The effectiveness and effects of alcohol regulation: evidence from India

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

	(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

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