interviews.<sup>25</sup> The woman known to us from the factory was always interviewed by the female enumerator, and the other interviewed household member by the male enumerator. The surveys were not conducted if privacy could not be maintained.<sup>26</sup> The survey response rates for the sampled women were high, above 90% in the first wave for the promotion analysis sample and above 80% for the role model analysis sample.<sup>27</sup> The response rate for the nominated operators dropped to 77% in wave 2 for the promotion analysis, compared to 91% of selected operators. In Section 4.4, I show that this attrition is not driving results. About 70% of both samples were found to be married and living with their husbands in the pre-surveys, who were then identified as the second respondent to be surveyed. Only for approximately 10% of respondents, other adult household members were targeted, primarily parents and siblings. For readability, I therefore use the terms “wife” and “husband” in the rest of the paper to refer to the women known to us from the factories and all second household members interviewed, respectively. Close to a fifth of respondents lived without another adult in the household, for example in factory dormitories.<sup>28</sup> Since I am interested in bargaining between household members, I exclude these individuals from one-person households from the main analysis.

# **3.3 Main outcome variables**

For both the promotion and the role model analysis, I use the survey data to implement the analysis in three steps.<sup>29</sup> In the first step, I investigate whether the wives report working as a supervisor during the home surveys (defined as any garment sector position with supervisory or managerial duties) and any possible effect on their personal and household income in Bangladeshi Taka. The personal and household income variables include income from all economic activities as well as 25If the sampled woman was married and living with her husband in the same household, the husband was identified as the second respondent to be interviewed. If the sampled woman was living with other adults but not currently married, or married but not living with the spouse, the adult in the household that the respondent identified as the main decision-maker was identified as the second respondent. If the sampled woman lived alone or only with minor children, she alone was interviewed. When interviewing the promotion sample in the second wave, we aimed to interview the same second respondent as in the previous wave. Only if the circumstances of the sampled woman had changed, for example if she married between the surveys or the respondent in the previous wave had left the household, was another respondent interviewed. Throughout the project, the following definition of a household was used: “Someone is a member of your household if they have spent at least 6 months out of the last year living in the same house and eating from the same kitchen. If you share a house with other households or families, we are only interested in the primary household/family.” 26The enumerator team was entirely separate from the team that conducted the promotion program and the surveys in the factory, though they were hired by the same field organization. At no point during the survey administration was the promotion program mentioned to the respondents. In the consent form, the surveys were explained to the respondents as aiming to understand “how families of workers in the garment industry live, and how the different members in the family interact with one another”.

> 27See Table C.2 in the Online Appendix.

> 28Table C.3 in the Online Appendix shows the breakdown in detail.

> 29All variables are defined in Table C.4 in the Online Appendix.

12