Skip to main content

Table 4 The effect of MLDA on drinking and domestic violence (sample: all husbands 15–50 years old)

From: The effectiveness and effects of alcohol regulation: evidence from India

  (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
Panel A: dependent variable—husband drinks alcohol 0.1439 0.0419 0.0787 0.0748 0.0732 0.0749 0.0713
(0.0499)*** (0.0218)* (0.0167)*** (0.0170)*** (0.0172)*** (0.0172)*** (0.0165)***
{0.112} {0.094} {0.006}††† {0.006}††† {0.006}††† {0.006}††† {0.006}†††
N 83,364 83,364 83,364 83,263 82,728 83,263 83,364
R2 0.01 0.04 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Panel B: dependent variable—wife reports domestic violence 0.0854 0.0329 0.0556 0.0525 0.0503 0.0517 0.0486
(0.0165)*** (0.0245) (0.0254)** (0.0280)* (0.0268)* (0.0280)* (0.0258)*
{0.106} {0.230} {0.056} {0.096} {0.098} {0.096} {0.089}
N 83,358 83,358 83,358 83,257 82,723 83,257 83,358
R2 0 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.07
Controls
 Husband    x x x x x
 Wife     x x x x
 Husband/wife ratios     x   x  
Fixed effects
 State   x x x x x x
 Year   x x x x x x
 Age gap      x   
 Education gap      x   
 State by survey wave       x  
 State by age gap        x
  1. Sample includes husbands between ages 15 and 50 in the NFHS-2 and NFHS-3 waves. Controls for husband include age, years of schooling, whether he belongs to a white-collar occupation, household size, urban residence, religion, and number of children. Controls for wife also include these variables plus, her attitudes towards domestic violence, whether she has money of her own that she controls, and the wife to husband age and schooling ratios. Standard errors presented in parentheses are clustered by state. *Significant at 10%, **significant at 5%, ***significant at 1%. p values in braces are adjusted using wild-t bootstrap. p ≤ 0.1, ††p ≤ 0.05, †††p ≤ 0.01