Drivers of Intra-Household Labor Supply Complementarities: Evidence from an Urban Labor Market in India

Last registered on August 24, 2025

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Drivers of Intra-Household Labor Supply Complementarities: Evidence from an Urban Labor Market in India
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0015157
Initial registration date
January 12, 2025

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
January 13, 2025, 2:02 PM EST

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Last updated
August 24, 2025, 11:18 AM EDT

Last updated is the most recent time when changes to the trial's registration were published.

Locations

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
Harvard University

Other Primary Investigator(s)

Additional Trial Information

Status
On going
Start date
2024-07-11
End date
2026-12-31
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
Women across emerging economies face substantial barriers to working outside the home, including unsafe commutes, risk of workplace harassment, and intra-household constraints. Working alongside one’s spouse can simultaneously ease several of these constraints. While labor supply complementarities between network members have been documented, research on co-working couples remains scarce. This project, based in Tamil Nadu, India, uses an incentivized discrete choice experiment to examine the prevalence, drivers, and downstream consequences of co-working among married couples. Additionally, I implement an incentivized resume rating exercise with supervisors and labor contractors involved in making hiring decisions on behalf of garment factories. The goal of this component of the study is to examine how employers perceive jobseekers searching for work alone versus those searching with a spouse or other network member, and the mechanisms driving these beliefs. In the final component of the study, I implement an incentivized discrete choice experiment with married couples in rural Odisha, India focusing on households where women do not engage in substantial paid work, to understand how co-working opportunities might shape women's extensive margin labor supply.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Tandon, Shreya. 2025. "Drivers of Intra-Household Labor Supply Complementarities: Evidence from an Urban Labor Market in India." AEA RCT Registry. August 24. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.15157-4.0
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
I implement an incentivized discrete choice experiment with a sample of married couples employed in the garment sector in Tirupur, Tamil Nadu, a major garment manufacturing hub. A large majority of workers in this setting are rural-urban migrants from other states in India. Each spouse is surveyed separately and asked to choose between a series of pairs of hypothetical jobs with randomly varying wages and amenities. I randomly vary the following features of each job: (1) monthly salary (2) commute time (3) whether the job has a single vacancy or is hiring multiple people so both spouses could work together (4) whether the job entails night shift work (5) provisions for women's safety in the workplace (6) whether the supervisors and co-workers can speak the respondent's native language.

To incentivize truthful preference-reporting, respondents will be told that we will use their job choices to suggest real job profiles at nearby garment factories, and share their profiles/contact information with the relevant HR managers.

Couples will be randomly assigned to one of two arms, stratifying by their current co-working status:
• “Joint recommendation” arm: both spouses will be recommended to HR, so they may potentially be hired together.
• “Single recommendation” arm: only one spouse will be recommended to HR; husband or wife randomly selected with equal probability.

In the weeks following the survey, couples will receive up to 4 phone calls informing them about different job profiles, identified based on their responses to the discrete choice survey. If the household decides that the profile of the selected spouse(s) should be shared with HR for a specific job opportunity, they must confirm their interest by calling a hotline number managed by the research team.

Alongside the incentivized job choice experiment, I implement a complementary incentivized resume rating survey with individuals working as supervisors or labor contractors on behalf of garment factories in the same cluster. Respondents are shown a series of pairs of hypothetical worker profiles (5 male and 5 female), with randomly varying features. I randomly vary the work experience of each hypothetical jobseeker and the type of referral relationship. For female candidates, I randomize whether they were: not referred by anyone, referred by their spouse, or referred by their female friend. For male candidates, I randomize whom they are likely to refer in the future: no one, their spouse, or their male friend. Respondents must then answer a series of questions about each profile:(1) which applicant they would prefer to hire (2) how long they expect the applicant to stay if they are offered the job, (3) whether they would assign the worker to the same team as their referrer (4) what wage they would offer to the applicant, (5) whether they would hire the applicant in an entry-level (helper) role or the senior role, and (6) whether the referrer is likely to interfere if the supervisor is reprimanding the candidate for production errors. To incentivize truthful preference-reporting, respondents will be told that we will use their choices to suggest real worker profiles that they can then refer to their factory in case of any vacancies arise.

In the final component of the study, I implement an unincentivized job choice experiment with married couples in rural Odisha, India. The sample includes couples living near a new industrial park where garment factories are expected to open in 2026, and recruitment is limited to households where wives are not engaged in substantial paid work. Each spouse is surveyed separately and presented with a series of hypothetical job pairs.

Women are asked to imagine their husband is employed at a garment factory and choose between two jobs for themselves: one at the same factory and another at a different factory in the same industrial park. Job attributes, including wage and whether a female friend or relative also works at the factory, are randomly varied. Men are asked to imagine they are working at one of the garment factories, and similarly asked to choose between jobs for their wives. Respondents are asked to imagine that the two jobs are the same in all other ways, and must indicate which they would prefer. Women must report whether they would accept the offered job, while men are asked to report whether their wife should accept the offered job.

To understand how co-working shapes labor supply responses to local jobs and migration opportunities, respondents complete two sets of choice tasks: one for local jobs in the new industrial park near their village (5 pairs of jobs) and one for jobs in a distant industrial park being built 300 km away (3 pairs of jobs). Finally, participants select whether they wish to receive hiring updates via text for one of five job types (jobs for both husband and wife at the same factory, jobs for the husband and wife at separate factories, jobs for the husband alone, jobs for the wife alone, or none of the above), providing an incentivized measure of job preferences.
Intervention Start Date
2024-12-21
Intervention End Date
2026-12-31

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Discrete Choice Experiment with Garment Workers in Tamil Nadu:
Stated preference between pairs of hypothetical jobs; interest in being recommended to the HR manager for real job opportunities (measured during the survey and tracked through calls made to a hotline number)

Incentivized Resume Rating:
(1) which applicant they would prefer to hire (2) how long they expect the applicant to stay if they are offered the job, (3) whether they would assign the worker to the same team as their referrer (4) what wage they would offer to the applicant, (5) whether they would hire the applicant in an entry-level (helper) role or the senior role, and (6) whether the referrer is likely to interfere if the supervisor is reprimanding the candidate for production errors.

Discrete Choice Experiment with Married Couples in Odisha:
Stated preference between pairs of hypothetical jobs; stated preference between the hypothetical job and remaining out of the labor force; interest in receiving a text message about real job opportunities (measured during the survey)
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Beliefs about the likelihood of being hired together in the solo recommendation arm
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
Discrete Choice Experiment with Garment Workers and Incentivized Resume Rating with Employers in Tamil Nadu:

Recruitment: I conduct a door-to-door listing survey in urban neighborhoods in Tirupur, Tamil Nadu, India located close to clusters of garment manufacturing factories. Survey teams are allocated to residential compounds and all households are surveyed within the compound. In each household, at most one person is surveyed (any adult member available at home), provided the household has at least one member who works in a garment factory. During the listing survey, I collect demographic information on all garment workers living in the household. Respondents are informed that as part of the study we will share worker profiles with HR managers at garment factories that are looking to hire new workers in the coming months. Respondents are asked to indicate whether they or anyone in their household would be interested in being recommended for work opportunities, and if yes, they are required to fill out a CV form to confirm their interest.

Sample: I use the data from the listing survey to identify married couples where both husband and wife are currently working in a garment factory or have worked in one during the past year. The sample includes couples currently working in the same establishment and those who work separately. I exclude households that said they were not interested in being recommended for work opportunities and those that did not fill out the CV.

Incentivized Job Choice Experiment: Once eligible households have been identified through the listing exercise, a pair of enumerators will return to the household to complete the main survey. Both husband and wife will be surveyed separately. The survey modules include: demographics, work history, beliefs about commuting safety and workplace safety, gender attitudes, spousal control/relationship quality. A hypothetical job choice experiment is also embedded into the survey. Before starting the job choice module, the respondent is informed that the research team is in contact with several HR managers at garment factories located close by who are looking to hire new workers and have randomly selected people from each household whose profiles will be shared with these HR managers. Respondents are told that they will be asked to choose between a series of hypothetical jobs and their responses will be used by the study team, to learn what kinds of jobs they like, so we can recommend them to opportunities that are aligned with their preferences. The respondent is also informed that at the end of the survey the enumerator will inform them who has been chosen from their household for the recommendation opportunity.

Each respondent is shown 7 pairs of hypothetical jobs with randomly varying wages and amenities, and asked to indicate which job they would prefer if they had the opportunity to do both. I randomly vary the following features of each job: (1) monthly salary (2) commute time (3) whether the job has a single vacancy or is hiring multiple people so both spouses could work together (4) whether the job entails night shift work (5) provisions for women's safety in the workplace (6) whether most of the co-workers can speak the respondent's native language. Randomization is at the individual x question level, and I stratify by gender, experience (<2 years or >= 2 years), and whether the respondent is currently working at the same establishment as their spouse or not.


Couples will be randomly assigned to one of two arms, stratifying by their current co-working status:
• “Joint recommendation” arm: both spouses will be recommended to HR, so they may potentially be hired together.
• “Single recommendation” arm: only one spouse will be recommended to HR; husband or wife randomly selected with equal probability.

In the weeks following the survey, couples will receive up to 4 phone calls informing them about different job profiles, identified based on their responses to the discrete choice survey. If the household decides that the profile of the selected spouse(s) should be shared with HR for a specific job opportunity, they must confirm their interest by calling a hotline number managed by the research team.

Incentivized Resume Rating Experiment: Eligible respondents will primarily be identified using the same listing exercise described above. However, since firm owners, supervisors, and labor contractors do not always live in the same neighborhoods as garment workers, we also rely on snowball sampling and directly approaching factories to identify eligible respondents. Subsequently, an enumerator visits the respondent to conduct the Incentivized Resume Rating survey. Before starting the resume rating module, the respondent is informed that the research team is conducting a survey of jobseekers interested in working at garment factories. Respondents are told that they will be asked to choose between a series of hypothetical candidates and their responses will be used by the study team, to learn what kinds of candidates are preferred at their factory, so we can recommend real worker profiles to them them that are aligned with their preferences. If they are interested, they can reach out to these real candidates, or refer them to their factory/HR departments, whenever vacancies arise. Respondents are shown a series of pairs of hypothetical worker profiles (5 male and 5 female), with randomly varying features. I randomly vary the work experience of each hypothetical jobseeker and the type of referral relationship. For female candidates, I randomize whether they were: not referred by anyone, referred by their spouse, or referred by their female friend. For male candidates, I randomize whom they are likely to refer in the future: no one, their spouse, or their male friend. Respondents must then answer a series of questions about each profile: (1) which applicant they would prefer to hire (2) how long they expect the applicant to stay if they are offered the job, (3) whether they would assign the worker to the same team as their referrer (4) what wage they would offer to the applicant, (5) whether they would hire the applicant in an entry-level (helper) role or the senior role, and (6) whether the referrer is likely to interfere if the supervisor is reprimanding the candidate for production errors.

Discrete Choice Experiment with Married Couples in Odisha:

Recruitment: I conduct door-to-door recruitment in villages located within the catchment area of a new industrial park being constructed in Khordha district, Odisha. Several garment factories are expected to begin operations in this park in 2026. Enumerator teams are allocated to hamlets and will target all households in a given hamlet. After approaching a house, enumerators ask to speak to a married woman aged between 18-60, and ask questions to determine eligibilty: whether the woman lives with her husband/husband’s family, whether she does more than 20 hours of paid work per week in a typical month during the year, and whether she is interested in new work opportunities. Enumerators ask the respondent if they are interested in new work opportunities using a 4 point Likert scale (not at all interested, not interested, interested, very interested). If the woman reports that she is does not live with her husband or husband’s family, engages in more than 20 hours of paid work per week, or is not at all interested in work opportunities, the household is screened out of the study sample. Husbands are only surveyed if their wives satisfy these eligibility criteria.

Experimental Design: Respondents are informed that we are conducting a study to understand people's job preferences. Each spouse is surveyed separately and asked to choose between a series of pairs of hypothetical jobs. Women are asked to imagine their husband is employed at a garment factory and choose between two jobs for themselves: one at the same factory and another at a different factory in the same industrial park. Job attributes, including wage and whether a female friend or relative also works at the factory, are randomly varied. Men are asked to imagine they are working at one of the garment factories, and similarly asked to choose between jobs for their wives. Respondents are asked to imagine that the two jobs are the same in all other ways, and must indicate which they would prefer. Women must report whether they would accept the offered job, while men are asked to report whether their wife should accept the offered job.

To understand how co-working shapes labor supply responses to local jobs and migration opportunities, respondents complete two sets of choice tasks: one for local jobs in the new industrial park near their village (5 pairs of jobs) and one for jobs in a distant industrial park being built 300 km away (3 pairs of jobs).

Finally, participants select whether they wish to receive hiring updates via text for one of five job types (jobs for both husband and wife at the same factory, jobs for the husband and wife at separate factories, jobs for the husband alone, jobs for the wife alone, or none of the above), providing an incentivized measure of job preferences.


Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
Discrete Choice Experiment with Garment Workers in Tamil Nadu: Randomization done in office by a computer

Incentivized Resume Rating Experiment: Randomization done within Survey CTO

Discrete Choice Experiment with Married Couples in Odisha: Randomization done within Survey CTO
Randomization Unit
Discrete Choice Experiment with Garment Workers in Tamil Nadu: Features of the hypothetical jobs will be randomized at the individual x job level (each respondent is shown 7 pairs of hypothetical jobs). The type of recommendation (joint v.s. single) will be randomized at the household level.

Incentivized Resume Rating Experiment: Features of hypothetical candidates will be randomized at the respondent x hypothetical level (each respondent is shown 10 pairs of hypothetical candidates, 5 male and 5 female)

Discrete Choice Experiment with Married Couples in Odisha: Features of the hypothetical jobs will be randomized at the individual x job level (each respondent is shown 5 pairs of hypothetical jobs in the nearby industrial park and 3 pairs of jobs in an industrial park being built 300 km away for which they would need to migrate).
Was the treatment clustered?
Yes

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
Discrete Choice Experiment with Garment Workers in Tamil Nadu: A minimum of 400 respondents (200 couples), with up to 800 if recruitment permits.

Incentivized Resume Rating Experiment: Up to 100 respondents if recruitment permits.

Discrete Choice Experiment with Married Couples in Odisha: Up to 150 married couples
Sample size: planned number of observations
Discrete Choice Experiment with Garment Workers in Odisha: Assuming a sample size of 400: A minimum of 2800 observations for the within-survey outcome measures (stated preference interest in hypothetical jobs). Up to 800 observations for the post-survey outcome measures (revealed preference interest in job offers at the household level). Additionally, an unincentivized version of the discrete choice experiment was implemented with close to 200 respondents as part of piloting. Willingness to pay for amenities will be estimated based on the main sample as well as a stacked sample that includes the pilot survey data. Incentivized Resume Rating Experiment: Up to 1,000 observations for the within-survey outcome measures (stated preference interest in hypothetical jobseekers). Discrete Choice Experiment with Married Couples in Odisha: Assuming a sample size of 150 couples (150 female and 150 male respondents), I expect a minimum of 2,400 observations for the within-survey outcome measures (stated preference interest in hypothetical jobs). Up to 300 observations for the incentivized outcome measure (interest in receiving text messages about real opportunities in the industrial park)
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
100 couples in the joint recommendation arm, 100 in the solo recommendation arm.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Harvard University-Area Committee on the Use of Human Subjects
IRB Approval Date
2024-06-27
IRB Approval Number
IRB24-0645
Analysis Plan

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information