Across the Global South, painful austerity measures such as benefit caps, pay freezes and subsidy cuts have followed donor governments’ recent cuts to foreign aid. The policy pivot has had an especially dramatic impact on women — costing them jobs, services and protections — and is causing widespread economic hardship in many developing countries.
Against this backdrop of shortsightedness, “Give to gain,” the theme of this year’s International Women’s Day, reminds us that investing in women yields outsize returns. As former World Bank president Robert B. Zoellick once said: “Gender equality is the right thing to do. And it is also smart economics.”
Budgets are never neutral: Policy choices, from supporting extractive industries to weakening health systems, can erode women’s livelihoods, augment the burden of unpaid care work and increase poverty rates. Today, 708 million women are outside the labor force because of care responsibilities, reflecting policymakers’ failure to recognize or value such work.
Moreover, the International Monetary Fund has found that gender-responsive budgeting improves resource allocation and transparency by shifting financing away from harmful policies and toward priority areas such as income support for survivors, childcare and workplace safety. If national budgets do not account for women’s rights, fiscal frameworks would continue to create vulnerabilities.
Women’s rights begin with physical security. In 2016, UN Women estimated that gender-based violence was costing about US$1.5 trillion per year, or around 2 percent of global GDP at the time. Violence from partners alone can drain 1.2 to 3.7 percent of GDP — more than many countries spend on education. And workplace harassment and violence against women causes US$6 trillion in global losses each year.
With the right strategies, policymakers can stem these losses and deliver shared gains, but a major obstacle is that women’s rights organizations — which are best positioned to address gendered poverty and violence — face persistent funding gaps. When frontline groups lose flexible, multiyear core support, reform efforts fall short.
Providing grants to organizations that are working to dismantle barriers to decent work, economic participation and social equality is a proven solution. With direct funding, these trusted community groups can codesign projects, respond quickly to emerging needs, ensure that essential services are maintained, support informal workers and mobilize collective action that drives lasting structural change. This is what “give to gain” looks like in practice.
Examples of such interventions abound. The African Women’s Development Fund supports rural women’s groups on the continent in contesting land grabs and building cooperatives to raise incomes. In Latin America and the Caribbean, Fondo de Mujeres del Sur supports domestic workers’ unions and income-generating cooperatives for former female inmates to improve access to labor rights and decent employment. The Women’s Fund Asia complements efforts by migrant and informal workers to organize for fair wages and social protection. The International Indigenous Women’s Forum finances campaigns to defend indigenous territory, sustain local economies and preserve natural ecosystems.
These four women’s funds manage Leading from the South (LFS), a feminist philanthropic alliance dedicated to applying this grassroots model to solve challenges that traditional aid donors often overlook. By offering patient capital for core costs, LFS bolsters continuity, which is essential to philanthropic effectiveness. This allows local organizations to look beyond immediate needs, build on cross-border learning, systematize services and turn pilot projects into policies.
To ensure that gender equity, protection and justice are at the core of economic policy, donors must realign their investments accordingly. This means ensuring that women’s rights organizations, which receive well under 1 percent of official development assistance (and only 0.4 percent of all gender-focused aid in recent years), obtain a significant share of the funding that is allocated for gender in the form of multiyear, flexible grants.
Adequate funding and platforms like LFS can facilitate investment where it is needed most. For example, investment in indigenous female leadership and economic autonomy is particularly important, given their critical role in safeguarding biodiversity and protecting land for future generations.
To this end, donors should condition their headline pledges on allocating certain percentages to core funding, Global South-led groups and programs focused on delivering care, safety and access to support. Frameworks for measuring the impact of gender-responsive budgeting should feature indicators that can show improved outcomes for gender-based violence, such as survivors’ uptake of income support and enforcement of safe workplaces.
Policymakers, for their part, must focus on institutionalizing gender-responsive budgeting. All ministries should adopt budget markers that show how spending advances gender equality; review the impact of government spending, with the results made public; and allocate a meaningful share of tax revenue, and public spending more broadly, toward closing the care gap and expanding women’s access to assets. That means expanding benefits for survivors of domestic violence — such as income assistance, childcare and safe transport — and categorizing them as essential services. Lastly, they should collaborate with feminist organizations to co-design policy and track outcomes.
The economic case for boosting investment in women’s rights organizations, and for ensuring that financing and budget decisions improves women’s safety and autonomy, has long been settled. The World Bank said that every dollar spent on empowering adolescent girls in Africa could generate a tenfold return in terms of growth. Investing in women’s rights is not charity; it is a form of giving that generates outsize gains for all.
Anisha Chugh is executive director of the Women’s Fund Asia. Laura Leonelli Morey is deputy director of Fondo de Mujeres del Sur. Teresa Zapeta Mendoza is executive director of the International Indigenous Women’s Forum. Francoise Moudouthe, chief executive officer of the African Women’s Development Fund, also contributed to this commentary.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS