Sexual Division of Labour in the Informal Economy: A Case Study of Mathare Valley

Why is it that in so many bustling, vibrant informal markets around the world, you tend to see men running a wide variety of enterprises-mechanics, carpentry, electronics-while women are often clustered into a much smaller range of activities, like selling food or textiles? This isn’t a coincidence. It’s a powerful, often invisible, force at play known as the sexual division of labour. It’s a system of unwritten rules that dictates who does what work, based on gender.

To understand how this works in the real world, we can look to the groundbreaking research of anthropologist Nici Nelson. In her study of Mathare Valley, a sprawling informal settlement in Nairobi, Kenya, she uncovered a stark economic divide. Using participant observation and detailed surveys, she found a staggering disparity in entrepreneurship: for every 153 men running their own businesses, there were only 38 women. This gap wasn’t because the women lacked ambition or drive. It was because they were navigating a world shaped by powerful constraints-both structural and cultural-that limited their choices.

What do we mean by ‘informal economy’ and ‘sexual division of labour’? 🔗

First, let’s clear up some terms. The informal economy, sometimes called the “jua kali” (a Swahili term meaning “hot sun”) in Kenya, refers to all the economic activities, jobs, and businesses that are not regulated or protected by the state. Think of street vendors, home-based bakers, unregistered taxi drivers, and small-scale artisans. In many parts of the world, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, women are disproportionately overrepresented in this sector. It offers a vital, and sometimes the only, source of income.

But women aren’t spread evenly across this economy. That’s where the sexual division of labour comes in. This is the social system that allocates different roles, tasks, and types of work to men and women. As a system rooted in social construction, it often devalues “women’s work” and separates it from “men’s work.” Typically, men’s work is associated with the public sphere (like manufacturing or running a public-facing shop) and is seen as “productive.” Women’s work is often confined to the private sphere (the home) and is associated with “reproductive” tasks like cooking, cleaning, and childcare, which are almost always unpaid.

The challenge arises when women try to earn an income. The “rules” of this division follow them, pushing them into businesses that are seen as extensions of their domestic roles.

A closer look at Mathare Valley: Nici Nelson’s research 🔗

Nici Nelson’s research in the 1970s provided a powerful case study of this in action. Mathare Valley was, and is, one of Africa’s largest and oldest informal settlements. Nelson didn’t just study it from a distance; she lived there, using participant observation to gain deep, firsthand insight into the lives of the women she was studying.

Her work focused on a specific group: female-headed households. These were women who had migrated from rural areas, often because they were widowed, divorced, or had children outside of marriage. In their rural villages, they had no land rights and few ways to support themselves. They came to Nairobi seeking economic independence. But what they found was a new set of barriers.

This is where the 38 women vs. 153 men statistic becomes so telling. The men in Mathare ran a diverse range of informal businesses: tailoring, furniture making, shopkeeping, taxi driving. The women, Nelson found, were overwhelmingly concentrated in one single, precarious trade: brewing and selling an illegal maize beer called buzaa.

The ‘logical choice’: Brewing buzaa 🔗

Why this one trade? Nelson argued it was, for them, a “logical choice”-the *only* choice that solved the central conflict imposed on them by the sexual division of labour: the need to earn money while simultaneously performing their non-negotiable domestic duties.

A woman could not leave her home to work in a factory or run a shop if she had small children to care for and no money for childcare. Brewing buzaa was a home-based enterprise. As Nelson vividly described, a woman could “combine their domestic, child raising duties with their economic activities.” She could stir the pot of beer, wash clothes, cook for her children, and serve customers all from within her single-room dwelling. Her home *became* her place of business.

[Image: A woman stirring a large pot in a home-based brewery in an informal settlement]

This “choice” was, in reality, a solution to a problem men did not have. A man’s role as a carpenter or tailor was never questioned, and he was not expected to stop his work to care for his children. This fundamental difference was the direct result of structural and cultural constraints.

The invisible walls: Structural constraints on women 🔗

Structural constraints are the systemic barriers baked into the economy, laws, and educational systems. They are like invisible walls that block access to opportunity. Nici Nelson’s research, and decades of subsequent studies, highlight several key walls for women.

1. Lower education and fewer skills 🔗

This was a primary barrier identified in the prompt. Girls were, and often still are, given less access to education than boys. Even when they do attend school, they are often guided away from “commercially valuable” technical skills like carpentry, mechanics, or accounting. They are pushed toward domestic science or secretarial skills, which have less earning potential in an informal entrepreneurial context. Men arrived in Mathare with a wider range of technical skills, immediately opening up more business options.

2. Lack of access to capital and finance 🔗

Starting any business, even an informal one, requires startup capital. This is arguably one of the biggest structural barriers. Women are far less likely to have access to formal bank loans, often because they lack the collateral required. Studies on women in Kenya’s manufacturing sector, for example, point to limited financial access as a primary hindrance. Banks require collateral, most commonly a land title. But due to patriarchal inheritance laws, women rarely own land. They may also face discriminatory practices, like being asked for a husband’s signature to open a business account.

3. Limited control over productive assets 🔗

This ties directly to capital. Men are more likely to own or control “productive assets”-things like a workshop, a vehicle, tools, or land. Even when a household owns assets, research shows that men often have dominant control over them, limiting a woman’s ability to use them for her own business. The buzaa brewers of Mathare had only one productive asset they fully controlled: their own home and their own labour.

The invisible rules: Cultural constraints and the ‘dual burden’ 🔗

If structural constraints are the walls, cultural constraints are the invisible rules that tell women not to climb them. These are the social expectations and norms that define “feminine” and “masculine” roles.

1. Occupational segregation 🔗

This is the idea that some jobs are “women’s work” and some are “men’s work.” Brewing beer, cooking food, and selling vegetables are seen as “feminine” because they are extensions of domestic tasks. A woman trying to become a mechanic or a taxi driver would face social ridicule, resistance from male suppliers, and potential harassment. This cultural pressure funnels women into a few “acceptable” sectors, dramatically increasing competition and lowering profits for everyone in them.

2. The ‘dual burden’ and time poverty 🔗

This is the most significant cultural constraint and the one Nelson’s work illustrated so perfectly. Women are expected to bear the “dual burden”: they must be both income-earners *and* sole providers of unpaid domestic labour. Men are generally only expected to be income-earners.

This robs women of their most valuable resource: time. A woman running a small food stall must first wake up early to fetch water, cook for her family, and get her children ready. She then runs her business, often with her children beside her. In the evening, she closes her stall only to go home and cook, clean, and care for the family again. This leaves her with no time for “business development”-no time to source cheaper supplies, find new customers, or learn new skills. She is trapped in a cycle of survival, not growth.

Why this still matters today 🔗

Nici Nelson’s research in Mathare Valley was conducted decades ago, but the patterns she identified are remarkably persistent. The sexual division of labour continues to shape economies across the globe. Women are still over-represented in the lowest-paying, most precarious segments of the informal economy. And the “dual burden” of unpaid care work remains one of the single greatest obstacles to women’s economic empowerment.

The story of Mathare’s buzaa brewers is not just a historical case study. It’s a powerful lesson in how an economy “forgets” to value half its population. It shows us that to create real economic equality, we must do more than just offer “opportunities.” We must actively dismantle the invisible walls and unwritten rules that prevent women from choosing their own path.

What do you think? In your own community, do you see certain types of small businesses or informal work that are run almost exclusively by men or by women? What do you think is the single biggest “invisible” barrier (either cultural or structural) that holds back women entrepreneurs today?

References

1. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/books/9781513575919/ch008.xml
2. https://socio.health/women-in-economy/sexual-division-labour-impact-womens-work/
3. https://journals.ku.ac.ke/index.php/KUWEE/article/view/397/191
4. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/395192812_Constraints_to_Women_Economic_Empowerment_in_the_Manufacturing_Sector_in_Kenya