controlled for, can potentially shed some light on the impact of household headship on children’s outcomes.

The results appear to be mixed, perhaps because of the differences in the composition of femaleheads within and across regions. Controlling for household income, Barros et al. (1997) find in urban Brazil that children in female-headed households fare worse than their counterparts in male-headed households: they are less likely to attend school and are more likely to work. In contrast, Lloyd and Blanc (1996), using data from seven countries in Africa, find that children in female-headed households are more likely to have attended school and completed up to fourth grade than children in male-headed households. Similarly, Joshi (2003) finds in rural Bangladesh that certain types of female-headed households (those headed by married women in which husbands were not physically present) devote more resources to children, after controlling for a number of household and individual characteristics. She finds that children residing in these households are more likely to be currently enrolled in school and more likely to have finished at least two years of school.

_Do better maternal education and control over household resources affect sons and daughters differently?_ There are several reasons why mothers and fathers might favor children of one gender over the other. Thomas (1994) hypothesizes that gender-specific allocation of resources might arise because of the nature of the child wellbeing production function: it might be more efficient for mothers to spend time with daughters and for fathers with sons. Another factor could be the norms about provision of old age support. Mothers might favor boys in settings where sons provide old age support and favor girls in settings where daughters provide such support (Schultz 1997).

Using household survey data from the United States, Brazil and Ghana, Thomas (1994) shows that mothers’ education has a larger effect on daughter’s height, while father’s education has a larger effect on son’s height. In Brazil, mother’s receipt of unearned income has a positive impact on daughter’s health but not on son’s health. In Rangel’s (2006) study, also from Brazil, an increase in cohabiting women’s bargaining power arising from provision of alimony benefits has a significant impact on schooling of older daughters but not sons. He argues that this evidence is consistent with the social norms in Brazil where daughters typically provide old age support to parents. In other settings, however, mothers appear to favor boys. For example, Quisumbing and Maluccio (2003) find that in Ethiopia, mothers with more assets invest more in boys while in South Africa, mother’s assets has a negative effect on girls’ schooling. Their analysis of data from Sumatra (Indonesia) shows that mothers with more assets (land) invest in sons’ schooling, while better-educated fathers invest in their daughters’ schooling.

# **4. Labor**

Women’s labor force participation rates lag men’s participation rates in virtually all countries. The determinants of female labor force participation and earnings are complex; women’s decisions to engage in paid or unpaid work are influenced by a host of factors, ranging from 8