The Feminisation of Poverty and Employment in the Global Economy

It’s a strange paradox, isn’t it? In the last few decades, millions of women have entered the global workforce, finding new economic independence. Yet, when we talk about global poverty, the face we most often picture is female. This isn’t just a feeling; it’s a structural reality. More women may be “working” than ever before, but this hasn’t automatically translated into economic security. In many cases, the very nature of the global economy has created new, modern traps that link gender and poverty together more tightly than ever.

This widespread phenomenon has a name: the feminisation of poverty. It’s a critical concept for understanding how our modern economy *really* works, who it benefits, and who it leaves behind. It reveals that poverty isn’t just a matter of income; it’s deeply intertwined with gender, the types of work available, and the assumptions we make about whose work “counts.”

What exactly is the ‘feminisation of poverty’? 🔗

At its simplest, the “feminisation of poverty” (FoP) describes the trend of women being disproportionately represented among the world’s poor. It’s not just that women *can* be poor, but that they are *more likely* to be poor than men, and their experience of poverty is often more severe and harder to escape.

This isn’t a new idea. The term gained prominence in the 1980s and 1990s as researchers began to notice a clear pattern. A widely cited statistic from the UN highlighted that women and girls represented a staggering percentage of the world’s poorest people. While precise numbers evolve, the trend persists. UN Women projections warn that, at the current rate of progress, over 340 million women and girls will still live in extreme poverty by 2030. This gap is driven by a host of factors, including unequal access to education, healthcare, and property, as well as systemic discrimination.

But the modern concept of FoP goes deeper. It’s not just about a *lack* of income; it’s about the *source* of income. As global markets have expanded, they have actively drawn women into production, but often on the most unequal terms. Think of the expansion of manufacturing, textiles, and electronics assembly in developing nations. This created millions of jobs, but these jobs were frequently low-wage, insecure, and lacked the social protections (like pensions or health insurance) that build long-term security. In essence, the global economy created a high demand for cheap, flexible labour, a role that women were often pushed into.

This creates a vicious cycle. Women are poor, so they take whatever work they can get. That work is precarious and low-paid, which keeps them poor. This is the central connection: the feminisation of poverty is a direct consequence of the feminisation of the workforce, specifically the *precarious* workforce.

The great paradox: More work, more precarity 🔗

The United Nations identified two major, seemingly contradictory trends that define women’s relationship with the global economy. Understanding these two trends is the key to understanding modern economic inequality.

Trend 1: More women are working 🔗

This is the “good news” part of the story. Globally, female labour force participation has seen significant shifts. Globalisation, combined with social change, has opened doors that were once firmly closed. Women have poured into the formal and informal employment markets, seeking financial independence and contributing to their family and national economies. This shift has been celebrated as a sign of progress and empowerment. But it’s only half the picture.

Trend 2: That work is increasingly ‘flexible’ and ‘precarious’ 🔗

This is the crucial counter-narrative. The *quality* of the jobs women are entering is often fundamentally different from the jobs men hold. The International Labour Organization (ILO) has extensively documented the rise of what it calls non-standard forms of employment. This is a polite term for work that is insecure, unstable, and lacks the protections of a traditional job.

This includes:

• Temporary or short-term contracts: Work that lasts for a few months or even just a few weeks, with no guarantee of renewal.
• Part-time work (often involuntary): Women may want full-time hours but can only find part-time positions, limiting their earnings and benefits.
• Zero-hour contracts: A particularly precarious form where the employer does not guarantee any hours, but the worker must be available.
• Informal “gig” work: Such as domestic work, street vending, or home-based piece-rate work (like sewing garments) with no formal contract or legal protection.

This is what “flexibility” often means in the global economy-not flexibility for the worker, but flexibility for the *employer*. It allows companies to quickly scale their workforce up or down to meet demand, shielding them from risk. That risk is transferred directly to the worker, who is often a woman. She becomes the “shock absorber” for the global market. When demand is high, she is hired. When a recession hits, she is the first to be fired.

The segmented market: How jobs are split by gender 🔗

To really see how this works, it helps to stop thinking of the “job market” as one big thing. Instead, picture it as a series of separate, segmented markets. Where you land depends a lot on your gender.

The secure ‘first market’ 🔗

This is the market for “good jobs.” These are full-time, permanent, and salaried positions with benefits, social security, and a clear path for advancement. Think of senior management, finance, engineering, and tenured academic positions. While women have made huge inroads, this market remains male-dominated, especially at the highest levels. Structural barriers, from biased hiring to a lack of family-friendly policies, make it harder for women to enter and thrive here.

The informal and precarious markets 🔗

This is where a disproportionate number of women end up. The informal economy is massive. In India, for example, more than 90% of all working women are in the informal sector. This includes work as domestic helpers, small-scale farmers, street vendors, and home-based workers. These jobs are characterised by low pay, unsafe conditions, and a complete absence of social protection. There is no sick leave, no maternity leave, and no pension. This isn’t just a “stepping stone” to a better job; for millions, it’s a permanent trap that directly links employment to poverty.

The invisible ‘unpaid market’ 🔗

Finally, there’s the market that isn’t counted in GDP at all: unpaid care work. This is the domestic labour of cooking, cleaning, fetching water, and, most significantly, caring for children and the elderly. Globally, women and girls perform over 75% of this unpaid work. This is billions of hours of labour that props up the entire formal economy-after all, someone has to raise the next generation of workers and care for the current one-but it is completely uncompensated.

This invisible work directly fuels the feminisation of poverty. It’s what experts call “time poverty.” A woman who spends six hours a day on unpaid care simply does not have the time to pursue a full-time, secure job in the “first market,” forcing her to take whatever precarious, part-time work she can fit in around her unpaid duties.

The ‘additional earner’ myth that keeps wages low 🔗

So why does this segmentation persist? A large part of the answer lies in a powerful, outdated, and damaging social assumption: the idea of women as “additional earners.”

This is the myth that a man is the natural “primary breadwinner” for a family, and any income a woman brings in is just “supplementary”-a nice little extra, but not essential. This idea is pervasive, even in households where a woman’s income is, in fact, the only thing keeping the family out of poverty. It’s a cultural justification for a deeply unequal economic structure.

This myth has devastating, real-world consequences:

1. It justifies lower wages. The gender pay gap is a direct result of this thinking. The underlying logic (conscious or not) is, “Why pay her as much as a man? Her income isn’t as important.”
2. It justifies precarious work. The “flexibility” of non-standard jobs is often marketed to women as a “benefit” that allows them to balance work and family. In reality, it institutionalises their role as caregivers first and workers second, locking them out of secure, well-paid careers.
3. It makes women the “first to be fired.” During an economic downturn, this logic is laid bare. When companies need to cut costs, the “additional earners” are seen as the most expendable. We saw this clearly during the COVID-19 pandemic, where women’s job losses outpaced men’s globally. They became the economy’s “reserve army of labour”-hired when times are good, fired when times are bad.

This myth traps women in a cycle. They are pushed into precarious work because they are seen as “additional earners,” and the low-wage, insecure nature of that work reinforces the idea that their income is secondary. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy that ensures the persistence of poverty, generation after generation.

What do you think?

In your own family or community, how do you see the burden of unpaid care work (like childcare or caring for parents) affecting the job choices women make? What do you believe is the most effective way to challenge the “additional earner” myth in the modern workplace?

References

1. https://www.unwomen.org/en/news-stories/in-focus/2023/07/in-focus-gender-equality-in-the-sdgs
2. https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/time-care
3. https://www.unwomen.org/en/news/in-focus/covid-19-economic-impact-on-women