Traditions Never Really Change
Women have traditionally been seen, and are still seen today by many, as naturally suited for caregiving and have in almost all societies been the primary caregiver of children, elderly and sick (Folbre, 2001). Globally, women still do most of the unpaid care work, in the most unequal countries nearly eighty percent and in the most equal countries still nearly two-thirds of the unpaid household activities.
The need for unpaid caring labour has been amplified as a consequence of the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic due to the closure of schools and day-care homes as well as more people being sick and requiring care. With the traditional division of labour where women are doing a majority of the household chores, it is not surprising that most of the additional unpaid homework has been absorbed by women (UNDP, 2020). That the coronavirus pandemic exacerbates the need for unpaid care activities is clearly demonstrated by the fact that around 1.5 billion children globally have been affected by school closures (Unesco, 2020), in turn translating into hundreds of millions of households having to care for their school children at home.
The pandemic has, as is well documented, not only affected women disproportionately in the homes but also in the workplace. A vast majority of care and health workers globally are women, standing at the forefront of the health crisis. These occupations have, during the crisis, gained new status not previously held, which are now being appreciated by politicians in political campaigns and by people applauding from their balconies. The increased appreciation for care work in the market place has potential to also increase its status in the homes. Would the increased attention and appreciation for care work translate into financial reimbursements or other forms of state support to compensate for the increased unpaid care work? By looking at the global fiscal policy response to the coronavirus crisis the answer is clearly no.
The Fiscal Policy Response
The global fiscal policy response to the crisis lacks comparison in modern times and governments have together spent over 10 trillion USD to cushion the shock (IMF, 2020). The expansionary fiscal policies deployed by governments all over the world, aiming to buffer the short-term negative impact of the shock, varies in size and composition among countries. The types of policy measures are however broadly the same, a combination of budgetary and non-budgetary measures targeting individuals as well as firms. The budgetary measures have a direct negative impact on government fiscal balances and include measures such as increased spending on health care, unemployment benefits to individuals and tax deferrals. In total, budgetary measures have reached 8.3 percent of GDP in advanced economies and 2 percent of GDP in emerging markets (Aberola et. al., 2020). Nonetheless, there is not a doubt that the expansionary fiscal policies have been of an extraordinary magnitude all over the world. When applying a gender lens to the global policy measures however, the response is less impressive.
10 trillion USD and This is What Applauds Translate Into
UN Women together with UNDP have introduced a policy tracker aiming to analyse government policies targeting the current crisis from a gender sensitive point of view. The tracker analyses over 2500 policy measures across 206 countries and territories specifically focused on three areas having an impact on gender equality: measures that tackle violence against women and girls (VAWG), support unpaid care, and strengthen women’s economic security. The results show that policies relating to social protection, the care crisis and employment responses have in large ignored the needs of women with only 10 percent of all measures targeting women’s economic security explicitly.
Only 60 countries across the globe, less than one third, have put in place any kind of social protection measure to curb the negative impact on individuals due to increased demand for unpaid care work. This sums up to a total of 111 out of the 2500 policies analysed. Out of these policies, multiple are linked to sick leave benefits and do not address the increased unpaid care burden stemming from closure of schools and day-cares, which arguably is a bigger burden, since the closure of schools for most families endure longer than the sickness of a family member. A large part of the few policies aimed at unpaid care are further linked to employment benefits for individuals with regular employment, leaving more vulnerable groups such as the informally employed or part-time and hourly contract employed without any compensation or public service.
The weak policy response in targeting unpaid care work, which puts a heavy burden on women, already being disproportionately affected by the crisis workwise due to being overrepresented in care and low-income health professions, clearly shows that most countries lack a gender-responsive budgeting approach, both in advanced countries and emerging markets. The question coming to mind, if health and care work are being celebrated and recognised as essential in society, why does it not translate into the realization that these issues require budgetary allocations at national and local level?
Free labour is cheap
One explanation could be found in what feminist economist long have claimed - that work performed by women is undervalued and the skills of caring are compensated by ‘love’ and ‘virtue’ as opposed to typically male labour being compensated financially (Fraser, 2017). Diane Perrons wrote in her article Gendering the inequality debate in 2015:
“The public sector cutbacks have particularly negative implications for women who, in
many countries, are not only more likely than men to work in the public sector, but also
more likely to be the users of government services and the ones who have to fill the
gap when the services are withdrawn.”
Perrons’ statement highlights that to substitute state provided services with unpaid work performed by women is a pattern rather than specific for the current crisis. Furthermore, given that states all around the world are experiencing deterioration of the fiscal accounts due to swift budgetary measures, the fiscal space in many countries is limited. The incentive for states to address issues that technically and traditionally has been done in the household by women, without a direct cost for the state, is therefore likely to be little. The undervaluation of women’s work resulting in the lack of financial compensation evident by the analysis of the number of policies directed to unpaid care work comes as a savior for states challenged by deteriorated fiscal balances. In one sense, not paying women for the societal services they provide by taking care of school children is a cheap and well-tested solution.
This is nonetheless likely to have long-term negative effects for women’s work force participation and following that, overall gender equality. The fact that such a limited amount of fiscal policies, out of the 10 trillion USD mobilized globally, is targeting the unpaid care work, calls for a need to design stimulatory spending with a gender-sensitive budgeting approach and governments to be courageous enough to include the private sphere in that analysis, to recognise the crucial role of care work and re-evaluate the work of women.
Saga Sohlman is a Policy Advisor (ODI Fellow) at the Ministry of Finance in eSwatini You can reach her on on sagasohlman@gmail.com or on Twitter.
Comments