This paper examines the complexities of intrahousehold gender relations and how they are influenced by bargaining dynamics, as well as how these dynamics extend beyond the household to the market, community, and state. It challenges the traditional "unitary" model of the household, which assumes that all household members act in the same way and share common preferences. Instead, it proposes alternative models that incorporate the bargaining approach, which allows for individual differences in preferences, budget constraints, and resource control. These models highlight the role of social norms, perceptions, and gender differences in shaping bargaining outcomes. The paper argues that gender asymmetries in intrahousehold bargaining are not just a matter of individual preferences but are also influenced by broader social structures, including class, caste, and race. It emphasizes the importance of understanding the factors that determine bargaining power, such as access to resources, social support systems, and legal rights. It also discusses how these factors can be affected by extrahousehold institutions, such as the market, community, and state. The paper highlights the role of social norms in shaping gender relations, both within and beyond the household. It argues that norms can limit what can be bargained over, influence the process of bargaining, and even be subject to negotiation and change. It also discusses how perceptions of contributions, needs, and abilities can affect bargaining outcomes, and how these perceptions can be influenced by gender biases. The paper concludes that a more comprehensive understanding of intrahousehold dynamics requires moving beyond the restrictions of formal models and incorporating qualitative aspects and greater complexity. It emphasizes the importance of considering the interactions between the household, the market, the community, and the state in understanding gender relations and their implications for policy. The paper also highlights the need for policies that take into account the gender of the recipient and the potential differences in welfare, efficiency, and equity implications. It calls for interventions that go beyond price changes, such as legal and institutional changes, to address gender inequalities in intrahousehold bargaining.This paper examines the complexities of intrahousehold gender relations and how they are influenced by bargaining dynamics, as well as how these dynamics extend beyond the household to the market, community, and state. It challenges the traditional "unitary" model of the household, which assumes that all household members act in the same way and share common preferences. Instead, it proposes alternative models that incorporate the bargaining approach, which allows for individual differences in preferences, budget constraints, and resource control. These models highlight the role of social norms, perceptions, and gender differences in shaping bargaining outcomes. The paper argues that gender asymmetries in intrahousehold bargaining are not just a matter of individual preferences but are also influenced by broader social structures, including class, caste, and race. It emphasizes the importance of understanding the factors that determine bargaining power, such as access to resources, social support systems, and legal rights. It also discusses how these factors can be affected by extrahousehold institutions, such as the market, community, and state. The paper highlights the role of social norms in shaping gender relations, both within and beyond the household. It argues that norms can limit what can be bargained over, influence the process of bargaining, and even be subject to negotiation and change. It also discusses how perceptions of contributions, needs, and abilities can affect bargaining outcomes, and how these perceptions can be influenced by gender biases. The paper concludes that a more comprehensive understanding of intrahousehold dynamics requires moving beyond the restrictions of formal models and incorporating qualitative aspects and greater complexity. It emphasizes the importance of considering the interactions between the household, the market, the community, and the state in understanding gender relations and their implications for policy. The paper also highlights the need for policies that take into account the gender of the recipient and the potential differences in welfare, efficiency, and equity implications. It calls for interventions that go beyond price changes, such as legal and institutional changes, to address gender inequalities in intrahousehold bargaining.