Is it money or brains? The determinants of intra-family decision power

We empirically study the determinants of intra-household decision power with respect to economic and financial choices using a direct measure provided in the 1989-2010 Bank of Italy Survey of Household Income and Wealth. Focusing on a sample of couples, we evaluate the effect of each spouse's characteristics, household characteristics, and background variables. We find that the probability that the wife is in charge is affected by household characteristics such as family size and total income and wealth, but more importantly that it increases with the difference between hers and her husband's characteristics in terms of age, education, and income. The main conclusion is that decision-making power over family economics is not only determined by strictly economic differences, as suggested by previous studies, but also by differences in human capital and experience. Finally, exploiting the time dimension of our dataset, we show that this pattern is increasing over time

Who holds the purse strings within the household? The determinants of intra-family decision making

We study the determinants of intra-household decision-making responsibility over economic and financial choices using a direct measure provided in the 1989–2010 Bank of Italy Survey of Household Income and Wealth. We find that the probability that the wife is responsible for decisions increases as the wife’s characteristics in terms of age, education and income become closer or even higher than those of her husband’s. Thus, consistently with a bargaining approach, decision-making responsibility is associated with marriage heterogamy, and not only along strictly economic dimensions. However, in support of an alternative household production approach, we also find that the probability that the wife is responsible is lower when she is employed, which suggests the presence of a specialization pattern assigning responsibility to the spouse with more available time. Our results are robust to additional controls and alternative samples

Bibliometric Evaluation vs. Informed Peer Review:Evidence from Italy

A relevant question for the organization of large scale research assessments is whether bibliometric evaluation and informed peer review where reviewers know where the work was published, yield similar results. It would suggest, for instance, that less costly bibliometric evaluation might - at least partly - replace informed peer review, or that bibliometric evaluation could reliably monitor research in between assessment exercises. We draw on our experience of evaluating Italian research in Economics, Business and Statistics, where almost 12,000 publications dated 2004-2010 were assessed. A random sample from the available population of journal articles shows that informed peer review and bibliometric analysis produce similar evaluations of the same set of papers. Whether because of independent convergence in assessment, or the influence of bibliometric information on the community of reviewers, the implication for the organization of these exercises is that these two approaches are substitutes

Bibliometric Evaluation vs. Informed Peer Review: Evidence from Italy

A relevant question for the organization of large scale research assessments is whether bibliometric evaluation and informed peer review where reviewers know where the work was published, yield similar results. It would suggest, for instance, that less costly bibliometric evaluation might - at least partly - replace informed peer review, or that bibliometric evaluation could reliably monitor research in between assessment exercises. We draw on our experience of evaluating Italian research in Economics, Business and Statistics, where almost 12,000 publications dated 2004-2010 were assessed. A random sample from the available population of journal articles shows that informed peer review and bibliometric analysis produce similar evaluations of the same set of papers. Whether because of independent convergence in assessment, or the influence of bibliometric information on the community of reviewers, the implication for the organization of these exercises is that these two approaches are substitutes