Twenty-four percent of the working population is comprised of women. This figure undercounts women’s work, particularly the work they do in the informal sector or from home—areas where the majority of working women in Pakistan remain concentrated. But working from home does not carry the same empowering potential that working outside the home does. Similarly, the informal sector typically houses precarious, even hazardous work.

So, why don’t more women switch to less vulnerable occupations that also carry a greater potential to raise their status? What are the factors that influence whether or not to participate in the labour market, where to work and how many hours to spend at work?

Financial need remains the primary reason why most of us work. The pressure to provide in economic terms is much higher for men than for women, particularly in societies such as ours that have a strong male breadwinner bias. This means that for many, and more so for men rather than women, the option to not work, simply does not exist.

Yet, working and earning an income is aspirational too. It is the means through which we raise our standard of living and look to achieving loftier goals, especially for our children. Certainly, access to and control over monetary resources has been linked with overall well-being, especially for marginalised groups. Talk to working women, and they will inevitably highlight the fact that having their own stream of income reduces their dependency on others while raising their status within the household. Here, it is the nature of the work that they do that really matters.

Indeed, not all work is equal. Work outside the home, and that which brings in a steady stream of income, is generally considered more empowering than precarious work. Similarly, jobs that have benefits associated with them, such as pensions, health benefits and paid leave and that are regularised, such as those found in the formal sector, are considered to make the biggest difference on decision-making power. However, even within the formal sector, men and women do not always find themselves vying for the same set of jobs.

When it comes to the type of work that a person does, there are several interconnected factors at play. Greater financial pressures see men being pushed towards occupations where there are larger chances of quick advancement and high pay. For women, the decision of whether and where to work, and which sector to occupy, must balance financial independence with other factors. Particularly when reproductive work falls in women’s spheres, time that must be spent to fulfil domestic responsibilities becomes a primary factor driving the decisions surrounding work.

Indeed, social expectations around reproductive roles, and the subsequent higher domestic burdens that women face, often translate into more frequent career breaks, if not an exit from or a failure to enter the labour market altogether. This means that women often pick sectors and roles that allow for greater flexibility and do not penalise discontinuity in career timelines. Yet, ease of breaks comes at other costs. Usually for those with low educational achievement, this means informal sector employment or home-based work. Amongst those who are in the formal sector, jobs that see a greater ease of exit and entry often mean lower wages or sacrificing how far up the occupational ladder women are able to climb.

On the flip side, men typically face strict expectations around their productive roles. Taking breaks in their career, not financially providing for their families, or allowing standards of living to slide, are just not feasible options for them.

Hence, one of the biggest factors underpinning the decisions surrounding work is social norms. Not only do these norms determine the gendering of productive versus reproductive spheres, they also result in pressure to perform certain types of jobs. The subsequent siloing of men and women across sectors is further cemented through a stigmatisation of individuals who go against the established grain. We see this most frequently as an acceptance of women going into sectors that are extensions of their caregiving roles, such as teaching and nursing, and hostility towards women who enter male-dominated spaces. The same holds for men as well—take a survey of early years and primary schools, and while there will be men in administrative roles, there will be very few, if any, in teaching roles.

So, how do we break the norms around work? Ironically, through the labour market. There is a documented lagged effect between women entering the labour market and a softening of gender norms. Hence, as more women take up jobs and participate more actively in the public arena, stereotypes around men as primary or even sole earners within the household, and women as the main caregivers, are shown to change in the medium to long term, ultimately leading to an easing of gender segmentation across and within sectors.

This, of course, begs the question: How do we raise women’s entry into the labour market? There has been much experimentation with different types of interventions such as introducing role models or reducing care burdens through daycares.

However, it is financial motivations that tend to be most effective. Whether the push comes through macro-fiscal crises or cash transfers conditional on employment and microenterprise support, such as that done in Latin America, greater women’s labour force participation leads to norm shifts. And this is precisely what is needed to change the decisions around work for the better.

-Dawn (Pakistan)/ANN