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

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.

2024-12-21

2025-05-31

Discrete Choice Experiment:
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.

Beliefs about the likelihood of being hired together in the solo recommendation arm

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 be identified using the same listing exercise described above. 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.

Not available

Discrete Choice Experiment: Randomization done in office by a computer

Incentivized Resume Rating Experiment: Randomization done within Survey CTO

Discrete Choice Experiment: 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)

Yes

Discrete Choice Experiment: A minimum of 400 respondents (200 couples), with up to 600 if recruitment permits.

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

Discrete Choice Experiment: 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).

100 couples in the joint recommendation arm, 100 in the solo recommendation arm.