This document presents the findings from quantitative and qualitative data generation and analysisconducted as part of the project “Financial decision-making, gender and social normsin Zambia”.... Show moreThis document presents the findings from quantitative and qualitative data generation and analysisconducted as part of the project “Financial decision-making, gender and social normsin Zambia”. Using a series of specially designed behavioural experiments and focus groupdiscussions, we generated an extensive set of insights into the normative environment withinwhich spouses in Eastern Province, Zambia, decide on individual money holding and saving.Here are some of those insights. Spouses in Eastern Province, Zambia, are willing to compromise household-level income to maintain individual control over money. Wives, but not husbands, are more likely to compromise household-level earnings to maintain individual control over money when theycan keep that money and their actions hidden from their spouses. Individually-held behaviouralprescriptions, i.e., the “shoulds” and “oughts” that individuals have in mind and reference asguides for their behaviour and benchmarks against which to evaluate others’ behaviour, informdecision-making about maintaining individual control over money at a cost to the household.Further, when individuals know that their spouses will find out about their decisions regardingmaintaining individual control over money (or not) at a cost to the household, the individualstake their spouses’ opinions about what they should do into account, i.e., they compromise. Inthe Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), wastefulness on the part of spouses was consistentlygiven as a reason for endeavouring to maintain individual control over money.There is strong but not unequivocal evidence pointing to the existence of a social norm, i.e., a“should” or “ought” that is collectively held and enforced by members of a community,forbidding saving in secret from one’s spouse, with the secrecy, not the saving being theproblem. Assuming it exists, this social norm forbidding saving in secret from one’s spouseapplies to both husbands and wives, and both husbands and wives acknowledge this. However,the extent to which violations of this norm are tolerated depends on who is doing the violatingand evaluating. In patrilineal communities (as compared to matrilineal communities), bothhusbands and wives are especially intolerant of secret saving by husbands, and in bothpatrilineal and matrilineal communities, wives are less tolerant than husbands of secret savingby husbands and more tolerant than husbands of secret saving by wives. This relative toleranceof secret saving by wives notwithstanding, just under one in three wives and one in sixhusbands think that a man is justified in beating his wife if he discovers that she is saving in ane-wallet or has joined a savings group without his knowledge and, as grounds for wife-beating,saving in secret is on a par with neglecting the children, visiting friends or family in secret andrefusing to have sex. When exploring the reasons for this strong norm against saving in secretin the FGDs, women express fear about the money going missing if the secret saver diesunexpectedly. Both men and women strongly believe that if a wife saves in secret, it raisessuspicions about where she is getting the money and that saving in secret can lead to maritaltension. Show less
Motivation: Higher education is regarded as a key instrument to enhance socioeconomic mobility andreduce inequalities. Recent literature reviews have examined inequalities in the... Show moreMotivation: Higher education is regarded as a key instrument to enhance socioeconomic mobility andreduce inequalities. Recent literature reviews have examined inequalities in the higher education systemsof high-income countries, but less is known about the situation in low- and middle-income countries,where higher education is expanding fast.Purpose: The article reviews the academic literature on higher education in low- and middle-incomecountries using a research framework inspired by social justice and capability approaches. It considers the financial, socio-cultural, human, and political resource domains on which people draw, and how they relate to access, participation, and outcomes in higher education.Methods: A literature search for studies explicitly discussing in-country inequalities in higher education revealed 22 publications. Substantial knowledge gaps remain, especially regarding the political (and decision-making) side of inequalities; the ideologies and philosophies underpinning higher education systems; and the linkages between resource domains, both micro and macro.Findings: The review highlights key elements for policy-makers and researchers: (1) the financial lens alone is insufficient to understand and tackle inequalities, since these are also shaped by human and other non-financial factors; (2) socio-cultural constructs are central in explaining unequal outcomes; and (3) inequalities develop throughout one’s life and need to be considered during, but also before and afterhigher education. The scope of inequalities is wide, and the literature offers a few ideas for short-term fixes such as part-time and online education.Policy implications: Inclusive policy frameworks for higher education should include explicit goals related to (in)equality, which are best measured in terms of the extent to which certain actions or choices are feasible for all. Policies in these frameworks, we argue, should go beyond providing financial support, and also address socio-cultural and human resource constraints and challenges in retention, performance, and labour market outcomes. Finally, they should consider relevant contextual determinants of inequalities. Show less
