# Number of controls imposed on wives

The previous section showed that the number of controls imposed upon wives (no controls, one, two, three or more) was a major explanation in the predicted probabilities of their facing emotional and physical abuse: 73% of the between-group contribution to inequality in the distribution of emotional abuse, and 61% of the between-group contribution to inequality in the distribution of physical abuse could be so explained. As Table 4.2 showed, in the aggregate, 50.5% of wives did not face any controls, 19.3% faced a single control, 13.2% faced two controls, and 17% faced three or more controls.

This section turns to an analysis of the number of controls faced by individual wives. The variable representing the number of controls (C) is a “count variable” since it takes a finite number of values. The five controls identified in NFHS-4 were husband is jealous if wife speaks to other men, wife is not permitted to meet female friends, wife’s contact with family is limited, husband insists on knowing wife’s whereabouts, and wife is not trusted with money. The variable C, therefore, took values between five (maximum number of controls) to zero (no controls).

Consequently, the equation with C as the dependent variable needed to be estimated by techniques appropriate to counting variables, and the technique used in this chapter is that of negative binomial regression. In this regression, the count variable is generated by a Poisson process except that the variation is greater than a true Poisson.12 The results from estimating the negative binomial distribution with C, the number of controls, as the dependent variable are shown in Table 4.7 in terms of the PPs of the various outcomes. The determining variables used in estimating the equation were the same as those identified in Table 4.5. The average number of controls faced by the 15,881 wives in the estimation sample for controls was 1.25. Of these wives, 6.969 (or 44%) did not face any controls, and putting them to one side, the average number of controls faced by wives who faced at least one control was 2.24.

As Table 4.7 shows, Muslim and SC wives faced the largest number of controls (respectively, 1.55 and 1.4), and this was significantly larger

Table 4.7 Predicted number of controls imposed on wives

 Social Group Number of Controls Marginal Number of Controls Standard Error z -Value Scheduled Tribe 1.30 0.02 0.05 0.3 Scheduled Caste 1.40 0.12** 0.04 2.9 Non-Muslim Other Backwards Caste 1.29 0.02 0.04 0.4 Muslims 1.55 0.27** 0.07 3.9 Non-Muslim Upper Class [R] 1.28 Household Wealth Quintile Poorest 1.35 0.10** 0.06 1.9 Poor 1.37 0.13** 0.05 2.5 Middle 1.35 0.10** 0.05 2.1 Rich 1.31 0.07 0.04 1.5 Richest |R] 1.24 Wife’s Age Band 15-19 1.55 20-24 1.37 -0.18* 0.10 -1.8 25-29 1.38 -0.17* 0.10 -1.7 30-34 1.36 -0.19** 0.10 -1.9 35^10 1.33 -0.23** 0.10 -2.3 40-44 1.21 -0.34** 0.10 -3.3 45^19 1.30 -0.25** 0.10 -2.5 Wife’s Education Level No Education 1.34 Primary 1.39 0.05 0.04 1.4 Secondary 1.34 0.00 0.03 -0.1 Higher 1.16 -0.18** 0.06 -3.1 Wife’s Occupation Not Working 1.33 Professional, Managerial, Technical 1.58 0.25** 0.11 2.2 Sales and Clerical 1.40 0.06 0.09 0.7 Agricultural 1.30 -0.03 0.03 -1.0 Domestic Service 1.57 0.23** 0.07 3.5 Manual - Skilled and Unskilled 1.26 -0.07* 0.04 -1.7 Number of Children Under 5 Years None [R] 1.35 One or more 1.32 -0.04 0.03 -1.3 Location Urban [R] 1.32 Rural 1.34 0.03 0.03 0.9

104 Domestic violence

Table 4.7 (Continued)

 Social Group Number of Controls Marginal Number of Controls Standard Error z - Value Husband and Alcohol Never Drunk [R| 1.03 Sometimes Drunk 1.23 0.20** 0.04 4.8 Often Drunk 1.83 0.80** 0.05 14.9 Wife’s Attitude to Wife-Beating Sometimes Justified 1.12 Never Justified 1.51 0.03 15.35 0.0 State Andaman and Nicobar Islands 0.39 -1.49** 0.26 -5.7 Andhra Pradesh 1.03 -0.85** 0.06 -13.8 Arunachal Pradesh 0.63 -1.25** 0.22 -5.7 Assam 0.59 -1.29** 0.07 -19.9 Bihar 2.38 0.50** 0.08 6.3 Chandigarh 0.59 -1.30** 0.24 -5.3 Chhattisgarh 1.39 -0.49** 0.08 -6.3 Dadra and Nagar Haveli 1.18 -0.70 0.44 -1.6 Daman and Diu 1.37 -0.51 0.85 -0.6 Goa 0.68 -1.20** 0.16 -7.7 Gujarat 1.66 -0.22** 0.11 -1.9 Haryana 1.72 -0.16 0.11 -1.4 Himachal Pradesh 0.89 -0.99** 0.11 -9.3 Jammu and Kashmir 0.79 -1.09** 0.13 -8.1 Jharkhand 1.72 -0.16* 0.09 -1.8 Karnataka 0.77 -1.11** 0.07 -17.0 Kerala 0.36 -1.52** 0.06 -27.4 Lakshadweep 0.00 -1.88** 0.05 -39.1 Madhya Pradesh 1.63 -0.25** 0.07 -3.4 Maharashtra 1.00 -0.89** 0.07 -13.6 Manipur 0.57 -1.31** 0.15 -8.7 Meghalaya 0.78 -1.10** 0.17 -6.5 Mizoram 1.33 -0.55 0.39 -1.4 Nagaland 0.56 -1.32** 0.21 -6.2 Delhi 1.47 -0.41** 0.14 -3.0 Odisha 1.49 -0.40** 0.08 -5.0 Puducherry 0.73 -1.16** 0.18 -6.5 Punjab 1.11 -0.77** 0.09 -8.9 Rajasthan 1.55 -0.33** 0.08 -3.9
 Social Group Number of Controls Marginal Number of Controls Standard Error z -Value Sikkim 0.16 -1.72** 0.15 -11.2 Tamil Nadu 1.12 -0.76** 0.06 -13.2 Tripura 0.88 -1.01** 0.12 -8.2 Uttar Pradesh |R] 1.88 Uttarakhand 1.02 -0.87** 0.12 -7.1 West Bengal 1.15 -0.73** 0.06 -11.4 Telangana 1.24 -0.64** 0.07 -9.8

Source: Own calculations from the National Family Health Survey-4.

Note: Negative Binomial Regression based on 15,881 observations. Controls are (1) husband is jealous if wife speaks to other men, (2) wife is not permitted to meet female friends, (3) wife’s contact with family is limited, (4) husband insists on knowing wife’s whereabouts, and (5) wife is not trusted with money. Maximum number of controls is five; minimum is zero

** Marginal probability significant at 5% level; * Marginal probability significant at 10% level.

than the number of controls faced by NMOBC wives (1.28). The results of Table 4.5 are mirrored in Table 4.7: the number of controls imposed on wives fell with household wealth and wives’ age, was lowest for women with higher education, and increased with the propensity of husbands to drink.

 Related topics