I know there are some technical differences (the dowry wouldn't be paid to the groom per se, but rather given to the entire household). But I think that, largely, the point stands. A dowry would add funds from the bride's family to the household, while a bride price would do the opposite, since the groom's money (which would otherwise go to the household) would have to go to the bride's family instead.

Both customs were common in similar (if not exactly the same) periods and regions, such as large parts of Asia and the Middle East, including cultures which are considered to have relatively similar social customs, family and household structures, religions, economies, etc. Both a dowry and a bride price could be a very significant amount of money, often being the make-or-break in determining whether a marriage would happen or not.)

I understand the value of a dowry in providing a "starting capital" for the family, as well as financial security to the bride in case of abandonment or becoming a widow. Conversely, I also understand the value of a bride price in patriarchal cultures where a daughter would be considered a family "asset" by her parents, in lieu of the work a son could provide instead, to be "cashed in" in marriage. Both financial flows make some sense, but since they're diametrically opposite, I'd imagine that, in similar cultural circumstances, the socioeconomic benefit of one flow would prevail over the other, and become a universally accepted social norm, rather than both coexisting at the same time.

So it's perplexing how this significant amount of money flowed one way in certain situations, and the other way in others.