metadata: authors: 0: author: Hillesland,Marya Lynn
1: author: Doss,Cheryl R.
2: author: Masino,Serena
3: author: Querejeta,Martina
4: author: Donald,Aletheia Amalia
5: author: Seymour,Greg
6: author: Clingain,Clare
count: Kenya,Africa
docna: 0: docna: Deciding Not to Decide : When Is There Power
            in Not Deciding ?
docty: Policy Research Working Paper
theme: Data production, accessibility and use,Gender,Human Development and Gender,Data Development and Capacity Building,Public Sector Management
abstracts: cdata!: Agency&#x2014;the ability to define
            one&#x2019;s own goals and make choices to achieve
            them&#x2014;is often measured through questions that
            capture an individual&#x2019;s direct involvement in
            decision-making. Yet not participating in decision-making
            may not always imply a lack of power. Drawing on the notion
            of effective power, this paper conceptualizes two forms of
            this power: effective power by proxy and effective power by
            influence or persuasion. The paper explores indirect ways of
            pursuing one&#x2019;s goals when not directly involved
            in the decision, using unique mixed methods data from
            multiple members of rural households in Kilifi County,
            Kenya. The results indicate that traditional decision-making
            measures underestimate the agency of some
            individuals&#x2014;particularly that of husbands and
            fathers, who can disproportionately rely on their
            preferences being met through their effective power by
            proxy, without bearing the time and cognitive cost of
            actively engaging in decision-making. The results also
            indicate that women&#x2019;s agency varies by marital
            status and household composition. Focusing on decisions
            between married women and their husbands overlooks the
            dynamics of intergenerational households where other
            members, like mothers-in-law or sons, are involved in the
            decision-making process. The paper concludes by providing
            practical recommendations for measuring agency in surveys.
display_title: Deciding Not to Decide : When Is
            There Power in Not Deciding ?
listing_relative_url: /research/2025/02/34457432/deciding-not-decide-power-not-deciding
topicv3: Voice and Agency m1326001 924,Gender and Economic Empowerment m1327622 911,Decision Making and Poverty m1503840 3749,Social Norms and Poverty m1503846 3751
publishtoextweb_dt: 2025-02-18T00:00:00Z
dois: 10.1596/1813-9450-11065
origu: Off of Sr VP Dev Econ/Chief Econ (DECVP)
no_of_pages: 24
author_keys: 0: author_key: 2201771
1: author_key: NA
2: author_key: NA
3: author_key: NA
4: author_key: 1312021
5: author_key: 1208849
6: author_key: NA
model_extractions: Policy Research Working Paper 11065

# Deciding Not to Decide

When Is There Power in Not Deciding?

_Marya Hillesland Cheryl R. Doss Serena Masino Martina Querejeta Aletheia Donald Greg Seymour Clare Clingain_ Africa Region Gender Innovation Lab February 2025 A verified reproducibility package for this paper is available at http://reproducibility.worldbank.org, click **here** for direct access.
Policy Research Working Paper 11065

# **Abstract**

Agency—the ability to define one’s own goals and make choices to achieve them—is often measured through questions that capture an individual’s direct involvement in decision-making. Yet not participating in decision-making may not always imply a lack of power. Drawing on the notion of effective power, this paper conceptualizes two forms of this power: effective power by proxy and effective power by influence or persuasion. The paper explores indirect ways of pursuing one’s goals when not directly involved in the decision, using unique mixed methods data from multiple members of rural households in Kilifi County, Kenya. The results indicate that traditional decision-making measures underestimate the agency of some individuals—particularly that of husbands and fathers, who can disproportionately rely on their preferences being met through their effective power by proxy, without bearing the time and cognitive cost of actively engaging in decision-making. The results also indicate that women’s agency varies by marital status and household composition. Focusing on decisions between married women and their husbands overlooks the dynamics of intergenerational households where other members, like mothers-in-law or sons, are involved in the decision-making process. The paper concludes by providing practical recommendations for measuring agency in surveys.

This paper is a product of the Gender Innovation Lab, Africa Region. It is part of a larger effort by the World Bank to provide open access to its research and make a contribution to development policy discussions around the world. Policy Research Working Papers are also posted on the Web at http://www.worldbank.org/prwp. The authors may be contacted at marya.hillesland@qeh.ox.ac.uk, cheryl.doss@tufts.edu, s.masino@westminster.ac.uk, martinaquerejeta@gmail.com, adonald@worldbank.org, gregory.t.seymour@census.gov, and clare.clingain@rescue.org. A verified reproducibility package for this paper is available at http://reproducibility.worldbank.org, click **here** for direct access.

<!-- Start of picture text --> TRANSPARENT<br>ANALYSIS<br>G<br>R E<br>N<br>S<br>I P<br>Y E<br>K A<br>C A<br>R P<br>LI R<br>O E<br>O C<br>W R<br>H<br>S<br>P<br><!-- End of picture text --> _The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. The papers carry the names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent._ Produced by the Research Support Team
# **Deciding Not to Decide: When Is There Power in Not Deciding?**

Marya Hillesland, Cheryl R. Doss, Serena Masino, Martina Querejeta, Aletheia Donald, Greg Seymour and Clare Clingain<sup>*</sup> Keywords: gender, households, power, survey methodology, Kenya JEL codes: C8, J16, I32, Q25

* Hillesland (corresponding author): University of Oxford, marya.hillesland@qeh.ox.ac.uk; Doss: Tufts University, <u>cheryl.doss@tufts.edu; Masino: University of Westminster, s.masino@westminster.ac.uk; Querejeta: National</u> University of La Plata, <u>martinaquerejeta@gmail.com; Donald: World Bank, adonald@worldbank.org; Seymour: U.S.</u> Census Bureau, <u>gregory.t.seymour@census.gov;</u> Clingain: International Rescue Committee, <u>clare.clingain@rescue.org. This project is a product of the World Bank Africa Gender Innovation Lab and the</u> MAGNET initiative. We gratefully acknowledge financial support from the World Bank's Umbrella Facility for Gender Equality, in partnership with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (INV-005620). This work also was supported by the UK Research and Innovation through the GCRF Water Security and Sustainable Development Hub (Programme Code ES/S008179/1) and the UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO), 2015-2024 through the REACH programme (Programme Code 201880). The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. Policy Research Working Papers are also posted on the Web at http://www.worldbank.org/prwp.  It is part of a larger effort by the World Bank to provide open access to its research and make a contribution to development policy discussions around the world.
# **1. Introduction**

Empowerment is the ability to make strategic decisions to command resources and influence outcomes (Kabeer, 1999, Kabeer, 2005). Agency, a concept central to empowerment, is the ability to define one’s goals and aspirations and exercise one's own choices to reach desired outcomes (Kabeer, 2001, Kabeer, 1999). Agency includes claiming the right to influence important decisions as a strategic part of the empowerment process (Annan et al., 2021) and cannot be understood outside the context of the individual’s own goals and the values deemed important to her (Sen, 1985).

In the literature, measures of agency and empowerment are often operationalized through questions regarding decision-making (see Donald et al., 2020, for an overview). Many studies use survey questions on women’s participation in household decisions related to health care, expenditures, children’s education, visits to family, family planning, and agriculture to create either separate indicators measuring whether the individual considers herself a decision-maker, or a combined index to proxy agency (e.g. Hou and Ma, 2013). These indicators focus on what Sen (1985) describes as the “person's ability to make choices and to control procedures directly (whether or not he or she is successful in achieving the desired goal)” (Alkire, 2008)—or more precisely, a specific enactment of this control where the individual is actively exercising that ability. It is control over the process of choice, or procedural control, regardless of the outcome.

Conceptually, there are limitations to measuring empowerment in this way. For example, it is often assumed that if a person does not participate in making decisions, it means that she does not have power to influence the decision. In addition, many studies focus on the decision-making of married women with respect to their husbands. Yet, in many contexts, intergenerational or extended family households are common—and different dynamics may be at play when decisions are made with a mother-in-law or son, rather than a spouse.

In this paper, we use unique mixed methods data on decision-making within rural households in Kilifi County, Kenya, collected between October 2022 and March 2023, to better understand when not participating in decision-making might be a form of agency. Our data is unique in that it allows us to examine decision-making across various family relationships and roles within the household, and to interrogate the way household composition relates with decision-making power, or authority or influence in decisions made in the household, and forms of agency.

Our intrahousehold survey was administered to all adults in the household, going beyond the usual focus of just the husband and wife. Questions are asked about the decisions made about the household’s water, including water collection, allocation, and expenditures. Because water collection and allocation are often within women’s domain, these provide new insights into intrahousehold decision-making. In addition, we ask more traditional decision-making questions on health care for oneself, visits to one’s family or relatives, and on how the money one earns is used. We also draw on qualitative data on intrahousehold decisionmaking processes and norms, with a particular focus on securing water for the household.

Kilifi County, which is on the eastern coast of Kenya just north of Mombasa City, is predominately inhabited by the Giriama people, one of the ethnic groups that make up the Mijikenda peoples. Households traditionally consist of a large homestead with several small huts built on the compound. Extended families often live together on the compound and share daily tasks. Sons’ and nephews’ homes are often situated alongside their father’s or uncle’s homes. The Giriama are traditionally polygamous and in some homesteads, co-wives reside together, although not necessarily in the same dwelling. The homestead may have a shared ‘kitchen’ building, and the group may share cooking responsibilities. Water for the household
is often collected from multiple sources to meet domestic needs and the needs of livestock and other productive activities.

Rural households derive their livelihoods largely from rainfed agriculture and livestock activities, and Kilifi County has arid and semi-arid lands which are vulnerable to drought conditions. As such, inadequate and unpredictable rainfall in recent decades contributes to continued food insecurity and poverty in the area. During data collection, a prolonged dry period continued over many months following years of reduced rainfall. In this regard, decisions made about water collection and use within the household play an important role in the health and wellbeing of household members.

We begin by providing an overview of decision-making as a measure of agency, emphasizing the notion of “effective power,” which can be a form of power even when an individual does not directly participate in the decision-making process. We then describe the data and decision-making processes within households in Kilifi County. We explore who is and is not involved in household decision-making, and then investigate who has effective power even when not directly involved in the decision. Finally, we explore how effective power differs across the life-cycle and by household composition.

We argue that the exercising of agency allows for multiple pathways of pursuing goals that matter to oneself, which may or may not include direct participation in decisions. Measuring effective power when not directly involved in the decision-making process is crucial for comprehensively assessing agency, as it captures forms of power that might otherwise go unnoticed. When an individual is in a position of power or has the ability to delegate, effective power may require little effort. The individual’s status may allow his needs to be met without direct involvement in decisions or through delegation. However, other forms of effective power when not directly involved in the decision-making process require more time and effort to influence outcomes. While power can be wielded to achieve goals, this indirect approach may not always be as efficient as traditional, direct decision-making.

# **2. Decision-making as a measure of agency: Control versus effective power**

While decision-making is often used as a proxy for agency, there are a number of reasons why it may not be appropriate to do so (Arugay et al., 2024). One reason is that an individual’s direct participation in a decision-making activity may not always accurately reflect control over the process. Many studies use any involvement in decision-making as an indicator of agency, without considering the extent to which the individual has voice or authority over the choice in the decision. For example, in surveys when people report joint decision-making, it could indicate that there was collaboration and negotiation. But it does not mean that each had equal voice and power in the process. As an example, Acosta et al. (2020) found that in rural households in the District of Nwoya in Northern Uganda, women often reported joint decision-making with their spouse. But this simply meant that men informed their wives of decisions they had taken, and their wives consented with their silence (Acosta et al., 2020). Without understanding the decision-making process within the community and cultural context, it is impossible to know whether an individual’s claim to joint decision-making is actually an exercise of control over the choice (Seymour and Peterman, 2018). To address this, some decision-making question sets—such as those in the Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI) regarding agricultural production on the household farm—ask respondents both about the level of input the individual had in the household decision and about who typically makes the decision (Alkire et al., 2013, Malapit et al., 2015, Malapit et al., 2019).

But even for those with voice in the decision-making process (and, thus, procedural control), researchers typically do not know whether the decision-makers are making choices that are in line with their values and 1
goals. To constitute a form of agency, the decision needs to be motivated by and reflective of the individual’s own values and interests (Donald et al., 2020). Yet, even when someone exercises control over the outcome, he or she may be compelled to make decisions in ways that do not align with his or her values or interests.

Self-determination theory recognizes a person’s actions are the product of several different motivations (Ryan and Deci, 2000b, Ryan and Deci, 2000a). _Intrinsic motivation_ refers to moving toward a goal because something is inherently interesting or fulfilling to the individual. An intrinsically motivated person is selfmotivated; she or he “is moved to act for the fun or challenge entailed rather than because of external prods, pressures, or rewards” (Ryan and Deci, 2000a). _Extrinsic motivation_ , on the other hand, refers to being swayed to do something because of something external (Ryan and Deci, 2000a). This includes being motivated to act to avoid physical or economic consequences or verbal abuse ( _external regulation_ ) or to conform to the expectation of others and the desire to be accepted and to avoid shame ( _introjected regulation_ ). An individual may choose not to directly engage in decision-making because he fears social backlash for participating in decisions, particularly when doing so fits outside conventional gender norms (Rudman, 1998). Individuals who undermine conventional social norms often trigger hostile responses within the community (Rudman et al., 2012). For example, men in Makondo Parish in Uganda who collect water daily for household domestic purposes are ridiculed as being submissive to their partners or mentally unsound (Asaba et al., 2013). Because social rejection diminishes community belonging and self-esteem, avoiding backlash by conforming is a means of self-protection (Rudman et al., 2012). While both men and women are constrained by prevailing gender norms, social norms do not just reinforce the gender hierarchy. They can also reinforce hierarchy by age and status. As an example, a qualitative study in Gujarat, India, finds younger women, particularly daughters-in-law and daughters, benefited little from a water intervention as compared to the older women in their household. Younger women were burdened with collecting most of the water, while the older women were able to invest their time in new income-generating activities, which improved their status (Sijbesma et al., 2009).

For decision-making to be a form of agency, the choice made needs to be motivated by one’s own values and interests, rather than by external or introjected regulation. Recent studies are able to distinguish between motivations that are reflective of one’s own values and interests and external regulation, but have a more difficult time distinguishing between one’s own values and _introjected regulation_ within decision-making (Seymour and Peterman, 2018, Vaz et al., 2016). Vaz et al. (2016) suggest that this may occur because it can be difficult to distinguish personal values from internalized community norms. An individual’s knowledge and value system are socially situated and influenced by one’s culture.

Another limitation of decision-making as a proxy for agency is that it may not be necessary to directly participate in decision-making to exercise power. Exercising control over the process of choice in line with one’s goals and values is one aspect of agency; there are also forms of “effective power” or the “power to achieve chosen results” (Sen, 1985). In situations of “effective power,” regardless of how outcomes are reached, power is “exercised in line with what we would have chosen and because of it” (Sen, 1985). If an individual has “effective power,” he may make the choice not to actively participate in decision-making as he knows the decision will be made, as it has in the past, in line with his desired outcome. Not participating in the decision-making process is possible when there is a viable default option, which is the outcome when a decision is not made directly. For example, the allocation of water in the household may reflect the male household head’s preferences regardless of whether or not he is directly involved in the decision. As such, not participating in the decision-making process may be a viable option for the household head. Default decisions often bias the status quo (Kahneman et al., 1991, Jachimowicz et al., 2019), and thus, the default outcomes favor those with influence within the existing structures and power relations.

2
It could also be an individual may not be directly involved in decision-making because he has delegated the decision to a person he trusts will make a good decision, or because he lacks interest in the decision as any outcome is acceptable to him. In these cases, the individual chooses not to participate in the decision as a way to free up his own time and mental space for something more important. The choice not to actively engage in the decision-making process is motivated by the person’s own interests and personal values, and the knowledge the preferred outcome is likely to be attained without the individual’s involvement. Bandura (2001) calls this a form of “proxy agency,” where an individual does not want the responsibility and stress that direct control over the decision-making would require. As Bandura (2001) explains: “No one has the time, energy, and resources to master every realm of everyday life. Successful functioning necessarily involves a blend of reliance on proxy agency in some areas of functioning to free time and effort to manage directly other aspects of one’s life.” There also can be tension between asserting one’s needs through direct action and participation in decisionmaking and navigating within socialized norms and structures of subordination. Someone may opt not to directly engage in decision-making because of fear of backlash or social and economic penalties for participating in decisions. She could worry that it is not appropriate to participate. Speaking up may be a form of agency in itself in that it may challenge the larger power structures and norms, but with potentially heavy consequences. When this is the case, she may assert her goals within her space of subordination. Rather than resist and challenge oppressive power dynamics, she may even use the “instruments of [her] oppression” for her aims. Agency in this context is the capacity to realize one’s goals within the confines of customs and traditional norms (Mahmood, 2016). To avoid negative consequences and attain a preferred outcome, she may influence or exert pressure on the decision-maker without actively engaging in the decision-making process (Agarwal, 1997). This can also be an expression of power through “proxy agency,” where people use different means to influence people to act on their behalf to get their favored outcomes (Bandura, 2001). Kabeer (1999) refers to this as a form of “informal decision-making agency.” The individual is claiming her right to influence decisions important to her; although, it is not done by asserting authority directly within the decision-making process. It may be done behind the scenes because it is inappropriate to speak up, or it may be through regular discussions or other input into the decision (Donald et al., 2020).

In these ways, not being in direct control of the decision could still be a manifestation of acting on one’s goals and values, and thus an aspect of agency. We investigate expressions of “effective power” when an individual does not directly participate in the decision-making process, and compare this to when a person does participate directly in the decisions.

In this paper, we define two separate expressions of “effective power” when people do not have procedural control. We define having **effective power by proxy** as choosing not to be directly involved in the decision so as to free up time or mental space for something else. This type of effective power is most likely to manifest in household-related decisions, such as decisions over household expenditures or water source choices. For personal matters, such as decisions over one’s own health care and control of own income, we expect that individuals would want direct control in the decision, or if they do not, that not wanting direct control is motivated by _external_ or _introjected regulations,_ meaning they are motivated to avoid physical or economic consequences or verbal abuse ( _external regulation_ ) or influenced by the desire to be accepted and follow others’ expectations ( _introjected regulation_ ). We also expect that since household water management is typically overseen by women in Kilifi County due to social norms and existing power relations in the household tend to favor men, more men than women on average will engage in this expression of effective power in water-related decision-making activities. That is, men will be more likely 3
than women to have their preferences met by default without having to engage in household water management.

We define having **effective power through influence or persuasion** as not having direct control in the decision (1) despite desire to have procedural control or (2) because the desire not to be involved in decision-making stems from wanting to avoid penalties or other negative consequences ( _external_ or _introjected regulations_ ). Yet, behind the scenes, when they have a difference in opinion on how the decision should be made, they influence the decision-maker’s mind, so they are pleased with the outcome. This second form of effective power can entail high time and opportunity costs, as power is exercised indirectly within intrahousehold negotiations.

It should be noted that not all of those who are not involved in decision-making have effective power. Many individuals have no agency in these decisions.

# **3. Data and descriptive statistics**

Our data was collected through a household survey and a set of qualitative tools. The survey was administered in three primarily rural sub-counties in Kilifi County, Kenya (Kaloleni, Magarini, and Ganze). The household survey had two components: a household and an individual questionnaire. The householdlevel questionnaire was first administered to the primary respondent who makes the decisions and is the most informed about the household’s water choices. After administering the household-level questionnaire, each adult household member 18 years and older, including the primary respondent, was interviewed privately.<sup>i</sup> The individual-level questionnaire included detailed questions about who normally makes the decisions within the household regarding water collection and use: (1) which water source the household uses for drinking water, (2) how much can be spent on regular water expenditures—such as fees, transportation, costs for delivery, and (3) how the water is allocated and used in the household. It also included four questions that are typically asked in the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) regarding who normally makes the decisions within the household on (1) large household purchases, (2) health care for oneself, (3) visits to one’s family or relatives, and (4) how the money the respondent earns is used.

After asking who makes the decision, the respondents then were asked if they desired to be involved in the decision, and if they answered no, they were asked why they did not desire to be involved. They could select all that applied to them and add more reasons if needed. If they were not involved in the decision, they were asked if they would face consequences for participating in the decision and the types of consequences. The respondents were also asked whether they ever had a difference of opinion with others regarding the decision made over the activity (regardless of whether they voiced they opinion regarding this difference), and if they did, whether they tried to influence or persuade others in the decision-making process, and how happy they were with the outcome.

The survey was administered in January and February 2023 to 630 households in 30 villages. These households were randomly selected from a household listing conducted in August 2022. The team oversampled households with co-wives and extended family households. The final sample includes 613 households with a total of 1,059 women and 808 men.<sup>ii</sup> Table 1 describes the women and men in these rural households. Nineteen percent of women and 16 percent of men are married and live with the wife’s in-laws. Sixteen percent of women and 36 percent of men are unmarried and live with their parents. A large share of these young women and men are currently attending school.

4
**Table 1.** Descriptive Statistics

||Women|Men|
|---|---|---|
|Age|40.49|39.40|
||(17.34)|(18.07)|
|Married in couple household with no other adults|0.16|0.17|
||(0.37)|(0.38)|
|Married in extended family household with wife's in-laws|0.19|0.16|
||(0.39)|(0.37)|
|Married in extended family household without wife's in-laws|0.17|0.19|
||(0.38)|(0.39)|
|Married in household with cowives|0.04|0.03|
||(0.19)|(0.17)|
|Never married living with parent(s)|0.16|0.35|
||(0.36)|(0.48)|
|Widow/er, divorced, separated|0.25|0.08|
||(0.43)|(0.27)|
|Currently attending school|0.07|0.14|
||(0.26)|(0.34)|
|Educational attainment|||
|No schooling|0.43|0.10|
||(0.50)|(0.30)|
|At least some primary school but no secondary school|0.41|0.60|
||(0.49)|(0.49)|
|Some secondary school or higher|0.15|0.30|
||(0.36)|(0.46)|
|Directly involved in decision on water source for drinking|0.74|0.45|
||(0.44)|(0.50)|
|Directly involved in decision on regular water expenditure|0.52|0.61|
||(0.50)|(0.49)|
|Directly involved in decision on water allocation and use|0.78|0.20|
||(0.42)|(0.40)|
|Directly involved in decision on large household purchases|0.49|0.65|
||(0.50)|(0.48)|
|Directly involved in decision on health care for yourself|0.73|0.86|
||(0.44)|(0.35)|
|Directly involved in decision on visit family or relative|0.68|0.72|
||(0.47)|(0.45)|
|Directly involved in decision on use own money|0.86|0.90|
||(0.35)|(0.30)|
|Directly involved in all seven decisions|0.33|0.13|
||(0.47)|(0.34)|
|Not directly involved in any of the seven decisions|0.04|0.05|
||(0.20)|(0.22)|
|Observations|1,059|808|

_Notes: Women and men correspond to all adults 18 years and older in the household. Standard errors in parentheses. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. All estimations are computed using survey weights to address sampling._ The qualitative research was conducted in October 2022. The team chose two sub-counties within Kilifi County – Margarini and Kaloleni – for qualitative data collection. One village from each of the selected 5
sub-counties was randomly selected from a list of villages that were not included in the quantitative survey. The final villages were selected based on the availability and support of the community elders.

The team worked to ensure the representation of various groups of individuals within the communities when recruiting research participants. Two key informant interviews were conducted to create the community profiles (1 man and 1 woman) in each village. The team also held in-depth life history interviews with 16 individuals (8 men and 8 women), and eight focus groups were convened (2 with young women, 2 with young men, 2 with older women, and 2 with older men) across the two villages. While the key informant interviews focused on aspects of the community as a whole, the in-depth interviews included questions on decision-making dynamics in the household generally as well as those pertaining to household water management. The focus groups include discussions of decision-making and power dynamics between husbands and wives, but also between sons and mothers as well as daughters-in-law and mothers-in-law.

# **4. Who is and is not involved in decision-making?**

In the quantitative data, only 13 percent of men and 33 percent of women are directly involved in making decisions for all seven activities (Table 1). These low numbers are driven, in part, by the range of activities chosen and by the fact that we have interviewed all household members, not just the primary couple. Young men and women in their late teens and twenties, who had not yet started their own household, were not likely to be involved in any household decisions.

The decisions that women are least likely to participate in are those on household expenditures (specifically regular water expenditures and large household purchases). In the qualitative interviews, when asked about decisions regarding finances, some married women indicated they would pool money they earned with their spouse and decide jointly on the priority of expenditures, such as school fees, food, water, health care and household purchases. But in other households, women were not involved in the decisions at all. It was clearly seen as the husband’s responsibility, as the breadwinner, to take up the financial decisions and his responsibility to pay for what was needed.

The decisions that men are least likely to participate in are those regarding water, including the water source for drinking and water allocation and use. Based on the qualitative interviews, water collection decisions and responsibilities are seen as women’s domain. Interestingly, while it is seen as women's responsibility to secure the water, many men also report it is their responsibility to ensure there is water for the household. It seems that persistent drought and water scarcity in the area has impacted the dynamics surrounding waterfetching. Water scarcity means water is less accessible and often more expensive. The nearest water stations or boreholes may be many kilometers away. Traveling long distances results in delays in getting to the water collection points, long queues can result in water supplies running out before one’s turn, and collecting on foot means that only a limited quantity of water can be acquired.

Sons often help their mothers. One woman explains, " _the firstborn, he goes with a motorbike to fetch the water when I am tired, he will fetch and say, here is the water for you to use_ ." A number of young men say they step in to help their mothers when they are available to help, as they find it shameful to leave their mothers such a heavy chore. However, the other reason they intervene is that their needs would likely go unmet if they delegated water collection only to women and younger children.

Husbands also get involved in the water collection during times of water scarcity, but their increased involvement seems to be linked to their control over household resources. It emerged from our qualitative interviews that in these circumstances, husbands would also either travel on foot alongside their wives or 6
in their place to fetch the water, fetch water themselves on motorbikes, or they would pay others who have motorbikes to fetch water.

“ _The lack of water puts stress on men. It will force you to put in the effort because you can’t live without water. It will force me to put more effort as a man (...) Sometimes it forces us to distribute roles because as men, we mostly let our wives go for water. So it reaches a point where the water that we depend on that is nearer has dried up so it forces you to take responsibilities as a man so that the wife remains at home to do other household chores as you go look for water and bring it to the house_ ”. -Man, In-depth interview It is also the case that the decision regarding water collection and source choice is intertwined with decisions on water expenditures, which is often a decision made by older men. One woman explains: _“[The] decision [of where to collect the water] is ours, all of us, not just myself, if I say I can do that by myself I would be lying, because I don’t make money, and I will have to talk to my husband if the water is from far, I can tell him I don’t want to fetch the water from the dams today so please give money for the motorbikes to fetch the water if you have 250 [shillings], or if you have 200 shillings please give it to me and I will fetch it myself from the tanks..._ " So while men report not participating in the decision about the water source used for drinking, their decision on water expenditures determines which source can be used.

The quantitative data confirms that while women are more likely than men to make the decisions about the water source for drinking, the decisions are often made jointly. But it varies by household structure. When the husband has more than one wife, he may not be in the home often. As such, a wife is delegated more of the decision-making responsibility. In extended family households, the daughter-in-law is often charged with fetching water for the household. The mother-in-law does not fetch the water typically but may have other chores and she may participate in decisions on water expenditures. Young women respondents explain that the mother-in-law’s involvement depends on the relationship: “... _in this dry season and you use the water communally, your mother-in-law could help, and if she can’t get there [she] might send a motorbike to deliver water. You can help each other. It’s dependent on how you relate.... she can use her money and send motorbikes to deliver the water_ .” Compared to men, women are less likely to be directly involved in individual-level (or personal) decisions such as health care for self, visiting family, and the use of own income. Even so, there is a significant share of men (31 percent) who also do not directly participate in at least one individual-level decision. There are 11 percent of men who do not directly participate in two or more individual-level decisions. These are primarily young men who have not yet started their own household.

Figure 1 presents the distribution of activities for which respondents are not directly involved in the decision, by number of activities in which they are not directly involved. The observed patterns are in line with those discussed thus far. When women are not directly involved in decisions, these decisions tend to regard household expenditures, followed by personal decisions. When men are not involved in decisions, the decisions most commonly regard water allocation and use, and the water source.

7
<!-- Start of picture text --> Men's responses Women's responses<br>25<br>25<br>20<br>20<br>o 15<br>8 1<br>com<br>8<br>®<br>o<br>10<br>10<br>55<br>00<br>1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7<br>Number of decisions not directly involved<br>M088) Water source for drinking _ Water allocation and use MQ Regular water expenditure ‘> Large household purchases<br>M08) Health care for yourself 1) Visit family or relatives Use the money you earn<br><!-- End of picture text -->
whether the outcome is in line with individuals’ values and interests for all the decision-making questions, we do have information on individual preferences regarding which water sources to use for drinking water and the water sources the household actually used. Respondents were asked to rank up to three water sources the household can access from what they believed are the top three best for the household to use for drinking at the time. For those with effective power by proxy, 82 percent of preferences for first choice aligned with the household’s actual choice of drinking water. Preferences completely overlap when all three of the top sources are taken into account. This suggests it is likely the individual does not desire to have direct control because he anticipates the outcome will be in line with his values and interests, and thus chooses to prioritize other activities.

Effective power by proxy is more common among men than women who are not direct decision-makers (Table 2). This is most striking for water-related decisions, for which women are more likely to be the direct decision-makers. While men are less likely to be directly engaged in these decisions, a relatively large share of them have effective power by proxy, particularly with regards to the water source for drinking (14.3 percent) and the water allocation decisions (15.2 percent). Our qualitative data indicates that while women are making the (direct) decisions about the allocation and use of water for the household, they are often putting their own needs last and their husband’s and father-in-law’s needs first. Due to their position of power, these men can expect that the allocation of water will happen as they would like it to, even without directly engaging in making the decisions. In the qualitative interviews, women provided examples of how a hierarchy of needs to be met exists, whereby older men tend to get their drinking and bathing needs met first, followed by the young men and children and only if water is left, by women.

In the qualitative data, women openly referred to prevailing norms and power relations as the reason why they prioritized the water needs of men. Men also saw women as those who put their needs last. For example, women may only wash their own clothes or take a bath if enough water is left after the cooking is done and all others have had their bath and their laundry has been done.

_“[A]t night if two jerricans of water remain everyone will take some and bathe and my wife will be the last one to bathe with the water."_ – Man, In-depth interview A small share of women has effective power by proxy in the water decisions (Table 2). However, these women are less likely to obtain their desired outcomes compared to men with effective power by proxy. While preferences aligned with the outcome for 82 percent of those with effective power by proxy regarding their top water source choice, preferences are more likely to align with the outcome for men with effective power by proxy than for women (86 percent compared to 63 percent). It suggests that overall, women are less likely to be in a position of power to delegate or to expect the outcome will happen as they would like when they are not directly involved in a decision. Social norms favor men’s preferences with regards to water source choice and allocation more than women’s.

**Effective power through influence or persuasion,** as defined in Section 2, is not having direct control in the decision despite the desire to be directly involved in the decision, or because the desire not to be involved in decision-making stems from wanting to avoid penalties or other negative consequences—while still being pleased with the outcome thanks to the ability to influence the decision-maker's mind behind the scenes. Specifically, in the survey, the respondent self-reports not participating in the decision but desiring to be directly involved, or not having the desire to be involved in the decision for at least one of the following reasons: the respondent (1) prefers another household member make the decision so he does not

9
get blamed; (2) does not want to be held responsible for making the decision; (3) does not think it is appropriate for someone like himself to make the decision; (4) would face economic consequences; (5) would be physically threatened; (6) would be insulted or shamed; or (7) would not be allowed to participate in future decisions. Yet, in the background, the respondent reports he has a difference in opinion in how the decision should be made, but was able to influence the decision-maker so that he is happy with the outcome (to a medium or high extent) without directly engaging in the decision-making process.

The individual may have influence through negotiation, by advocating for their preferred alternative, or through other forms of persuasion. These include explaining the importance of the decision, carefully choosing when to bring up a topic, being especially nice to the decision-maker, negotiating a compromise or asking help from others to persuade or influence the decision-maker. In the qualitative data, one woman interviewed explains that when her husband says no to providing the money necessary for acquiring water, she sends her children to cajole money from him: “ _I say: ‘your father has money, and we need to fetch water what do we do now’. They go to their father and check his pockets and take some money for us to fetch water_ .” -Woman, In-depth interview While the default outcomes with regard to water tend to favor the household head’s desired outcomes, there are also some men (typically younger men) who have little decision-making power and the default outcomes may not meet their preferences. Some of these younger men influence the decision-makers indirectly through effective power by influence to ensure their preferences are met. Others may not have their needs met.

A substantial share of both men and women in these households do not make decisions directly about household expenditures (Table 2). Yet, there is a large share of these men and women who are not involved directly in the decisions who have effective power over them. This is more likely in the form of persuasion or influence than it is by effective power by proxy for both men and women.

When decision-making activities are personal—such as decisions over spending one’s own income, health care for oneself, and visiting family—nearly everyone wants to be directly involved in the decisions. Thus, the share of effective power by proxy is zero, or minimal (Table 2). When not a decision-maker, both men and women influence behind the scenes when they have a difference in opinion with the decision-maker. Men and women are equally likely to have effective power by persuasion on decisions regarding visiting family (11 percent of those men and women who do not directly engage in the decision) and men are more likely than women to have effective power by persuasion on decisions regarding the use of own income (19 percent and 8 percent of those men and women who do not directly engage in the decision). A greater share of women than men are not direct decision-makers over their own healthcare: 27 percent as compared to 14 percent. Of those women and men not directly engaged in the decision-making, seven to eight percent influence the decision indirectly (effective power by persuasion or influence).

10
**Table 2.** Effective power in decision-making activities when not involved in the decision

||**Wa**|**ter sour**<br>**drinkin**|**ce for**<br>**g**|**R**<br>**e**|**egular**<br>**xpendit**|**water**<br>**ure**|**Wate**|**r allocati**<br>**use**|**on and**|**L**|**arge hou**<br>**purchas**|**sehold**<br>**es**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||Men|Women|<br>Diff|Men|Women|<br>Diff|Men|Women|Diff|Men|Women|<br>Diff|
|Share who are<br>not a decision<br>maker|0.54<br>(0.50)|0.26<br> (0.44)|-0.28***<br>(0.02)|0.36<br>(0.48)|0.43<br> (0.50)|0.06***<br>(0.02)|0.76<br> (0.43)|0.19<br> (0.40)|-0.56***<br>(0.02)|0.33<br>(0.47|<br>0.48<br>) (0.50)|0.15***<br>(0.02)|
|Observations|808|1,059||808|1,059||808|1,059||808|1,059||
|**Of those who do **|**not ma**|**ke the d**|**ecision**||||||||||
|(1) Effective|0.14|0.05|-0.10***|0.07|0.02|-0.05***|0.15|0.06|-0.09***|0.01|<br>0.02|0.01|
|<br>power by proxy|<br>(0.35)|(0.21)|<br>(0.02)|(0.25)|(0.13)|<br>(0.01)|(0.36)|(0.24)|(0.03)|(0.11|) (0.13)|<br>(0.01)|
|(2) Effective<br>power by|0.11|0.13|0.02|0.09|0.08|-0.01|0.12|0.15|0.03|0.10|<br>0.10|0.00|
|<br>persuasion|(0.31)|(0.33)|(0.02)|(0.28)|(0.27)|(0.02)|(0.33)|(0.36)|(0.03)|(0.30|) (0.30)|(0.02)|
||0.25|0.18|-0.07**|0.16|0.10|-0.06***|0.27|0.21|-0.06*|0.11|<br>0.12|0.01|
|Effective power|<br>(0.43)|(0.38)|<br>(0.03)|(0.36)|(0.29)|<br>(0.02)|(0.45)|(0.41)|(0.03)|(0.31|) (0.32)|<br>(0.02)|
|No effective|0.75|0.82|0.07**|0.84|0.90|0.06***|0.73|0.79|0.06*|0.89|<br>0.88|-0.01|
|power|(0.43)|(0.38)|(0.03)|(0.36)|(0.29)|(0.02)|(0.45)|(0.41)|(0.03)|(0.31|) (0.32)|(0.02)|
|Observations|471|304||303|501||637|238||278|551||
|||**Heal**|**th care fo**|**r yours**|**elf**|**Visit f**|**amily or**|**relatives**||**Use**|**own mon**|**ey**|
|||Men|Women|<br>D|iff|Men<br>|Women|<br>Diff|<br>Men|<br>|Women|Diff|
|Share who are|not a|0.14|0.27|0.1|3***|0.25|0.29|0.04*|<br>0.06||0.05|-0.01|
|decision mak|er|(0.35)|(0.44)|(0.|02)|(0.44)|(0.45)|(0.02)|(0.23|)|(0.21)|(0.01)|
|Observation|s|808|1,059|1,8|67|808|1,059|1,867|808||1,059|1,867|
|**Of those who do **|**not ma**|**ke the d**|**ecision**||||||||||
|(1) Effective po|wer by|0.00|0.00|0.|00|0.07|0.02|-0.05**|*<br>0.00||0.00|0.00|
|<br>proxy||(0.00)|(0.00)|<br>(0.|00)|(0.26)|(0.14)|(0.02)|<br>(0.00|)|(0.00)|(0.00)|
|(2) Effective po|wer by|0.07|0.08|0.|01|0.11|0.10|-0.01|<br>0.19||0.08|-0.12*|
|<br>persuasion|<br>|(0.25)|(0.27)|(0.|03)|(0.32)|(0.31)|(0.03)|(0.40|)|(0.27)|(0.07)|
|Effective power||0.07|0.08|0.|01|0.18|0.13|-0.06*|<br>0.19||0.08|-0.12*|
|||(0.25)|(0.27)|<br>(0.|03)|(0.39)|(0.33)|(0.03)|<br>(0.40|)|(0.27)|(0.07)|
|No effective pow|er|0.93|0.92|-0|.01|0.82|0.87|0.06*|<br>0.81||0.92|0.12*|
|||(0.25)|(0.27)|(0.|03)|(0.39)|(0.33)|(0.03)|(0.40|)|(0.27)|(0.07)|
|Observations||130|307|||203|326||42||58||

_Notes: Women and men correspond to all adults 18 years and older in the household. In some households the decision was not made. Standard errors in parentheses. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. All estimations are computed using survey weights to address sampling._ Overall, men are more likely to have effective power than women. Table 3 presents the share of decisionmaking activities in which women and men do not have direct control in the decision (i.e., they are not a decision-maker) but have effective power (either by proxy or influence). Across the seven activities, when men are not directly involved in the decision, they are more likely to have effective power than women.

11
**Table 3.** Average share of decision-making activities in which women and men are not directly involved in the decision but have effective power

||Women|Men|Diff|
|---|---|---|---|
|Share of all decisions not directly involved but|0.13|0.22|0.08***|
|have effective power|(0.26)|(0.32)|(0.02)|
|Observations|746|716||

_Notes: Standard errors in parentheses. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. All estimations are computed using survey weights to address sampling. Shown difference is 0.08 rather than 0.09 due to rounding. Those who are directly involved in all seven decisions are excluded from these estimates._

# **6. Who has effective power across household types?**

In this section, we compare direct engagement and effective power in decisions across activities of husbands and wives within different types of households. We then explore the decision-making power of young unmarried men and women who live with their parents.

According to the qualitative data, marriage represents the watershed moment after which a man takes on the role of husband along with decision-making power. The decision-making dynamics vary, however, by the household composition. There are different processes through which intra-household power dynamics unfold in a couple household as compared to extended family households, for example. Contrary to the previous tables, where we showed results for all men and women in our sample households, in Table 4 we focus only on husbands and wives. In a couple household, where the husband and wife are the only adults, when an individual is not directly involved in the decision, the other spouse is typically making the decision. In these households, husbands and wives are involved directly in the same share of decisions on average (nearly six of seven decisions) (Table 4). But husbands are more likely than wives to have effective power in the decisions when they are not directly participating in the decision-making. That is, husbands are more likely to delegate or influence the decision indirectly than wives when not a decision maker. This is particularly the case in decisions regarding water. Wives are directly engaged in two to three decisions on average of the three water activities, whereas husbands are directly engaged in one or two decisions on average. But when not a decision-maker, husbands are more likely to be involved indirectly in the water decisions than their wives.

Husbands and wives living in households with the husband’s parents are less likely to be involved in decisions directly than husbands and wives who live on their own as a couple (Table 4). Both are involved directly in 4 to 5 decisions of the seven on average. Like with couple households, husbands are more likely than wives to have effective power in decisions when they are not directly participating in the decisionmaking. Even so, wives have more effective power in these households than in couple households when they are not directly engaged in a decision. This is particularly the case in decisions regarding water. When not directly involved in the decisions regarding the household’s water activities, the mother-in-law is often the decision maker, and the daughter-in-law may be able to influence these decisions.

In terms of personal individual decisions, in these households, when the wife is not directly involved in the decision, it is typically her husband who makes the decision, but, in some households, it is the in-laws. Unlike with the water decisions, women are more likely to have effective power over personal individual decisions when her husband is a decision maker than when her in-laws make the decision.

12
Husbands in households with multiple wives make between 5 to 6 decisions directly on average, which is similar to husbands who live with their parents. However, when not a decision maker, they are more likely to delegate or influence the decision indirectly than husbands in any other household.

**Table 4.** Average share of activities in which married women and men are directly engaged in the decision and share of those not directly involved but with effective power, by household type

||Average<br>activities i<br>partic|share of decisi<br>n which wives<br>ipate in the de|on-making<br>and husband<br>cision|Averag<br>activities in<br>not particip<br>|e share of decis<br>which wives a<br>ate directly in t<br>|ion-making<br>nd husbands do<br>he decision but<br>|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|**Married in couple**||||h<br>|ave effective p<br>|ower<br>|
|**households**|Wives|Husbands|Diff|Wives|Husbands|Diff|
|All decisions|0.82<br>(0.19)|0.82<br>(0.13)|-0.00<br>(0.03)|0.09<br>(0.24)|0.28<br>(0.41)|0.19***<br>(0.06)|
|Water decisions|0.82|0.58|-0.24***|0.11|0.28|0.17***|
||(0.24)|(0.30)|(0.04)|(0.29)|(0.41)|(0.08)|
|Expenditure decisions|0.69|0.93|0.24***|0.15|0.04|-0.12|
||(0.40)|(0.20)|(0.05)|(0.35)|(0.19)|(0.11)|
|Personal individual decisions|0.85|0.99|0.14***|0.09|0.00|-0.09|
||(0.23)|(0.06)|(0.03)|(0.28)|(0.00)|(0.18)|
|Observations|83|71|154|53|59|112|
|**Married in extended**<br>**households who live with**|||||||
|**wives' in-laws**|Wives|Husbands|Diff|Wives|Husbands|Diff|
|All decisions|0.66|0.71|0.05*|0.14|0.28|0.14***|
||(0.27)|(0.21)|(0.03)|(0.26)|(0.36)|(0.03)|
|Water decisions|0.67<br>(0.36)|0.45<br>(0.33)|-0.21***<br>(0.03)|0.16<br>(0.31)|0.31<br>(0.40)|0.15***<br>(0.04)|
|Expenditure decisions|0.40|0.81|0.41***|0.13|0.28|0.15**|
||(0.41)|(0.32)|(0.04)|(0.29)|(0.42)|(0.05)|
|Personal individual decisions|0.76|0.91|0.15***|0.10|0.17|0.08|
||(0.31)|(0.20)|(0.03)|(0.24)|(0.38)|(0.06)|
|Observations|235|172|407|191|149|340|
|**Married in households with**<br>**cowives**|Wives|Husbands|Diff|Wives|Husbands|Diff|
|All decisions|0.71<br>(0.28)|0.71<br>(0.21)|0.00<br>(0.05)|0.08<br>(0.20)|0.34<br>(0.41)|0.27***<br>(0.06)|
|Water decisions|0.75|0.46|-0.29***|0.05|0.33|0.27***|
||(0.35)|(0.29)|(0.06)|(0.18)|(0.43)|(0.08)|
|Expenditure decisions|<br>0.48|<br>0.72|<br>0.24***|<br>0.07|<br>0.35|<br>0.28***|
||(0.44)|(0.40)|(0.08)|(0.20)|(0.42)|(0.08)|
|Personal individual decisions|0.77|0.92|0.15***|0.04|0.15|0.11|
||(0.32)|(0.17)|(0.05)|(0.18)|(0.38)|(0.09)|
|Observations|77|47|124|59|43|102|

_Notes: Standard errors in parentheses. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. Water decisions include water source for drinking, water expenditures, and water allocation. Expenditure decisions include water expenditures and large household purchases. Personal individual decisions include health care, visit family, and use of own income. All estimations are computed using survey weights to address sampling._ 13
Wives in households with other co-wives are slightly more likely to be involved in decisions directly than wives who live with their in-laws. But when they are not directly involved in the decision, these wives are less likely to have effective power, particularly in terms of water decisions. In these households, when one of the wives is not directly involved in these decisions, the male head of household is making the decision. In either case, wives who are not directly involved in decision-making have little influence in the decision made.

Young unmarried adults living with their parents are the least likely to be involved in decisions directly (Table 5). Few individuals in the younger age bracket make decisions in all seven activities. On average, young men and women make between two and three decisions directly, with young women making fewer decisions directly than young men across the decision-making activities. When not directly involved in the decisions, young men and women have similar levels of effective power with the exception of expenditures. Young men have more effective power in household expenditure decisions than young women. Correspondingly, the qualitative data suggests younger men often have some involvement in expenditure decisions if they are earning income.

In terms of water activities, our qualitative data shows that while both young men and women are involved in collecting water, they have little direct involvement in the water decisions. The quantitative data confirms that young men and women are directly engaged in less than one decision on average of the three water activities, and that they have similar levels of effective power when not involved in the decision (Table 5).

**Table 5.** Average share of activities young women and men who are not yet married and living with parents are directly engaged in the decision and share of those not directly involved but with effective

||Average sh<br>activities in<br>particip|p<br>are of deci<br>which wo<br>ate in the d|ower<br>sion making<br>men and men<br>ecision|<br>Average<br>activities in<br>not participat|share of decis<br>which men a<br>e directly in t|ion making<br>nd women do<br>he decision but|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|**Unmarried women and men**||||hav|e effective po|wer|
|**living with their parents**|Women|Men|Diff|Women|Men|Diff|
|All decisions|0.33|0.40|0.07**|0.14|0.18|0.03|
||(0.26)|(0.27)|(0.03)|(0.20)|(0.22)|(0.02)|
|Water decisions|0.24|0.23|-0.01|0.17|0.21|0.04|
||(0.32)|(0.32)|(0.03)|(0.29)|(0.30)|(0.03)|
|Expenditure decisions|0.08|0.26|0.18***|0.07|0.11|0.04*|
||(0.24)|(0.40)|(0.04)|(0.19)|(0.23)|(0.02)|
|Personal individual decisions|0.51|0.64|0.12***|0.16|0.20|0.04|
||(0.36)|(0.34)|(0.04)|(0.34)|(0.37)|(0.04)|
|Observations|153|249|402|151|242|393|

_Notes: Standard errors in parentheses. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. Sample comprises never married men and women who live with one or both parents. Water decisions include water source for drinking, water expenditures, and water allocation. Expenditure decisions include water expenditures and large household purchases. Personal decisions include health care, visit family, and use of own income. All estimations are computed using survey weights to address sampling._

# **7. Conclusion and implications for further research**

The exercise of agency allows for multiple ways of pursuing your goals. Our conceptualization of effective power explicitly recognizes there are other methods beyond direct decision-making to obtain one’s goals. Measures of effective power when not participating in decision-making directly are, thus, essential to fully 14
measuring agency because they allow us to measure a form of power that would otherwise be invisible when we focus on decision-making as a proxy for empowerment.

We separate effective power when not a decision-maker into two forms, because they highlight power from different positions. Effective power by proxy recognizes power in the existing structures and relationships and effective power by influence acknowledges the power of people who may otherwise be considered powerless.

When individuals exhibit **effective power by proxy** they do not desire to participate in the decision. They decided not to decide. They do not want the responsibility and stress that direct decision-making requires Bandura (2001). They can prioritize engaging in other activities either because they know the decision will be made in a way that favors them, because they delegated the decision and trust the decision-maker, or because they do not have strong preferences regarding the outcome. In these cases, individuals choose not to participate in the decision as a way to lessen their mental burden or free up time for something else.

**Effective power by influence,** on the other hand, can be more costly. While power can be wielded **effectively** to achieve one’s goals, it may not be as **efficient** as power wielded directly through traditional decision-making channels.  That is, it may be more costly in terms of time, stress, and mental energy to negotiate and influence indirectly than to make the decision directly.

We find that men are more likely than women to have effective power by proxy when not engaged in the decision. Across all decision-making activities, when women have effective power, they are more likely to have power through influence than by proxy. Overall, men are more likely to have effective power than women when not directly engaged in the decision: men have some form of effective power in 22 percent of decisions on average when not a decision-maker, while women hold it in 13 percent.

Our results indicate that traditional decision-making measures underestimate the agency of some individuals. This is asymmetrically true for husbands and fathers, who can disproportionately rely on their preferences being met without bearing the time cost and cognitive burden of actively engaging in decisionmaking through effective power by proxy. Because we have data on a diverse set of decisions, we can compare effective power in household decision-making domains that are typically women’s—such as water related activities—and those that are typically men’s domains—such as decisions over household purchases. In the two water-related decisions (on water source choice and water allocation) where men are the least involved in the decision directly, about 15 percent of those who did not make a decision hold effective power by proxy. Due to their position within the household, these men can expect water allocation to align with their preferences without direct involvement. Social norms favor the male heads’ preferences regarding water allocation more than women’s. In contrast, only two percent or fewer women have effective power by proxy when not involved in decisions in activities that are typically men’s domains (in water and household expenditures). Women are less likely to be in a position of power to delegate or to expect the outcome will happen as they would like when they are not directly involved in these decisions which men typically make.

Our survey data is also unique in that we interviewed all adults in the household and have information on the relationships among all individuals, not just their relationship with the primary respondent. This allowed us to explore relationships beyond the primary couple and to map out different household types beyond single woman-headed households and households with a husband and wife (male-headed households). Because of this we can show that decision-making power and agency varies with the household composition in households headed by men. Thus, we can show that even using the common measure of direct involvement in decision-making as a measure of agency, wives in couple households would be considered more empowered than wives living with their mothers-in-law or co-wives.

15
We also show that those who do not directly participate in decision making may still have agency and that not making a decision may mean something different for husbands and wives. Women are nearly three times as likely as men to be involved in all of the seven household decision-making activities captured by our survey: 13 percent of men and 33 percent of women. But husbands may be more likely to have agency even when not engaged in the decision. Comparisons between husbands’ and wives’ decision-making (particularly household decisions) may be misleading unless they take into account these other forms of decision-making power.

The results also suggest decision-making measures may be overestimating certain individuals’ empowerment. In this study, women may make the decision about the water source and allocation, but the decision made may reflect their husband’s preferences (who have effect power by proxy and influence) and not their own.

Because we interviewed all adults in the household, we are also able to show that while a large share of young, unmarried women has low levels of agency with regard to their personal individual decisions as compared to older women. We also note there is a substantial share of young unmarried men with low levels of agency. Like young women, young men who have not yet started their own household may have parents who make the personal individual decisions for him (use of own income, visits to family, and own health care). Studies that estimate agency using decision-making questions of the couple heading the household overlook these young adults in the household. Our results highlight the importance of taking into account factors such as age, marital status, and household composition when estimating women’s agency, comparing women’s to men’s agency, and exploring related dynamics.

Our findings yield two primary recommendations for measuring decision-making. The first pertains to response options. Many decision-making questions focus solely on the primary couple within the household (by e.g., having respondent, spouse, joint decision or ‘other’ as the response options) or fail to capture which decision-makers are involved (e.g., asking about general input into decision-making without identifying who the other decision-makers are). However, complex decision-making structures are common in noncouple households, where decision-making with a spouse differs significantly from making decisions with a parent, in-law, or child. Therefore, it is important to identify which household members are involved in the decision either by including a roster of all household members and using this list as response options for decision-making questions, or by having follow-up questions when the response is that decision-making is joint and identifying who is jointly making the decision.

The second recommendation is to add questions to identify when people may have agency without directly participating in the decision making. In surveys, this could involve two dimensions. First, surveys could ask individuals why they are not involved in decision-making.<sup>iii</sup> Second, surveys could ask whether the outcomes of the decisions reflect the respondent’s preferences. This would provide a richer understanding of people’s agency.

An open question for future research is to further understand the benefits to directly engaging in decisionmaking processes and how these benefits vary for men and women. The same could be said about the costs, such as time required and cognitive demands, associated with direct engagement in decision-making. This would provide a clearer assessment of the advantages and drawbacks of the various ways of expressing agency regarding household decisions.

16
> i All adults in the household were interviewed separately and privately regarding the decision-making process in the household. The qualitative data also explored norms and behavior regarding decision making within households.  In this regard, the data enables us to study self-described roles, responsibilities, power dynamics of women and men in these households across age groups and marital status.  A limitation of the data is the respondents did not self-declare their gender identities. The household survey asked the primary respondent for the sex of each household member.  We explore the roles and responsibilities of individuals using these sex categories in the data.

> ii Within these households, 204 women and 290 men 18 years and older could not be interviewed. Table A.1 in the Appendix compares the characteristics of all men and women in households based on the household roster with the sample of men and women interviewed.  There are fewer women interviewed as a share of the women in the roster that have never been married and more women interviewed as a share of the women in the roster that are in monogamous unions. Otherwise, the samples for this analysis are similar to the full samples for both women and men. All estimations are computed using survey weights. iii An example of such a survey module can be found on the Measures for Advancing Gender Equality (MAGNET) Resource Center: https://magnet.ifpri.info/.

17
# **8. Works cited**

ACOSTA, M., VAN WESSEL, M., VAN BOMMEL, S., AMPAIRE, E. L., TWYMAN, J., JASSOGNE, L. & FEINDT, P. H. 2020. What does it Mean to Make a ‘Joint’ Decision? Unpacking Intra-household Decision Making in Agriculture: Implications for Policy and Practice. _The Journal of Development Studies,_ 56 **,** 1210-1229.

AGARWAL, B. 1997. ''Bargaining'' and gender relations: Within and beyond the household. _Feminist economics,_ 3 **,** 1-51.

ALKIRE, S. 2008. 455Chapter 24 Concepts and Measures of Agency. _In:_ BASU, K. & KANBUR, R. (eds.) _Arguments for a Better World: Essays in Honor of Amartya Sen: Volume I: Ethics, Welfare, and Measurement._ Oxford University Press.

ALKIRE, S., MEINZEN-DICK, R., PETERMAN, A., QUISUMBING, A., SEYMOUR, G. & VAZ, A. 2013. The women’s empowerment in agriculture index. _World development,_ 52 **,** 71-91.

ANNAN, J., DONALD, A., GOLDSTEIN, M., MARTINEZ, P. G. & KOOLWAL, G. 2021. Taking power: women’s empowerment and household well-being in Sub-Saharan Africa. _World Development,_ 140 **,** 105292.

ARUGAY, A., DONALD, A., JARVIS, F., JOHNSON, H. C. & VALENCIANO, A. 2024. When Does Decision-Making Reflect Agency?

ASABA, R. B., FAGAN, H., KABONESA, C. & MUGUMYA, F. 2013. Beyond distance and time: gender and the burden of water collection in rural Uganda. _wH2O: Journal of Gender and Water,_ 2 **,** 31-38.

BANDURA, A. 2001. Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. _Annual review of psychology,_ 52 **,** 1- 26.

DONALD, A., KOOLWAL, G., ANNAN, J., FALB, K. & GOLDSTEIN, M. 2020. Measuring Women’s Agency. _Feminist Economics,_ 26 **,** 200-226.

HOU, X. & MA, N. 2013. The effect of women’s decision-making power on maternal health services uptake: evidence from Pakistan. _Health policy and planning,_ 28 **,** 176-184.

JACHIMOWICZ, J. M., DUNCAN, S., WEBER, E. U. & JOHNSON, E. J. 2019. When and why defaults influence decisions: A meta-analysis of default effects. _Behavioural Public Policy,_ 3 **,** 159-186.

KABEER, N. 1999. Resources, agency, achievements: Reflections on the measurement of women's empowerment. _Development and change,_ 30 **,** 435-464.

KABEER, N. 2001. Reflections on the measurement of women’s empowerment.

KABEER, N. 2005. Gender equality and women's empowerment: A critical analysis of the third millennium development goal 1. _Gender & Development,_ 13 **,** 13-24.

KAHNEMAN, D., KNETSCH, J. L. & THALER, R. H. 1991. Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias. _Journal of Economic Perspectives,_ 5 **,** 193-206.

MAHMOOD, S. 2016. Feminist theory, embodiment, and the docile agent: Some reflections on the Egyptian Islamic revival. _Readings in the Theory of Religion._ Routledge.

1
MALAPIT, H., KOVARIK, C., SPROULE, K., MEINZEN-DICK, R. & QUISUMBING, A. 2015. Instructional guide on the abbreviated women’s empowerment in agriculture index (A-WEAI). _Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute_ .

MALAPIT, H., QUISUMBING, A., MEINZEN-DICK, R., SEYMOUR, G., MARTINEZ, E. M., HECKERT, J., RUBIN, D., VAZ, A., YOUNT, K. M. & PHASE, G. A. A. P. 2019. Development of the project-level Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (pro-WEAI). _World development,_ 122 **,** 675692.

RUDMAN, L. 1998. Self-Promotion as a Risk Factor for Women: The Costs and Benefits of Counterstereotypical Impression Management. _Journal of personality and social psychology,_ 74 **,** 629-45.

RUDMAN, L. A., MOSS-RACUSIN, C. A., GLICK, P. & PHELAN, J. E. 2012. Reactions to vanguards: Advances in backlash theory. _Advances in experimental social psychology._ Elsevier.

RYAN, R. M. & DECI, E. L. 2000a. Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions. _Contemporary Educational Psychology,_ 25 **,** 54-67.

RYAN, R. M. & DECI, E. L. 2000b. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. _American psychologist,_ 55 **,** 68.

SEN, A. 1985. Well-Being, Agency and Freedom: The Dewey Lectures 1984. _The Journal of Philosophy,_ 82 **,** 169-221.

SEYMOUR, G. & PETERMAN, A. 2018. Context and measurement: An analysis of the relationship between intrahousehold decision making and autonomy. _World Development,_ 111 **,** 97-112.

SIJBESMA, C., VERHAGEN, J., NANAVATY, R. & JAMES, A. 2009. Impacts of domestic water supply on gender and income: results from a participatory study in a drought-prone region in Gujarat, India. _Water Policy,_ 11.

VAZ, A., PRATLEY, P. & ALKIRE, S. 2016. Measuring Women's Autonomy in Chad Using the Relative Autonomy Index. _Feminist Economics,_ 22 **,** 264-294.

2
# **9. Appendix**

**<u>Table A.1.</u>** <u>Descriptive statistics and differences between those in household roster and sample</u>

||Women in the|Women’s||Men in the|Men’s||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||householdroster|Sample|Diff|householdroster|Sample|Diff|
|Age|39.88|40.49|0.61|38.35|39.40|1.05|
||(18.18)|(17.34)|(0.75)|(17.35)|(18.07)|(0.83)|
|Marital status|||||||
|Never married|0.21|0.16|-0.05***|0.36|0.34|-0.02|
||(0.40)|(0.36)|(0.02)|(0.48)|(0.47)|(0.02)|
|Monogamous union|0.49|0.53|0.04*|0.53|0.53|0.00|
||(0.50)|(0.50)|(0.02)|(0.50)|(0.50)|(0.02)|
|Polygamous union|0.06|0.06|0.00|0.04|0.05|0.00|
||(0.24)|(0.24)|(0.01)|(0.20)|(0.21)|(0.01)|
|Widow/er, divorced,|0.24|0.25|0.01|0.07|0.08|0.01|
|separated|(0.43)|(0.43)|(0.02)|(0.26)|(0.27)|(0.01)|
|<br>Currently attending|0.06|0.07|0.01|0.13|0.14|0.00|
|School|(0.25)|(0.26)|(0.01)|(0.34)|(0.34)|(0.02)|
|Educational attainment|||||||
|No schooling|0.43|0.43|-0.00|0.10|0.10|0.00|
||(0.50)|(0.50)|(0.02)|(0.30)|(0.30)|(0.01)|
|At least some|0.41|0.41|0.00|0.61|0.60|-0.00|
|primary school|(0.49)|(0.49)|(0.02)|(0.49)|(0.49)|(0.02)|
|Some secondary|0.16|0.15|-0.00|0.30|0.30|0.00|
|school (or higher)|(0.36)|(0.36)|(0.02)|(0.46)|(0.46)|(0.02)|
|Lives with parents|0.21|0.21|-0.00|0.49|0.50|0.01|
||(0.41)|(0.41)|(0.02)|(0.50)|(0.50)|(0.02)|
|Lives with in-laws|0.19|0.19|-0.00|0.01|0.00|-0.00|
||(0.39)|(0.39)|(0.02)|(0.09)|(0.06)|(0.00)|
|Lives in single adult|0.02|0.03|0.00|0.02|0.03|0.01|
|<br>household|(0.16)|(0.17)|(0.01)|(0.15)|(0.17)|(0.01)|
|Lives in household with a|0.14|0.15|0.01|0.15|0.15|0.01|
|couple and no other|(0.34)|(0.35)|(0.01)|(0.36)|(0.36)|(0.02)|
|adults|||||||
|Lives in extended family|0.62|0.62|-0.00|0.59|0.58|-0.01|
|household|(0.49)|(0.49)|(0.02)|(0.49)|(0.49)|(0.02)|
|Lives in a household with|0.07|0.06|-0.00|0.04|0.04|-0.00|
|co-wives|(0.25)|(0.24)|(0.01)|(0.20)|(0.20)|(0.01)|
|Ganze|0.21|0.24|0.03*|0.19|0.24|0.05**|
||(0.40)|(0.43)|(0.02)|(0.39)|(0.43)|(0.02)|
|Kaloleni|<br>0.38|<br>0.44|<br>0.06***|<br>0.30|<br>0.39|<br>0.08***|
||(0.49)|(0.50)|(0.02)|(0.46)|(0.49)|(0.02)|
|Magarini|<br>0.28|<br>0.33|<br>0.05**|<br>0.29|<br>0.38|<br>0.09***|
||(0.45)|(0.47)|(0.02)|(0.45)|(0.48)|(0.02)|
||1,214|1,059|2,273|1,054|808|1,862|

_Notes: Standard errors in parentheses. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. All estimations are computed using survey weights to address sampling. There is less than one percent of men who live with their in-laws._ 3