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
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
Former Taipei mayor and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) founding chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) was sentenced to 17 years in prison on Thursday, making headlines across major media. However, another case linked to the TPP — the indictment of Chinese immigrant Xu Chunying (徐春鶯) for alleged violations of the Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法) on Tuesday — has also stirred up heated discussions. Born in Shanghai, Xu became a resident of Taiwan through marriage in 1993. Currently the director of the Taiwan New Immigrant Development Association, she was elected to serve as legislator-at-large for the TPP in 2023, but was later charged with involvement
Out of 64 participating universities in this year’s Stars Program — through which schools directly recommend their top students to universities for admission — only 19 filled their admissions quotas. There were 922 vacancies, down more than 200 from last year; top universities had 37 unfilled places, 40 fewer than last year. The original purpose of the Stars Program was to expand admissions to a wider range of students. However, certain departments at elite universities that failed to meet their admissions quotas are not improving. Vacancies at top universities are linked to students’ program preferences on their applications, but inappropriate admission
RSS