Journal of Social and Economic Development

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 174–191 | Cite as

Factors influencing knowledge of HIV/AIDS in Nepal: role of socioeconomic interactions

  • Sharmistha Self
  • Richard GrabowskiEmail author
Research Paper


This paper focuses on analyzing those factors which influence the extent of knowledge about HIV/AIDS in Nepal. The main hypothesis is that the social network that is the foundation for market exchange can also serve as a mechanism for diffusing knowledge concerning this disease. Thus, there is a social spillover effect from market activity. Data drawn from a broad sample of Nepalese households are used to test this proposition, and the results support the hypothesis.


Nepal HIV/AIDS Social networks Markets Spillover 


  1. Abay KA, Kahsay GA, Berhane G (2014) Social networks and factor markets: panel data evidence from Ethiopia. Ethiopia Strategy Support Program, ESSP Working Paper 68, pp 1–26Google Scholar
  2. Adhikari K, Gupta N, Koshy AK, Jain VM, Ghimire A, Jnawali K, Paneru DP (2015) Knowledge and attitude towards HIV/AIDS amongst nursing students in Nepal. SAARC J Tuberc Lung Dis HIV/AIDS 12(1):8–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aggarwal RM, Rous JJ (2006) Awareness and quality of knowledge regarding HIV/AIDS among women in India. J Dev Stud 42(3):371–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Atteraya M, Kimm J, Song IH (2015) Caste-and ethnicity-based inequalities in HIV/AIDS related knowledge gap: a case of Nepal. Health Soc Work 40(2):100–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chuang Y, Schechtor L (2015) Social networks in developing countries. Ann Rev Resource Econ 7:451–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Faust L, Yaya S, Ekholuenetale M (2017) Wealth inequality as a predictor of HIV-related knowledge in Nigeria. BMJ Glob Health 2:e000461. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Godlonton S, Thorton R (2012) Peer effects in learning HIV results. J Dev Econ 97:118–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kohler HP, Behrman JR, Watkins SC (2007) Social networks and HIV/AIDS risk perceptions. Demography 44(1):1–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kremer M, Miguel E (2007) The illusion of sustainability. Q J Econ 122:1007–1065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Maddala GS (1983) Limited-dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Millimet D (2000) What is the difference between ‘endogeneity’ and ‘sample selection bias’?. Accessed 10 Oct 2018
  12. Ngatia M (2011) Social interactions and individual reproductive decisions (unpublished manuscript) Google Scholar
  13. Oster E, Thorton R (2012) Determinants of peer effects in menstrual cup take-up. J Eur Econ Assoc 10:1263–1293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rao N, Svenkerud PJ (1998) Effective HIV/AIDS prevention communication strategies to reach culturally unique populations: lessons learned in San Francisco, U.S.A. and Bangkok, Thailand, Thailand. Int J Intercultural Relat 2(1):85–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rogers EM (1995) Diffusion of innovation, 4th edn. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Rogers EM (2003) Diffusion of innovation, 5th edn. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Ross D, Dick B, Fergueson J (2006) Preventing HIV/Aids in young people: a systematic review of the evidence from developing countries. WHO technical report series, World Health Organization, Geneve, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  18. UNAIDS (2017) UNAIDS data 2017. UNAIDS, WHO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  19. Yaya S, Bishwajit G, Danhoundo G, Seydou I (2016) Extent of knowledge about HIV and its determinants among men in Bangladesh. Front Public Health 4:246. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute for Social and Economic Change 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of Northern IowaCedar FallsUSA
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsSouthern Illinois UniversityCarbondaleUSA

Personalised recommendations