Every year, several reports are released by eminent agencies, both international and national, addressing issues such as gender-based discrimination, social and economic violence against women, crimes against women, gaps in women's leadership, glass ceilings, and sticky floors affecting their career growth and prospects. Yet, little substantial action is taken. The reports are published, publicised on various platforms, and then often pushed under the carpet after a few discussions or news coverages.

Many times, such reports are shrugged off or outrightly denied by those in power, labelling them as part of an anti-India agenda, alleging that the science and data used for such analysis are frivolous. When it comes to policymaking, we are often given band-aid solutions, such as the women's reservation Bill. Even after passing through both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, it may not get implemented within the next five years, according to what our home minister has said. Yes, we are often viewed as mere vote banks, if nothing else.

Last week, the discussion about gender-based discrimination in the labour market surfaced once again, thanks to Claudia Goldin, the renowned Harvard economist and researcher who won the Economics Nobel Prize for her contribution to advancing our understanding of women's labor market outcomes.

Her research, based on 200 years of data, proves that economic growth does not contribute to wage parity, nor does it promote more women in the workplace. Based on historical evidence, Claudia has explained the reasons for the underrepresentation of women in the labor market and gender pay gaps. She has also established how social, political, and technological changes influenced women's labor force participation.

Until Claudia's work, economists believed that high economic growth improved the female workforce participation rate. However, she has demonstrated that the proportion of married women involved in paid work, for example, in agriculture or textiles manufacturing, was at least as high in the late 18th century when economic growth rates were much lower as it is today. Industrialisation added difficulties for women, as they could no longer work in places close to their homes. Women couldn't benefit much from the sudden increase in economic opportunities during the 20th century.

Educational choices made by women were influenced by their parents, which often didn't result in career growth. In the 1960s, women gained more control in planning their future when they were given access to contraceptives. Furthermore, her research shows that the gender pay gap was smaller during the industrial revolution between 1820 and 1850, with a slight increase from 1930-1980. Major gaps started to creep in when rewards were linked with continuous career services, often ignoring the challenges women faced in raising children.

Claudia's research in 2010 shows that "parenthood" played a significant role in promoting pay inequality as women took career breaks from work for child rearing. Her work gained recognition as she proposed a U-shaped correlation between economic development and women's labor force participation (LFP), a theory based on the analysis of data from over 100 countries. This dismantled the linear relationship between the two as propagated by a few economists.

In fact, countries with low economic growth had relatively high women labor force participation. As the growth rate increased with the introduction of new technologies, women withdrew from paid work and restricted themselves to their homes. However, their hours of work did not change, but their labor force participation did.

In one of her books, Goldin writes that the gender pay gap between college-educated men and women in the US has stagnated since 2000. Previously, men earned more because they were more educated than women. Now, women are more likely to complete a college degree than men.

So, what could be the reason for the wage gap? In the US, Claudia explains that the wage gap at entry-level jobs is not very stark. The gap widens as people climb the career ladder. Women, mindful of familial responsibilities, engage in feminine jobs that are less remunerative. 

They avoid "greedy jobs" that offer premium wages but require longer work hours, networking, late-night meetings, travel, and more. These demands are certainly not compatible with raising children. So, one partner chooses a slower and safer track, called the "mommy track," at the cost of a high-profile career. This work is often assigned to women in line with gender ideologies, as they are given extra familial responsibilities while men remain free to focus on their careers. 

In other words, gender equality and increased women labor force participation have little to do with economic development. A conducive labor market could certainly create a long-term impact. Currently, the labor market is not suited to women. Not only that, the tons of unpaid work that women do from dawn till late at night are not accounted for anywhere. It does contribute to economic growth in several ways but is not recognised while calculating economic growth.

Unpaid care work is a major roadblock to women's entry into the labor market. In India, the Time-Use Survey (TUS) has found that women in the age group of 15 to 59 years spend a major part of their time in unpaid work. The contribution of women from rural areas is eight times more than men, while for urban regions, it is nine times more than men in a day. This also means that women's participation in economic activities has a high opportunity cost due to the pay required for substituting this work by paying hired help, contributing to a significant global inequality.

While providing flexible working hours, day-care/creche facilities for children, and implementing initiatives like Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) might promote female workforce participation in the formal sector, women will not be able to reach leadership positions unless organisations start recognising the complex paths women have to navigate before beginning their work journeys. 

This includes different levels of discrimination women face due to their status, including but not limited to gender, caste, creed, etc. Various factors make them more vulnerable to discrimination and unfair treatment, resulting in extremely low self-esteem and confidence, despite their education levels, affecting their career paths.

In India, a large majority of women have to overcome obstacles, from gaining access to education to completing higher education. While some might be more privileged and have received better access to education and infrastructure, those coming from marginalised sections have to constantly negotiate between choices forced upon them by those who tend to enjoy power in their family, be it their parents, grandparents, brothers, or even distant relatives.

The labor market must become more inclusive and flexible, with hiring processes that accommodate women. Additionally, unpaid care work should be equally distributed between men and women. With changing social fabric and education levels, it is crucial to reevaluate various roles traditionally assigned to women. Claudia's work has certainly shed light on the dual facets of our society. The new world speaks of a gender-equal world, but much work remains to turn these words into action.

Claudia's work questions societal norms that have persisted for a long time. It's high time we reevaluate and redesign roles more suited to the complex new world we are in, paving the way to a gender-equal world, the benefits of which have been documented in several research reports.

(The writer, a company secretary, can be reached at jassi.rai@gmail.com)