Putting care
at the center

"We must stop thinking of the economy as a god to please. The economy must become an instrument to realise the society we want". Speaking these words is Jayati Ghosh, one of the world's most renowned feminist economists.

Lecturer in Economics first at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, and since 2021 at the University of Massachusetts, Ghosh was among the most prominent participants at the latest annual conference of the International Association for Feminist Economics (Iaffe), which took place at Sapienza University of Rome from 3 to 5 July 2024. inGenere participated in the conference as media partner.

During the conference, Ghosh chaired a speech on the resolution of the sovereign debt crisis, where she emphasised the need to activate public policies that can reduce inequality and increase social security. 

Ghosh has always had the future of society very much at heart. Her research work focuses mostly on the issues of inequality and public policy, analysing from a feminist perspective the effects of neoliberal policies and globalisation in developing countries, and how these influence poverty rates, gender discrimination and sustainable environmental progress.

On the occasion of the Iaffe conference, we asked Professor Ghosh a few questions.

Professor Ghosh, how can we improve the economy and society from a gender perspective?

The economy must follow the needs of women and not vice versa, because society itself is based on the care work performed by women. If women were supported and helped by institutions and policies, a huge structural change could be achieved.

How has the pandemic affected women's lives economically?

The pandemic has indiscriminately affected both men and women in the labour market, mobility, access to goods and services, and so on. However, women have suffered the most, and at multiple levels. First, women are those running the so-called 'care economy'. Real care workers such as nurses, together with frontline workers who provide direct services to the public (last mile services) are the workers who have borne the brunt of the pandemic in terms of physical insecurity, work overload, mental and emotional strain. Secondly, Covid reduced mobility, with a peculiar effect: in fact, the division of labour within families did not change. At the same time, the social model that burdens women with caregiving has been reinforced. Throughout the developing world, the mobility of women has been more limited than that of men, and for a longer time. With the exception of female frontline workers, who had to risk everything to go to work.

Are there other aspects to consider, whereby women have been more economically penalised by the crisis generated by the pandemic?

Another economic level at which the pandemic has affected women is livelihoods. In several countries, many families have seen a decrease in income due to the loss of jobs. Especially in the informal economy, where there is no adequate social protection and where women in particular are dominantly employed, they have had to bear the brunt of these economic hardships, all the more so when total incomes were not sufficient to support the household. Then, there is the increase in unpaid care work. With the schools closed and sick people at home, often elderly, the burden of unpaid care work increased significantly for women. This further limited their time and opportunities to participate in paid work or pursue other activities outside the home. Finally, women have remained excluded from social benefits. Social protection measures taken during the pandemic often did not reach women, especially those working in the informal sector. Lack of access to benefits and social safety nets has exacerbated their economic and social vulnerability.

Regarding unpaid care work, what concrete actions do you think should also be taken at policy level?

Feminist economists have long said that in order to cope with unpaid and paid care work, we need the so-called “five Rs”. First, recognise that it exists. Most economists and policy makers do not. So, legitimising the economics of care is an essential step to take, and we need time-use surveys that show it. Second, reduce it as much as possible. In my country, many women still spend many hours a day fetching water and firewood. This is a completely avoidable part of unpaid work. One should therefore reduce all that work so that running water and fuel arrive directly into people's homes through appropriate infrastructure, in order to reduce the time and effort required to perform this type of task. Third, redistribute. There is a lot of care work, and the problem is that it is unequally divided. It should therefore be redistributed between state and public provision, between private and public sectors, so that it does not all fall on women's shoulders. Fourth, reward. Care work, both unpaid and paid, should be properly rewarded. People who perform paid care work, such as nurses and social workers, should receive fair wages with decent working conditions, and women who are forced to take on all the care of their families should be recognised and provided with social security. Fifth, representation. It must be ensured that women in both paid and unpaid care work have adequate representation in public policy and the economy. The voices of carers must be heard and taken into account so that there is an improvement in working conditions.

What are the main problems women face in the informal economy?

First of all, the very fact of being in the informal economy for women means that they are not truly protected from a legal and social point of view, and that they are at the mercy of market forces. This is particularly disadvantageous for self-employed women, who own their own time, run micro-enterprises, and who, in practice, become their own exploiters: they work long hours, do not comply with safety regulations, bear the stress and risks of production and all the uncertainties involved. Moreover, women experience a worse situation than men because, first of all, they do not have access to bank credit in the same way, nor to marketing inputs or facilities. There are often restrictions on their mobility, on where and how they can work: where they can sit, what the infrastructure is like to enable them to operate. In many cases, women are unable to travel long distances to work because of the unpaid care work they have to undergo, consisting of domestic responsibilities, childcare and other tasks. In fact, it is almost unbelievable that women micro-enterprises exist at all. Women with informal subordinate jobs are the most precarious: they are the first to be dismissed in any staff reduction and the last to receive any kind of social protection. And once these inequalities are intertwined with others related to ethnicity, caste, language, geographical location, the result is indeed a very toxic combination.

How could the perception of the economy change from a more egalitarian and fair perspective?

We are always told that the economy is more important than people, human rights or the planet. What we need is to establish an economy that works for society and for people, in harmony with nature and the planet. This would immediately change the way we conduct economic policy. We would move towards providing basic needs through care work, applying the principle of the five Rs. Furthermore, it is crucial that the capabilities of all people can be improved through more equal and inclusive access to education and employment, as well as to health and healthcare. We should begin to think of the economy as a tool to achieve the society we want, and not as a god to be pleased.