Policy BRIEFING

ISSUE 109 • JANUARY 2016

Redistributing Unpaid Care
Work – Why Tax Matters for
Women’s Rights
Globally, women perform the great majority of unpaid care work. This unjust
distribution of labour has profound impacts on women’s human rights and is
both a product and a driver of gender inequality. Despite the obligations of the
State to ensure economic policies are non-discriminatory and prioritise human
rights, today regressive tax policies and underfunded public services perpetuate
women’s disproportionate responsibility for care. Because tax policies play a
crucial role in determining inequalities of all kinds, progressive national tax
reforms and improvements in global governance accountability are vital if we
are to effect positive change and achieve the new Sustainable Development
Goals, including the target on unpaid care work.
Unpaid care work and human
rights

Around 75 per cent of the world’s
total unpaid care work is performed by
women, including housework, water
and firewood collection, and caring for
people such as children and the elderly.
This work has been conservatively valued
at 13 per cent of global GDP. The global
increase in women’s labour market
participation has not been matched
with any parallel shift in who performs
unpaid care work. UN Women affirms
that 75 per cent of women’s work
in Asia and Africa is in the informal
sector without access to a living wage,
maternity or paid leave, or pensions that
could cover some costs of unpaid care
work over their lifetime. When women
face long working hours or migrate
away from their homes to work, their
unpaid care work is typically shifted to
older women or girls in the household.
The intersection between gender, class,
ethnicity, age and migrant status is
important – it is the poorest and most
vulnerable women in all countries who
face the double burden of unpaid care
work and low paid precarious work.

Unpaid care work is necessary for all
“Around
societies to function, has tremendous
75 per cent
social value and is a source of fulfilment
of the world’s
to many; therefore reducing the amount
total unpaid
of care provided to people is not a
care work is
solution. What must change are the
inequalities in who pays for and provides
performed
care. The time, financial and opportunity
by women,
costs of unpaid care work have a
including
detrimental effect on women’s
housework,
enjoyment of a wide range of human
water and
rights, enshrined as legal obligations in
firewood
international human rights treaties
including the Convention on the
collection,
Elimination of All Forms of
and caring for
Discrimination Against Women
people such as
(CEDAW) and the International
children and
Covenant on Economic, Social and
the elderly.”
Cultural Rights (ICESCR), as well as the
core labour rights conventions of the
International Labour Organization (ILO).
Particularly heavy care burdens prevent
some women from accessing paid
employment at all, violating their equal
right to work. Meanwhile, women are
concentrated in low-paying, insecure
jobs (in part due to unpaid care
responsibilities undermining their
employment opportunities in the

www.ids.ac.uk

long- and short-term) which threaten their
right to decent conditions at work, social
security, and an adequate standard of living.
Unpaid care work can pose a severe obstacle
to equal access to education and health care –
while demanding care work can itself be
detrimental to good health. Crucially, the
time burdens of unpaid care work mean that
women are less likely to exercise their right to
participate in decision-making, public and
cultural life. Thus, the vicious cycle of gender
inequality is perpetuated.

the tax system antithetical to greater gender
equality and human rights enjoyment.
Different methods of raising taxes have
very different distributional effects, and
hidden gender biases. This briefing focuses
on the implicit gender biases that emerge
as a result of regressive tax policies and
an overreliance on indirect taxes, such as
consumption taxes. Though gender biases
also exist in direct taxes, particularly personal
income tax, this will not be addressed here
(see further readings).

To fulfil women’s rights and to move towards
greater substantive equality between women
and men, States are obliged to tackle the
inequalities created by heavy and unequal
unpaid care workloads. This necessitates a
range of measures, including the enforcement
of international labour standards so that
employers provide employees with the time
to care (i.e. parental leave, sick leave) and
a living wage to finance caregiving. It also
requires States to provide quality accessible
public services and comprehensive social
protection systems. All of these call for
sustainable public financing that is genderand care-responsive.

Prevailing free market economic policies
(sometimes imposed as conditions on
developing countries by international
financial institutions) have promoted low
and reduced tax rates for corporations
and higher-income individuals, increased
consumption tax rates, comparatively low
taxes on wealth and property and removal
of trade tariffs. Meanwhile, loopholes,
incentives and tax havens that facilitate tax
avoidance and evasion by economic elites and
multinational corporations have proliferated.
This has made tax systems more regressive,
shifting the burden to lower-income groups
in which women are overrepresented,
while simultaneously public services are
cut back and privatised. The ILO estimates
that by 2020, 83 per cent of people in
developing countries will be impacted by
public expenditure cuts, and 61 per cent
in developed countries due to austerity
measures. Even where progressive social
programmes exist, such as under Brazil’s
“To fulfil
‘Zero Hunger’ policy, if they are funded by
women’s rights
a regressive tax system their redistributive
and to move
impact is limited – with the poor paying
towards greater
proportionally more for social services that
are intended to help them. It is therefore
substantive
not surprising that inequalities in wealth
equality
within and between countries are rising.
between

Human rights standards do not prescribe
a detailed fiscal policy model, but they are
far from silent on how public resources are
raised and spent. Firstly, policies must not
be discriminatory, directly or indirectly, in
intention or effect. The ICESCR (ratified
by 164 countries) requires States to use
the ‘maximum of their available resources’
to move progressively towards the full
realisation of all Covenant rights. Tax
revenue is the principal resource-generating
instrument available to governments which, if
collected fairly and spent on social protection
and public services, can help determine
a State’s success in progressively realising
human rights and reducing women’s unpaid
care work.

Trends in tax policy
The median tax ratio to GDP in low and
middle-income countries is 15 per cent,
compared to 35 per cent in high-income
countries. The problem is not just a dearth of
tax revenue, but also inequities in how and
from whom tax is raised, which can make

Overreliance on indirect taxation
In developing countries, high rates of
informal employment combined with low
wages make personal income taxation a
small revenue source primarily affecting
the middle class. Therefore, developing
countries rely more on indirect taxes (e.g.
consumption tax) than on direct taxes (e.g.
income tax) – amounting to two-thirds of
total tax revenue. A recent ILO analysis of

REDISTRIBUTING UNPAID CARE WORK – WHY TAX MATTERS FOR WOMEN’S RIGHTS ISSUE 109 • JANUARY 2016	

women and
men, States
are obliged
to tackle the
inequalities
created by heavy
and unequal
unpaid care
workloads.”

International Monetary Fund (IMF) country
reports found that 138 governments –
93 developing and 45 developed countries –
are planning to either increase and/or extend
consumption taxes – primarily through value
added taxes (VAT). Although VAT allows
for a broad tax base and is fairly easy to
administer, unless carefully designed with
necessary exemptions on basic foods,
medicines and household goods it can be
regressive. People living in poverty by
necessity spend more of their income on
consumption than wealthier groups, and so
indirect taxes represent a larger proportion
of their income. For women, VAT can be
especially regressive due to their gendered
roles as primary caregivers with responsibility
to purchase food and household goods. In
South Africa the Women’s Budget Group
lobbied to remove VAT on paraffin bought
by poor and rural women for cooking, while
in Kenya and the UK, women’s groups
mobilised against charging VAT on sanitary
towels and tampons.
Corporate and wealth taxes
Meanwhile, those most able to pay are
increasingly allowed to escape significant
taxation. Taxes that target owners of wealth
and assets – such as capital gains and property
taxes – are widely under-utilised or underenforced, primarily benefitting men as they
are far more likely to control such resources.
The IMF estimates that property taxes account
for only 4 per cent of total tax revenue
in developing countries and 7 per cent in
developed countries.
Large corporations have also benefitted,
despite developing countries in particular
relying on corporate income taxes (CIT) to
finance public services; on average, CIT paid
by multinational corporations account for
10 per cent of total government revenues in
these countries. Recent IMF data show that
CIT rates have declined in both developed and
developing countries by around 15–20 per cent
over the past three decades. In addition,
multinational corporations often negotiate
tax holidays or incentives as a condition for
bringing their business to developing
countries – sometimes meaning they
effectively pay zero taxes while exploiting
cheap labour and lax labour standards. It is

estimated that corporate tax incentives cost
“Even where
developing countries US$138bn in revenue
progressive
annually. Yet, the Organisation for Economic
social
Co-operation and Development (OECD) has
programmes
found that such incentives are rarely a primary
reason for investment in developing countries. exist, such as
Elites and multinational corporations
are also able to avoid and evade paying
their fair share of taxes. With the aid
of expensive tax advisers, wealthy
individuals can shift their wealth to tax
havens or hold it in corporations and
property that are less heavily taxed,
while multinational corporations shift
their profits to subsidiaries in low tax
jurisdictions through trade mispricing.
According to the IMF, developing countries
are estimated to lose US$212bn in direct
revenue annually from various cross-border
tax avoidance techniques. Further, studies by
Global Financial Integrity have found that
developing countries lose far more revenue
in illicit financial flows than they receive
in aid. Proposals to increase revenue that
largely overlook this international dimension
and instead focus on taxing small businesses
in the informal sector can make tax systems
more regressive. Moreover, in the absence of
labour regulations, women may experience
even lower wages as informal sector
companies cut costs to pay their tax bill.

under Brazil’s
‘Zero Hunger’
policy, if they
are funded by a
regressive tax
system their
redistributive
impact is
limited – with
the poor paying
proportionally
more for social
services that
are intended to
help them.”

What we can conclude is that these dominant
trends in tax policy result in tax regimes
which do not raise sufficient revenue from
those who are most able to pay. The resulting
dearth of adequate and accessible health
care, crèches, schools, and basic infrastructure
effectively means that women and girls have
to fill the gap through their unpaid or low
paid care work. Corporations in turn rely on
women’s cheap labour within global supply
chains to increase their profits, while avoiding
taxes and social security benefits that could
pay for public services and support unpaid
care work. This is despite the fact that this
care work is essential in sustaining a healthy
workforce. Women are left with an unequal
share of unpaid care work – representing two
to ten times that of men – as governments,
corporations and men evade their own
responsibilities to also provide and support
care work.

www.ids.ac.uk

r Logo

Sustainable Development Goals
Under Goal 5 to ‘Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls’
governments committed to:
‘Recognize and value unpaid care and domestic work through the provision of public services,
infrastructure and social protection policies and the promotion of shared responsibility within
the household and the family as nationally appropriate’.
While the caveat ‘as nationally appropriate’ may decrease its impact, the inclusion of
this Target 5.4 is a major step forward.
Both the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Addis Ababa Action Agenda
(AAAA) adopted at the Third Financing for Development (FFD) Conference include
commitments on progressive taxation and combating illicit financial flows (SDG Targets
10.4 and 16.4). However, the AAAA is a step backwards from previous FFD agreements
as it does not commit to transform the economic policies that result in persistent and
embedded inequality, and promotes gender equality only as a means to economic growth.
The Women’s Working Group on FFD states, ‘It fails to acknowledge the macroeconomic dimension of unpaid domestic and care work and the need to reduce and
redistribute it among the State, private sector, communities, families, men and women’.

Policy recommendations

The redistribution of unpaid care work from
women and households to the State must
be underpinned by progressive tax reform.
Governments and multilateral organisations,
with the participation and support of civil
society organisations, should take the
following steps to achieve this:
•	 Evaluate and reform national tax policies on the
basis of human rights principles such as equality
and non-discrimination, and their impact
on the amount, intensity and distribution of
unpaid care work performed by women.
•	 Focus on raising resources through
increased taxation of wealthy elites (via
corporate and income taxation, wealth
and property taxes, higher rates of VAT on
luxury goods), and ensuring enforcement
through efficient and effective tax systems.
•	 Advocate for quality, accessible public
services including childcare and social
protection programmes, financed as
far as possible through progressive,
gender-responsive taxation. This will be
critical to meeting States’ existing human
rights obligations and many of the SDGs
including the targets related to unpaid care
work, poverty and inequality.
•	 Hold high-income countries accountable
for creating and benefiting from a global
tax and economic governance system that

enables tax avoidance and evasion by elites
and corporations and severely undermines
progressive national tax policies. Reforms
should ensure global tax rules are set
in equal partnership with developing
countries through an intergovernmental
United Nations tax body. This was a
demand of many developing countries
and civil society organisations at the FFD
conference which was ultimately blocked.
•	 Ensure that large companies make a
significant contribution towards financing
the public services and social protection
needed to redistribute women’s unpaid
care work by paying their fair share of tax
in all countries where they operate. This
means putting an end to tax avoidance and
aggressive lobbying for reduced corporate
tax rates and harmful tax incentives.
Engagement with large companies under
the rubric of the SDGs (for example in
public–private partnerships) should be
premised on paying their taxes and the
respect of international human rights and
labour standards as a minimum.
•	 Increase funding for capacity building and
interactions between civil society groups
and government bodies working on tax
policy and those working on women’s
rights and unpaid care work.
•	 More research on the gendered impacts of
tax policies is needed for policymakers.

Further reading
Christian Aid (2014) Taxing Men
and Women: Why Gender is
Crucial for a Fair Tax System,
Christian Aid
Grown, C. and Valodia, I. (2010)
Taxation and Gender Equity,
Oxon: Routledge
Sepúlveda Carmona, M. (2014)
Report of the Special Rapporteur
on Extreme Poverty and Human
Rights on Fiscal Policy and Human
Rights (2014, A/HRC/26/28),
Geneva: United Nations Human
Rights Council
Sepúlveda Carmona, M. (2013)
Report of the Special Rapporteur
on Extreme Poverty and Human
Rights on Unpaid Care Work
(2013, A/68/293), Geneva:
United Nations Human Rights
Council
UN Women (2015) Progress of
the World’s Women 2015–2016:
Transforming Economies, Realizing
Rights, New York: UN Women

Credits
This IDS Policy Briefing was written
in collaboration with the Center
for Economic and Social Rights by
Kate Donald and Rachel Moussié,
in connection with the ‘Making
Unpaid Care Visible’ stream of the
IDS programme on Influencing
Policies to Support the
Empowerment of Women and
Girls. The programme is
supported by UK aid from the UK
Department for International
Development.
The opinions expressed are
those of the author and do not
necessarily reflect the views of
IDS.
Readers are encouraged to quote
and reproduce material from
issues of IDS Policy Briefings in
their own publication. IDS requests
due acknowledgement and quotes
to be referenced as above.
AG Level 2 Output ID: 320
© Institute of Development Studies, 2016
ISSN 1479-974X

IDS Policy Briefings are published by the Institute of Development Studies and aim to provide high quality analysis and
practical recommendations for policymakers on important development issues.
To subscribe: www.ids.ac.uk/idspolicybriefings
Institute of Development Studies, Brighton BN1 9RE UK
T +44 (0) 1273 606261 F + 44 (0) 1273 621202 E ids@ids.ac.uk W www.ids.ac.uk
twitter.com/IDS_UK #idspolicy
facebook.com/idsuk
IDS POLICY BRIEFING ISSUE 109 • JANUARY 2016	

www.ids.ac.uk