variables

Selected setting for 

empowerment 

variables

Sum of 

scores 

for 

sources

of 

empowerment

variables

Sum of 

scores 

for 

setting

for 

empowerment 

variables

Sum of 

scores for 

sources 

and 

setting for 

empowerment 

variables

Secondary 

or higher 

education

Employed 

for cash

Regular 

media 

exposure

Higher 

age at 

first 

marriage

Lower 

spousal 

age 

difference

Total score for all countries 

Does not agree with wife beating 11 -2 3 7 -2 12 5 17

Agrees with a wife's right to refuse sex 

with her husband 19 10 10 1 3 39 4 43

Participates in decisionmaking 53 80 -7 3 6 126 9 135

Total score across all summary 

indicators

All countries 83 88 6 11 7 177 18 195

Sub-Saharan Africa 49 58 -3 10 12 104 22 126

Total score/number of countries in 

region 3.77 4.46 -0.23 0.77 0.92 8.00 1.69 9.69

North Africa/Asia/Europe 22 23 9 1 -5 54 -4 50

Total score/number of countries in 

region 3.14 3.29 1.29 0.14 -0.71 7.71 -0.57 7.14

Latin America/Caribbean 12 7 0 0 0 19 0 19

Total score/number of countries in 

region 4.00 2.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.33 0.00 6.33

The scores are positive for women‘s agreement with all four reasons justifying a woman‘s refusal 

to have sex with her husband for all sources and setting variables. However, the most consistently 

positive association for this evidence variable is also with education. 

With the exception of a higher age at first marriage, the relationship of the sources and setting

variables is consistently positive with the second gender-role attitude variable more often than the first 

gender-role attitude variable. Thus, the sum of the scores across all the sources and setting variables, 

although positive for both summary evidence variables related to gender roles, is much higher (43) for the 

agreement with all four reasons justifying a wife‘s refusal to have sex with her husband than for 

disagreement with all five justifications for wife beating (17). 

The sum for all three summary evidence variables shows that the net effect of all of the sources

and setting variables is positive. The most consistent effect is for employment for cash because of its 

consistently positive net effect on women‘s participation in decisionmaking, followed closely by 

education level. 

Finally, the table shows that the effects of different sources and setting variables on all three 

summary evidence variables taken together varies greatly by region. Whereas the average score in the 

Latin America/Caribbean region is highest among the three regions for the effect of education, it is 0 for 
200

three of the remaining four sources and setting variables. This region also has the lowest score across all 

five sources and setting variables. 

The North Africa/Asia/Europe region has the highest score only for regular media exposure; in 

fact it is the only region with a positive score on this variable. This region has a negative score for lower 

spousal age difference and scores from this region are between the scores from the other regions for the 

other variables. By contrast, the sub-Saharan Africa region has the highest scores for employment for 

cash and for both the setting for empowerment variables. Its score is negative for regular media exposure. 

The sub-Saharan Africa region also has the highest sum of scores across the sources of empowerment and 

setting for empowerment variables, suggesting that the different sources of empowerment and setting for 

empowerment variables have the strongest net potential for increasing women‘s empowerment in subSaharan Africa. 

4.2 Conclusions

Two important components of women‘s empowerment are agency and the rejection of gender 

inequality. Increases in access to higher education, paid employment, and media exposure are typically 

considered to be policy instruments by which women‘s agency can be enhanced. Furthermore, policies 

that discourage the traditional practices of early marriage and marriages between very young girls and 

much older men enable married women to be better empowered as individuals, spouses, and mothers. 

This report examined the effect of hypothesized correlates on several variables of women‘s 

agency, as measured by women‘s participation in decisionmaking and women‘s acceptance of egalitarian 

gender-roles. In all, 23 different measures of women‘s empowerment were examined. Some of the major 

conclusions of this report relate to the relationship between the five variables—women‘s level of 

education, employment for cash status, extent of media exposure, age at first marriage, and spousal age 

difference (all variables that can be manipulated directly by policies and programs)— and women‘s 

empowerment. Specifically:

There is a net positive effect of these five variables taken together on the three summary 

indicators of women‘s empowerment. This finding supports a policy and program 

emphasis on improving performance on these variables. 

However, the approach to increasing women‘s empowerment needs to be nuanced and 

tailored to specific country-level findings and settings. This is because these five policymanipulable variables do not have similar relationships with all measures of women‘s 

empowerment and across the different regions of the world. In particular:

o Providing higher education to women will have the most consistently positive effect 

on all aspects of women‘s empowerment. Nonetheless, its effect on women‘s genderrole attitudes is likely to be more consistently beneficial than on women‘s 

decisionmaking roles. 

o Increasing the proportion of women who are employed for cash will likely have the 

greatest impact on women‘s agency by increasing participation in decisionmaking, 

particularly decisionmaking alone. 

o Regular media exposure will not likely have the net effect of increasing women‘s 

decisiomaking participation in many countries. Nonetheless, increased regular media 

exposure among women will have a strong positive effect on promoting more 
201

gender-egalitarian viewpoints, particularly regarding a woman‘s right to decide when 

to have sex. 

o There is a largely nonlinear relationship between age at first marriage and women‘s 

empowerment, with the likelihood empowerment being higher among women 

married at an age that is neither ―too young‖ nor ―too old.‖ The specific ages that fall 

into these two groups are likely to vary across countries and, perhaps, also over time. 

Thus, while it is important to discourage early marriage, this variable is not likely to 

have unlimited potential as a tool for increasing women‘s empowerment in most 

countries.

o A lower spousal age difference will have its most positive effect on women‘s joint

decisionmaking and on their acceptance of a woman‘s right to refuse sex with her 

husband.

The relationship of the policy-manipulable variables with empowerment varies greatly 

across regions and, within regions, across countries. In fact, by region, the effect of these 

variables is most consistently positive in the countries of sub-Saharan Africa and least 

consistently positive in the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean.

Finally, this report also raises some methodological concerns for the measurement of women‘s 

empowerment and agency. The finding that variables such as education, employment, and media 

exposure, among others, have different relationships with each of the 23 different women‘s evidence of 

empowerment variables examined in this report, suggests that these empowerment indicators are not 

equivalent or even close substitutes for one another. For example, joint decisionmaking about large 

household purchases is not affected by the same variables as joint decisionmaking about other decisions 

or decisionmaking alone about large household purchases. Correlates of any participation in 

decisionmaking are also different from correlates of decisionmaking alone, or decisionmaking jointly, or 

of women‘s gender-role attitudes. Within the set of indicators for gender-role attitudes too, there is great 

variation in how the different sources and setting variables relate to not just the rejection of wife beating 

or acceptance of a woman‘s right to refuse her husband sex, but also to the rejection/acceptance of 

different components of these variables. 

Thus, an important methodological contribution of this report is the finding that the many 

different facets of women‘s empowerment do not all relate in the same way to one another or to various 

explanatory variables. Hence, when studying women‘s empowerment, there is a need to be very specific 

about what it is that is to be measured. 

203

References

Correa, S., and R. Petchesky. 1994. Reproductive and sexual rights: A feminist perspective. In G. Sen, A. 

Germaine, and L. Chen (eds.), Population policies reconsidered: Health, empowerment and rights. 

Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, pp. 45-54.

Desai, S., and K. Johnson. 2005. Women‘s decisionmaking and child health: Familial and social 

hierarchies. In S. Kishor (ed.), A focus on gender: Collected papers on gender using DHS data.

Calverton, Maryland, USA: ORC Macro, pp. 55-68.

Dixon-Mueller, R. 1989. Patriarchy, fertility, and women's work in rural societies. International Union 

for the Scientific Study of Population International Population Conference, New Delhi 1989, Vol. 2, 291-

304. Liege, Belgium: IUSSP.

Dixon-Mueller, R. 1993. Population policy and women's rights: Transforming reproductive choice. New 

York: Praeger.

Dyson, T., and M. Moore. 1983. On kinship structure, female autonomy and demographic behavior in 

India. Population and Development Review 9(1): 35–60.

England, P. 2000. Conceptualizing women‘s empowerment in countries of the north. In H.B. Presser and 

G. Sen (eds.), Women's empowerment and demographic processes. New York, New York: Oxford 

University Press.

Germaine, A., and R. Kyte. 1995. The Cairo consensus: The right agenda for the right time. Available at 

http://www.iwhc.org/docUploads/CAIROCONSENSUS.PDF. 

Gwatkin, D.R., S. Rutstein, K. Johnson, R.P. Pande, and A. Wagstaff. 2000. Socio-economic differences 

in health, nutrition and poverty. HNP/Poverty Thematic Group of the World Bank. Washington, DC: 

World Bank.

Hindin, M.J. 2003. Understanding women‘s attitudes towards wifebeating in Zimbabwe. Bulletin of the 

World Health Organization 81(7): 501-508.

Jenson, R., and R. Thornton. 2003. Early female marriage in the developing world. Gender and 

Development 11(2): 104-106.

Kabeer, N. 2001. Reflections on the measurement of women‘s empowerment. UNRISD Discussion Paper 

108. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development.

Kishor, S. 2000. Empowerment of women in Egypt and links to the survival and health of their infants. In 

H.B. Presser and G. Sen (eds.), Women’s empowerment and demographic processes. New York: Oxford 

University Press, pp. 119-156.

Kishor, S., and K. Neitzel. 1996. The status of women: Indicators for twenty-five countries. DHS 

Comparative Studies No. 21. Calverton, Maryland: Macro International Inc.

Longwe, S. 1991. Gender awareness: The missing element in the third development project. In T. Wallace 

and C. March (eds.), Changing perceptions: Writings on gender and development. Oxford, United 

Kingdom: Oxfam.
204

Malhotra, A, S.R. Schuler, and C. Boender. 2002. Measuring women‘s empowerment as a variable in 

international development. Paper commissioned by the World Bank, Gender and Development Group

available at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTGENDER/Resources/MalhotraSchulerBoender.pdf.

Mason, K.O. 1986. The status of women: Conceptual and methodological issues in demographic studies. 

Sociological Forum 1(2): 284-300.

Mason, K.O. 1987. The impact of women's social position on fertility in developing countries. Sociological 

Forum 1(2): 284-300.

Mason, K.O., and H.L. Smith. 2000. Husband‘s versus wife‘s fertility goals and contraception use: The 

influence of gender context in five Asian countries. Demography 37 (3): 299-311.

Sen, A.K. 1990. Gender and cooperative conflicts. In I. Tinker (ed.), Persistent inequalities: Women and 

world development. New York, New York: Oxford University Press, pp 123-149.

Sen, S. and S. Batliwala. 2000. Empowering women for reproductive rights. In H.B. Presser and G. Sen 

(eds.), Women’s empowerment and demographic processes. New York, New York: Oxford University 

Press, pp 15-36.

Srinivasan, M.N. 1989. The cohesive role of Sanskritization and other essays. Delhi, India: Oxford 

University Press. 

Tiemoko, R. 2001. The gender age gap: Marriage and rights in the Cote d‘Ivoire. Development 44(2): 

104-106.

United Nations. 1995. Population and development: Programme of action adopted at the International 

Conference on Population and Development, Cairo 5-13 September 1994. Department for Economic and 

Social Information and Policy Analysis, United Nations, New York, USA.

United Nations. 1996. Beijing declaration and platform for action, adopted 15 September 1995 by the 

Fourth World Conference on Women. Available at http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/e5dplw.htm. 

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 2003. Human development report. New York, New 

York: Oxford University Press.

UNICEF. 2000. Gender audit. Egypt Country Office. Cairo, Egypt: UNICEF ECO.

World Bank. 2001. Engendering development: Through gender equality in rights, resources, and voice.

New York, New York: Oxford University Press.
DHS Comparative Reports Series

1. Westoff, Charles F. 2001. Unmet Need at the End of the Century.

2. Westoff, Charles F., and Akinrinola Bankole. 2002. Reproductive Preferences in 

Developing Countries at the Turn of the Century.

3. Rutstein, Shea O. 2002. Fertility Levels, Trends, and Differentials 1995-1999.

4. Mahy, Mary. 2003. Childhood Mortality in the Developing World: A Review of Evidence 

from the Demographic and Health Surveys.

5. Westoff, Charles F. 2003. Trends in Marriage and Early Childbearing in Developing 

Countries.

6. Rutstein, Shea O., and Kiersten Johnson. 2004. The DHS Wealth Index.

7. Yoder, P. Stanley, Noureddine Abderrahim, and Arlinda Zhuzhuni. 2004. Female Genital 

Cutting in the Demographic and Health Surveys: A Critical and Comparative Analysis.

8. Stallings, Rebecca. 2004. Child Morbidity and Treatment Patterns.

9. Rutstein, Shea O., and Iqbal H. Shah. 2004. Infecundity, Infertility, and Childlessness in

Developing Countries.

10. Mukuria, Altrena, Jeanne Cushing, and Jasbir Sangha. 2005. Nutritional Status of 

Children: Results from the Demographic and Health Surveys, 1994–2001.

11. Mukuria, Altrena, Casey Aboulafia, and Albert Themme. 2005. The Context of Women’s 

Health: Results from the Demographic and Health Surveys, 1994-2001.

12. Yoder, P. Stanley, Noureddine Abderrahim, and Arlinda Zhuzhini. 2005. L’excision dans 

les Enquêtes Démographiques et de Santé: Une Analyse Comparative.

13. Garenne, Michel, and Julien Zwang. 2006. Premarital Fertility and Ethnicity in Africa.

14. Westoff, Charles F. 2006. New Estimates of Unmet Need and the Demand for Family 

Planning.

15. Fort, Alfredo L., Monica T. Kothari, and Noureddine Abderrahim. 2006. Postpartum 

Care: Levels and Determinants in Developing Countries.

16. Khan, Shane, Vinod Mishra, Fred Arnold, and Noureddine Abderrahim. 2007. 

Contraceptive Trends in Developing Countries.

17. Johnson, Kiersten, and Yuan Gu. Men’s Reproductive Health, Health-Related Behaviors, 

and Involvement in Family Dynamics. (forthcoming)

18. Garenne, M. Michel. 2008. Fertility Changes in Sub-Saharan Africa.

19. Khan, Shane, and Vinod Mishra. 2008. Youth Reproductive and Sexual Health.

20. Kishor, Sunita, and Lekha Subaiya. 2008. Understanding Women’s Empowerment: A 

Comparative Analysis of Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) Data.