The effectiveness and effects of alcohol regulation: evidence from India

Table 9 The effect of MLDA on drinking and domestic violence in states never under prohibition (sample: all husbands 15–50 years old)

	(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

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