1U08p2c

to b, gives a more complete picture, in the general case. With some manipulation this eventually
yields:
dT ⋆ w
db
[
U LL − wU ]
CC + U LL
(U LL + U HH H T + H TT U H ) = −[U HH H
U b H T + H Tb U H ]
LL
dT ⋆ w
db = [U HH H b H t + H Tb U H ]
wU CC +
(
UCC w+U LL
U LL
)
(U HH H T + H TT U H )
Assuming diminishing marginal utility for all inputs into the utility function, and a diminishing
marginal product of time at home, renders the denominator unambiguously negative. Turning
to the numerator, the first term is clearly negative due to the diminishing marginal returns on
home production and the positive returns to housing quality from time spent at home. The sign
of the second term hinges on whether or not the marginal utility of time in the home increases
or decreases with an improvement in housing quality. If H Tb = ∂2 H
∂T∂b
≤ 0 the numerator would
be negative, and the response of hours in the labour market would be unambiguously positive.
The sign of the H Tb reflects the extent to which the returns to time spent on activities in
the home increase or decrease as the home technology improves. In an setting where home
production leads to income through the production of goods sold on the market, one might
expect a positive sign for H Tb : b acts as production technology that allows households to increase
output by working at home more.
I would argue that under my definition of home production, H Tb is likely to be negative in
this context. Improved housing is thought to be a labour saving technology, allowing households
to reach a desired level of home quality. For instance, providing a better roof and walls would
reduce the value of work done on maintaining the home, because nothing really needs to be
done to make the structure more secure anymore.
In a sense, the empirical results of the paper provide a test of the sign of H Tb , showing that
poor housing quality necessitates increased time spent at home, which could be spent more
productivity somewhere else.
2.3.1 Alternative channels
I cannot rule rule out other channels that could lead to changes in household labour supply.
Health could be leading to a positive impact on labour supply through the productivity of
household members. There is a large literature looking at the links between health and productivity
(Strauss, 1986; Strauss and Thomas, 1998). The links between housing and health are also
firmly established (Pitt et al., 2006; Cattaneo et al., 2009). This channel is relevant in this setting,
but I am unable to estimate the impact of housing on health using the data available. Given that
the impacts of improved health are likely to accrue more to female members of households who
spend the most time using the stoves and appliances that are most detrimental to health, this
effect might be considered part of the full effect of informal housing on female capabilities.
In addition there could be additional effects of receiving government housing such as changes
in household composition, new rental income, and household location. New household members
might move into the additional space that a larger house and plot affords. These new
arrivals could bring with them sources of income if they are employed, or government grants.
Alternatively they could be alleviating the burden of work in the home, allowing other members
9