2021 marks the 13th anniversary of BRICS, a group of five developing nations across three continents that were expected to emerge as an attractive investment market and growth engine against a G-7 dominated world order.
BRICS members are at different stages of economic growth. However, they are largely similar in terms of their traditionally patriarchal social values with deeply embedded socio-economic inequalities. Additionally, these countries also witnessed varying regressive disruptions in their political structures while combating Covid-19. Women have been at the receiving end of these structural challenges and understanding this vulnerability is the motivation of this article.
Methodology
The article aims to study the impact of Covid-19 on female participation in the labour (FLPR) market and on the quality of female employment within BRICS via:
The FLPR figures are taken from the ILO Stat website while the change in formal workforce is computed from the 2020 and 2021 Gender Gap Report by the World Economic Forum.
BRICS FLPR Asymmetry
BRICS FLPR performance according to the Gender Gap Index Report worsened during Covid-19 (Fig.1 & 2)
Factoring FLPR in Post Pandemic Jobs
Pandemic seems to have disrupted the global labour market both structurally and normatively. Now ‘work from home & automation’ are emerging as the post-pandemic new normal trajectory. It is these jobs that will create the most value-addition. Factoring women’s access to the said jobs can be a game changer towards closing the labour market gender gap while improving economic growth. Given the FLPR asymmetry within BRICS, these countries can policy leverage this as an opportunity to address their FLPR concerns and rebuild a better and more equitable labour market.
Improving FLPR in Russia and India during Covid-19 is good news considering the less than stellar track record of female rights in both countries. However, it is equally important to know whether the additional female labour-force is being accommodated in aforementioned formal workforce or in low-value informal jobs.
On mapping female participation changes in formal economy (Fig. 3) post Covid-19, some interesting facts emerge:
Also, the health sector in BRICS is visibly dominated by women (nurses, doctors, health officials); a possible reason for increase in STEM employment!
Measuring the Net Effect
Like in most countries, the pandemic impact has been extremely heavy on women in the BRICS countries. Many of them either dropped out of the labour market or got access to informal employment to sustain families. Experts call this phenomenon a “She-cession”. A patriarchal social structure, extreme diversity amongst women, asymmetric FLPR as well as abysmal female political representation is reality in BRICS countries. Though South Africa is known for better social equality, coloured women post-apartheid are still economically behind their white counterparts. The same goes for rural Brazilian women or lower caste Indian women. In every subsequent Gender Gap Report, BRICS nations have been constantly falling on the female political empowerment index, meaning less support for women-centric policies.
The 13th BRICS Summit was held in New Delhi where a range of issues and action plans were adopted under the banner “Intra-BRICS cooperation for continuity, consolidation and consensus‘- 4Cs.
The post-pandemic‘Work from Home & automation’ reality gives BRICS leadership a chance to capture this structural anomaly and set a global precedent. One of the prominent 4Cs could be ‘BRICS Women Empowerment’- with a guided focus to reduce gender gap in BRICS labour market and equitable FLPR in the job opportunity.
To conclude, the post Covid-19 era is going to be difficult for BRICS’ women. BRICS is a prominent and promising global grouping of countries making it necessary for their leaders to put positive women centric positive policies in place.
REFERENCES
(This article was written by Anushka Dwivedi and Rakshikha P under guidance of Dr. R P Pradhan, CPPR Distinguished Fellow)
Views expressed by the authors are personal and need not reflect or represent the views of Centre for Public Policy Research.