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
This document presents the preliminary findings from the quantitative data generation and analysis conducted as part of the project “Financial decision-making, gender and social norms in Zambia”.... Show moreThis document presents the preliminary findings from the quantitative data generation and analysis conducted as part of the project “Financial decision-making, gender and social norms in Zambia”. Using a series of specially designed behavioural experiments, we generated an extensive set of insights into the normative environment within which spouses in Eastern Province, Zambia, make decisions about individual money holding and saving. Here are some of those insights. Spouses in Eastern Province, Zambia, are willing to compromise household-level earnings in order to maintain individual control over money. Wives, but not husbands, are more likely to compromise household-level earnings in order to maintain individual control over money, when they can keep that money and their actions hidden from their spouses. Individually-held behavioural prescriptions, i.e., the “shoulds” and “oughts” that individuals have in mind and reference as guides for their own behaviour and as benchmarks against which to evaluate others’ behaviour, inform decision-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 descisions regarding maintaining individual control over money (or not) at a cost to the household, the individuals take their spouses’ opinions about what they should do into account, i.e., they compromise. 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 the problem. Assuming it exists, this social norm forbidding saving in secret from one’s spouse applies to both husbands and wives, and this is acknowledged by both husbands and wives. However, the extent to which violations of this norm are tolerated depends on who is doing the violating and who the evaluating. In patrilineal communities (as compared to matrilineal communities), both husbands and wives are especially intolerant of secret saving by husbands and in both patrilineal and matrilineal communities, wives are less tolerant than husbands of secret saving by husbands and more tolerant than husbands of secret saving by wives. This relative tolerance of secret saving by wives notwithstanding, just under one in three wives and one in six husbands think that a man is justified in beating his wife if he discovers that she is saving in an e-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 and refusing to have sex. For further insights, see the main text of the report. Show less
In what ways do norms and expectations about the actual processes of saving and borrowing create a disjuncture between the formal sector and indigenous experiences? Bridging this divide between... Show moreIn what ways do norms and expectations about the actual processes of saving and borrowing create a disjuncture between the formal sector and indigenous experiences? Bridging this divide between every day and formal financial concepts and practices is part of the key to being able to develop more appropriate products and services that will support financial inclusion. This insights brief brings together findings from two over-lapping research projects that address this question. Both studies examined indigenous practices of resource exchange through saving, lending and gifts. In the first, research examined the language used for the core financial concepts of savings and borrowing, and explored some of the social and cultural practices that these concepts involved. This was undertaken in Kitui and dealt specifically with Kikamba terminology. While this was a very focused study, it raised issues that resonated with the second study and which therefore have wider relevance. The second study delved in more depth into the nature of inter-personal transactions involved in financial and other resource transfers in a bid to understand their social dynamics and meaning for those involved. It was undertaken in three areas: Mathira, Kitui and Nyamira. Show less
