The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
UNITARY VERSUS COLLECTIVE MODELS OF THE HOUSEHOLD: IS IT TIME TO SHIFT THE BURDEN OF PROOF?
Abstract
Most development objectives focus on the well-being of individuals. Policies are targeted to increase the percentage of individuals who avoid poverty, who can read, who are free from hunger and illness, or who can find gainful employment. Individual welfare, however, is based in large part on a complex set of interactions among family members. Until recently most policy analyses implicitly viewed the household as having only one set of preferences. This assumption has been a powerful tool for understanding household behaviour, such as the distribution of tasks and goods. But a growing body of evidence suggests that this view is an expedience that comes at considerable, and possibly avoidable, cost. The article argues that more effective policy instruments will emerge from analyzing the processes by which households balance the diverse interests of their members.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Becker, G. S. (1991) · doi:10.4159/9780674020665 · Cited by 10,565
Cited by
Household strategies and rural livelihood diversification
Ellis, F. (1998) · Journal of Development Studies · doi:10.1080/00220389808422553 · Cited by 2,325
Income and Outcomes: A Structural Model of Intrahousehold Allocation
Browning, M., Bourguignon, F., Chiappori, P.-A., & Lechene, V. (1994) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/261964 · Cited by 1,070
Self-citationEconomic mobility and poverty dynamics in developing countries
Baulch, B., & Hoddinott, J. (2000) · Journal of Development Studies · doi:10.1080/00220380008422652 · Cited by 654
Self-citationTerror as a Bargaining Instrument: A Case Study of Dowry Violence in Rural India
Bloch, F., & Rao, V. (2002) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/00028280260344588 · Cited by 554
Shocks and their consequences across and within households in Rural Zimbabwe
Hoddinott, J. (2006) · Journal of Development Studies · doi:10.1080/00220380500405501 · Cited by 454
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Alderman, H., Chiappori, P.-A., Haddad, L., Hoddinott, J., & Kanbur, R.
- Venue
- The World Bank Research Observer
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1995
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-19
- ISSN
- 0257-3032 (ISSN-L)
- 1564-6971
- OpenAlex
- W2055446633
- Cited by
- 601
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 48.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: UNITARY VERSUS COLLECTIVE MODELS OF THE HOUSEHOLD: IS IT TIME TO SHIFT THE BURDEN OF PROOF? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/wbro/10.1.1
- The paper
- Alderman, H., Chiappori, P.-A., Haddad, L., Hoddinott, J., & Kanbur, R. (1995). UNITARY VERSUS COLLECTIVE MODELS OF THE HOUSEHOLD: IS IT TIME TO SHIFT THE BURDEN OF PROOF? The World Bank Research Observer. https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/10.1.1
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.