Skip to main content

Table 9 The effect of MLDA on drinking and domestic violence in states never under prohibition (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 0.0341 0.0417 0.0825 0.0739 0.0729 0.0738 0.0712
(0.0224) (0.0221)* (0.0166)*** (0.0168)*** (0.0172)*** (0.0171)*** (0.0168)***
{0.187} {0.099} {0.004}†† {0.006} {0.006} {0.006} {0.008}
N 77,941 77,941 77,291 77,769 77,425 77,769 77,769
R-sq 0.00 0.03 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.09
Panel B: dependent variable—wife reports domestic violence 0.0505 0.0328 0.0565 0.0546 0.0516 0.0539 0.0492
(0.0267)* (0.0248) (0.0258)** (0.0283)* (0.0269)* (0.0283)* (0.0264)*
{0.0839} {0.213} {0.0599} {0.0839} {0.0899} {0.0879} {0.0979}
N 77,935 77,935 77,764 77,764 77,420 77,764 77,764
R-sq 0.00 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