Women’s power at home

Editor's note: This episode of VoxDevTalks is available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and YouTube.

In this episode of VoxDevTalks, Seema Jayachandran and Alessandra Voena discuss their new review paper, Women’s Power in the Household, in which they ask: how much influence do women really have over key decisions within families? How does that vary across countries? And what can policy do – safely – to shift power towards women?

This conversation explores what power means in practice, how to measure it, and why progress towards equality still depends on deliberate legal and policy choices.

Understanding women’s power inside the household

The episode starts with Seema outlining their working definition of power:

“When we talk about power, we mean the influence a person has on the choices their household makes". Seema Jayachandran

This episode's focus is squarely on what happens within families. Power, in this context, is not the same as general wellbeing; it is about who prevails when preferences differ.

“What we're talking about is a little bit zero sum within the household. Sometimes a couple might agree on something, but sometimes one will want one thing and the other wants something else. And it's really about who prevails or who gets more weight in the compromise.” Seema Jayachandran

There are important distinctions between this approach and the broader agenda on women’s welfare or gender equality in society. Here the question is more specific: when there is not enough time, money, food or care to go round, who gets what – and whose preferences shape those decisions?

In their review, Seema and Alessandra documents substantial variation across and within countries.

“There's a lot of heterogeneity around the world in terms of how much say women have and how many resources they end up receiving within their family.” Alessandra Voena

Development, law and gender norms: Why progress is not automatic

An analysis of Demographic and Health Surveys and other cross-country data reveals that, on average, women report more say in household decisions in wealthier countries. This aligns with the idea that women’s bargaining position improves when they can earn more and have better legal rights, including the ability to exit a marriage.

However, the relationship is far from automatic. Alessandra cautions against assuming that growth alone will deliver equality, as some rich countries still show large gaps in women’s rights and power. And Seema notes that economic development can be unequal, and restrictive gender norms may prevent women from fully participating in the labour market even when opportunities exist.

“Often, economic development and legal development, advances towards equal rights go hand in hand, but that needs to be a concerted effort by policymakers, not just something that rains down on you when you have economic growth.” Seema Jayachandran

Norms, law and economic opportunity must move together if intra-household power is to shift.

Measuring power, agency and the 'black box' of the household

A central contribution of the review is conceptual. The authors argue that power is multi-dimensional and that researchers should combine both process and outcomes.

On the process side, agency captures whether women can express preferences and participate in decisions, i.e. do they get to voice their opinions? Do they have some say in key decisions? This is usually measured with self-reported questions about who decides on major expenditures, children’s schooling, or mobility, sometimes complemented by incentivised lab experiments.

On the outcomes side, researchers examine who actually consumes resources and whose preferences seem to shape spending or fertility. But this is technically demanding.

“It's already not so easy to know how many carrots a family consumes in a week. Imagine knowing how many carrots your spouse is consuming versus you.” Alessandra Voena

A core challenge with work in this area is that power is a hard concept to measure, with decisions in the household a black box. The authors working definition is that a “woman has power if the outcomes in the family reflect her preferences, and not just passively, but because she had some agency.”

Focusing only on outcomes can mislead, for example when a very altruistic husband delivers the wife’s preferred outcome without her having any real say. Focusing only on reported agency can also mislead if stated participation does not translate into meaningful influence over important decisions.

Do cash transfers and women’s earnings change household outcomes?

One of the most policy-relevant questions is whether giving money to women, rather than to men or the household in general, increases their power and changes spending patterns.

Early conditional cash transfer programmes such as Mexico’s PROGRESA, which paid benefits to mothers, suggested large gains for children and greater say for women. Later second-generation studies, which randomise the identity of the transfer recipient within the household, find more mixed results.

"How you transfer is very important. Meaning, what does it mean to give money to women? Do women actually have the physical control? Do they have a place where this money can be put. Do they have the independence to walk away from, for example, abusive relationships thanks to that cash?” Alessandra Voena

It is not enough to put a woman’s name on the transfer; what matters is her actual control over the funds and the outside options that control creates. The review also emphasises that general expansions in women’s earning capacity – better jobs, higher wages, more secure employment – tend to improve their position in the household, especially when combined with legal and social conditions that allow them to keep and use those earnings.

Divorce rights, children’s outcomes and women’s wellbeing

The authors also review evidence on how changes in divorce law and related legal reforms affect bargaining within marriage. Here, economic models are helpful: if partners are 'bargaining', then better outside options – including the credible ability to leave – should strengthen women’s position. The evidence so far points in that direction, though it is still sparse and context-specific.

Empowering women is also widely believed to have particularly significant knock-on benefits for children, given their traditional caregiving role. Yet, this review takes a more cautious line. Jayachandran explains that when they revisited the literature, “the jury's still out”. Early observational studies suggested strong positive effects on child health and education when women controlled more resources, but more recent, rigorous experiments often find smaller or no effects.

Her advice to policymakers is to “think of it as improving kids outcomes as a bonus.” The primary rationale should be fairness and women’s own welfare; any extra investment in children should be seen as a welcome but uncertain additional gain. Strikingly, the authors find “there isn't a lot of evidence showing how women's own well being increases when they have more power, and it's a shame that there isn't more focused on that,” including on women’s physical and mental health.

Backlash, gender norms and promising interventions

Shifting power inside families can provoke backlash, including violence, when norms are challenged. Building on work on intimate partner violence, Jayachandran and Voena argue that economic and legal reforms should be paired with efforts to change norms and support non-violent conflict resolution.

Backlash often arises “when social norms are being either violated or used to kind of push back against the social norms.” Promising approaches include working with adolescents on gender attitudes, running sensitisation campaigns, and designing communication and self-efficacy interventions that help women express preferences safely.

At the same time, some policies can be framed as enlarging, rather than redividing, the pie. Jayachandran argues that increasing women’s employment in settings where it is very low is one such area.

“It's not just the pie is fixed. And we're saying, hey, it's not fair that the man gets two thirds and the woman gets 1/3 give up some to her. It's really an opportunity to say, look, everybody can be better off, because we've just tapped this earning potential of half the household. And so it's both more for everyone and a more equal distribution.” Seema Jayachandran

Legal reforms beyond divorce – for example, inheritance and property rights – also look promising. When women can own land or assets, they strengthen both their day-to-day bargaining position and their outside options, though rigorous evidence is still limited.

Data gaps and priorities for future research

The episode closes with a forward-looking discussion of what we still do not know. A major constraint is data: in most surveys “we don't know who owns what” within the family, making it hard to study wealth, risk and exit options. Voena calls for “investments in data collections and measurement” that record ownership and control over assets, not just total household income or consumption.

Jayachandran highlights the lack of evidence on some of the biggest joint decisions couples make: fertility (where there are hints that “on average, men want more kids than women”), where to live, or whether to live with extended family. These choices rarely show up in consumption surveys. There is also very little work on polygamous or extended households, despite their importance in many low- and middle-income settings.

Overall, the review paints a nuanced picture: women’s power in the household is real, measurable and malleable, but progress is neither automatic nor straightforward. Economic opportunity, legal rights and gender norms interact in complex ways. Policymakers should not expect simple fixes, but the potential gains – for women’s autonomy, safety and wellbeing, and possibly for children and growth – make this a vital frontier for research and action.