segregation, and to preventing them from realizing their potential as entrepreneurs (Ruppert Bulmer et al., 2020; USAID, 2019; Xheneti and Karki, 2016; Bushell, 2008).

Evidence shows that some working women endure hardships that could also discourage them and, potentially, other women from working. For example, women who contribute financially report that their spouses subject them to physical and emotional abuse. While women who are employed for cash are as likely as those not employed for cash or not employed at all to have ever experienced spousal physical, sexual, or emotional violence, they are twice as likely to be threatened with divorce.<sup>11</sup> While international migration for better wage job opportunities abroad is an option for most men as an alternative to limited labor demand in the domestic market, it is not an option for most women. Just over 5 percent of external migrants over the last decade have been women, out of over 4 million labor approvals since 2008-09.<sup>12</sup> Once again, constraints such as safety concerns including gender-based violence or exploitation of female migrants, social norms around female care-giving activities, and norms around occupations considered “acceptable” for women in sending and receiving countries limit women’s labor mobility (Ruppert Bulmer et al., 2020).

# SECTION 1: METHODOLOGY

We collected data from married men and women across four provinces in the country. This survey is combined with qualitative data collection with similar individuals across these provinces to gain further insights on the determinants of labor market participation, decision-making, and how social norms inform (or, not) such decisions. The qualitative data collection preceded the survey in order to inform the questionnaire’s social norms module.

We collected social norms’ data following an adaptation of the framework proposed by Bicchieri et al. (2014) and developed by Bussolo et al. (2024, Forthcoming). The survey tool specifically seeks to collect information on the main components of social norms, including: (1) _individual behaviors_ (IB) – what people do; (2) _personal beliefs or personal normative beliefs_ (PNB) – what people think they ought to do; (3) _social empirical expectations_ (SEE) – what people think others in their social group typically do; and (4) _social normative expectations (SNE)_ – what people think others in their social group think are appropriate behaviors within the group. Additionally, we collected information on (5) _reference groups_ – people who are reported to have influence on one’s perception of social norms or to enforce the norms, (6) _sanctions_ – the positive or negative consequences of conforming with or digressing from the perceived social norm, and (7) _conditionality of norms_ – specific circumstances or characteristics that might make a behavior more or less acceptable or that might trigger a stronger normative response.<sup>13</sup>

**Figure 1** summarizes the measurement framework used in this study to explore whether and to what extent social norms influence behavior around women working across the two broad themes identified, namely gender roles within the home and women in the public space. The specific focus on these domains and on married women is informed by the formative qualitative data collection conducted prior to the survey.<sup>14</sup> The model specifies that for a behavior to be driven by social norms, it must be conditional on both the social empirical and social normative expectations, with some level of social sanctions or rewards expected for

> 11 Nepal Demographic and Health Survey, 2016 and 2022.

> 12 Ministry of Labor, Employment, and Social Security, Nepal, 2020.

> 13 For a deeper discussion of social norms theory and concepts, refer to Bussolo et al. (Forthcoming)

> 14 **<u>Annex D</u>** includes details about the qualitative survey.

5